Originally Posted By: Ryan Jackson This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Sorry, but I have to get this off my chest.
Let me start by saying that since I have been visiting your website, my overall opinion of HI's has improved (I am a building inspector for a city). I have "talked" with several people here who I would recoomend for a HI.
I have my house up for sale right now, and I have earnast money from a potential buyer. This buyer hired an HI that is a moron. The HI gets to my house and starts to tell me that my front stairs and porch are non-compliant. I asked him why. He says they need a handrail and gaurdrail. I told him no, there are only three risers and the porch is only 26" above grade, therefore neither are required. We start to argue, and I show him in the code where it address both items clearly. He then says "oh, well I don't inspect code". I said "well what the hell do you inspect? You say they are 'non compliant', what are they non-compliant with? What legal precedant do they not comply with? Your booklet of good ideas?"!!! I told him he couldn't write it up because it is not only not-required now, but it was not required in 1976, the year my house was built.
Well, he wrote it up anyway. He's my deal: If I were to insist on something like this, I could be sued for malicious prosecution, and I would lose my license as well as my job.
HELP!!! What can I do to stop this MORON inspector from breaking the deal on my house?????
Originally Posted By: mcraig This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
In Arizona the home seller has 5 days to respond to the requested repairs. If you have that where you are at stay calm and present that you do not accept that repair and say why at that time.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ryan,
A) Threads treads and then the front porch floor, or B) two treads and then the front porch floor?
A) is four risers.
B) is only three risers.
Stairs with four or more risers require a "handrail".
The 30" height only comes in when the front porch floor is 30" or more above grade. What code are you under? I am just going through this on a very large (12,500 sf) and very expensive custom home. They have three treads, but four risers, and the Florida Building Code (derived from the old Standard Building Code is very clear about that.
I'll look up what the IRC says about it.
(added with edit)
IRC says same thing. Four or more risers, that means from the bottom surface, three treads, then the top landing / floor. Hand rail, not guard rail.
R311.5.6 Handrails. Handrails shall be provided on at least one side of each continuous run of treads or flight with four or more risers.
Originally Posted By: kmcmahon This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Sounds like you need a handrail and not a guardrail. As was stated, the home was built in 76 and this may not have been required back then. Even so, I still write it as a safety concern (missing handrail)
Originally Posted By: Ryan Jackson This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I know the code and I know my house. It has three risers. Landing, riser, tread, riser, tread, riser, landing. Under the UBC (I live in ICBO land, remember) it has been 4 risers for a handrail for about 40 years. Same with the gaurdrail.
James: Around here if a building inspector calls bullsh*t he loses his license, its that simple. The shoe is not on the other foot. This is simply a matter of an HI that doesn't know what the hell he's doing trying to throw his weight around.
Like I say, the thing that really upsets me is there is no recourse to be taken, since HI's aren't required to have a license in the state. If they did have licenses, the good HI's would have a job and people this this would not.
I'll find out what the report fully entails tommorrow and let you guys know what happened.
Thanks for letting me scream for a minute 
Originally Posted By: jhagarty This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ryan:
If a local AHJ makes a mistake, he may lose his job but can not be sued.
A Client may attempt to hold a HI liable Because he failed to recommend a Safety Railing within 4 inches of code (Implying acceptance of a minimum standard) that may have prevented a major injury or death from a fall.
To state that the railing was Non-Compliant to Code .... Wrong.
To Recommend the upgrade with the installation of a handrail to prevent Death or Injury resulting from the fall of a Child or Elderly individual .... CORRECT.
Originally Posted By: Ryan Jackson This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The building official himself cannot be sued because of the doctrine of soveriegn immunity, but the city has no such security blanket. The city can be sued and held liable for a hardship for malfeasance, nonfeasance, derilict of duties or malicious prosecution. It may seem hard to believe, but there are legal precednts to back that fact up.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ryan,
That notwithstanding, Joe H makes the most valid point.
Building Code Officials interpret and apply code rules everyday. But codes are MINIMUM standards. There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion that more is better.
The problem, as I see it, is that the HI stated that it was "non-compliant". Non compliant with regard to WHAT? The building code? He'd be wrong.
He should have taken the high road, and stated it as his opinion, and nothing more. It's like recommending GFCIs. The house may have been built before they were required. So, their absence would not be deemed as non-compliance issue. I explain to the client what they do, and also explain that they are a pretty cheap date. I suggest they install them. The seller is usually happy, and the client is definitely happy. Everyone feels pretty good, and the inspection continues. No mention of "non-compliance" anywhere.
I'd also be curious as to what else he finds. This sort of thing is more common than I like to think up my way. So, you're not alone...
-- Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ryan -
What building inspection licenses are you referring to. I've never seen a building code inspector in my area (Kansas or Missouri) have a license unless it was a drivers license. Half of the defects in New Houses I see when I'm doing MONITORING INSPECTIONS for buyers - were PASSED OVER by the Code Inspector although the Code Book says they should not have been. I've never seen our code guys get their hands slapped for missing or overlooking defects.
Originally Posted By: rkulla This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi have seen a few decks that were approaching the minimum height requirement for a guardrail. I wrote it up under comments / concerns.
Here's how I wrote it.
(The deck is at or near the minimum height for requiring a guardrail. It currently is built properly, but for added safety a guardrail could be added in the future.)
This particular deck had wood benches on top. Some where nailed down others were loose and moveable. I suggested nailing them down so they couldn't slide off the edge. Also my concern was they had kids. A kid standing on top of the bench made it higher than the minimum limit. "The minimum height for the deck doesn't include chairs or benches." I made that comment to the buyers so they were aware of that possibility. They made the decision to put a railing on after they moved in.
There would be nothing worse than having a kid in a wheelchair because someone was to cheap to put a railing up.
-- Rex Kulla
Custom Home Inspections
Maple Grove, MN
(612) 799-3093
