That is not “exceeding” anything. That is simply creating another standard, that’s all.
You can hype your new standard at being better than, or “exceeding” another standard, but the fact remains that your different method of inspecting is simply that.
An SOP that is published provides a client with an advanced understanding of the scope of an inspection. A simple statement that my inspection “exceeds” your standard…says nothing, unless I publish how my inspection is different - thus creating a new SOP.
I recently saw an interior staircase where just about everything was “wrong”: excessive open space between treads, 12” baluster spacing, 1x1/4” wrought iron handrails, smooth-surface ceramic tile covered treads with metal nosings projecting about 1/8 higher than the tread surface, and so on.
Perhaps it met code when constructed, and passed inspection at the time.
But in my judgment while each of these defects individually may “not have been a big thing” the ***totality*** of the defects created what I judged a truly dangerous staircase, starting with the combination of trip and slip hazards with a difficult to grasp handrail, and I told my client so at the time, and wrote it up as such in the body of the report.
And my question is this: if I feel I should write up this combination of details as dangerous (and I do), on what basis could I exclude citing ***any one of them ***them individually as "no big thing", considering that I can’t know in advance which batch of of them might combine in a given situtaion to create an uncontrolled fall?
We are speaking of a non-continuous handrail here. Let’s not forget it. You speak in absolutes, and there are none. The way you report is certainly your business. it is just that some of us see things a bit differently than you do. I personally would not call this out as a code (safety) issue because the AHJ, who is the sole individual with the legal authority to do so, has decided that it is not.
As to GFCIs in a 1958 home, the lack thereof is certainly NOT a defect. And, yes, I recommend upgrading receptacles to ones with GFCI protection routinely. There are those wh DO NOT call out this recommendation.
The point I am making is that there are no real absolutes. Every home is different, and the knowledge and experience of the inspector is supported by his/her ability to effectively communicate, in both oral and written formats.
You flag this. I do not. You have your opinion, based on CODE (you opened the can of worms). I submit that making a recommendation to reconfigure the handrail is FINE. But, to say it is a safety or code VIOLATION is not your call.
The question was asked if you flag this. You do. Others do not.
I report many safety issues without referring to code.
I choose some for the summary and some just go in the report based on the severity of the issue.
When asked by agents, I simply reply that I am licensed by the state to render my opinion to my client as I see necessary.
I do tell the client via email or verbally that I would not expect the seller to pay for safety upgrades. Every one of them responds " oh I know that".
cduphily
(Chris Duphily, Level II Infrared Thermographer #8355)
48
If I am referring to code I replace code with “standards” IE: “May not comply with PA building standards”
again I can’t remember who I got that from on this board … but thank you whoever you are
I’d call it out as a potential safety issue since that was the motivation for the code change. But I would not reference code as that is definitely not my job description. Much like I’ll call out non-GFCI outlets that wene once legal. They are recognized safety issues but not code violations.
Your client is entitled to the facts about their home. This railing was legal in homes before 2003 and that is a fact. It is now considered safer to do otherwise. That is a fact. They should be informed of both and allowed to decide what importance to place on it. In calling it out I’d leave the adjectives out as those don’t serve a purpose for them. Let them characterize the degree of hazard (their ancient grandmother) they face. What the Realtors think is not a concern of mine at all. Number 1 they aren’t writing the check to me. Number 2 my responsabilty and liability is to my client, not them.
My recommendation to them would be they consult a qualified local carpenter (licensed if that is required in your area) to see what can be done and what it would cost. It is their home. They have paid you for the facts becasse you are a knowledgable person. Give them the facts and your best recomendation then let them make their own decision.
