Not sure how to write this up

Originally Posted By: kluce
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I ran into a boiler that is about 50 years old and still working. The burner needs to be cleaned and I’m going to report that. I’m also going to report that the boiler is at the end of its life. My question is, can this boiler fall in the “Major Defect” catigory in any way because of its age only?


Originally Posted By: bemelander
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Kevin,


I would say NO


I report this under “Deferred Cost Items”


Items that have reached or are reaching their normal life expectancy or show indications that they may require repair or replacement anytine during the next five years.


Bill


--
Anchor Home Inspections

bill@anchorinspections.com

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I say put it under the ‘replace now’ category, then, if YOUR CLIENT (not you) makes the decision to ‘defer the cost by replacing later’, THEY have made that choice. For you, the HI, to make that choice for them, puts them in a position of not being able to negotiate if they want to.


This is 'deferred cost' to get past closing? Give me a break.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: rmagee
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



How about saying something like:


Due to the age of this boiler I would recommend a complete servicing and evaluation by a qualified burner technician.

An inspection is visual only and there are just too many hidden parts for an inspector to make this call. The technician has to go to clean the device anyhow so why not do a proper and complete evaluation while he/she is there? In my experience the buyer will make the vendor cover this expense as part of the pre-closing negotiations.


--
Rick Magee
Building Check Ltd.
Fredericton, N.B. Canada
1-506-454-3332
bcheck@nbnet.nb.ca
"check with a professional"

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I had one with a boiler a couple of weeks ago.


I told them that I would not inspected it because I did not have enough knowledge to do so.

They called me a couple of days later and let me do the home inspection anyway.

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



rmagee wrote:
How about saying something like:

Due to the age of this boiler I would recommend a complete servicing and evaluation by a qualified burner technician.


That could be taken as 'it's okay, you can service it later'.

What's wrong with saying "It 50 years old, it has lived a good life, either replace it now or expect to replace it soon. A new system will be much more energy efficient."

That let's your client know, in no uncertain terms: 1) it is old; 2) it is real old; 3) if you don't replace it now ... ; 4) don't call me about it later.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



My standard statement for any item past it’s life is something like: Due to the age of the XXXX there may be limited operational life remaining. Anticipate replacement of the XXXX.