Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
“Some Code officials up my way would actually be advising sellers to sue you”
That would be a foolish thing to do.
Mike P.
“Some Code officials up my way would actually be advising sellers to sue you”
That would be a foolish thing to do.
Mike P.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
And why is that, Mike?
THEY are the Code enforcement officials, not the HI. I can just imagine the scene in the courtroom when the AHJ is called to the stand and asked his opinion. I can also imagine him stating that the HI was wrong, for the simple fact that the requirement to upgrade is not there. Why? Because HE makes that decision, not the HI. He is the person who decides if the house is up to code, not the HI. HIS opinion is a determining factor in whether the home gets a certificate of occupancy.
Foolish? I doubt it.
--
Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I have to agree with JF on this one that an HI should not be quoting codes, especially in writing, or they could be on a very slippery slope. I have also heard stories about some very pissed off building officials. Don’t know if it ever got to an actual lawsuit, and I assumed the HI backed off … with egg on his face.
The local building official (or AHJ) is the only one with legal authority over building codes. I know several local building officials who also do home inspections, and even they are very careful not to make direct references to codes. They also use terms that I prefer, like "current construction practice" or "current safety standards" ... and are always clear that concerns in older homes may have been acceptable at the time it was built.
Plus, documents like the NEC are really only recommended standards (or "model codes"). They are not actually legal requirements unless adopted by an AHJ, and many local authorities make changes. Look at the current NYC Electrical Code. They recently adopted the NEC (was previously a city written code), but they added reams of exceptions and changes. Referencing the NEC would be a useful guide, but would be far from the legally adopted code. That is also why I think HI's debating the finer points of national "model codes" like the NEC is really pointless.
But don't get me wrong ... I still think building codes are extremely useful tools for an HI, and I will discuss/debate some of the more significant provisions. But, they really are only a guide. My previous comments were really intended to be about the case where a clear major hazard/defect is being debated by a tradesperson ... where they are essentially saying you were all wet for red flagging something.
I also think that Joe has a very good point that most of the time the HI is not around when the sparky shows up to check things out that he flagged. So it's always a good idea to touch base with a few local sparkies, and other experts in various fields, to get their read on how they feel on some of the more sticky/borderline issues (like FPE panels and BX casing used as a grounding conductor just to name two around here) ... 
--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
“And why is that, Mike?”
Joe
That is only because the person to whom the response was addressed is "extremely" qualified to make those statements.
You are correct that the "average" HI should not make those statements.
Mike P.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
So, am I to understand that you are speaking of yourself?
–
Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
“So, am I to understand that you are speaking of yourself?”
No.
Mike P.
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jfarsetta wrote: |
| The only acceptable route is to write it up as a recommended improvement. |
Joe,
So, what is your reason for recommending the "improvement"? Safety?
Why did you elect to use the word "improvement"?
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
want me to reply? Really?
–
Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jfarsetta wrote: |
| Jerry,
You really want an answer, or are you just busting my balls? I mean.... do you REALLY want me to reply? Really? |
Joe,
I REALLY want to know your answer.
Then, maybe, if your answer is ... well, does "chestnuts roasting over an open fire" mean anything?
I want to know that you know, and understand, what you mean when elect to go the "improvement" route instead of some other wording. We live and die by our reports, so do our clients. We need to make sure we are using the correct wording to say what we mean, and that we mean what we say.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| Quote: |
| I want to know that you know, and understand, what you mean when elect to go the "improvement" route instead of some other wording. |
And why are you driven to know what I know? You want to know that I know and understand what I mean. How noble. The world according to Garp, I suppose... Your comment implies that I am somehow wrong (wow, how many of us would have predicted that from you, Jerry), and are confident that I have committed some transgression in my "election" not to use some alternate wording. (Dont you mean YOUR wording ?)
Jerry, you are a nice guy, but you really need to stop the knit-picking. It's getting a bit annoying. So go ahead and explain, or spin, why my response is incorrect, so it fits YOUR only acceptable answer.
So, why do I recommend it, or word it, as an "improvement"....
Well, could it be that it IS an improvement? Its a recommended improvement over what is currently installed. It's not a requirement.
Take GFIs as an example. Now, I may say something like "Inspector recommends the installation of GFIs at all kitchen counter, exterior, bathroom, garage, and basement receptacle locations. Although not a requirement at the time the dwelling was initially constructed, and not considered a defect, the installation of these devices is a recommended improvement over the current configuration."
Now, is there anything wrong with this verbiage? There are no mis-interpretations of what I state on my reports. No one complains, including client, seller, lawyer, and electrician. My words and intent are clearly communicated, without the hype, pomp, or circumstance.
Jerry, you need to understand that there are more than just your interpretations of the correct way to get things done. I suspect that it's a lot less dramatic than you think. "We live and die by our reports, and so do our clients" Wow. Heavy stuff.
You really need to lose this "my way is the right way or the only way" thing. We have at least two paid code enforcement officials contributing on this board, that dont agree with your interpretations of everything. That's not to say that any of you are necessarily incorrect. You need to recognize this, and stop getting lost in technicalities.
Just so you understand MY point of view... I have written and administrated contracts and legal documents for many years. I was trained by corporate attorneys at contract law. I understand and have participated in litigation. I am a regularly published and compensated author for technical journals. I understand the written word as it pertains to meaning and liability; including fraud, failure to perform, risk assessment, service agreements, injury, and liability.
I know my way around the written word, and the law. I understand what "improvement" means, and in this instance, it correctly describes what I am suggesting. So, please stop mincing words.
You have done an admirable job of drilling down so far in another thread, dissecting every word Rob O'Connor writes, that you have lost many interested readers and participants in the process.
Again, you need to recognize what grey is, and for that matter, shades of grey. Everything is not black and white. Yours is not the only way, or the most correct way. There are many ways to convey an idea using the written word.
Okay, are we done now?
--
Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry I must agree with many of Joe’s statements.
As I deal with inspectors on a regular basis as the one being inspected I can tell you the worst thing that can happen is when an inspector has done the job to long.
99% of the inspectors are great then you get the one that knows he has all the answers, even a few that the NEC "forgot".
ALL Electricians think they are the best thing to happen to electricity since Edison. 
Realizing that the world will not burn down with out everyone doing it our own way I think is very important.
The States do not even interpret the NEC the same way.
Here in MA the service mast must be outside the building, in CA it is inside the wall down to a flush mounted meter.
In Colorado I believe you will not find an inch of service conductor inside the building, here in New England about 5' of service conductor inside is normal.
Are any of these methods wrong?
I think not, just an example of different ways of doing the same job.
Ask 10 electricians how to do a job and you get 10 different answers, 9 of them will meet code and all 10 will say there way is the "right" way. 
--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thank you Bob…
–
Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe,
This is from my Jan 15th post.
"If b), why call it an improvement, it is an improvement, but it is also for safety reasons. Let your client be able to negotiate that is they can."
Thus my reason for really, really, really, wanting to know.
When an inspector (HI) calls something out as "an improvement" they have removed some of the client's ability to negotiate in their best interests. We, their HI, are there to point out what is good and not good, and advise them of such. To call something an "improvement" is like saying "it's not good ... well, okay, sort of good, but it could be better ... well, it really isn't good, but it isn't the sellers responsibility to ... "
That last part is the problem as I see it. We are not there to help the deal go through. Just to advise the client (the buyer, typically), and thus the word "improvement" is not needed.
Would you say "The roof is 25 years old, with an average life of 12 years, it would be an "improvement" ti install a new roof."?
Not telling YOU how to do things, just letting other who read this board that there are reasons for not saying it.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
WOW Jerry you are truly unbelievable.
I now know that your way is the ONLY way to do things.
| Quote: |
| Not telling YOU how to do things, just letting other who read this board that there are reasons for not saying it. |
So you are not telling Joe how to do it, just all the other members.
Bob
--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| Quote: |
| When an inspector (HI) calls something out as "an improvement" they have removed some of the client's ability to negotiate in their best interests. We, their HI, are there to point out what is good and not good, and advise them of such. To call something an "improvement" is like saying "it's not good ... well, okay, sort of good, but it could be better ... well, it really isn't good, but it isn't the sellers responsibility to ... " |
What kind of crap is this? I have removed the clients ability to negotiate in their best interests? Are you friggin' kidding me? "It isn't the sellers responsibility to..." Dude, it ISN'T the sellers responsibility to correct ANYTHING but a code violation. Dont you get it. EVERYTHING is subject to negotiation. For that matter, the buyer can be outbid on the home at any moment! Your reference to somehow putting the buyer at a negotiating disadvantage is a total load.
| Quote: |
| That last part is the problem as I see it. We are not there to help the deal go through. Just to advise the client (the buyer, typically), and thus the word "improvement" is not needed. |
Thank you, once again, for deciding which words are needed and which are not. We are there to assist the client. We are there to inform. If it is not a defect, then it is not a defect. If you recommend an upgrade or improvement, then you recommend an upgrade or improvement. You are SO far off base, here, its not funny.
Look... something's okay, but the configuration can be improved. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Its a recommended improvement. How many ways do I have to try and get this point across to you.
As to what our jobs are at the inspection, I view my job as a consultant to the client. If that's advising him how to negotiate, than that's my business.
My job is to inspect, review, explain, recommend, and to clarify, in the clearest, professional, non-confrontational, and non-threatening manner possible.
This thread has (once again) turned into a "my way is the only way" discussion for you. There are more than two ways to skin a cat. I offer advice to anyone asking for it. Whether it is another inspector, or an agent, or advising a past or potential client, I calls it the way I sees it.
And, to your "roof" reference, I never give life expectancies. I dont own a crystal ball. I try and describe exactly what I see. If the roof is a piece of crap, I say so. If its defective, I recommend replacement.
--
Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."