Originally Posted By: Morgan Audetat This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
To answer your question. All the codes I have worked under (3) have required a shut off valve at the water heater. The reason you don’t find them is greed. They cost a couple of bucks the plumber now has in his pocket.
I do not touch valves of any kind in an inspection. I did not when I was a plumbing, unless I had a replacement on the truck. And BTW, I never told people to "drain" the water heater periodically. It does not work and often causes a boiler drain (the valve at the bottom of a water heater) to leak and require replacement.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Russel,
While I do understand the nature of the beast there in california, to not operate a valve that should be functional to any occupant, licensed plumber or not, is pretty sad. The main shut off valve is not there for only the plumber to operate it is there to shut off all of the water to the house in case of system failure that would require its operation. If the valve does not work when it becomes necessary it really is not doing much good being there in the first place.
I can certainly understand not operating the valve late on friday afternoon for previous stated reasons. I can certainly understand not wanting to place an unnecessary financial burden on the seller. Is what I can't understand is why inspectors are selling their clients short for the fear of being sued. Of course no one wants to be sued but if I were buying the home I would want the basics inspected and I would certainly be understanding that the inspection is limited to that which is visible. Valves are visible, not buried or encased such as in a wall.
BTW...Russel does that mean that anyone that operates that valve must be a licensed plumber?
Originally Posted By: rray This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
No, homeowners can do anything they want in California except pour an asphalt driveway because California considers that a hazardous material. Now when it comes time to sell, then the homeowner may have to own up to some of those “anythings” that he did while he owned the home.
As with anything in life, if one is up front with what one does and does not do, and why, and provides recommendations, one typically does not have problems. One also must pay attention to what one's competitors are doing. One also must pay attention to legislative law, case law, one's insurance companies, and one's attorney.
There's a lot of stuff that I don't do in California that I would not have had a problem doing back home in Texas and Louisiana. Different states.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Russel,
I hear what you are saying. Then they have the big orange out there in CA too? 
You and I are just looking at it in different perspectives. I look at it like I am there to break things, you see it them paying you and the person you recommend break them. 
See while we are miles apart you can not keep great minds from seeing the real truth about home inspections in every part of the nation.
Originally Posted By: rray This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If I were to break something, the sellers would likely sue me. And if the water valve broke during my testing and flooded the place, causing damage to the floor, subflooring, mold, priceless heirlooms, etc., I could guarantee you that they would be coming after me to at least pay their deductible and maybe some additional mental anguish and suffering money. There is nothing in the purchase contract in this state that says anything about “failure under testing” damage and who should pay for it.
We do a visual inspection of valves. The clues are there to sufficiently state that they may not work or even probably don't work; have a plumber look at it for final evaluation. I have some really good pictures of valves that I would never touch in a million years.
You might also look at your E&O insurance and general liability insurance. Some of those policies won't cover you, especially in some states, for turning water shutoff valves on or off, turning circuit breakers on and off, etc. My E&O and general liability insurance, through my franchisor, and covering me in this litigious state of California, does not cover me for damage I might do during the course of my inspection if the systems would be more aptly inspected by a licensed professional (read, plumber, electrician, etc.).
That's why it is very important that we state that it is a visual inspection. We emphasize that a lot. We emphasize that a lot. Did I say that we emphasize that a lot?
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Russel,
I personally would rather operate the valve, I sleep much better at night knowing that if the client were to actually move into that home and use that valve it would work.
I would rather have the seller trying to claim that I broke it, after I got the first hand picture of its condition, then come back and tell them I merely operated a valve that should have worked and of course I did not break it, it was already broken since it did not work when I operated it.
If I were in CA like you I am sure I would have a different perspective on it. I really don't care about the E & O or the general liability covering it since it should work to begin with, without leaking of course.
BTW... I have seen valves that were perfect in every aspect except for one, they would not close. There was no clue at all they would not operate. I will continue to operate valves just as I am sure you will not.
Originally Posted By: rray This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I personally also would rather operate the valve (and all other valves, e.g., toilets, under sinks, fireplaces, main water shutoff, main gas shutoff, etc.) and I suspect if I were back home in Texas rather than here in San Diego, I would do a lot of things differently, I mean a lot of things.
By the way, do you operate all those other valves? They, of course, also should work. We don't. A nice attorney out here would have a field day with that: "Why did you operate one but not the other?" It's the same thing with moving furniture: "Why did you move the xxx but not the yyy." We either have to do it all (which sometimes would require extra licensing, e.g., plumbers) or none of it. Case law indicates there can be no in-between. That's where a lot of people out here get in trouble because they do some but not all. There's a lot of disclaiming/disclosures to do in this state. I prefer disclosure because I think it is more upfront and customer friendly.
Alas. . . . I like San Diego and Southern California too much.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Russel,
Sure I check all of them. Accessibility would be key in determining if they are all operated. Most of the time you can not reach all of them. Some times you can not reach the main which I do recommend you correct and leave it accessible.
PA is not quite as bad as CA when it comes to litigation so that really is not a problem here. If it were to become a problem I would change what I inspect just as you have.