That’s a good thing.
1 Like
That’s ridiculous. To list the installation as a defect or deficiency would be wrong. No SOP requires an inspector to speculate on how someone MIGHT use a system in a way other than was intended. No SOP requires an inspector to comment on adequacy of design. No SOP requires an inspector to give opinions about things that are outside the scope of an inspection or that he is not qualified to comment on. No SOP requires an inspector to determine whether an installation complies with building codes. No SOP requires an inspector to just make stuff up so that he can impress people by commenting on things that he doesn’t understand.
If an inspector does find a defect or deficiency, he has to be able to explain the nature of the defect or deficiency and its consequences. It is not sufficient to say “Well some guy on the Internet said …”. In this instance, the inspector obviously cannot explain the consequences of the installation being as it is. If he could, he wouldn’t have needed to ask the question in the first place. There was nothing for him to report. To list the installation as being improper would only serve to make him look like a fool. That might please his competitors, but it isn’t going to please his clients when they spend money to have someone tell them that the inspector doesn’t know what he is doing.
2 Likes
I bet if a 120VAC circuit was added. 9-10 would connect the grounded conductor to the ground, which goes directly back to the main service panel where both the neutral and ground connect, rather than trying to pull another conductor.
Just saying. 
But no one has tried to do that yet, right? The next Inspector can deal with that potential issue.
1 Like
That’s right. I see this as being one of many problems with new inspectors. They can’t learn to stay in their lane. Basing their comments and recommendations on things that people might do would lead to an almost infinite number of things being identified as defective or deficient. Any yahoo can say that stuff is bad based on things such as what someone might do or what might happen at some time in the future. A home inspection is a snapshot in time. It is not intended to be a prediction of future events.
2 Likes
I asked the electrical inspector about this yesterday. He probably would have passed it. However, he did speculate that two different people probably had their hands in this panel.
The first installed a panel with more spaces than they needed for their equipment. The second, thinking they needed a neutral, pulled a 10-3 cable but had no place to terminate the white wire. Just an observation.
I agree, this condition is not an NEC violation. It is just an observation. But, for some of you to justify your opinion, you’re saying things like “you can’t predict the future” and you can’t ask “what if”.
Do you realize that EVERY SINGLE system and component you inspect in the SOP that you work under, you are asking “what if” this or that happens “sometime in the future”? You’re not just applying NEC or IRC to a system or component.
“What if” someone trip’s on a crack in the sidewalk “sometime in the future”?
“What if” the wind blows an over hanging tree branch or loose siding “sometime in the future”?
“What if” someone drops their blow dryer in a sink full of water “sometime in the future”?
“What if” a child climbs through a guardrail or on top of an open oven door “sometime in the future”?
“What if” someone can’t find the disconnect or shutoff in an emergency “sometime in the future”?
In the NACHI Narrative Library, @kshepard uses the words “Potential” and “Potentially” hundreds of times. Potentially literally means “with the capacity to develop or happen in the future.”
Edit: Conversely, he actually has a narrative describing a 120V only sub-panel with no option to add 240V circuits.
Those of you who think that it’s your job to read the riot act and ridicule newer inspectors that can’t “stay in their lane”, you, in the end, just look like a bunch of a-holes.
1 Like
Just following the rule:
General Exclusions.
(a) Home inspectors are not required to report on:
- Life expectancy of any component or system;
- The cause(s) of the need for a repair;
- Predict future condition, including but not limited to failure of components.
This is the rule, not narratives HI’s like to use…
1 Like