For the first time in along time, I find myself agreeing with James. Whether it exceeds the SOP ( which is a good thing) or not, to not advise clients to this defect is to become potentially liable for any mishap that could occur.
How many inspectors could sleep well at night knowing that they may have been partially responsible, through negligence, for a death or serious injury?
just my 2 cents + GST
So if thats the case and you find and report on one issue as the example above but fail to find another concern that should be noted under an Unsafe Condition terminology; (For the sake of discussion) where do you draw the line, and where does your reponsibility stop? Seems to me if you do not exceed the standards your doomed and if you do exceed the standards your doomed dependant on the circumstances.
Sorry to hear that Dale.
That going to happen in the near future and what do they do? They can’t take it out can they?
Man, you got us worried now.
Marcel :shock: 
Most of the HI reports I see word it like this: “Although GFCI protection may have not been required blah blah blah we strongly recommend they be installed as a safety issue”
I totally agree with that statement, and I am happy to oblige, installing them wherever they are requested, and even recommending them where they were not requested but needed. Selling and installing GFCI protection is easy, profitable, and makes me feel good knowing I might have saved a life.
I don’t understand all the nit picking.
As Mr. Witt has pointed out in another thread, Electrical Inspectors proudly limit themselves to the pages contained in the NEC…and…when they are called upon to address a home inspector’s report, feel that it is their duty to argue against us and on behalf of the code book.
These guys cannot understand that their value is limited to communications with builders and contractors. For the purposes of legality and uniformity, their language must be specific and their findings must be restricted to the dates on their pages. But this has no application in a home inspection.
There are times that we need to refer to the code when we want a deeper understanding of a particular defect we are wanting to correctly describe…but, unlike the electrical inspector and the AHJ, we are not chained to it.
This is a difficult concept for them to understand.
Oddly enough, they think that the weakness actually rests upon US.
The SOP is a “recipe” as to the ingredients that I put into my inspection.
I have the option to, with the permission and understanding of my client, to add raisins and chocolate chips if I want. I can charge extra for doing so.
In my opinion, I do not “exceed” my recipe. I modify it to meet the needs of the client…I make adjustments to it…but in the end, it is nothing more than a description of my inspection.
Marketing rhetoric has created the term “exceed”.
Why?
The NEC is not the issue and is not mentioned in the report. No one is telling him that “code” requires the GFCI…what is the relevance of what was written in the code book at the time of installation, if you are not arguing against the recommendation?
Thats exactly what your doing, you just term it with terminology to suit your thinking and justification. So you really are exceeding them. Nothing wrong with that. 
“Inspector recommends the installation of ground fault circuit protection at all kitchen counter, kitchen island, bathroom, lavatory, garage, unfinished basement, exterior, and damp locations, where none may currently exist. Contact a licensed professional and follow all current National Electrical Code requirements for guidance in this area.”
I guess I just haven’t got enough education to use that inspector double speak third person language engineers favor and you use, Joe.
============================
Ground fault protection (GFCI) may not have been required when this house was constructed, however, I recommend that all outlets needing ground fault protection, as recognized by the newest national safety standards be upgraded. I recommend that this upgrade be completed by a licensed electrician.
The lack of ground fault protection poses a signfificant safety risk for electrocution. Remember: Safety hazards don’t care about the building code book or when what was required by the building code. Safety hazards just sit and wait to cause you and your family personal injury.
While I recommend, only you can choose what level of risk you want your family to live with.
I haven’t updated that in quite some time. Have the recent code changes made any additions to it. Does anyone know?
Raymond: Does your focus on whether or not it exceeds SOP really add to the discussion or detract from it. Perhaps you should start your own thread on exceeding standards with safety recommendations instead of drifting this one!
99.9% of home inspections are done for the buyer of the home. The buyer then addresses these issues with who ever it is that they are dealing with. That person then does as the Home Inspector suggested and calls in the appropriate licensed tradesman to evaluate the system in question. In this discussion it is about GFCI protection therefore an electrician.
Now the electrician is working for the seller or their agent and very seldom sees the Home Inspector’s report but instead is asked to do an evaluation of the system or to evaluate certain points of the system.
For the sake of this discussion let’s limit the evaluation to the outside receptacles.
The seller or their agent will ask the electrician to take a look at the receptacle and make a report.
The electrician goes out and checks the receptacle and its box and cover and everything looks okay. The electrician then reports back that the receptacle is fine except that it should have Ground Fault Protection.
The seller or their agent then asks if the receptacle is required to have Ground Fault Protection
The electrician then asks the date of the installation as this is very important to answer the question that was asked.
The seller or their agent says that the house was built in 1969 and the circuit is part of the original installation.
The electrician then advises that the receptacle is not required to have Ground Fault protection due to the installation date but suggest that it be. The seller then says that this receptacle has been this way from the day they moved into the house and they are not going to spend any money to have it changed.
Electrician says this is between the seller and buyer but he is not going to furnish his time and material for free so the electrician goes fishing.
The buyer decides to go ahead and buy the house with the receptacle as it is. The professional home inspector that he hired has spent time to make a report that there is a danger there. The buyer is fully aware due to the assiduousness of the Home Inspector that there is a danger with the receptacle not being protected by a ground fault device.
The electrician has made his effort to get the seller to change the device but the seller says that it was fine the way it is the whole time he lived there and if the buyer is not happy with it then let them come off with the price of having it changed.
Both the Home Inspector and the electrician has done all they can and the final burden lies in the hand of the buyer and seller.
The electrician is not mad at the Home inspector for pointing out the fact that there is no ground fault protection on the device. If anything he is grateful that he had a chance to make some money.
Why would the Home Inspector be mad at the electrician for it not being changed? It seems to me (an electrician) that some Home Inspectors think that I should change the device no matter if I am being paid or not just because they pointed it out.
If the Home Inspector points out the danger to the person that is buying the house and a year down the road someone gets hurt or killed it is my thinking that it is the buyers fault after they have been told of the danger by a Professional they hired.
Sorry I got a little long winded but I hope that my ranting helps you understand that I am not talking anyone out of anything. I am only doing what I am being paid to do.
Erby,
While you are typically the verbal minimalist, your example is rather longwinded, no?
Where’s the double-speak you mention? I say to install them in any of these locations, where none currently exist. Seems simple enough. I also refer to any current NEC standards, and to using a licensed professional.
As to writing in the third person, nothing wrong with that. What do you write? I saw this, and I saw that? Same difference. What a hoot…
Another one… Language that engineers like, and that I use?
Come on…
[/size][/FONT]
Not expecting the electrician to do ANYTHING for free. Not even evaluate the situation for free. Frustrated at the electrician who says I’m full of crap because the code was not in effect when the home was constructed and that no one can say anything. No defect noted. No GFCI required. While the statement may be TECHNICALLY correct, they are wrong-headed, IMO
The inspector gets frustrated at the electrician who says the configuration is fine, because it is not required.
Like the situation I am in now. Electrician owns the home. Replaced the main panel. Nice job. No inspection. Service entry cracked and frayed. Meter pan not fastened to house. Sealant at service entry atop meter pan worn. Conduit coming from below pan has separated by more than 1". Although the wiring inside the home was okay, new panel only rated for 125 amps. 100 amp service. No real room to upgrade service without changing panel in a nidely finished room. Cheap fix. Multi-wire on condensed side-by-side breakers / same phase with shared neutral.
Lots of little things. Lots of arguments on his part.
There’s the rub… I’m the idiot and he’s the electrical professional…
I’m thinking that the dead childs parents don’t care about that.
A few words of advice don’t cost anything. :shock:
***Another sad story!**](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.local6.com/2006/0221/7302626.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.local6.com/money/7302637/detail.html&h=180&w=240&sz=7&hl=en&start=26&sig2=HOv0CbPm_LvRPesTOafTpw&um=1&tbnid=EhPyDQ_M2DA24M:&tbnh=83&tbnw=110&ei=VyyMR-GCE4OkeNjO7dEO&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchild%2Belectrocuted%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft::IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7TSHB%26sa%3DN)
That is a very sad story and one I hope never happens again. But until all receptacals requiring GFCI protection are changed, it may unfortunately happen again. Thanks Joe.
Joe the author of this link is so far out in left field I think he is still using candles.
Have you watched this junk?
This is the follow up and comes from further investigations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJBZmIfr3s
The kid is dead and we should key in on the reasons why that were identified in this newscast, avoiding any discussion on the examples that were given in the first video.
Wrong.
The inspector does not recommend an “evaluation” in this instance. He recommends the installation of GFCIs where the present day code requires them.
Your long post undoes all of your previous posts.
You now have yourself recommending the GFCIs, yourself, and the client demanding that you tell him if it is a “code requirement”. This is the first time any such scenario ever came into play.
Up to that post, you have maintained that it is your job to simply address the code (in contrast and in contradiction to the inspector’s report) and “let the parties decide on their own” the course of action to take.
I don’t blame you for wavering and adding new facts in your weak argument…but we can’t let you off that easy.
