Trap under sink

Paralax has to do with a change in visual perception due to
a change in the position of observation.

Either that, or it’s a remedy for constipation.

I agree with Richard, I too “think a lot of the angle is “perceived” due to parallax distortion” due to the angle of the camera to some extent.

*(John got the “L” outta there) *

If you compare the angle of the tailpiece with the angle of the trap inlet, although certainly not level, it really isn’t all THAT crooked either.

Having said all that, although it would work fine, it’s obvious it wasn’t installed by a professional and does look pretty bad.
It really wouldn’t be all that difficult to make it right WITH the proper materials. (No plumbing license necessary)

lavrap.jpg

Traps are over rated. :wink:

If there is no leaks then it is working properly. As a licensed plumber I know Ohio code does not allow this type of connection. But as a Home Inspector I know it is working properly and doing what is is suppose to, preventing sewer gas from entering the house. That is the way I write it in my report. I think sometimes we have to be reminded of what our role is as a Whole House Inspector.

:slight_smile: :slight_smile:
*Pretty obvious to me that the plumbing rough in was done wrong, and immediate repairs would be recommended by an established Plumbing Contractor. This set up could fail and cause problems in a sanitary way. *
**
*Marcel *

But if I worked like that, then I would never say anything about the lack of GFCI outlets at the sinks. After all, the outlets that are there by the sinks are doing what they are supposed to do, right?

If the house was built prior to GFCI becoming code then GFCI is not required. Remember safety first. GFCI is there for safety same as a minumin of 2 inches of water in a trap. If GFCI is not present i write in my report. That GFCI was not required when house was built, but highly recommend when replacing outlets with in 6 feet of water that GFCI is used.

Exactly my point.

Safety first.

Proper plumbing traps have been required for much longer than GFCI outlets. Sewer gases can not only kill, but they can also create other health problems which, sometimes, might make one wish for death and that higher plain that everyone talks about.

Don’t underestimate the damage to one’s health that the lack of a trap, or an improper trap, can cause.

I’m with Larry, assuming we are still talking about Earl’s trap. Even if you removed the “slinky” completely the trap would still block sewer gases. At this point I would hope the homeowner would notice the water pouring out the vanity cabinet every time they use the sink.

Could it be done better? Of course. Is it a huge safety issue in it’s current configuration? I think not.

I’m not saying you have to ignore it, but to raise the spectre of serious health hazards in this case is, IMO, overboard.

Well, if the slinky is damaged during move-out, and the new owners don’t use that bathroom, the damage will allow the trap to dry out, at which time the health hazards certainly do exist. There’s a reason why the codes do not allow use of slinky traps.

There’s a mediation hearing going on here currently concerning this exact problem. The home inspector noted the slinky trap and recommended that it be replaced because it can be easily damaged. Sure enough, the slinky apparently was damaged and released sewer gases into the bedroom. In this case it was a baby’s bedroom. The buyers should have done something prior to close of escrow, but they didn’t. Neither did they do anything until after $2,495 worth of doctor bills for their little baby. Now, of course, they are suing the home inspector. Where the mediation hearing is likely to end up, I don’t have any clue.

By the way, the home inspector in question is the one whom I have talked about here for the last few months. He filed bankruptcy in October due to the lawsuit. I thought his report was very comprehensive but he foolishing carried no E&O insurance which would have fought for him in this case. Nevertheless, the courts here are very pro-ADR, so he got into mediation which will probably help since he had a very good report.

I’ve seen the complete lawsuit now, and the plaintiffs are suing for $12,000 in rent that they couldn’t collect due to zoning violations that the seller’s knew about, $2,700 for plumbing repairs and medical expenses, $15,000 for roof repairs, and other stuff, all totaling $175,000. Except for the zoning violations which were excluded from the inspection by contract, everything that the plaintiffs are suing for was covered and/or disclaimed in the report. Unfortunately, as always, if you get to court, you lose.

If you want to know how bad sewer gases are, I challenge you to unhook the drain in your own kitchen or bathroom and see what your spouse has to say. No one wants to have sewer smells in their house. I should think that’s a big DUH!

Isn’t everything we do based on worst-case scenarios?

There actually are very few problems in our houses, all things considered, especially the number of houses. And who cares if one person gets sick, or is otherwise injured or killed? Very few people, actually. Until that one person is you or someone in your family. Then it’s a much different story, isn’t it?

I tend to look out for my Clients, so I’m not ashamed to point out the worst-case scenarios for them. In fact, they quite appreciate it from what I’ve been told.

Ummm…any trap can dry out. They are open already at the sink. That’s how water gets in, remember?

Yes Russell, thanks for stating the obvious.

This from someone who won’t move a towel aside in a bathroom to test a GFCI? I’ll put my “looking out for my clients” up against yours any day. I’ll assess situations on a individual basis and offer a reasoned opinion on them. What I won’t do is make a mountain out of a mole hill and then stand on top yelling “look at me!”

DO NOT ever infer that I have anything less than my clients well being in mind.

They dry out much, much faster when the water leaks out as opposed to evaporating.

You are welcome. Sometimes the obvious needs to be restated.

It’s pretty nice up here. And when it snows, one can ski down. :mrgreen:

One never knows. Glad you do.

Not only do I not move anything, but my inspectors don’t move anything. If I were in my home state of Texas instead of California, I personally would move probably just about anything. Here in San Diego, though, it’s a different story due to liability issues.

I do know of one home inspector who was sued in small claims court for damaging a priceless heirloom or some such by moving it, and my E&O provider has other horror stories, as well.

As with anything we do in our profession, do the best you can for your particular circumstances. My circumstances demand that I pay attention to what my E&O provider and my attorneys advise me to do and what not to do.

If there is something that I cannot do, I let my Clients and/or their Realtors know. If they then choose to do something that I cannot, that is there prerogative; perhaps they have better insurance than I do or they are not as smart as I am or they don’t care or they ignore advice from their counselors. The major brokerages here also instruct their agents not to move things during their visual inspection, during open houses, etc.

I not only inform my clients, but I also educate them in my Interactive Report System on CD:

Never had a complaint yet in 4½ years and thousands of inspections by me and my employees.

Eventually, I’ll also include reference lawsuits so that they can even more fully understand why we do what we do, and why we don’t do what we don’t do.

*Hi. Russel; *
**
*Why would anyone go to court an lose when the documentation was presented at the time of the Inspection, and why would he be penalized in Court for not having E&O.? *
*I fail to realize why having insurance or not for Errors and Ommission has to do with it. :blank: *
**
*I guess, I am confused of the system and logic. *
**
*Marcel *
**
**

One doesn’t go to court and lose when the documentation was presented at the time of the inspection. One goes to court to defend oneself from a lawsuit. Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything. Justified or not, the lawsuit has to be defended.

One is not penalized in court for not having E&O. One is penalized during the process and, possibly, at judgment time for not having E&O.

If I didn’t have E&O and got sued, I would immediately be out $5,000 because that’s what all the attorneys here charge as a retainer to even consider working on a home inspector case. And very few attorneys take credit cards, meaning that I’m out cash or I’m getting a $5,000 cash advance on a credit card, at exorbitantly high cash-advance interest rates.

That $5,000 retainer fee would be picked up by my E&O insurance provider allowing me to keep it in my business account and keep working.

And if one loses the case, one then has to pay the judgment. My E&O provider picks up the cost of the judgment minus my deductible.

Does that help?

Earl, Was it leaking? Did it drain okay? These are the two biggest questions you need to ask yourself, when you see this type of setup. Yes, it has a flexible drain, BUT how much of a bend is in it. It does not look like a whole lot. I would write up the flex pipe as an informational item. Something like:
The sink employs an unconventional, flexible drainpipe that could contribute to blockages.

Thanks Rray;
**
*Now I am somewhat less confused. :wink: *
**
*I thought that the judiciary system was to protect the inoccent until proven guilty. *
**
Like reading your posts. So if you are not guilty, why would it cost you $5000 to be acquitted of such claims.?
**
*Thanks for your response. *
**
Marcel (from the opposite side of the Country.)

Thank you. I was reading and reading then of course Mr Pope says it like it is. :cool:

That’s true. But there is an expense in proving who is innocent and who is guilty. That’s the nature of our justice system, and while it is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I do believe it is the best the world has ever seen.

And the system does take into account frivolous lawsuits and the innocent because the system can award damages (attorneys’ fees, etc.) to the innocent.

O.J. Simpson spent about $34 million, I think it was, to prove that he was innocent.