Two layers of shingles Florida Building Code

With all due respect for you and others:

To imply that home inspectors do inspect to code is a dangerous path. Most definitions of a home inspection specifically state that they are not “code inspections”. While I will agree the belief “today’s code inspection is tomorrows home inspection” is the absolute truth. I suggest that it must not be misconstrued. Many items in code should absolutely be reported in a home inspection, but many items in a home inspection have little to do with code.

Most home inspectors are not licensed to inspect to or for code nor can they with the constraints of a home inspection(or insurance inspection). If that is the path that some in this profession wants to go towards in Florida they should make your intentions clear and upfront. If that is the truth it does explain several questions that have not been answered.

Time to go get my building officials license.

If I see another CBP bus/terminals covered with paint this week, I’m gonna scream! (3 this week)
I do report it. I verbally tell my client I’m not there to inspect per code, but there is no code for me when it involves safety. :slight_smile:

And most of those “definitions” come from inspectors looking to limit their liability. How many TV shows do we have to watch that portray our profession as a bunch of know-nothing idiots before we take some responsibility for our own destiny. There is NOTHING in the statutes of our licensure or Administrative Code that sates anything close to what you have said…it doesn’t exist.

The second underlined statement is just plain false…as the Administrative Code 61-30 specifically states…THE ONLY THING THAT LIMITS YOU IS YOUR OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE…NOTHING ELSE.

[FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]
**61-30.801 Standards of Practice, General. **[FONT=Times New Roman][size=2][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]
(1) Home inspections performed to these Standards of Practice are intended to provide the client with information regarding the overall condition of installed systems and components of the home based on observation of the visible and apparent condition of the structure and components at the time of the home inspection and to report on those systems and components inspected that, in the professional opinion of the inspector, are significantly deficient or at the end of their service lives. A home inspection does not include the prediction of future conditions.
(2) These standards shall not be construed as limiting the scope of the inspection process in those areas where the inspector is qualified and/or has special knowledge.

A good article talking about this very subject:

But that is code. It’s right in the NEC:

The National Electric Code states that the internal parts of the electrical equipment, including bus bars, wiring terminals, insulator, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive materials. There shall be no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation of mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broke, bent, cut or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or over heating The only remedy for this is to either replace the box or the bus bars. In many instances just the bus bars can be replaced. We recommend repair by a licensed electrician.

I agree the building codes are the ultimate reference for inspectors, but the sop of nachi and fabi both state that home inspectors are not required the verify code compliance. I do cite codes in my reports when i expect someone will question a specific finding.


               can you provide a reference or statement from the standards, both State and FABI, that say home inspectors are exempt from code?

FABI general exclusions ; B. Inspectors are NOT required to determine: 7. Compliance with regulatory requirements (codes, regulations, laws, ordinances, etc.) from the website. nachi says basically the same thing from exclusions;

  1. compliance with codes or regulations

Aw spank!
Mr Sheppard, nobody like a know it all.
Can you answer the question please??? can you or can you not put two layers of shingles on a roof???
If not, what specific counties prohibit this. Since you seem to know it all, then this should be an easy answer.
Also please post specific regarding each county that prohibits the allowance of two shingle layers…

Sean - re read posts 7, 11, and 12. The answers are right there.

Dennis, that says not required. That does not stop you from determining those items. It it said shall not, then you would not be able to. Remember, standards, just line the building code, are minimum standards. No one will stop you from going above and beyond.

Let me also quote from the standards:


2.1 A. The purpose of these Standards of Practice is to establish a minimum and uniform standard for private, fee-paid home inspectors who are members of the Florida Association of Building Inspectors. Home Inspections performed to these Standards of Practice are intended to provide the client with information regarding the condition of the systems and components of the home as inspected at the time of the Home Inspection.
B. These standards shall not be construed as limiting the scope of the inspection process in those areas where the inspector is qualified and/or has special knowledge.

Stop playing Nick and only picking out the one line out of a chapter that supports your theory. Read the entire chapter. If you want to continue to do the minium, then by all means do so. There are those of us that want to go above minumim standards, just like there are building contractors that build houses above the minimum code standards

Having done thousands of report reviews, I might be able to contribute to this conversation by saying that most defects a home inspector discovers are regarding systems and components that were installed perfectly to code. They simply later leaked, quit working, blew off, broke, had missing parts, rotted, were modified, or just plain wore out.

A 35-year old asphalt roof installed to code is likely going to have a lot of issues to report… and none of them will be code violations.

1 Like

No one is arguing that performane does not come into play in an inspection. And actually, that 35 year old roof will have code violations. Is not an improper repair a code violation? The arguement here was: can you do a roof over in Florida. Some are saying yes and some are saying no. Where would you go to get the answer? The building code defines what can and cannot be done.

I can read bill and just said that i do cite code sometimes, just pointing out where your sop says its not required. Also, its not my theory…its just not required, same as providing estimates of repairs, which i also provide. I get it, yes you can cite code, just not required.

…there’s nothing better than when you prove my point for me…like I said, no place in the state or FABI standards does it say we are “exempt”…

I answered those questions on the first page…

Like I have said over…and over…and over…and over. The statement that we are not required to know code limits us to the lowest common denominator. You wonder why people and contractors think our profession is a joke? Look no further than your statements.

Also, my statement was “exempt”…and that standards of both the State and FABI say nothing of the sort. They both place no limits on what you can do, as long as you’re right…

I don’t know about Florida, but here in Colorado, I would not go anywhere to get that answer. I’m not hired to do that or paid to. Because of the weight of a second layer combined with potential snow loads here, many jurisdictions don’t permit roof overs. Roof overs generally aren’t as good as tear offs. And of course there is the added expense of tearing off two layers when you install a new roof in the future. That’s what I’d tell my clients.

But determining where those jurisdiction lines are, determining what jurisdiction the home is in, determining whether or not it was permitted in that jurisdiction at the time of installation, and determining whether there was an exception for steeper-pitched roofs in that jurisdiction at that time… are all services that I don’t offer with a home inspection.

I keep it simple. I observe, report what I observed (typically with the help of a photo), and include my own additional commentary.

Something to consider. We are regulated by the DBPR, they set forth the minimum requirements for our original licensure. The Statute that set forth the purpose and intent for ALL occupations is FSS 455, it regulates all of us. The purpose behind that was clearly written:

455.201 Professions and occupations regulated by department; legislative intent; requirements.
(1) It is the intent of the Legislature that persons desiring to engage in any lawful profession regulated by the department shall be entitled to do so as a matter of right if otherwise qualified.
(2) The Legislature further believes that such professions shall be regulated only for the preservation of the health, safety, and welfare of the public under the police powers of the state. Such professions shall be regulated when:
(a) Their unregulated practice can harm or endanger the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and when the potential for such harm is recognizable and clearly outweighs any anticompetitive impact which may result from regulation.[/size][/FONT]
Now, what would you say if I could link that statement, the purpose of your licensure, diriectly to the Florida Building Code? As we have seen above, you were licensed to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This is pretty clear. So now we aks ourselves, what is the intent of the Florida Building Code?

2010 Florida Building Code 101.3 Intent. </B>
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

The intent of YOUR licensure, and the intent of the Florida Building Code, are linked indentically in wording.

I know I just wanted to see if he would do it.
My question is, If a permit was pulled and approved for this roof, then apparently the AHJ allowed for the re-roof…
Now what do you say???

We have stated this before, the issuance of a permit or approval through inspection IS NOT approval of violation of the Building Code. It’s that simple…and it’s writen into the first chapter of the Building Code, see for yourself:

***2010 Florida Building Code: 110.1 General. </B>
***Construction or work for which a *permit *is required shall be subject to inspection by the *building official *and such construction or work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved. **Approval as a result of an inspection **shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. It shall be the duty of the *permit *applicant to cause the work to remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes. Neither the *building official *nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection.

The AHJ, and the city/county inspectors, assume no liability nor do they confirm compliance with code just because it has passed inspection…Now think about that for a second when it comes to OIR-B1-1802’s. If the AHJ will not accept responsibility for it being built in compliance with code, why would you ever sign a form that states in the first sentence: Building Code: Was the structure built in compliance with"?

The key word here is “Was”…which doesn’t mean at the time of erection, it means at the time of inspection…a common missinterpretation.