And therein lies the problem…
I understood her original correspondence, as her not being sure exactly who she was upset with.
You were told that by the same addled woman who said her sink didn’t meet code because it had 2 inch PVC instead of 1 inch PVC. You don’t really know who introduced the topic of code, whether anyone actually said anything about a “violation” or what was said or written in reference to it because you didn’t bother to verify anything.
Hey isn’t there some rule about non-attorneys giving out legal advice?
It sounds like the inspector is in this position because he did not throughly explain to his Clinet what he was doing or not doing. It would appear by her light/fan switch remark, that the inspector didn’t explain things to her very well. Or, she is just plain crazy.
Also, it has been my experience that when you find work that hasn’t been done properly, usually, it was done by someone who wasn’t licensed to do the work, aka, the Realtors “favorite handyman”, the homeowner, etc., and it wasn’t permitted or inspected.
I also do permit searches for my Clients, at no charge, and since there are so many foreclosures, a public records search.
Eric, what code violation did you cite for the windows?
Also, if you inspect a home that was built in 1980 as is in great shape but has no GFCIs or AFCIs do you write that up as a code violation.
I agree with you about keeping it civil. It’s been a great discussion so far. Rare around here.
Nope – Safety… Most code violations can be spinned into a safety bullet. IMO.
Billy, I know, read Eric’s quote attached to my post.
Have you followed the whole thread. Eric cites code often in his reports so I was wondering how he would answer that.
GFCI and AFCI would be a code violation today but not in 1980.
I agree. Client expectation is the key and is in the hands of the inspector.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, a judge ruled that a home inspector who advertised himself as ICC Certified had a duty to find all code issues and was ordered to pay for those he missed. The judge ruled that it was the inspector who, by his advertising, established in his client’s mind that code issues would fall under the scope of his services by virtue of his ad.
We have a duty to our client and to ourselves to ensure that they are not confused as to exactly what it is we provide. IMO, we muddy that water when we use the terms “code violation” or refer to code in any manner. It isn’t necessary.
For one thing…when I was an AHJ in St. Louis, I was limited to the code. If it wasn’t in the particular adopted code book, I had to turn away and ignore it. As a home inspector, all that the code represents to me is a minimum basic standard. Code can be exceeded. I can recommend more than what the code book requires, knowing the needs of my client. For example, while ADA requirements are only required in the “code” for public buildings, if I happen to know that a member of my client’s immediate family is in a wheel chair, I can point out certain issues in the home that make it unsafe or inaccessible for that person. As a code inspector, I couldn’t.
Didn’t write a code for that is the window was just plain broken. My point for telling that story was to illustrate the type of individuals I have to deal with.
In reality, I rarely cite code in my reports. In most instances, the verbiage used and the pictures are enough to get the point across. In those cases where someone wants more, I’ll add the code reference and in some instances manufacturers responses or instructions, just so everyone is clear and to eliminate “wiggle room”.
The paint in the panel issue is one in particular. You can write it up as a safety issue and recommend further evaluation,or, write it up for what it is, a violation of the code as well as the manufacturers instructions.
Regarding your question pertaining to G.F.I./AFCI protection, since G.F.I. protection for bathroom and exterior receptacles was adopted here in 1974, it would get written up for those areas and recommended that the kitchen receptacles also be GFI protected as is now required, but may not have been a requirement when the home was built. Unless the kitchen was remodeled, then there may be reason to change them.
My home was built in 1971 and the code wasn’t in effect. I still have the original receptacles in my home and no GFI protection.
The code is in fact a safety code, not an instruction manual.
Those that write things up for being safety issues are, without knowing it, writing up code violations.
See my examples above. If you look in the code, they are all there as are most of everything else we write up.
To paraphrase, “Most safety issues can be spun into code violations”.
Yes I know it is. Personally I feel each and everyone of us should be code certified before being certified as a true home inspector through NACHI. I’m not certified yet however I will be ICC certified soon.
I think the problem with being ICC certified, and I agree with you and in fact, it was a requirement for my “Grade 1” inspector designation when I submitted my proposal for licensing to Governor Bush, it may give the impression that you are performing a code enforcement inspection, which, according to the op, is what may get this inspector in trouble.
Yea I’m sitting on a tree still when it comes to advertising the fact however I think to many things are missed when one doesn’t understand minimum code requirements. I personally want to do it on a educational level. Before I die I will be close to knowing as much as Marcel. lol
Let me say first i am a newbie to this field of HI and my first post. before i started this any maintenance or remodeling i did was referenced to the code for minimum compliance and to make sure it actually had to be repaired, just because it was ugly doesn’t mean it was wrong or broke. I have seen alot of very ugly things that met code
Then with out the code as reference how can you justify writing up a tpr valve and drain problem? or an electrical issue… where do i get my hands on that infamous industry standards book everyone is telling me to reference? is there one? why not just write in my opinion blah blah is defective, worn, broken…what ever
I write blah blah doesn’t look right in accordance to industry standard or my opinion. when you are asked to support that opinion what book do you pull out? can’t be the code book, because everything here is telling me i cant use it.
Billy, the main difference between a code inspector for a municipality and a home inspector it the code inspector is not liable for any mistakes.
Once you become certified you’ll have to make your client’s expectation’s known not only verbally but in writing.
This may be a problem when trying to book an inspection over the phone, especially on older home’s.
Nothing in this thread even implies that you should not know and personally refer to the applicable codes.
We are discussing communication with your client.
Here is the full preamble for all TREC Real Estate Inspections. It is part of the promulgated form and must be included in all reports. IMO it’s one of the better products of the last iteration of the SOP.
I’m including it in its entirety because I think that there are pieces which can be useful and adapted for non-Texas inspectors too (emphasis added by me for relevancy to the topic of the thread).
I have no fear of making references to model building codes (there is no magic voodoo here). I do NOT call out “code violations”. Model building code references certainly aren’t “puffery” when a builder, roofer, etc. (who are not licensed in TX) tries to tell the buyer that it’s OK that way or when the buyer’s agent is drafting a repair amendment to a contract of sale.
To date no one has presented a bona-fide law suite that was brought against an inspector or won based on a reference or citation of a model building code (Jim tried to pull a fast one with the Texas case, but his premise was bogus and representation of the case and the outcome were false).
Until presented with an actual case where an inspector has been harmed legally because he made a proper, informed reference to a model building code, I consider this thing to be an Inspector Urban Myth.
I’m not a big fan of disclaimers, but I like this one Chuck.
The inspection report may address issues that are code-based or may refer to a particular code; however, this is NOT a code compliance inspection and does NOT verify compliance with manufacturer’s installation instructions. The inspection does NOT imply insurability or warrantability of the structure or its components. Although some safety issues may be addressed in this report, this inspection is NOT a safety/code inspection, and the inspector is NOT required to identify all potential hazards.
It’s pretty easy to explain to a client that “code inspections” are done at various intervals of construction because once the drywall is in place, the majority of the areas where many “code violations” take place are hidden.
That is why it is prudent for them to run a permit search…with the understanding that code violations that they inherit become their responsibility to upgrade or demolish as the jurisdiction sees fit.
Well Chuck
It looks like Texas pretty much shoots down the notion of being sued for quoting code.(may refer to a particular code)
One of my other suggestions for licensing here in Florida back in 2003 was to use the Texas SoP as a template, as I felt it was the best out there at the time.
I haven’t read the latest version, but I suspect, it is better than it was before.
Strangely enough, similar wording is found on my “Estimates” page.
I really like the above paragraph. I wonder what they are trying to say with the last sentence?:mrgreen: