Home Warranties and Inspections - Question whether the Home Inspector and Seller were in cahoots

Purchased my 2108 sq ft one story home via fsbo, had a Home Inspection performed by a licensed, certified & bonded Inspector who is also a building contractor. The inspection took no more than one hour to perform. The seller made his exit upon my arrival advising to call if there were any questions. My major concerns was the roof, electrical, plumbing and ac/heating aspects of the home. After taking possession of the home I had an electrical fire that started in the dishwasher which damaged the counters Inspectors comment operates but checks GFCI not protected in the kitchen, the seller agreed to all electrical repairs. While on the roof cleaning out gutters I noticed the 1 layer asphalt 5-10 age shingles not secured to the roof at all I got a ladder out and took my blower pointing it towards the shingles and they all blew up from the roof. Inspector's comment roof coverings appeared overall satisfactory. The inspector tested the heating and cooling system's air flow coming through the ceiling vents only on the North side of the home and not the south end passing the heating and air system, but only the north end of the home cools. The seller had turned the garage into a den failing to adjust the air ducts to accomodate for the additional footage or purchasing a larger capacity heating and cooling system. This was not noted by the home inspector at all. My home has been shifting evident by the new door knobs I installed on the bedrooms now they do not close effectively. I immediately after moving in the north end of my home slants downhill to the point where I've had to place my headboard on blocks plus the settling cracks the Inspector mentioned are getting bigger and longer. What is my recourse now that I have taken possession? The inspector will not return my emails or phone calls. The sellers response is "this is all incredible"

Who recommended the inspector? The seller or did you find him?

Did you hire him based on price, experience or credentials?

Was he certified by a nationally recognized group or by one that sells the appearance? Does your area require state certification?

Most home inspectors are not permitted to act as contractors.

Usually a home inspection is a visual inspection limited to those things that can be seen and operated without upsetting systems and equipment in the house. May things cannot be moved or operated since the buyer and the inspector he hired do not have the legal right (unless requested and given) to move boxes and furniture. Some safety equipment (valves, etc.) cannot be operated because of the likelyhood of leaks and damage.

You probably paid $250 - $350 for a walk-through inpection that usually takes about two hours. You have had a much longer time to look a things. If you wished, you could have had a much more comprehensive specialized inspection of elements if the buyer approved and you were willing to pay for it. This would require separate individuals for each area and would be very time-consuming and pricey (10x).

Dick

They need not have been in cahoots.

In my experience [buying and selling a total of six houses], walk through inspections are useless; my dad noticed more than them, and now I notice more than my dad ever did. [Real estate agents hate me.]

As a seller, I got three inspection reports on the same house; none of the reports noted the same problems. And none noted evidence of a serious problem [which had been corrected, but this was not obvious]. All three reports recommended 'repairs' estimated at roughly the same cost.

In general, they advertise at [i.e. are recommended BY] real-estate agents. It is not in their interest to discourage a purchase. In many markets, their goal is to find enough minor problems for the buyer to drive the price down.

A buyer must be educated and draw attention to problems for the inspector.

[Any one in Massachusetts who can prove me wrong about inspectors, I welcome your replies.]

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires brokers to distribute a state prepared bulletin trgarding home inspection at all offices. the state also prohibits brokers from recommending any specific home inspectors.

Massechusetts licenses inspectors. It is up to the individual to hire an inspector based on qualification, experience, bonding and insurance. If I am not mistaken MA wants a $250,000 bond for inspectors.

Maybe the buyers of your property were not too selective in their choices during the home purchasing process. You obviously knew all the problems being the owner and had more than 1 or 2 hours to find everything. You should be happy a corrected problem was not noted to cloud the purchase.

Knowledgable sellers are now having a pre-inspection done prior to listing/selling to make things go smoother and avoid last minute expensive problems.

Dick

Most of the real estate offices I have visited have flyers from home inspectors. It is true they will not recommend an inspector, but I have always suspected they do not display information from extremely strict inspectors.

It is as difficult to find a good inspector as it is a good contractor. You can't 'test-drive'; most people don't need one often enough to be able to seriously compare and evaluate them; the recommendation of friends is not dependable, as their needs may be different [evaluating a freshly poured concrete foundation is different from evaluating an old field stone]; and at a walk-through, so much can be hidden by carefully placed furniture.

I never have and never would buy a house without an inspection, but I certainly don't depend on the inspector. Furthermore, I find the stock answer to problems I notice that they did not, 'I wouldn't worry about that' both condescending and disturbing. If they are completely satisfied with non-copper tie-ups on the water-pipes and severe rust stains above the boiler, how can I trust their evaluation of a large crack in the foundation?

[BTW, I did point out the evidence of the problem to the buyer, along with the record of the repair. We are good to our houses.]

A couple of notes:
You should immediately consult with a real estate attorney regarding the situation with the home itself. I suspect that you will have some avenues of recourse to pursue against the seller.

If you feel that the inspection was poorly performed, and that the inspector was unqualified or incompetent, then you should pursue a complaint with your regional version of the Better Business Bureau and any state licensing organizations that he may be dependent upon (some or most states don't require licensing apparently, and the professional organizations are still battling for position).

No follow-through equals no satisfaction of your problem and frustration, and no red flags to warn the next person looking for an inspector, whether realtor or consumer or whoever.

OK - so I am late to this thread, but I am a home inspector and I would like to correct some popular misconceptions as well as offer some advice for the poster.

First - to the original poster: Many inspectors carry (and many states require inspectors to carry) Errors and Omissions insurance against items which are overlooked or incorrectly assessed at the time of inspection.

The caveat here is that it must have been readily visible at the time of inspection and within the scope of a visual, non-invasive home inspection.

So: if the inspector ran the dishwasher and it operated properly - is there a circumstance that exists that would cause you to believe he should have (without removing the dishwasher) identified a wiring issue?

Next: If the roof shingles wre not at all attached (no nails) did the inspector walk on the roof? (surely they would have slid underfoot) Did the inspector conduct an attic inspection and could he note the lack of roofing nails pentrating the sheathing? (Remember, it is not within the scope of a typical home inspection to carry a leaf blower to test the roof covering fasters.)

If conditions like these exist, and could have reasonably been identified, then you have a case against the inspector and should pursue it.

Regarding the other comments on inspectors in general.....

An educated buyer is an idael, but most buyers are not very home-saavy. Inspectors, like buyers, are all different nad have individual strengths and weaknesses. One may have a degree in structural engineering, while another may have been a master plumber years ago.

Obviously, these reports will differ widely in what they comment on and their degree of accuracy and detail on their respective strengths and may also miss some smaller items in areas where the inspector is not as proficient.

Some inspectors work closely with realtors. Some intentionally do not. Neither is good or bad - trustworthy realtors will refer nitpicky inspectors to protect their clients. Untrustworthy realtors may try to push a less diligent inspector to help the deal go through.

Do your home work. Ask lots of questions and interview inspectors. Ask for sample reports, backround (before inspecting), training, years in business, insurance, etc.

Finally, there is a site in most metropolitan areas called Angie's List that is online and offers consumer reports on contrctors (including inspectors) from people who are memebers and have used the contractors. Assessments are honest and usually accurate. The site also conduct private research in local markets to assist decision making.

It is fee based (I think $5 or 6 per month last time I looked) but the clients I get through Angie's List take it very seriously and are impresses with it enough for me to refer it when people ask for good contractors.

Joe,
It is nice to have a home inspector involved in the site. As a Broker I want a good inspector to represent our buyers. I have seen some inspections kill the deal, but in the end we found another home for the buyers that passed the inspections and we were all thrilled. I think of the millions of buyers that are so satisfied with a great inspection and love their home and I keep in mind that we seldom hear from them on this site. I feel for the people that come here with problems and strive to help them in any way we can. Keep up the great work.

Joe,
Please note that I was defending inspectors against an accusation of fraud [while accusing them of worthlessness].

I admit that I may have never been involved in the inspection of a truly dangerous house, but in every [generally acceptable] house I've had inspected, EVERY time I have drawn the inspector attention to a possible problem I got a reply like 'I wouldn't worry about that.'

These problems include non-copper tie up on pipes, slanting staircases, bees under siding, cut outs in beams, remodels in support walls that are off plumb and/or level, and [my favorite] a floor to ceiling crack in a poured concrete foundation.

These are problems, and I would prefer to worry about them BEFORE I buy a house; if the inspector does not notice things that I, a non-professional can spot, what else is s/he missing?

Furthermore, I have hired inspectors who spent more time in the living quarters than in the basement and attic combined. I do not want to pay someone else to check the outlets; I DID THAT before I made an offer. I need someone who can tell me if an 1/8th inch slope on that staircase indicates a structural failure or not. No, don't tell me; I shouldn't worry about it.

BTW, I have lived in older houses with fieldstone foundations most of my life; right angles, plumb walls, and level floors actually make me nervous.

I will always use inspectors before buying a house, and I will always resent them more than I do the IRS.

Thanks, Mike - it's nice to know I am helping someone!

jhomeowner - ther is some truth to what you say. My own home inspector missed an unsupported beam and an active roof leak, both of which I caught (hence the reason I am in the business).

There are lax, and even bad home inspectors, just like in every field (someone finished last in their class at Med School - they are still called "doctor")!

But I would be careful before I paint with too broad a brush. Many inspecotrs have seen hundereds or even thousands of homes and seen many of the issues you note before. They have personal experience that tells them when something is a concern. You are paying them for thier professioanl opinion, and when they sign off on it (even by telling you they wouldn't worry about it) they are accepting responsibility for it. for this reason it is critical to get an inspector with a good E&O insurance policy for your protection.

Also, it soulnds like you should shop for an inspector with a structural engineering degree or background. there are several and this may give you the degree of technical knowledge and expertise you seek. Interview them until you get a feel for one you like.

And don't be afraid t mention tour oncerns. I know if I had a clinet who raised the issues you did prior to the inspection, I would know to book extra time so we could carefully identify and discuss all issues until you are comfortable with it.

As for the items you mention - here is what I think should have been reported on each...this is only one inspectors opinion, so take it for what its worth.

Vertical crack in foundation wall: Most (and possibly all) foundation experts agree that vertical crackin is less problematic than horizontal. The key signs to note which identify a crack that is potentially structureally significant is if it is wider than 3/8 inch (can you eaily get two quarters in it?), if it is allowing water penetration into the basement, or if there is bowing or differential motion of the walls. The last is the most significant and requires evaluation by a structural engineer. The first two (and even lesser cracks if people are very concerned) can be treated with an epoxy injection that repairs the crack and comes with a lifetime guarantee. If it does not meet these criteria, it is not of concern as it is not considered to be structurally significant.

Notched joist: depends on teh size and location of the notch. You can notch joists up to 1/6 of the height of the board (2 inches for a 2x12) without compromising the integrity of the joist as long as the notch is NOT in the center 1/3 of the board. If it is in teh center, or if the notch is misplaced, too large, or some other issue ewxists, the typical repair is often one or two sister joists to be installed with carriage bolts to teh orginal to ensure proper support and strength. If it does not meet these criteria it is, indeed, nothing to worry about.

Bees under siding: This sounds like it may not be visible without taking siding off and is outside the scope of a normal inspection, however - if there is evidence, I would report it as "bees/insects nesting under siding" and recommend removal by a pest control expert.

Stairs out of level 1/8 inch: Actually the threshold for out of level or out of plumb - even for NEW construction - is 3/8 inch measured over any 32 inch span. If it exceeds this criteria, established by the National Home Builders Association and generall accepted industry-wide to allow for imperfections in materials and installation, then it is to be repaired and may indicate an issue of significance. This is also used to note standard settling and motion of materials and differentiate them from singificant strucural shifting. Stairs, by themselves, 1/8 inch out of level would not alarm me unless it corresponded to the same location as a foundation crack (even a small one), drywall cracking, doors out of square or other imperfections that indicate a larger motion of structural shift may be occurring.

Non copper strapping: is pretty common with PVC, CPVC, PEX, or other non-copper tubing. The purpose of the copper plumbing straps is to avoid using a dissimilar material which can cause corrosion on teh pipe if the dissimilar metals are in contact with each other. Non-metallic barriers installed to buffer teh non-copper tubing can achieve this same purpose.

I think that covers most of it...but you get the idea. While the items you mention may indeed be an issue, they are not always an issue, and you are payin g the home inspector to know the difference.

Granted, they should do more to explain why if they believe it not to be an issue.

These are the types of answer I always hope for, and never get from the inspectors. I DO get them AFTER I buy a house and need to hire someone for an up-grade or repair.

Now, I do realize that to every issue your response was essentially, 'I wouldn't worry about that', but you told me WHY.

I like older houses, and appreciate that they develop 'character' over the years, so as long as the foundation is strong I am willing to buy. I just want the inspector to tell me what really needs to be fixed after I buy, not just give me a list of enough repairs to drive the price down.

[I really like the quarter tip; it's the kind of thing by dad would have told me. My rule for stairs is that if they feel off level, I check out the foundation very carefully; if I can see they are off, I don't even consider buying the house.]

Thanks. I think you may just need to interview some inspectors to get a feel for a guy who explains the "why" and don't be afraid to tell them that you want them to explain a lot. Get sample reports - most of what I posted (plus web links for more info, etc) would go in a typical report where I noted those issues.

Too many guys in our field treat the client who asks questions as some kind of a pest ("it takes so much longer when they follow you around"). They devise little things to keep the clients busy while they inspect (like giving them the tape measure and graph paper to measure windows or room sizes and plan furniture, etc), so that the questions are kept to a minimum.

This is the exact WRONG approach to me. It is YOUR inspection. We are there to serve and help YOU, so YOU should be the focus of our attention, and all of your questions are important.

One of the biggest questions I get (after price) is how long does it take. I always tell clients it depends on them because I will stay until their last question is answered - so bring anone you want and ask away....

I do not work in Mass, but an inspector I know and respect from his advice and input on our Association technical forums does. His name is David Valley and his website is http://www.masscertifiedhomeinspections.com/

I think he is the kind of thorough, educating inspector you may need.

Good luck, and if you have any other in spection questions - don't hesitate to ask!

An inspector actually did try to get me to measure the rooms once, but I already had on the second viewing, and handed him the floor plan. He said it was to see if the furnace was big enough, and he snowed me completely.

I received the Inspectors business card from a local realtor while home shopping, plus I did my own research and found him to be licensed by MHIB with no disciplinary actions. I met the inspector at the home I did purchase where he and the "for sale by owner" seller were both outside talking which at that time nothing appeared out of the norm. In my position I did all the right things by attempting to protect my interest when it came to a major purchase/investment such as this I trusted the Inspector to do his job and protect me and not the seller. Why I believe they were in cahoots? It wasn't until the Inspector finally responded to my emails and phone calls over 3-4 weeks later did he schedule at time to come to my home and go over my findings. At that time he mention that he knew the seller before meeting me, he had also been hired by the seller to inspect a home the seller was interested in buying. When I pointed out all of the problems missed his comments were, "You know I couldn't believe you felt that the seller and I was in cahoots, I don't even like the guy" he continued to state that "I don't know how they perform the inspections in the state where you came from but here in Mississippi what was acceptable in 1977 when this house was built is what we go by when we inspect" Here's the thing the Inspector never touch the dishwasher, nor did he look behind a 24"x30" aluminum type sheeting tucked under the casing where you attach your laundry machine hoses in the laundry room to note or make a comment on a water damaged wall covered with black mold from underneath the faucet casings all the way down to the floor board. The Inspector didn't even note this sheeting on the wall. My home is "shifting" not settling which has also been diagnosed by professionals in the foundation field each of them pointing out the same areas that were visible to the eye at the time of the inspection and now these visible separations have grown larger which is evident by my bedroom door knobs on the north end of the house I've had to adjust their alignment twice now in the last 7 months. The small settling cracks as the Inspector referred to them are separating. During the hot summer months I called in the heating and air specialists to tell me why one end of the home cools and the other end doesn't. Received several bids all stating the same and none under $8,000 dollars to bring it to code correct the duct work in the attic, install a heating and air unit appropriate in size to handle the entire home, remove the 2 inches of trailer insulation in the attic that covers over half of the 2108 sq. ft. home and bring it to R30 value, remove the Zinsco circuit panel plus more which makes my head swim just typing this. My neighbors have been great and so has the neighborhood handy man as far as providing information regarding this home even though I wish I had of known this info prior to purchasing the home. I'm not downing home inspectors by any means I just got burnt by one not all and I will continue to recommend anyone purchasing a home to get an inspection.

OK - there are a few things that I find problematic with your inspector from a professional standpoint.

1) You got the card from a Realtor.... not you get several cards, or even two or three cards. You got his card - that indicates a cozy relationship that I think should always be heavily scrutinized from a buyer's persepctive.

2) You mentioned before that he is also a contractor. BOth of the largest inspector associations in the country (NACHI and ASHI) strictly forbid this becuase of the potnetial for impropriety.

3) He mentioned knowing the seller prior to inspecting. IT doesn't matter if they are mortal enemies - he has a professional responsibility to disclose his relationship to teh seller to you prior to the inspection. this is included in nearly all Codes of Ethics of Home Inspection Associations.

Regarding your specific complaints....you may not have to much to go on there. The standards of practic for the industry are a pathetic minimum. They do not require appliance operation (although in some cases they do, and if he reported the dishwasher as operable without operating it, then you have a case for misrepresentation.) NOTE: "good condition" is not an indication of operability - it is a statement about it's physical appearance.

SImilarly, he is not required to look "under" of "behind" anything. That is invasive - an inspection only requires inspection of items in plain view....technically, inspectors do not even have to move chairs or other items to view the walls. Noting the sheathing and suspicions about its presence would have been someting I think a good inspector would do regardless, however.

The Zinsco panel is another callout (replace it) just based on name for me (Federal Pacific is another), but many electricians and inspectors fear doing so since the problems with these panels have only been documented in informal ways, not by the CPSC or other official entity. If there is no evidence of failure or arcing they will not recommend any action for fear of lawsuit from the sellers, since there is only anecdotal evidence to support the reality that Zinsco panels are basically junk.

Inspectors are only required to test the functionality of HVAC equipment - not the efficency, or air distribution. Better inspectors go the extra mile and tell you the size of the AC unit and whether or not that is appropriate. They take temperature reading at registers in several areas of the home to compare air distribution and flow. That is considered going above and beyond, however.

Finally, your home does not have to be brought up to code, and inspectors are not there to get your home to code. He is correct in stating that he can only recommend upgrades, not require them to comply with code (with a few notable exceptions). They prevailing code for your inspection is the code when the home was constructed.

All that may sound discouraging to you, however, there are some recourses.

1 - does he carry Errors & Omissions insurance? If so, file a complaint. EVen flimsy complaints often get settled by insurance companies just to make them go away.

2 - complain to his professioanl organization formally. Complain to the state formally, complain to the BBB formally. Seek the maximum compensation or penalty as he has likely violated the Code of Ethics of the association or the state by failing to disclose his relationship with the seller.

I am sorry to hear of your problems, and I am even sorrier that there are inspectors out there who hide behind the industry standards of practice and do not provide the level of service their clients should be able to expect.

Incidentall, ALL inspectors in Mississippi are REQUIRED to carry Errors & Omissions insurance that covers a minimum of $250,000 per occurence.


Here is the current MI law:

§ 73-60-13. Insurance
(1) All home inspectors are required to carry general liability insurance and errors and omissions insurance.
(2) Such policy and certificates shall provide that cancellation or nonrenewal of the policy shall not be effective unless and until at least ten (10) days notice of cancellation or nonrenewal has been received in writing by the commission.
(3) Insurance coverage limits shall be no less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) for general liability and no less than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) for errors and omissions, per occurrence.
Added by Laws 2001, Ch. 539, § 1, eff. July 1, 2001.

§ 73-60-15. Actions for damages
(1) An action by a client to recover damages for any act or omission of a home inspector relating to a home inspection that he conducts shall be commenced within three (3) years after the date a home inspection is completed or the action shall be barred. Further, a licensed home inspector shall not be liable for any latent defects that may be contained in the observable systems and components of improvements to residential real property that he has inspected and has issued a home inspection report.
(2) Any professional who is licensed by the State of Mississippi when acting within the scope of his profession and is not a licensed home inspector shall not be liable for the findings, errors, or omissions of the home inspection, provided that he has not provided physical work on the residential building; has not committed proven fraud in the real estate transaction; and has no personal or financial interest in the ownership of the residential building.
(3) Any person who in good faith or intention recommends or endorses a home inspector without compensation, remuneration, rebate, or any other form of consideration shall not be liable for the actions of that home inspector, including errors, omissions, failure to perform any contracted duties of a home inspection, of failure to meet the standards of practice, report writing standards, or code of ethics.
Added by Laws 2001, Ch. 539, § 1, eff. July 1, 2001."


File a formal complaint.

I'm struggling with the consequences of a bad home inspection. Before I purchased my house, I hired a licensed inspector. During the walk-through, I asked him about a gray patch on the garage ceiling, which he dismissed as nothing to worry about. A few months after I moved in, water began leaking around the family room windows. The home warranty people came out and said I needed a new roof - which wasn't covered. That set off a chain of having numerous contractors and inspectors coming through to diagnose the problem, which had escalated to leaks in the garage, a bedroom, the basement and more. The final determination: The previous owners had the house re-sided and new windows installed about 2 years before selling. That contractor did not flash anything correctly, did not do the work up to code and took numerous shortcuts that caused all these problems. (The township building inspector has called this the most incompetent siding job he's ever seen.)

We tried to sue the home inspector, but the fine print in his contract says he's not responsible for errors or omissions, and all we could get was the $250 we spent on the inspection. (As it turns out, our lawyer discovered that the same inspector had a similar court case 3 years ago, heard by the same judge we would have had, and that was how the judge ruled.)

Meanwhile, as I wrangled with the inspector, the contractor who did the original work, the previous homeowners, and all the other contractors I called in, the problems have continued. We have a lot of water damage and mold. Beyond fixing the cause of the problem, we have to replace rotted or damaged floors, studs, drywall, carpet, paneling. We have to replace the roof and the siding, and a window that has broken because it was installed without a header (which should have been visible to the inspector, as it's in the unfinished basement). The work will cost about $80,000. Boy, I'm sure glad we got that $250 back! That'll go a long way.

We're pursing litigation against the previous homeowners, as it's now evident that they were aware of these problems before they sold and did not disclose them. We now see that every place on the garage ceiling that is moldy had been patched previously (the moldy gray patch I spotted during the inspection indicates that leaks they now admit occurred in the past had not been corrected). We can see where they've painted over water stains on the kitchen ceiling. Stains on carpet that I attributed to their kids and pets are now clearly water damage from the leaks.

I'm annoyed that the inspector dismissed my question about that gray patch. If he'd only said, "That could be mold or water damage. You'd have to cut a hole in the drywall to see what's going on before you'd know if it's a serious problem," then I'd have been satisfied. I'd have gotten a more thorough inspection at that point and probably not bought the house. Instead, I took his word that it was nothing to worry about, because he's the "expert." I'm a lot wiser and a lot poorer now.

Many inspectors have a "limitation of liability" clause in their contracts - they are widely viewed within the industry as a deterrent to potential lawsuits. However, there are many states where they are not at all enforceable.

Errors and Omissions are ABSOLUTELY the responsibility of the inspector and (for everyone who may read this post) you should REFUSE to sign a contract where the inspector disclaims responsibility.

Unfortunately, you sound like you have involved a lawyer and already proceeded with a settlement from the inspector relaeasing him from his obligation.

Report the inspector to anyone you can: the state oversight or licensing board (if you have one), his professional association (if he has one), and the BBB.

In my opinion, he forgot the most important aspect of the home inspection: THE CLIENT! He is there to respond to your questions, not with a "I wouldn't worry about that" but with what he thinks the stain is, and what caused it.

Everyone should raise the bar and expect more from inspectors. Expect them to answer your questions fully and to your satisfaction. Demand that they be insured (E&O) or at least bear responsibility for their Errors and Omissions. And do your homeowrk before chosing one.

There are many great inspectors who can save you from headlikes like this poor soul is enduring - you just need to ask questions to find one.

To all potential buyers:
Do not accept that as an answer; of course the inspector wouldn't worry, the inspector is not buying the house. GOOD inspectors will tell you WHY you don't need to worry about something.

There are good inspectors out there, but the buyer must be educated. Learn about the potential problems in your area, and for the age and type of construction, and for the builder.

The best thing potential home buyers can do is go to LOTS of open houses, especially at less expensive and older homes. Spend a lot of time in the basement and attic. Follow the oldest and scruffiest viewer with rough hands around and listen to their comments [that would be a parent checking out a first house for the newlyweds]. Learn how to spot potential problems.

Older houses that need work are often good buys; you just need to know what you are buying.

That is an excellent post, and fantastic advice! Well said!

I find the overall real estate process troubling for the average buyer because we are sold a large bill of goods by very powerful lobbys about what we "should do".

As is the case in every aspect of life, you have to take personal accountability for your actions and avoid reacting out of fear.

Home Inspectors, like many real estate agents are a syndicate. (there are some good in both areas but level-set what their real value is to you, the buyer)

Consider this about home inspectors, you are buying a home that is probably a quarter or a half million dollars. Regardless of what you may hear elsewhere, Home Inspectors as an industry are not what you would define as
"highly skilled" by definition in most career paths. To become a home inspector you have to join a syndicate/association and typically take a test that requires you to have 20-40 hours of education. If you want to do it quicker you can take the online classes and slam through them even faster. So after a week of schooling, what are you going to inspect from the individual? The Geek Squad requires a greater length of training and certification to work on your $400 computer than many states require of home inspectors.

Consider this: Your skin in the game as a home buyer is hundreds of thousands of dollars. The home inspector is into the game for $350 of which he gets paid a fraction of that amount. He/She gets paid no matter what so you must take personal accountability and create your own risk tolerance levels. I highly recommend using a true craftsman / handy dad / carpenter to look over a home as a personal favor instead of a home inspector.(at least they are invested in YOU and your home as a friend)

The home inspector will usually find the following: Leaky faucets, clogged airfilters, wobbly doorknobs, bad window cranks, clogged gutters, etc. This is all stuff you could identify if you looked over the home with a fine toothed comb for 4 hours with rudimentary home care skills. If you ignored everything that could be discovered during this type of inspection you could be stuck with a few thousand dollars in repairs. Big deal!

A master carpenter that you trust will ignore the peeling wallpaper, drippy faucets and furnace filters and will go to what could cost you tens of thousands of dollars. Moreover, they will give you an order of magnitude estimate of whether it is a big deal or small deal to fix it. (something home inspectors are forbidden to do...they don't fix problems or give guesstimates) You want to know if the foundation is shot, if the cracks can be fixed, if the electric is sound, if the plumbing is good, if the roof is properly built, etc.

I just put an offer in on a house this week and I avoided a home inspector because I just didn't care about the small stuff...every home has small stuff. I instead got a master carpenter to help me out and found a couple of genuine issues that do matter to the purchase. Namely, a leak in the plumbing that was concealed AND THE CAUSE. So not only do I have the info on what is wrong, but I understand what it would take to fix it. That is the powerful information needed in a negotiation you will not get with a home inspector's work.

It goes further with real estate brokers. You are vying for the best salesperson in the business. Regardless of what the powerful Realtor lobby will tell you, it is a piece of cake to get a license. I got my broker's license in less than a week (even though the online courses require 80 hours of training it takes nowhere near that long). The licensure covers the things that ANY buyer/seller should know for their own benefit anyway. The value of the Realtor is for the individual that is a poor negotiator and needs a good salesperson. Just make sure you get your $10k-$25k of value out of your salesperson because you are paying for them!

In closing, home inspectors and real estate brokers are no subsititute for your own knowledge in the process. Get knowledgeable, get true expert advice when needed and never believe $200 advice is adequate for a $200,000 home purchase!

Regards,

Rookhawk

I have an issue myself..we bought a home last october. The old home had burned down to the old stone foundation. The builder bought it and rebuilt the home. For starters he applied for a permit 3 months before the township adopted the uniform code or something. So we almost didnt even get an inspection b/c we figured it was new constuction and would have been inspected anyway, Boy were we wrong. So we got out inspection and a few things were listed...chimney flashing, flashing over the door and a few other things to say the least.
He did take the time to go in the attic and inspect the structure which he listed as fine. what he failed to notice was that the roof was not built correctly. The roof rafters are supposed to be nailed together with the ceiling joists, so the roof doesnt exert the pressure out ward on the walls( we read this last night ).
needless to say we have had loads of cracking in the drywall all over the home that we have been trying to get fixed over this past year. The builder has been lollygagging around to do the repairs...so i had another licenced contractor come in and give me his opinion...thankfully he did b/c i never would found out about the roof. I certainly would never have bought the home knowing this.
So i am at odds here, we have a meeting with an attorney next week. I believe that the home inspection failing to recognize this major defect has cost me loads of money and potenially more in the future. I also believe the builder is shady and knowingly lied on the disclosure form, in fact i know he did...he lied to the fact that there was nothing wrong with the septic system..whenin fact he tried to sell the house b4 we came along and the deal fell thru because of the faultyy septic system. He regretfull had to replace the septic system before the sale.
Not that this is a relief, but i dont feel as bad knowing im not the only schmuck who got hosed buying a house. My main concern is the safety of my family. I donot want to be afraid the roof is gonna collapese during a bad storm on my kids.
Any kind of advice would be greatly appreciated

I guess from an inspector's perspective my question would be what is in the attic? Is there insulation totally obscuring the ceiling joists (typical in new construction)? Is there clear access to the eaves where the roof structure and connections to the ceiling joists can be clearly seen?

You have to remember that inspectors can only see what is visible. This is one reason why I think that the most important of all phases in new construction inspections is the pre-drywall stage. Before drywall, all such connections and framing is clear to see and easily viewed. This is typically when I can do my clients the most good and recommend corrections before they become major headaches (like it sounds you have).

I can't comment too muc on your situation because I don't know enough of the details, but if would definitely get a written detailed description of the problem from a qualified (and licensed and insured) professional to back you up in any future litigation.

In my case the inspector is married to the buyers realtor. The inspector told my realtor, after a full 4 hour inspection, that the older part of the house needed the roof replaced. He and his wife and the buyer then proceeded to sit in my kitchen for another hour and one-half, my home is less than 2600 sq ft. and two days later the report was sent stating that the entire roof needed to be replaced, including the front porch, I had handed over a certificate stating that it was completely replaced two years ago, also the entire eight year old addition, he also threw in all new gutters with shields. The buyer then waited until I got estimates, 3, based on the original report on the older roof being replaced, 20 days later they came back with their own estimate at a whopping total of $30,000. My estimates were between $2,940 and $3,500. After letting me sit there and worry for almost a month, they are now demanding that I lower the price another $15,000, and they won't let me repair it, they want a credit at time of closing.
After my agent and lawyer spoke with the inspector, he insists the whole roof must be done, and it won't look right unless it is. BTW it's black shingles. Is he a designer too?
I am now faced with refusing and having to put my house back on the market, which never looks good for the seller when a house under contract falls through. Their realtor reminded us, oh well, it's a buyers market, deal with it.
I am crushed, in bad health, have three kids and ready to give up.
How is something like this allowed to happen???!!!

The inspection took no more than one hour to perform.

As a home inspector I will just note this: it takes me a minimum of 3 hours to perform an inspection of a typical 3 bedroom 2 bath home in good condition , and I will almost off this certainly spend an hour to an hour and half in the attic and basement / crawl space alone as there are likely going to be HVAC components, water heaters(s) and electrical panels in one or both of these spaces. There are inspectors I respect who can shave a bit of this time - I choose not to, as I prefer the extra margin of safety and reduced stress provided by going a bit more slowly. However in my opinion, it's just not possible to perform a satisfactory inspection in an hour.

That said, there are just a limited number of items that can be investigated in the time available for an average home inspection, for example it's practical for me to go thorough and verify that there is some airflow at every register or heat at every radiator, it's not possible for me to determine if the system is adequately sized or balanced to provide even heating and cooling throughout the structure.

As a result IMO the most realistic way to look at a home inspection is as a exercise that will almost always save you money (even a poor home inspector is likely spot a number of problems a typical homeowner will overlook), but not as a "guarantee" that there are no problems.

An old thread resurrected but worth reading as more and more lenders are requiring home inspections.

My problems with inspectors are accountability and expertise. None of the former and a crap shoot for the latter. Having a license doesn't mean squat. It says nothing about the guy's ability. We've all read posts here where an inspector has either given incorrect advice or had an incorrect finding that cost the buyer/seller money or heartache. Typically the inspector's response is that he can't be expected to find everything.

I've had experience with two "home inspectors" in the last 5 years. Both were incompetent and one was unethical. They were a waste of time and money. One of the two (ex real estate guy) didn't have a clue about inspecting a house.
The other guy was a contractor that we later found out did home repair work for the realtor selling the house.

If I buy another house and a home inspection is required I will hire trade pros to do the inspection. An hours work each from an electrician, plumber and HVAC guy would give me a lot more assurance then I could ever get from an inspector.

There is a wealth of info on home inspections and how to locate a home inspector at American Society of Home Inspectors website at http://www.ashi.org/

You can download the Standards of Scope of a home inspection and what it is supposed to include.

Ten important questions to ask a home inspector:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/insp/inspfaq.cfm

Discussions here have for years emphasized that a home inspection is a visual inspection. There is no guarantee that problems will not develop after the purchase of the home. Even the very best home inspector does not have x-ray vision.

We run into similar questions re: termite inspections in the Insect Forum. Can I sue the termite inspector? The termite inspector can only inspect what he can see. He can not see inside wall voids or in inconspicuous areas of the structure.

Potential buyers have been advised not to go with an inspector recommended by realtor or seller. And, not to go with contractors or repair persons recommended by home inspectors. Errors and Omissions insurance is no guarantee of recovery for what you deem to be a faulty inspection. A common question: Can I sue the home inspector? Disclaimers in reports usually protect them from being held liable for more than the cost of the inspection.

Yes, there are some poor inspectors out there. Buyer beware. Do your homework. Learn how to select the right home inspector. But, keep in mind that there are some excellent home inspectors. You don't throw out a whole bushel of apples because of a few rotten ones.

For what it's worth, a home inspection is worthwhile for peace of mind, negotiation, and financial planning. You should be present when the home inspection is being done. You don't have to follow the inspector around, but if you are present, you have a pretty good idea how long he spends and the effort invested in the inspection.

They are using every excuse they can to try and lower the price. It is your perogative to tell them to take a hike or accept the offer. It depends on how quickly you want to or have to sell the house.
I don't see a problem with the inspector being related to the buyer or the buyers agent. They are working for the buyer not you.

In my case the inspector is married to the buyers realtor. The inspector told my realtor, after a full 4 hour inspection, that the older part of the house needed the roof replaced. He and his wife and the buyer then proceeded to sit in my kitchen for another hour and one-half, my home is less than 2600 sq ft. and two days later the report was sent stating that the entire roof needed to be replaced, including the front porch, I had handed over a certificate stating that it was completely replaced two years ago, also the entire eight year old addition, he also threw in all new gutters with shields. The buyer then waited until I got estimates, 3, based on the original report on the older roof being replaced, 20 days later they came back with their own estimate at a whopping total of $30,000. My estimates were between $2,940 and $3,500. After letting me sit there and worry for almost a month, they are now demanding that I lower the price another $15,000, and they won't let me repair it, they want a credit at time of closing.
After my agent and lawyer spoke with the inspector, he insists the whole roof must be done, and it won't look right unless it is. BTW it's black shingles. Is he a designer too?
I am now faced with refusing and having to put my house back on the market, which never looks good for the seller when a house under contract falls through. Their realtor reminded us, oh well, it's a buyers market, deal with it.
I am crushed, in bad health, have three kids and ready to give up.
How is something like this allowed to happen???!!!
Thanks for your responce.
The attic is not part of the addition and is part of the roof I agreed to replace. The addition has a cathedral ceiling, was built 10 years ago, I have certification from the roofer. I was told that "usually we just say replace the whole roof so it matches". I have a raised basement with three stories on top of that. Only a helicopter can see if the roof "matches".
Thank you for your suggestions, I will use them with a new buyer, and a new inspector.

If I buy another house and a home inspection is required I will hire trade pros to do the inspection. An hours work each from an electrician, plumber and HVAC guy would give me a lot more assurance then I could ever get from an inspector.

One caveat about putting together an ad hoc inspection team from the various trades: be careful what their standard of care is.

For example many tradespeople have been “trained’ by the municipal inspection process to “inspect” a given system or component in terms of the code as of the date of installation, and to “pass” a system that would not meet current national standards, industry best practices, or manufacturers' installation requirements but is "grandfathered in" under previous standards – quite reasonably the question uppermost in their minds is “will the city inspector pass my work?”.

For example a carpenter or contractor may look a deck ledger bolted (let’s hope not lagged) to a brick veneer exterior and decide it’s fine: “Always done it that way”.

I’m required to look at the same deck and say “Nope, prohibited by current national standards”, even if a municipal inspector has just passed the same deck.

It’s then up to my client to decide if it’s safe enough, and if not what ought to be done about it.

There are many, many examples of such items in my reports.

To get the same result – if that’s what you want - you need to make certain that whoever does your inspection is inspecting to the same standard of care.

This in not to say, BTW, that in some respects such an inspection might not be superior to mine – three major examples are HVAC, were a really through inspection for example would involve partial dis-assembly to inspect the heat exchanger of a gas furnace, some steep roofs, especially of materials such a slate, which are very difficult to traverse for inspection and outside my (and most inspectors) SOPs, and fireplaces requiring a Level II or III inspection. (In these cases I will call for additional, specialist inspections).

But other than those sorts of items,a skillful and experienced home inspector is IMO is likely to catch more significant problems that a typical pick-up team of specialists, if only because they will have a highly structured approach intended to insure that nothing significant is overlooked.

YMMV

Yes, they certainly were! Hardly what I would call professional, after his wife told him exactly what the buyers needed to chop down the price to, and after the buyers lawyer sent us emails stating that we should all get estimates for replacing the older part of the roof, almost three weeks later, after we got ours, we recieved a revised report from the inspector, stating the entire roof needed to be replaced. THEN the buyers finally sent out a roofer, and gosh and golly, he agreed with the inspector, a certified 2 year old roof should be replaced, in case the shingles don't match. If you see nothing "wrong" with this I would suggest you look up the term, conflict of interest. After kicking them all to the curb my broker got a call directly from the buyer, they now want to accept my offer of fixing the older part of the roof. Yeah right, in this case the inspector did no service to the buyer, and his wife is also out her commision.
What goes around comes around, I was hoping to hear of an agency that would stop this from happening to others, I will have to be satisfied by warning others of this "team".

While it’s possible that disclosure of the relationship between the broker and inspector satisfies the legal requirement in your state, I would personally not perform such an inspection because of the potential conflict of interest.

-----------------

Don’t know what’s happening is this case, but it’s BTW possible that a “new roof” may require replacement, especially if it’s incorrectly installed over a previous roof - and as most AJH will not allow a third layer of comp shingle roofing, you are now faced with the additional cost of a tear off.

Thank you for your reply on the ethical issue.
The new roofs are on new additions, so there are no previous roofs. By knew I mean one is two years old and another is 10. No leaks, no discoloration and three roofing companies, 2 I called randomly, one was recommended to me, couldn't figure out why I would replace those roofs, although they all agreed that the old portion had to be completely removed. My point is, for an inspected to write whole roof must be replaced, and then admit that it would look better when questioned by my lawyer, seems beyond the professionalism of the inspector. Perhaps had written in the report WHY the whole roof should be replaced, he gave no reason at all, saying, "I think it sure would look perty" then the buyer could have made an informed decision instead of just being scared.
I see many of the complaints here, in fact almost all, are from buyers feeling they were not warned. I have bought several homes and never had a problem, that commen sense and a bit of research didn't fix. When I bought this house the inspector told me, that furnace wont last you more than 2-4 years, tops. I replaced it 20 years later, he said the same thing about the water heater, that I replaced 16 years later. I made an educated decision after looking them up on the internet, and I did appreciate his "opinion". Many buyers, ecspecialy new buyers, don't understand that these are opinions, and I feel it is up to the inspector to make that clear.
It's silly to blame everything on the inspector, and just maybe if more inspectors weren't so power hungry, and knocked a chip off at least one of their shoulders instead of playing god, people would have less reason to blame them. Just a thought people. Thanks for all of your time and I hope this helps someone, whether you be buyer or seller. This young couple lost my house and they are crushed.
Thanks

A quick note, In my part of town the average age of a home is between 75 to 100 years old. We are allowed 3, but in most, as in my case a repair would be a fourth, so it's back to the bare bones, as we call it. When you live in these old homes, you become an expert at many things you never thought you would, we also pay top dollar for work done, usually over a third more for repairs, because we use workmen who are experts in old homes. You have to, or learn the hard way. Big time! I think if a roof lasts 30-40 years, it was probably "installed correctly".
Thanks

When to comment on "aesthetic" issues is always a judgment call.

For example when I encounter damaged/missing vinyl siding I mention in my reports that even if replacement material is still available sometimes the remaining siding will have faded sufficiently so that the new material will not match, and that if this is the case repair will always have a "patched" appearance. I think that's something my client will want to know, and something the average person is not likely to be aware of.

In these situations however IMO the report should at a minimum also state clearly that this is a cosmetic issue - that if properly installed the new siding will not be significantly deficient in functional terms - and in my reports I go the extra step of breaking out such comments into a separate "FYI" category to make this distinction clear.

Would I do this for a roof? Depends, on if the existing shingle type, color, texture etc. suggests that a reasonable match to new material might be difficult or impossible - but again I would note that this is not a functional issue, and I would never call for replacement of the existing roofing on cosmetic grounds alone.

You make an excellent point about the siding, and even a roof under some circumstances. It doesn't apply in my case as you can not see the back part from the front, and vise versa.
More importantly than my specific details is that if the inspector had taken the time to write, or even explain to the buyer that some things are cosmetic, and that he was not saying the entire roof was likely to have serious problems, and it HAD to be replaced, which of course scared the buyer, and made me angry as I knew that simply was not the case, and had three professionals verify it, the situation would have been much less stressful and MAY have not ended in such loss of trust, on both sides.
I hope some inspectors are out there listening to what you just said, and in the future, I hope I have a chance to use one of them. ha-ha.

It can be tough to decide how to report comp shingle roofs over existing roofing.

The biggest problems is that comp shingle roof membranes on slopes of 4/12 and greater (that is, most residential roofs) generally don’t leak unless horribly deteriorated.

But flashings at roof penetrations and junctions with other surfaces often will leak unless carefully thought out and installed - and roofers doing a roof-over (which is done instead of a tear-off for only one reason: price) are often somewhere between careless and contemptuous when it comes to repairing/improving/replacing flashings on such jobs.

So unless it’s the simplest of gable or hip roofs – and even then if you can’t walk the roof to inspect flashings at plumbing stacks, chimneys, electrical service masts and the like – all the inspector knows for sure when he or she sees a new roof-over is that 1) it was likely installed because there was a “roof leak” and 2) there’s a good chance that the actual cause of the leak – a flashing problem - was not properly corrected.

And the roof is even more suspect when – as is often the case – there is evidence that “roofing cement” or other sealant was used in lieu of proper flashing, in which case the inspector has good reason to suspect that even if the roof is not leaking at the time of inspection, it soon will be.

And if you can’t get up under the roof to inspect it from the underside - or you can, but the weather had been dry and you find old find “old” staining of unknown age - then you are really stuck: you know there may be a problem, but you don’t know when or if it will reoccur, but meanwhile your client is paying you for an “answer to the question”, often expects one, and some inspectors have a problem with the words "I just don't know".

This happened a lot here in Chicago last summer – I would see conditions like this:

http://paragoninspects.com/images/roofing/eaves/stainedraftertails.jpg

the moisture meter would verify that moisture was not elevated in these areas at the time of inspection, I would put up a ladder but inspection at the exterior would find not obvious defects, and I would have to tell my client that there had been a previous leak, but that based on what I could discover at the time of inspection I was not able to determine if the newer roof had corrected the problem.

Now, if the inspector does not want to take the time to explain all this to their client (and if they are trying to do several inspections a day, that time is hard to find) or if they get the impression that the client does not “get it”, then there is a strong temptation to find some sort of reason to recommend a tear-off roof replacement.

Not saying this is what happened in your case, but it does happen.

skulls -

A home buyer is only permitted limited time to properly determine the real condition of a home, so they hire a home inspectors. Because a home seller is intimately familar with the house and is not necessariyl required to reveal EVERY POSSIBLE problem or future expense, a home inspection is necessary. Home buyers must make sure they know what they buy and what major near term expenditures may be. A home inspector is not expected to provide an accurate estimate, but just major cost items must be noted. An inspector is also required to make a tourough walk around the site and look at all side.

Many smart sellers hire home inpectors to preform a pre-sale inspection to protect their investment and find what an indepedent party may find. A smart seller knows he usually is too close to the problem to look 10 years ahead. Because the seller, hires the inpector, the seller owns the report and does not have to release the information. I assume you did not do this.

Living in an older home and because you know it well, is not an excuse that a buyer should ever accept. A roof the has 2,3 or 4 layers must be called out to the attention to a buyer because of the seriously limited life of secondary applications. Two different age/applications are another "red flag". In "your part of town" that amount of re-roofing layers may be accepatable, but not every buyer is familiar with quint local customs. In some areas, of the country a total strip is reqired. A third layer must always be noted.

Keep in mind a home inspection is NOT a code inspection and is a determination of the general condition and expected expenditures in the relatively near future. You should be glad a pre-purchase home inspection is a safety/value/condition inspection and not a code inspection since you could really have big problems with codes on an older home.

Because the buyer had an inspection, the results are his property and can be used as he approves. How you proceed is up to you. You can negotiate a new price or you can reject the offer, unless you agrred to do what the buyers inpector discovered. If you reject it, I suggest you openly point in future disclosures out the fact that the roof is of two different ages and remove that bargaining point.

If you area is progressive enough to have a strong home inspection certification policy, you can always report the inspection to the authority and it may be retracted or ruled invaled. If not, you are at the mercy of the selling realtors and the good ole boys.

The $350 that a seller spends on a pre-sale inspection is a good investment. For a seller it is an even better investment when it comes to getting the best price possible. Look at TV and the money spent on short term "staging" and not on real property values.

Dick

Did I not say I had certification for 30 years for the roofs replaced? Did I not say that all roofs HAD ONE ROOF except the part that I had gotten 3 estimates on, and had said I would give a credit for, reduce the price, or FIX IT?
Pleasae do not make assumptions or put words in my mouth! There is at no point where I said, take my word for it.
None of my offers were acceptable. And you did not address the fact that the inspector gave not one example, not one picture, or even hinted at why the "whole roof should be replaced" on paper, although he did do that in every other case, every minor issue was fully documented, which the buyers decided to pass on every issue except the $30,000.00 roof. I know my options, and I told them to go buy something else, they came back to me three times.
This might be shocking to you, but some sellers are not only honest, but have enough love and integrity to kick the manipulators to the curb.
1. who limits the buyers time? Not in this area, expecially when it's a "buyers market"
2. I did hire an inspector, I did fix what "he" found. Please do not once again "assume" as you do not know me, and please do not continue to insult me by saying "Many smart sellers hire home inpectors , and I assume you did not do this."
3. And hello? I am selling the home in my part of town.
4. Perhaps if you actually read anything I posted you would be more credible.


skulls -

A home buyer is only permitted limited time to properly determine the real condition of a home, so they hire a home inspectors. Because a home seller is intimately familar with the house and is not necessariyl required to reveal EVERY POSSIBLE problem or future expense, a home inspection is necessary. Home buyers must make sure they know what they buy and what major near term expenditures may be. A home inspector is not expected to provide an accurate estimate, but just major cost items must be noted. An inspector is also required to make a tourough walk around the site and look at all side.

Many smart sellers hire home inpectors to preform a pre-sale inspection to protect their investment and find what an indepedent party may find. A smart seller knows he usually is too close to the problem to look 10 years ahead. Because the seller, hires the inpector, the seller owns the report and does not have to release the information. I assume you did not do this.

Living in an older home and because you know it well, is not an excuse that a buyer should ever accept. A roof the has 2,3 or 4 layers must be called out to the attention to a buyer because of the seriously limited life of secondary applications. Two different age/applications are another "red flag". In "your part of town" that amount of re-roofing layers may be accepatable, but not every buyer is familiar with quint local customs. In some areas, of the country a total strip is reqired. A third layer must always be noted.

Keep in mind a home inspection is NOT a code inspection and is a determination of the general condition and expected expenditures in the relatively near future. You should be glad a pre-purchase home inspection is a safety/value/condition inspection and not a code inspection since you could really have big problems with codes on an older home.

Because the buyer had an inspection, the results are his property and can be used as he approves. How you proceed is up to you. You can negotiate a new price or you can reject the offer, unless you agrred to do what the buyers inpector discovered. If you reject it, I suggest you openly point in future disclosures out the fact that the roof is of two different ages and remove that bargaining point.

If you area is progressive enough to have a strong home inspection certification policy, you can always report the inspection to the authority and it may be retracted or ruled invaled. If not, you are at the mercy of the selling realtors and the good ole boys.

The $350 that a seller spends on a pre-sale inspection is a good investment. For a seller it is an even better investment when it comes to getting the best price possible. Look at TV and the money spent on short term "staging" and not on real property values.

Dick

You are correct, you are not commenting on my situation.
On this we agree.
Again, the assumptions....
Again, in writing:
1. the older part of the roof has 4 layers, against code, needs to be stripped and replaced.
duh, agreed.
2. no explanations, no observations but this carried on for OVER WEEKS, final decision, just replace the whole thing.
3. do not go through the whole if it doesn't match crap again.
4. Is there something inately wrong with you all, as a profession,:wall: :wall: that you keep adding superfilous information?

I give up!


skulls -

Dick

It can be tough to decide how to report comp shingle roofs over existing roofing.

The biggest problems is that comp shingle roof membranes on slopes of 4/12 and greater (that is, most residential roofs) generally don’t leak unless horribly deteriorated.

But flashings at roof penetrations and junctions with other surfaces often will leak unless carefully thought out and installed - and roofers doing a roof-over (which is done instead of a tear-off for only one reason: price) are often somewhere between careless and contemptuous when it comes to repairing/improving/replacing flashings on such jobs.

So unless it’s the simplest of gable or hip roofs – and even then if you can’t walk the roof to inspect flashings at plumbing stacks, chimneys, electrical service masts and the like – all the inspector knows for sure when he or she sees a new roof-over is that 1) it was likely installed because there was a “roof leak” and 2) there’s a good chance that the actual cause of the leak – a flashing problem - was not properly corrected.

And the roof is even more suspect when – as is often the case – there is evidence that “roofing cement” or other sealant was used in lieu of proper flashing, in which case the inspector has good reason to suspect that even if the roof is not leaking at the time of inspection, it soon will be.

And if you can’t get up under the roof to inspect it from the underside - or you can, but the weather had been dry and you find old find “old” staining of unknown age - then you are really stuck: you know there may be a problem, but you don’t know when or if it will reoccur, but meanwhile your client is paying you for an “answer to the question”, often expects one, and some inspectors have a problem with the words "I just don't know".

This happened a lot here in Chicago last summer – I would see conditions like this:

http://paragoninspects.com/images/roofing/eaves/stainedraftertails.jpg

the moisture meter would verify that moisture was not elevated in these areas at the time of inspection, I would put up a ladder but inspection at the exterior would find not obvious defects, and I would have to tell my client that there had been a previous leak, but that based on what I could discover at the time of inspection I was not able to determine if the newer roof had corrected the problem.

Now, if the inspector does not want to take the time to explain all this to their client (and if they are trying to do several inspections a day, that time is hard to find) or if they get the impression that the client does not “get it”, then there is a strong temptation to find some sort of reason to recommend a tear-off roof replacement.

Not saying this is what happened in your case, but it does happen.

You have so over inflated yourself, which seems to be a common error.