I purchased a home inspection of a house in Georgia. The inspector claimed he ENTERED ALL the attic, but if he had merely peeked in he would have seen a LOT of badly charred/burned wood, some of which abutted the masonry chimney. HE DID NOT MENTION THE FIRE DAMAGE IN THE INSPECTION report. (Turns out the chimney had been rebuilt after a 2001 fire, but without any permits. THere are numerous code violations and it is unsafe.)
2 questions:
Should a NACHI inspector report evidence of fire damage? (The inspection company told me that they didn’t have to tell me of the fire damage because NACHI standards do not require it.)
Should a NACHI inspector report combustible materials touching a masonry chimney? (zero clearance to combustibles). Note: Thanks, Marcel, for the building code “R1001.15 Chimney clearance. Any portion of a masonry chimeny … should have a minimum air space clearance to combustibles of 2 inches (51 mm).” What state are those codes for?
If you have pictures of the area , it would be helpful to post them.
The first questions which come to my mind:
Were your present at the inspection?
Does the report list any area of the attic as not observed or not inspected?
If so, did it give a reason why?
Re code violations: Not to defend this particular inspector or inspection, but it *most *homes an experienced inspector will observe items or systems which do not meet current codes, and in most older homes they will see *many *such instances.
So an inspector - unless they plan to present the client with a list of dozens of such items, many of which are inherent to the construction of the house and were correct the time it was built - has to make a decision about which are significant enough (for example for structural or safety reasons) to report, and how to report them. And the “failure” to report a given “code violation” in-and-of-of itself is not an indication of a poor inspector or inspection.
Was this noted (the fire) in the disclosure statement Leanne?
We can guess at what the inspector “saw” or didn’t “see” but an event as serious as a fire should have been disclosed by the sellers,… typically a home inspection is only in Lieu of a sellers disclosure statement but I say this not knowing Georgia real estate laws.
If the report stated the inspector entered the “full” attic space,… Id say the inspector needs to be called and have him out to answer some questions.
It is most definitely a disclosure issue and the sellers, their sales person and the person/s that made the repairs or modifications should also be contacted.
If it is easily visable as you describe then it should have been reported.
I purchased a home inspection of a house in Georgia. The inspector claimed he ENTERED ALL the attic, but if he had merely peeked in he would have seen a LOT of badly charred/burned wood, some of which abutted the masonry chimney. HE DID NOT MENTION THE FIRE DAMAGE IN THE INSPECTION report. (Turns out the chimney had been rebuilt after a 2001 fire, but without any permits. THere are numerous code violations and it is unsafe.)
If the attic was entered, this condition should have been mentioned. Hopefully you do have some pictures taken from the scuttle entrance to support this. If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you) you may have recourse.
It should also have been disclosed by the seller and the sellers agent. While the seller may have moved away, the agent is still in town. You need to contact her and find out why it was not disclosed. I dont know all the laws in Georgia, but I do know that if there is knowledge of a fire, it must be disclosed in most states.
Should a NACHI inspector report evidence of fire damage? (The inspection company told me that they didn’t have to tell me of the fire damage because NACHI standards do not require it.)
I know of no where in our SOP where it states that we are not required to report fire damage. Perhaps some of my fellow members can enlighten me on this.
Should a NACHI inspector report combustible materials touching a masonry chimney?
From our SOP:
Thre will be some questions here as to the liner in the attic, because it is not specifically mentioned, but it is an other permanetly installed component.
2.8. FireplaceI. The inspector shall inspect:[INDENT]B. Hearth extensions **and other permanently installed components. **
C. And report as in need of repair deficiencies in the lintel, hearth and material surrounding the fireplace, including clearance from combustible materials
I am also curious - did this inspector request a level II inspection of the chimney?
[/INDENT][INDENT]
Pictures would help to clarify.
I do think that any damage, especially potential structual damage, should have been disclosed during the H/I.
I also think that you should review the GAR (Std.) Disclosure Statement for any mention/explanation of the damages and repairs. I would assume there was an Ins.Claim for repairs. That is just one of the questions asked that would allow the Realtor/Seller to disclose this previous event. No excuses.