No Ethics here

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by Omega Properties

1) Yes he has been paid.
2) He failed to mention in his post, that he made a serious, though probably honest, mistake on a report (reported a polybutylene system as PVC) for a large house, that cost us over $10,000 to replace, to appease our client.
3) There were other inpectors in the state, around that same time, that we found out (through an audit) that were up to no good and were fired in bulk. Mike was not one of these, he was let go per request of our client after the polybutylene mistake.

So, to recap, he was only telling one side of the story, HE HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL, and we wish him well in any and all future work, in fact, we would overall give him a positive letter of recommendation if asked.

10K to replace plumbing? Can I be your plumbing contractor?
Re-pipe ten houses and gross over 100k....that is a pretty good gig.

Sure it was PB and this should have been documented in the report, and the buyer advised of the issues surrounding the material
....however if the product was not leaking, then it techinically was not defective as per the standards outlined in the class action litigation on the product. Claims for the product can only be made when a failure (leakage) has occurred.
So why did it all have to be replaced? I don't recommend repiping a home just because it has PB, I just make the client aware of its' presence, and the potential for future problems. Like a 10 year old water heater....it may fail in the near future, but I inspected one yesterday that was 23 years old, and still working fine...

[dmoore3]

Originally Posted by hmiller

10K to replace plumbing? Can I be your plumbing contractor?
Re-pipe ten houses and gross over 100k....that is a pretty good gig.

Sure it was PB and this should have been documented in the report, and the buyer advised of the issues surrounding the material
....however if the product was not leaking, then it techinically was not defective as per the standards outlined in the class action litigation on the product. Claims for the product can only be made when a failure (leakage) has occurred.
So why did it all have to be replaced? I don't recommend repiping a home just because it has PB, I just make the client aware of its' presence, and the potential for future problems. Like a 10 year old water heater....it may fail in the near future, but I inspected one yesterday that was 23 years old, and still working fine...

************************************************** ********

Kinda hits the nail on the head doesn't it?

Insisting on replacement is alarmist at best unless there is a detected leak or evidence of such. Noting the presence of poly pipe is required. Noting the potential of such piping is required. Insisting on relacement is outside of the scope of the SOP anyway.

IMHO

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dmoore3

Insisting on replacement is alarmist at best unless there is a detected leak or evidence of such. Noting the presence of poly pipe is required. Noting the potential of such piping is required. Insisting on relacement is outside of the scope of the SOP anyway.

IMHO

You missed his point.

He paid to replace the PB to appease his client who had decided to go ahead with the purchase under the wrong opinion (as provided by the inspector) that his plumbing was PVC.

No one recommended replacement in a report.

My guess is the client was wanting to sue for a whole lot more and the $10,000 was the cheaper way out.

But as to the point of PB....by calling it out and informing the client of the dangers and known problems with it...that, by itself, can be construed as a suggestion to have it replaced.