No Main Disconnect

[Michael J. Merino]

Uhhh, we are professionals; aren't we?

[Bob Elliott]

Ben and Mike since I have your attentions for the moment.

I look at it this way.

Adding to many safety tips is sort of (in my opinion) a good way to provide filler when you have little to say but there is always tons to say and much in the way of differred maintenance at every subject property, so I recommend keeping upgrades as a verbal commentary rather than part of a report.

Safety upgrades not needed in code (yes I know we are not code Inspectors ) and (yes I know our Inspection is still based on them) should stay entenched in the mindset of future capitol improvement which we are not being paid for.

In summary keep suggestions of safety upgrades to yourself unless you feel this is something your client wants in a maintenance and tips section such as I have at the bottom of all my reports.

Above all Please remember your job is to look for real defects that effect the sale price in negotiation and nothing more.

The Lawyer, And both Realtors could care less about bath mats.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by mmerino

Uhhh, we are professionals; aren't we?

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f2/june-w...tml#post531713

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f2/june-w...tml#post531713

Congrats
Told you it was looking much bettor now

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by relliott

Above all Please remember your job is to look for real defects that effect the sale price in negotiation and nothing more.

I disagree.
I perform inspections that have nothing to do with a real estate transaction. I recommend InterNACHI members do the same. Performing safety inspections, 1-year inspections, regular annual maintenance inspections, move-in certified inspections, seller inspections, http://www.overseeit.com/ inspections, roof inspections, wind & hail inspections, energy inspections, radon mitigation system inspections, and ..... most recently .... InterNACHI Certified Stucco/EIFS Inspector inspections.

I'm completely opposite - I'd rather not be involved at all in finding defects that effect the sale price, as you suggest.

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

I disagree.
I perform inspections that have nothing to do with a real estate transaction. I recommend InterNACHI members do the same. Performing safety inspections, 1-year inspections, regular annual maintenance inspections, move-in certified inspections, seller inspections, http://www.overseeit.com/ inspections, energy inspections, radon mitigation system inspections, etc.

I'm completely opposite - I'd rather not be involved at all in finding defects that effect the sale price.

All great Aux services , but not the issue here.

Real world fact is we have a summary (most do) which many would call a punch list.
The punch list represents things that vneed to be done to provide Protection of People and Property.

That to do list costs time ,money or both and will be reviewed by an Attorney that will use this in assisting in most cases the buyer in either lowering the subject property asking price or requesting that the seller have a Contractor (in many cases) take care of the issues found by your friendly (in most cases ) Home Inspector)

Often we are asked to return and check repairs made.

Am I wrong?

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by bgromicko

Don't ever make recommendations about safety upgrades. Always defer to a professional to inspect further and make determinations or corrections.

This is what I was referring to, Ben. If it's slippery, recommend having it fixed. Don't waste your clients money on additional inspections

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by jpope

This is what I was referring to, Ben. If it's slippery, recommend having it fixed. Don't waste your clients money on additional inspections

If referring to my return statement ,"I offer free final walk through s to all my clients "

[Jeff Merritt]

And what reason would a home owner want to throw a main breaker? I tell my clients if they smell smoke to get out and call the fire dept.
Only a qualified electrician should be dealing with a main breaker period.

[Jeffrey R. Wicklander]

Somebody think of a reason why you would use a disconnect in that panel...

Anything that goes wrong will be taken care of by the branch breakers.


Jeff

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by jwicklander

Somebody think of a reason why you would use a disconnect in that panel...
Anything that goes wrong will be taken care of by the branch breakers.
Jeff

For safety reasons.
One example is: I never hire an electrician. I do things myself, then get it inspected by an electrical contractor or the township inspector. When I go in, I turn off the main.
Another is: If the breakers are not identified, and you needed to work on a breaker, you could simply switch off the whole shabang.
Another is: What if the breaker is not functioning properly (malfunctioning) and you had to turn off the circuit? I once turned off the stove breaker, but it didn't actually turn off the electricity. I found that out crossing the wires with my screwdriver. What a bang!
But wait, there's more: What if there is an emergency situation, and throwing just one main would really come in handy in a pressure situation when people oftentimes are not thinking clearly?
Another is: what if I wanted to snap in a proper cover over a knock-out. I don't want to touch a live bus, so I'd want to turn off a main.
And another: What if something is sparking or smoking at the panel, or maybe it's somewhere else in the house, and I'd rather not fiddle with 6 hand movements, and desire just one main one?
And: What if there is a reason that we can't think of right now?
... and on...
In my opinion, in which my reports are written, one main breaker for all panels seems more convenient and safer.
This post was written IMHO.

[Michael Larson]

I think you are going overboard with your opinions Ben and it could be misleading to some new inspectors.

Maybe you should consult with the NFPA.

They have been considering these issues far longer than you.

[Ben J. Gromicko]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I think you are going overboard with your opinions Ben and it could be misleading to some new inspectors.
Maybe you should consult with the NFPA.
They have been considering these issues far longer than you.

No.

Code, NEC or NFPA, are minimums. And it's okay to admit that. Let it out.
The most important thing about codes and standards (NEC and NFPA included) is that codes CHANGE and IMPROVE.

WHY?

To make things SAFER. They change to make things safer. That means at one point, the code is so inadequate that it is not good enough, and they have to change it.

Codes change when people get hurt. Don't wait to formulate opinions about code and standards and rules and practices until someone gets hurt. Don't wait until the code changes.

The fire codes they use in NY are the best in the whole planet. Why? The codes/standards kept changing and improving after people got burned.

Code is "What we can get away with today without anyone getting hurt."

Look at the situation, and formulate an opinion. Use codes as a minimum.

In my experience (15 years doing home inspections, 10 years in construction) I've found that:
Most things wrong in a house were built to a code.
When someone tells me that something is built to code, it gives me pause.

[Bob Elliott]

Ben does make a Main Breaker seem appealing.

[Michael Larson]

I'm not buying it.

The codes were and are developed to promote safety while at the same time not being overly burdensome.

Can you add up the additional cost to a structure if all the "above minimum" items Ben dreams up were mandated?

You can't make everything safe for everyone.

Do you also recommend elevators for those who have have cardiac issues?

I for one do not and I also will not be recommending a hand rail for a single riser.