no flashing; no inspection

[Leanne Jowers]

William,

The inspector did NOT recommend a level 2 chimney inspection. He said NOTHING about the fire damage.

He claimed he went into the attic, but obviously did not. Or worse, he saw the charred/badly burned wood and said nothing. The only thing he said about the attic was that the chimney was metal, when in fact it's masonry.

When I discovered the fire damage many weeks after the inspection, I called in a chimney/fireplace expert who did a level 2 inspection. Thank goodness I never lit a fire in the fireplace.

I wish I could find something in NACHI literature/standards/code of ethics/training procedures that makes it obvious that an inspector has a duty to report obvious defects (especially life-threatening ones such as fire damage).

Leanne

[Brian E. Kelly]

Fire damage in and of itself is not always "Life Threatening".
Now if you have truly uncovered "Life Threatening" fire damage, the previous owners and or who ever made the substandard repairs are probably the most culpable parties.

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

No disclosure laws in Georgia?

[jhugenroth]

Originally Posted by Leanne Jowers

...so am I right to assume that if an inspector decides NOT to walk on the roof and cannot see the roof with binoculars, he should note that on the report - instead of saying that he DID view the roof and that everything's OK?

Absolutely. If an inspector for any reason cannot view anything, be it because of height, pitch, lack of access, etc. it should be noted in the report that the system or component was not inspected and the reason for not inspecting it.

[jwortham1]

Also, I read over the NACHI standards and it doesn't specifically say that an inspector has to report fire damage. But surely a NACHI inspector should report major problems, such as fire damage?????

I have fire damage in my own attic. Some blackened rafters and such.
Doesn't make it a major problem by any means.

But yes, I would have mentioned that I saw signs of a previous fire.

[Leanne Jowers]

There are disclosure laws in Georgia and the fire damage was not disclosed.

The sellers had the entire fireplace, chimney, adjoining walls, and wiring completely rebuilt/replaced - but permits were not applied for and it was never inspected by the county building inspector. Turns out the job was done so poorly that it IS in deed a safety hazard.

Bottom line is that it would be an extremely costly nightmare to try to sue the sellers and/or the contractor.

The inspector had a duty, I believe, to inform me of the fire damage. I never would have purchased this house had he done so. I paid for a "TOTAL" inspection package plus paid for add-on items.
Leanne

[Bruce Lunsford]

I think there is more than enough evidence to "condem" this inspector. Failure to note fire damage and improper description of the chimney is more than enough.

Further, if you have not had the chimney properly inspected, you need to do so before use. We do not know what caused the fire.

Standards or not, this should have been reported.

Also, I had dealings with a GA inspector once and confirmed that GA uses CABO building code, which does in fact require flashing. No offense, but your description of the problem area is not really sufficient to fully understand this issue. We need a photo.

Having said all that, here is the proper way to handle it. Get your repair bills together and send them to him and tell him he has 10 days to turn it into his insurance company. Further, demand to know the name of his insurance co. They're aren't many so it shouldn't be too hard to figure out, assuming he is telling the truth.

If he fails to turn it into his insurance co, it may be time to hire a lawyer or file in small claims court yourself. I'm pretty sure that once a lawsuit is filed he HAS to report it to his carrier or risk losing coverage, again assuming he is not lying.

You have to check out your inspector carefully. Any time you go with a multi-inspector firm you risk getting the newbie employee. Further, you have to verify his claims, as many will mislead you. One local inspector here advertises his inspections exceed NACHI and ASHI standards, implying he is a member of both, when he is a member of neither.

[Bruce Lunsford]

Since we posted at the same time there are some overlaps. I would recommend getting a new inspection by an experienced home inspector to identify all of your problems. From there IMHO the best route is to go after the inspectors insurance and let the insurance co go after the sellers.

I would be happy to help you find a qualified home inspector in your area. Feel free to email me at inspector@swfla.rr.com.

I have no financial interest in helping you, I simply would like to help you out.

[Leanne Jowers]

Bruce,

Do you mind telling me where you're located? (I'm in Tallahassee, FL and the house that was inspected is in Bainbridge, GA)

The Inspection Company I'm dealing with (their lawyer continues to stall and NOT turn it over to their insurance company) also claims to meet or exceed ASHI standards!!!!!! And neither the owner nor any of his empoyees is a member of ASHI.

Leanne

[Leanne Jowers]

Jeffrey, this turned out to be major, dangerous fire damage.
Leanne

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

It appears that there are two main questions with the inspection:

1. Did the Inspector perform a thorough inspection?

2. Did the Inspector identify what are reported as obvious damages and/or
issues with the home?

From the state of Georgia statutes:

http://www.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/pub/o...Code/G/8/3/330

8-3-330 G
*** CODE SECTION *** 12/03/01

8-3-330.

As used in this article, the term "home inspector" means any person,
except an employee of a county, municipality, or political
subdivision while engaged in the performance of the duties of his or
her employment, who, for consideration, inspects and reports on the
condition of any home or single-family dwelling or the grounds,
roof, exterior surface, garage or carport, structure, attic,
basement or crawl space, electrical system, heating system,
air-conditioning system, plumbing, on-site sewerage disposal, pool
or hot tub, fireplace, kitchen, appliances, or any combination
thereof for a prospective purchaser or seller.

8-3-331 G
*** CODE SECTION *** 12/03/01

8-3-331.

Every home inspector shall provide to the person on whose behalf a
home or single-family dwelling is being inspected a written document
specifying:

(1) The scope of the inspection, including those structural
elements, systems, and subsystems to be inspected;

(2) That the inspection is a visual inspection; and

(3) That the home inspector will notify in writing the person on
whose behalf such inspection is being made of any defects noted
during the inspection, along with any recommendation that certain
experts be retained to determine the extent and corrective action
necessary for such defects.

Ms. Jowers,

Did the inspector provide you a scope of the inspection? Was it specific with regards to what the Inspector would and would not do? If the Inspector did not provide a scope for the inspection did they specify something in brochures, WEB site, etc. that would indicate, infer or lead you to believe a scope of work?

The NACHI SOP is a good document for a minimal home inspection but is not a complete document for an inspection. The state of Texas has an SOP we must follow and it is very rudimentary in itself. Neither of these cover all aspects of what a Home Inspector should do and no Home Inspector should hide behind them just to reduce their responsibilities.

You noted that the Inspector stated they inspected the attic and incorrectly reported on a chimneys construction. If the charred wood was anywhere near the inspected area then it is obvious the Inspector flat out failed to report it. Every attic that can be safely walked should be thoroughly inspected.

As for the roof issue I walk every roof I can safely get on and have walked 10/12 roofs just to get to hidden valleys, backsides of dormers, etc. I have yet not been able to get on any roof at least partially. The only reason I see for always inspecting a roof from the ground level, and not even attempting to climb a safe roof, is to reduce the inspection time and make time for two or three inspections a day. Was your roof unusually steep or unsafe to walk?

I would certainly have to agree with Mr. Siegel's words below:

From what Leanne has said, this preson should never have been inspecting. Why didnt this inspector put a ladder up to the eave and at least look at the deck over the porch. SOP is a minimum standard. The standard says your are not required to walk a roof. Does that mean we shouldn't? Does that mean we should leave our ladder in the car? Or better yet, not even have one. But wait, we might need to look in the attic. But then again, isnt crawling an attic dangerous? Are we sure we want to do that. I may sound sarcatic, but we are professional home inspectors, and unfortunately, part of our job is dangerous. We have to know when, and how to limit those risks (and yes, I have fallen off a ladder).

Read Leanne's post. This inspector showed up early, finished early. She has no idea what he did or what he did not do (although that is obvious by his report). There are times when we have to stop protecting other inspectors when they mess up. This inspector needs to own up to his mistakes. Unfortunately for Luanne, he is no longer in business, and probably cannot afford to pay for his errors.

An on top of that, you have an inspection compnay that is refusing to deal with a client. Where is the integrity here.

I would be curious to know IF the inspector did request a leve II chimney insepction in his report. If he did, as I said before, some of the blame will get deferred. But that is still no excuse for not reporting the conditions as they should have been.

[Leanne Jowers]

Mr. Scanlan,

Thank you very much for the Ga. code information pertaining to home inspections.

Yes, there was a detailed scope for the inspection. The inspector flat-out lied, though. He said everything was fine, when it wasn't. He said he inspected things that he didn't inspect.

The inspection company made lots of promises in their advertising brochures. Because I'm single and this is my first home purchase alone, I very carefully selected this home inspection company and got lots of written and verbal assurances.

I must say, I am quite impressed with the professionalism and caring shown by so many of you responding to my inquiries. If only one of you had inspected this house.....

Thank you, all of you, very much for your help.

Leanne

[dcook1]

Originally Posted by Leanne Jowers

Thanks for the comments.

The inspector was a member of NACHI.

He said NOTHING about the roof on the report, except that there were no problems and that he inspected the roof from the ground with binoculars.

Yes, he's the same one who said he "ENTERED ALL" the attic, but said that the masonry chimney was "metal" and said nothing about the very obvious fire damage.

This inspector was fired shortly after he the roof problem was found (fire damage had not yet been detected). He also missed electrical problems, plumbing problems, well problems, hot tub problems, and air conditioning problems (these were less serious problems and I admit these items MIGHT have been inspected properly, but I have to wonder - if he didn't inspect the roof or attic, did he actually inspect ANYTHING??? He had arrived early, was let into the house by the seller's realtor, and was just about 'finished' when I arrived.) The inspection company refuses to deal with me even though they have E&O insurance. It was a different employee of the inspection company who made the ridiculous roof repairs with tape, but the inspection company says that they aren't responsible for the roof problems because they claim that Georgia doesn't require flashing (I stated earlier that they're so wrong about this).

As for the fire damage (it's serious and very expensive to repair; a level 2 chimney/fireplace inspection revealed numerous code violations and and an unsafe chimney) the inspection company claims that NACHI does not require them to report fire damage.

Thanks, Leanne

Leanne,
Fired or not, NACHI or not, this inspector represented the company you hired to inspect. The company is responsible and should act it. They should have vetted his qualifications more thouroughly before sending him out to represent them. They have created themselves a problem and as professionals, they should rectify it.
Roof repairs with tape????... only a moron would do that and that is being polite.
The fire damage should have been mentioned if it was visible. Sometimes certain items are deliberately covered, other times items get covered simply by the passage of time and people and will not be readily visible.
To miss so many items seems to be from a person who did not know what they were doing.
However wells, hot tubs and air conditioners many time need to be deferred to the professionals in that field as a home inspector simply cannot keep up on all these items and they are not included in most inspections.
Being a member of a professional association (NACHI included) does not mean you are good in your profession.

Call the company and advise them to get at least some of this rectified asap or legal steps are next. If they are a franchise, call their head office.

[jbreazeale]

Leanne,

I am very sorry for the trouble you are having. I know it must be very stressful to see your dream turn into a nightmare. That is what we inspectors are supposed to be trying to prevent. It sounds like your inspector was either lazy, or terribly incompetent, and it makes us all look bad. It's also a reason we have to pay such high rates for E&O insurance. I will say that it takes a pretty good "remodeler" to cover up fire damage to the point that a good inspector cannot sniff it out. A house will tell its own story. I hope that you pursue this matter, and I hope you are successful, but please, don't let the sellers off the hook! I have had people selling one-owner homes who had cosmetically covered up damages, did not disclose it, then throw hissy fits when the inspector (me) uncovered their little oversights. Some even still claimed they didn't know!

[tdietrich1]

Originally Posted by Leanne Jowers

Bottom line is that it would be an extremely costly nightmare to try to sue the sellers

Where are you?

Since, in the US, this really isn't true. If you have a case, even if you come out with a net zero, you can set an example for future sellers, and help your fellow home buyers. Isn't the greater good a motive enough, not money?

Purely, In My Humble Option. I often do things not for personal gain, but to set precedences, get causes some print time, and help make the world a better place, one battle at a time. <music in background with flag waving of course.>

tom