no flashing; no inspection

[ckratzer]

So your true question,obviously is ,do you have any legal footing?
Based on your information,yes.
Should the inspector have seen the lack of flashing where the main roof changes pitch and transitions into a shed roof over your porch?Yes .IF he looked at the edge of the roof the flashing should have been obvious.Since you've already had it repaired you know the flashing should have ran from one end of the transition to the other.
The inspector should also not have been trying to perform repairs.
This matter should also have been stated in the sellers disclosure in the specific "Are you aware of..." section.
If I saw any fire damage ,would I report it?Damned straight.
This should have also been in the sellers disclosure under "Other matters..."where it states,are you aware of fire damage at any time?
The task is to prove the seller was aware.The fire department (if called) would have record of that call.
Based upon your information,you have an obligation to yourself to go after all parties involved.
Lastly as far as "protecting" NACHI or its members I have no loyalties to it or any other organization.The NACHI ,or any other ,tag does not the inspector make.I've never used their logo or intellectual property to promote myself.And I haven't paid my "club" dues in a year and a half yet am still listed as a member.(maybe that will change now ).
Oh,Bainbridge is a cool place.I did Bike Ride Across Georgia there in 2003.

[whandley]

Originally Posted by jbushart

An inspector who belongs to a national association, such as NACHI, is required to perform his inspection in accordance with that association's standard of procedure for inspections (SOP).

Most SOPs, whether inspecting from the ground, eaves or on the roof, require the observation of all necessary elements and commentary on their condition or absence.

Was your inspector a member of NACHI, ASHI or NAHI?

You might add visible and accessible without damage to the roofing systems and or personal injury to the inspector. I inspect tile roofing systems everyday, which I do NOT walk for fear of damaging the roof and or in the case of steep slope configuration for fear of injury to myself. In many cases the second story elevation, crickets, valleys and or saddles cannot be observed from the ground. A better question might be, was there any evidence of prior water intrusion to the structure at the area in question. Was any staining noted by the seller, agents, WDO inspector or the home inspector? Had the seller owned the property for any length of time? Would, could or should the seller have known the roof leaked in that area? Was the interior of the structure recently patched and painted? possibly to cover and or conceal prior leaks? Did you as a buyer receive a home protection or warranty plan from the seller or during the transaction? In many cases a home warranty will cover roof related issues.

In any case, don't jumb to conclusions against the lowly home inspector. He may have been doing an excellent job for you within the limited parameters of "Visible and Accessible". It is an environment in which all inspectors have to operate.

[whandley]

Originally Posted by ckratzer

So your true question,obviously is ,do you have any legal footing?
Based on your information,yes.
Should the inspector have seen the lack of flashing where the main roof changes pitch and transitions into a shed roof over your porch?Yes .IF he looked at the edge of the roof the flashing should have been obvious.Since you've already had it repaired you know the flashing should have ran from one end of the transition to the other.
The inspector should also not have been trying to perform repairs.
This matter should also have been stated in the sellers disclosure in the specific "Are you aware of..." section.
If I saw any fire damage ,would I report it?Damned straight.
This should have also been in the sellers disclosure under "Other matters..."where it states,are you aware of fire damage at any time?
The task is to prove the seller was aware.The fire department (if called) would have record of that call.
Based upon your information,you have an obligation to yourself to go after all parties involved.
Lastly as far as "protecting" NACHI or its members I have no loyalties to it or any other organization.The NACHI ,or any other ,tag does not the inspector make.I've never used their logo or intellectual property to promote myself.And I haven't paid my "club" dues in a year and a half yet am still listed as a member.(maybe that will change now ).
Oh,Bainbridge is a cool place.I did Bike Ride Across Georgia there in 2003.

I'm assuming from your post, you not only provide home inspections but also hold a law degree. It amazes me how many times members on this board immediately advise folks to take legal action. It may very well not be in the subject parties best interest to do so. You have zero facts, evidence and or information to make such a recommendation. You've not seen the report, property, view from the surrounding grade and or access issues involving the subject property and roof line.

In many cases the cost associated with legal action can far exceed the cost of the actual repair.

Bottom line is, none of us can possibly know what the circumstances are based on the very limited information available. The inspector may have simply had NO ACCESS to that portion of the roof line.

[ckratzer]

Originally Posted by whandley

I'm assuming from your post, you not only provide home inspections but also hold a law degree. It amazes me how many times members on this board immediately advise folks to take legal action. It may very well not be in the subject parties best interest to do so. You have zero facts, evidence and or information to make such a recommendation. You've not seen the report, property, view from the surrounding grade and or access issues involving the subject property and roof line.

In many cases the cost associated with legal action can far exceed the cost of the actual repair.

Bottom line is, none of us can possibly know what the circumstances are based on the very limited information available. The inspector may have simply had NO ACCESS to that portion of the roof line.

Your assumptions completely invalidate my assumptions

[tneumann]

Kenton?

You walk metal roofs?

[Leanne Jowers]

Thanks for the comments:

Jimmy,
The fireplace and chimney had been "repaired" (but not properly). However, none of the charred wood was replace in attic - the fire damage is quite obvious. As soon as I figure out how to post pictures, I'll do that.

David, as I told Jimmy, the fire damage was NOT covered up!
I paid extra to have the well and the hot tub inspected (neither worked on the day I moved in!)
The home inspection company is not a franchise. I am suing, but as good a case as it is, it takes a loooong time!!!

Thomas, would you like to loan me $30,000 - $50,000 to sue the sellers? If I was sure of just breaking even, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Leanne

[Leanne Jowers]

Will, you make some good points (the water damage from the leaking roof had been covered up). HOWEVER,

Instead of saying that a roof is in great condition, an inspector who doesn't go up on the roof OR view the roof from the ground with binoculars should tell the prospective buyer that he won't or can't inspect the roof, instead of lying.

Instead of saying that he ENTERED the attic and that everything is fine (including the metal flue, which is actually masonry), the inspector should have admitted that he was too tired or lazy to actually have peeked into the attic (which in fact is BLACKENED AND DEEPLY BURNED/ CHARRED THROUGHOUT FROM A EXTENSIVE FIRE)

Leanne

[pdickerson]

Leanne,

I agree with what a previous poster stated. The seller is likely the most culpable party here. It sounds like your inspector may be liable for not doing his job right (I would like to hear his story too), however it is the sellers who did not disclose some very serious issues to you that they must have been aware of. They sold you a damaged home, and they knew it!!! If you agree with this, but you are only going after the inspector because he is insured and represents the "low hanging fruit", than I question your ethics.

[wsiegel]

Leanne,

When you post look at the botto of the box. It says "go advanced" From there look down and you will see box that says "manage attachements". Click on it and a box will appear for you to attache files. Click the browse button and find your file on your computer. The Click the uplaod button. If it is the right size it will upload. If it is too big it will tell you to make it smaller (which you will have to do on your computer and then upload again). Then do it again for the next picture. I think you can upload four pictures per post.

Good luck.

[wsiegel]

Paul,

The seller is definely responsible for not disclosing and there may be a good solid case in this instance. However, what the h**l did she pay for an inspection for. If the inspection should have revealed these items, she would have known of the problems and then could have made her own decision about the home. Not finding them has caused her a lot of heartache, time and money. If all of what she says is true, I dont question her ethics at all.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by wsiegel

Paul,

The seller is definely responsible for not disclosing and there may be a good solid case in this instance. However, what the h**l did she pay for an inspection for. If the inspection should have revealed these items, she would have known of the problems and then could have made her own decision about the home. Not finding them has caused her a lot of heartache, time and money. If all of what she says is true, I dont question her ethics at all.

I most certainly agree with William!!

In addition, if the Inspector had performed his job then Ms. Jowers more than likely would have provided the report to the seller/selling agent as the reason for cancelling the purchase contract. Once the seller's RE Agent has that report they would then not only know of these conditions, the Agent would also be forced to correct the property disclosure report!! That would prevent any future buyer from not knowing right at the start that the home has issues.

[jharashinski]

I don't want to defend this inspector, but he did seem to be in over his head, and the fact that he worked for a company, may not have allowed him the opportunity to refuse the job. Also curious if the company is responsible for producing the report. Would love to see his field notes, or better yet, hear his side. He does sound like he seriously dropped the ball.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by jharashinski

I don't want to defend this inspector, but he did seem to be in over his head, and the fact that he worked for a company, may not have allowed him the opportunity to refuse the job. Also curious if the company is responsible for producing the report. Would love to see his field notes, or better yet, hear his side. He does sound like he seriously dropped the ball.

John,

You may very well be right that the Inspector might have been "over his head". It is still the Inspectors responsibility to make that determination. If the Inspector made it to the site and then made that determination then the Inspector should have called his boss to send someone else out.

As for "the opportunity to refuse the job", that is controlled also by that Inspector. Whether the Inspector faced termination or some smaller punishment from his boss is for the Inspector to work with. We always have the right to refuse an assignment even if it does mean losing our job. It is that exact situation that tests our true commitment to ethical behavior! If the company were to terminate his employment for taking proper and ethical actions then quite possibly it is not a company worth working for!

Yes, I have had my ethics tested many times! I can tell you that it has cost me money maintaining my ethical stance. But then again I certainly don't have to look over my shoulder constantly wondering who is coming after me.

[Leanne Jowers]

Mr. Dickerson,

Questioning my ethics was a low blow; this is the biggest and most expensive nightmare of my life.

I started out going after the sellers because they definitely knew about the fire damage (they were the only owners).

It seems so simple - they lied about the fire (and that one lie forced them to lie about other questions, such as whether or not the wiring had ever been damaged - it had been completely destroyed, etc.) I can prove they lied, so why is this so tough?

I spoke to several lawyers; some didn't want the case because the sellers' attorney is the county solicitor (and husband of the sellers' realtor). Good ol' boy system at its best. THe others wanted between $30,000 and $50,000 to handle this case and told me there was NO assurance of winning or collecting!

Then I tried to handle this through the criminal court system, under Georgia criminal code Theft by Deception. Even though I FINALLY got a sheriff's investigator (took 6 visits and tons of researched case law) to recommend prosecution, I can't get past the county judge (friend of the solicitor???)

I HAVE found an attorney who will handle the case against the inspection company, in part because the contract will award attorney's fees to the prevailing party. My hope is that when I finally get into mediation with the insurance company THEY will go after the sellers; I'll certainly do everything I can to help them.

I disagree wholeheartedly that the inspector was in "over his head". For goodness sake, EVERYONE expects a home inspector to check out the attic. All he had to do was stick head into the attic and this whole thing would have been averted. I would have NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS BOUGHT THIS HOUSE. And I would have made sure that those horrible people (the sellers) disclosed this information so no one else was injured.

What's the purpose of hiring a home inspector?????

I did nothing wrong. I checked out the inspection company carefully, asked the right questions, read over their guarantees and promises, and purchased their BEST (TOTAL) inspection package plus add-ons.

I just want my life back. I'm now stuck with a house I can't bear to live in and can't sell. My money is tied up.

And then to have my ethics questioned is very hurtful and unfair.

Leanne

[wsiegel]

Joe,

She said he arrived early, nothing about her being late.