Defect or not?

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Originally Posted by fnewman

I may see nothing worng with the receptacle depending on the age of the home and whether or not the receptacle is GFCI protected from elsewhere (upstream or breaker).

Then why have a cover at all?

Question: What might happen if water enters the junction box?

A lot of smart people developed today's building code. Apparently they decided a GFCI alone would not suffice.

When it comes to safety and electrical issues, the house age has no bearing on me.

[John Gromkoski]

Originally Posted by jfunderburk

Then why have a cover at all?

Question: What might happen if water enters the junction box?

A lot of smart people developed today's building code. Apparently they decided a GFCI alone would not suffice.

When it comes to safety and electrical issues, the house age has no bearing on me.

Joe, I agree that safety can never be overlooked, especially that of the electrical kind, but I think recommending the GFCI and protective cover as a "safety upgrade" is as far as I will go. I'm not sure if you're saying it, but I don't think it is appropriate to say it has to be changed, because that implies the seller should do it, which may not be required by the municipality.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by ppendley

Hmm...not required in CA....

Actually, they are Paul.

They are required in the 2004 CEC, which took effect in July of 2005.

If there is a patio cover above that receptacle, the current cover is acceptable.

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Originally Posted by jgromkoski

Joe, I agree that safety can never be overlooked, especially that of the electrical kind, but I think recommending the GFCI and protective cover as a "safety upgrade" is as far as I will go. I'm not sure if you're saying it, but I don't think it is appropriate to say it has to be changed, because that implies the seller should do it, which may not be required by the municipality.

Many inspectors are under the mistaken assumption that your report is a repair list for the seller. Not so! If the agents use it that way, that's not your fault. Nobody has to make any repair or perform any upgrade you recommend. You're not doing a code inspection so the date a code came into effect should have little bearing on your report.

Do you try to determine when stairs were required to have lights and a switch at the top and bottom??? I certainly don't and it isn't a factor in whether or not I report it.

[John Gromkoski]

Originally Posted by jfunderburk

Many inspectors are under the mistaken assumption that your report is a repair list for the seller. Not so! If the agents use it that way, that's not your fault. Nobody has to make any repair or perform any upgrade you recommend. You're not doing a code inspection so the date a code came into effect should have little bearing on your report.

Do you try to determine when stairs were required to have lights and a switch at the top and bottom??? I certainly don't and it isn't a factor in whether or not I report it.

I think we may be saying the same thing. I do a lot of older homes which do not meet many of today's safety standards, such as lighting in stairwells and 3 way switching, etc. I report them as recommended safety upgrades.

You are right that many people, especially RE agents think a report is a punch list for the seller, which it is not. I do have a question about things like this when including them in the report, and I think there may even be a thread about it somewhere: Do you include these safety hazards in the Summary section of your report?

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Originally Posted by jgromkoski

Do you include these safety hazards in the Summary section of your report?

Yes. Everything I consider a safety issue and all electrical issues go in the Summary. Now, if I KNOW the date when something became required (such as GFCI issues), I include that detail in my narrative.

[Frank P. Newman]

Originally Posted by jfunderburk

Then why have a cover at all?

Question: What might happen if water enters the junction box?

A lot of smart people developed today's building code. Apparently they decided a GFCI alone would not suffice.

When it comes to safety and electrical issues, the house age has no bearing on me.

I don't disagree, in general, but the question was 'is this a defect'? I think the answer to that question may depend on when the home was originally constructed because otherwise we would have to list everything required to bring the system up to today's requirements. Recommending that the installation be improved is another matter.

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Originally Posted by fnewman

I don't disagree, in general, but the question was 'is this a defect'? I think the answer to that question may depend on when the home was originally constructed because otherwise we would have to list everything required to bring the system up to today's requirements. Recommending that the installation be improved is another matter.

Point well taken.