This House Met Code.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by lkage

Back in the old daze...err...days...nice way to put it.

Glad you made it through today, Dale. All fixed up are ya?

What a day of remembrance this will be.

Dale is up an kicking and we are all agreeing with Jim.

Jim, Good going.

Thank you for your consideration for safety.

Marcel

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by mcyr

What a day of remembrance this will be.

Dale is up an kicking and we are all agreeing with Jim.

Jim, Good going.

Thank you for your consideration for safety.

Marcel

Yes, 'tis good to be alive!

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Let me see if I can help you.

Thank you cause I can use all the help I can get.

Originally Posted by jbushart

When I inspect a house that was built prior to 1971 for my client (who I know has a house full of kids) I will recommend GFCI's for all of the outdoor outlets in my report.

Originally Posted by jbushart

You will visit the seller and convince him that the code in 1971 did not require it and I am wrong to include it in my report.

Wrong remark here my friend. I do not ever for any reason say that the Home Inspector was wrong for calling out anything and if I was fortunate enough to get to see your report I would think that were slack if you didn’t call it out.
What I would do would be to advise my client that at the time of installation the codes did not require GFCI protection.
What you did was tell the buyer that they are an idiot if they decide to buy the house as is and don’t address the safety issue.

Originally Posted by jbushart

My client will buy the house without GFCI's...aware of your learned rebuttal to my report....and next summer, he will inflate a temporary swimming pool and put it in the back yard for a few summer months...next to the trampoline....next to his temporary flood light.

Originally Posted by jbushart

Does that help you to understand?

Yep I understand a whole lot better now.

Help me see if I got it right this time.

You told the buyer that there is a danger by not having the outside receptacle protected by GFCI and he decided to leave it like it was and test the thing by buying a tub that will hold water and jury rigging a light on a cord so it would reach all the way to this tub of water and sent his kids out to do the testing.

Yep sounds like an idiot to me. He should have listened to the professional that he hired don’t you think.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

James, your on and I am here.

Unbelieveable.

Marcel

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by lkage

Back in the old daze...err...days...nice way to put it.

Glad you made it through today, Dale. All fixed up are ya?

Hi Larry,

Nope, not repaired...the knife is next......

[bjones1]

For the first time in along time, I find myself agreeing with James. Whether it exceeds the SOP ( which is a good thing) or not, to not advise clients to this defect is to become potentially liable for any mishap that could occur.
How many inspectors could sleep well at night knowing that they may have been partially responsible, through negligence, for a death or serious injury?

just my 2 cents + GST

[rwand1]

So if thats the case and you find and report on one issue as the example above but fail to find another concern that should be noted under an Unsafe Condition terminology; (For the sake of discussion) where do you draw the line, and where does your reponsibility stop? Seems to me if you do not exceed the standards your doomed and if you do exceed the standards your doomed dependant on the circumstances.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by dduffy

Hi Larry,

Nope, not repaired...the knife is next......

Sorry to hear that Dale.

That going to happen in the near future and what do they do? They can't take it out can they?

Man, you got us worried now.

Marcel

[brian winkle]

Most of the HI reports I see word it like this: "Although GFCI protection may have not been required blah blah blah we strongly recommend they be installed as a safety issue"

I totally agree with that statement, and I am happy to oblige, installing them wherever they are requested, and even recommending them where they were not requested but needed. Selling and installing GFCI protection is easy, profitable, and makes me feel good knowing I might have saved a life.

I don't understand all the nit picking.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by brian winkle

I don't understand all the nit picking.

As Mr. Witt has pointed out in another thread, Electrical Inspectors proudly limit themselves to the pages contained in the NEC....and.....when they are called upon to address a home inspector's report, feel that it is their duty to argue against us and on behalf of the code book.

These guys cannot understand that their value is limited to communications with builders and contractors. For the purposes of legality and uniformity, their language must be specific and their findings must be restricted to the dates on their pages. But this has no application in a home inspection.

There are times that we need to refer to the code when we want a deeper understanding of a particular defect we are wanting to correctly describe....but, unlike the electrical inspector and the AHJ, we are not chained to it.

This is a difficult concept for them to understand.

Oddly enough, they think that the weakness actually rests upon US.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rwand1

So if thats the case and you find and report on one issue as the example above but fail to find another concern that should be noted under an Unsafe Condition terminology; (For the sake of discussion) where do you draw the line, and where does your reponsibility stop? Seems to me if you do not exceed the standards your doomed and if you do exceed the standards your doomed dependant on the circumstances.

The SOP is a "recipe" as to the ingredients that I put into my inspection.

I have the option to, with the permission and understanding of my client, to add raisins and chocolate chips if I want. I can charge extra for doing so.

In my opinion, I do not "exceed" my recipe. I modify it to meet the needs of the client...I make adjustments to it...but in the end, it is nothing more than a description of my inspection.

Marketing rhetoric has created the term "exceed".

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

What I would do would be to advise my client that at the time of installation the codes did not require GFCI protection.

Why?

The NEC is not the issue and is not mentioned in the report. No one is telling him that "code" requires the GFCI....what is the relevance of what was written in the code book at the time of installation, if you are not arguing against the recommendation?

[rwand1]

Thats exactly what your doing, you just term it with terminology to suit your thinking and justification. So you really are exceeding them. Nothing wrong with that.

[Joe Farsetta]

"Inspector recommends the installation of ground fault circuit protection at all kitchen counter, kitchen island, bathroom, lavatory, garage, unfinished basement, exterior, and damp locations, where none may currently exist. Contact a licensed professional and follow all current National Electrical Code requirements for guidance in this area."

[Erby Crofutt]

I guess I just haven't got enough education to use that inspector double speak third person language engineers favor and you use, Joe.

============================

Ground fault protection (GFCI) may not have been required when this house was constructed, however, I recommend that all outlets needing ground fault protection, as recognized by the newest national safety standards be upgraded. I recommend that this upgrade be completed by a licensed electrician.

The lack of ground fault protection poses a signfificant safety risk for electrocution. Remember: Safety hazards don't care about the building code book or when what was required by the building code. Safety hazards just sit and wait to cause you and your family personal injury.

While I recommend, only you can choose what level of risk you want your family to live with.

FYI: The following dates indicate when nationally accepted minimum safety standards required GFCI protection. The local minimum safety standards may have adopted this protection at an earlier or later date.
DATES GFCI REQUIREMENTS WERE ESTABLISHED:
1971 Receptacles within 15 feet of pool walls
1971 All equipment used with storable swimming pools
1973 All outdoor receptacles
1974 Construction Sites
1975 Bathrooms, 120-volt pool lights, and fountain equipment
1978 Garages, spas, and hydromassage tubs
1978 Outdoor receptacles above 6ft.6in. grade access exempted
1984 Replacement of non-grounding receptacles with no grounding conductor allowed
1984 Pool cover motors
1984 Distance of GFCI protection extended to 20 feet from pool walls
1987 Unfinished basements
1987 Kitchen countertop receptacles within 6 feet of sink
1987 Boathouses
1990 Crawlspaces (with exception for sump pumps or other dedicated equip.)
1993 Wet bar countertops within 6 feet of sink
1993 Any receptacle replaced in an area presently requiring GFCI
1996 All kitchen counters – not just those within 6 feet of sink
1996 All exterior receptacles except dedicated de-icing tape receptacle
1996 Unfinished accessory buildings at or below grade
1999 Exemption for dedicated equipment in crawlspace removed
==============================

I haven't updated that in quite some time. Have the recent code changes made any additions to it. Does anyone know?

Raymond: Does your focus on whether or not it exceeds SOP really add to the discussion or detract from it. Perhaps you should start your own thread on exceeding standards with safety recommendations instead of drifting this one!