This House Met Code.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Mike

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

Originally Posted by jbushart

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?

99.9% of home inspections are done for the buyer of the home. The buyer then addresses these issues with who ever it is that they are dealing with. That person then does as the Home Inspector suggested and calls in the appropriate licensed tradesman to evaluate the system in question. In this discussion it is about GFCI protection therefore an electrician.

Now the electrician is working for the seller or their agent and very seldom sees the Home Inspector’s report but instead is asked to do an evaluation of the system or to evaluate certain points of the system.

For the sake of this discussion let’s limit the evaluation to the outside receptacles.

The seller or their agent will ask the electrician to take a look at the receptacle and make a report.

The electrician goes out and checks the receptacle and its box and cover and everything looks okay. The electrician then reports back that the receptacle is fine except that it should have Ground Fault Protection.

The seller or their agent then asks if the receptacle is required to have Ground Fault Protection

The electrician then asks the date of the installation as this is very important to answer the question that was asked.

The seller or their agent says that the house was built in 1969 and the circuit is part of the original installation.

The electrician then advises that the receptacle is not required to have Ground Fault protection due to the installation date but suggest that it be. The seller then says that this receptacle has been this way from the day they moved into the house and they are not going to spend any money to have it changed.

Electrician says this is between the seller and buyer but he is not going to furnish his time and material for free so the electrician goes fishing.

The buyer decides to go ahead and buy the house with the receptacle as it is. The professional home inspector that he hired has spent time to make a report that there is a danger there. The buyer is fully aware due to the assiduousness of the Home Inspector that there is a danger with the receptacle not being protected by a ground fault device.

The electrician has made his effort to get the seller to change the device but the seller says that it was fine the way it is the whole time he lived there and if the buyer is not happy with it then let them come off with the price of having it changed.

Both the Home Inspector and the electrician has done all they can and the final burden lies in the hand of the buyer and seller.

The electrician is not mad at the Home inspector for pointing out the fact that there is no ground fault protection on the device. If anything he is grateful that he had a chance to make some money.

Why would the Home Inspector be mad at the electrician for it not being changed? It seems to me (an electrician) that some Home Inspectors think that I should change the device no matter if I am being paid or not just because they pointed it out.

If the Home Inspector points out the danger to the person that is buying the house and a year down the road someone gets hurt or killed it is my thinking that it is the buyers fault after they have been told of the danger by a Professional they hired.

Sorry I got a little long winded but I hope that my ranting helps you understand that I am not talking anyone out of anything. I am only doing what I am being paid to do.

[Joe Farsetta]

Erby,

While you are typically the verbal minimalist, your example is rather longwinded, no?

Where's the double-speak you mention? I say to install them in any of these locations, where none currently exist. Seems simple enough. I also refer to any current NEC standards, and to using a licensed professional.

As to writing in the third person, nothing wrong with that. What do you write? I saw this, and I saw that? Same difference. What a hoot...

Another one.... Language that engineers like, and that I use?

Come on...

[jtedesco1]

Here's another sad story!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJBZmIfr3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQiMr5Xm2sU

[Joe Farsetta]

Why would the Home Inspector be mad at the electrician for it not being changed? It seems to me (an electrician) that some Home Inspectors think that I should change the device no matter if I am being paid or not just because they pointed it out.

Not expecting the electrician to do ANYTHING for free. Not even evaluate the situation for free. Frustrated at the electrician who says I'm full of crap because the code was not in effect when the home was constructed and that no one can say anything. No defect noted. No GFCI required. While the statement may be TECHNICALLY correct, they are wrong-headed, IMO

The inspector gets frustrated at the electrician who says the configuration is fine, because it is not required.

Like the situation I am in now. Electrician owns the home. Replaced the main panel. Nice job. No inspection. Service entry cracked and frayed. Meter pan not fastened to house. Sealant at service entry atop meter pan worn. Conduit coming from below pan has separated by more than 1". Although the wiring inside the home was okay, new panel only rated for 125 amps. 100 amp service. No real room to upgrade service without changing panel in a nidely finished room. Cheap fix. Multi-wire on condensed side-by-side breakers / same phase with shared neutral.

Lots of little things. Lots of arguments on his part.

There's the rub... I'm the idiot and he's the electrical professional...

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

I am only doing what I am being paid to do.

I'm thinking that the dead childs parents don't care about that.

A few words of advice don't cost anything.

[jtedesco1]

Another sad story!

[Michael H. Butters]

That is a very sad story and one I hope never happens again. But until all receptacals requiring GFCI protection are changed, it may unfortunately happen again. Thanks Joe.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

Here's another sad story!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQiMr5Xm2sU

Joe the author of this link is so far out in left field I think he is still using candles.

Have you watched this junk?

[jtedesco1]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

Joe the author of this link is so far out in left field I think he is still using candles.

Have you watched this junk?

This is the follow up and comes from further investigations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJBZmIfr3s

The kid is dead and we should key in on the reasons why that were identified in this newscast, avoiding any discussion on the examples that were given in the first video.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

99.9% of home inspections are done for the buyer of the home. The buyer then addresses these issues with who ever it is that they are dealing with. That person then does as the Home Inspector suggested and calls in the appropriate licensed tradesman to evaluate the system in question. In this discussion it is about GFCI protection therefore an electrician.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The electrician goes out and checks the receptacle and its box and cover and everything looks okay. The electrician then reports back that the receptacle is fine except that it should have Ground Fault Protection.

The seller or their agent then asks if the receptacle is required to have Ground Fault Protection

Wrong.

The inspector does not recommend an "evaluation" in this instance. He recommends the installation of GFCIs where the present day code requires them.

Your long post undoes all of your previous posts.

You now have yourself recommending the GFCIs, yourself, and the client demanding that you tell him if it is a "code requirement". This is the first time any such scenario ever came into play.

Up to that post, you have maintained that it is your job to simply address the code (in contrast and in contradiction to the inspector's report) and "let the parties decide on their own" the course of action to take.

I don't blame you for wavering and adding new facts in your weak argument....but we can't let you off that easy.

[Erby Crofutt]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Erby,

While you are typically the verbal minimalist, your example is rather longwinded, no?

I know, typically it's ( XXX is broke. Fix it.) But I want them to know that this is an electrocution hazard. The chart is just that: a chart.

Where's the double-speak you mention? I say to install them in any of these locations, where none currently exist. Seems simple enough. I also refer to any current NEC standards, and to using a licensed professional.

You don't tell them what it is or why it's important.

As to writing in the third person, nothing wrong with that. What do you write? I saw this, and I saw that? Same difference. What a hoot...

Yup, I saw this and I saw that.

Another one.... Language that engineers like, and that I use?

Pretty good one, huh! But then you got me with that one above about verbal minimalists.

Come on.

Where you wanna go. Just make sure it's someplace warm. I'm freezing my *** of yesterday and today. Glad I don't live any further north than I do. Looks like some of y'all are really getting dumped on..

Hmm, computer says my reply is too short. Guess it's because I'm a verbal minimalist. Or maybe just because most of my message was in the quotes.

[rwand1]

Hey Erby the topic has drifted before I posted. So please don't tell me where to post!



I am going to start recommending fire sprinklers in all homes not presently outfitted with them because the SOP supports such recommendations as alluded to in the definition of "unsafe condition"!

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jtedesco1

This is the follow up and comes from further investigations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUJBZmIfr3s

The kid is dead and we should key in on the reasons why that were identified in this newscast, avoiding any discussion on the examples that were given in the first video.

You are the one that posted the link and I was just commenting that it is not correct.

[jtedesco1]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

You are the one that posted the link and I was just commenting that it is not correct.

Then please take this outdated link to another board, and discuss what was wrong in the animation there please, for me I am happier listening to the most recent newscast hearing the rest of the story.

If I was a Home Inspector I would provide one, or more GFCI's as part of my fee, and would leave them in the interest of my clients safety, I will bet that the HI can get samples for manufacturers for free:

Tell them Joe Tedesco sent you

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Wrong.

Originally Posted by jbushart

The inspector does not recommend an "evaluation" in this instance. He recommends the installation of GFCIs where the present day code requires them

And the buyer presents this information to the seller or their agent and they call in the electrician to evaluate and report. The recommendation that the Inspector made does not mean that it is going to be changed. It is still between the buyer and seller not between the Inspector and electrician.

Originally Posted by jbushart

Your long post undoes all of your previous posts.

Originally Posted by jbushart

You now have yourself recommending the GFCIs, yourself, and the client demanding that you tell him if it is a "code requirement". This is the first time any such scenario ever came into play.

It is the same each and every time. If the seller of the property doesn’t want to do any repairs at all there is nothing that can force them to do so. If the buyer decides to buy without the recommendations of the Inspector being address it is the buyer that suffers the end result.

Originally Posted by jbushart

Up to that post, you have maintained that it is your job to simply address the code (in contrast and in contradiction to the inspector's report) and "let the parties decide on their own" the course of action to take.

This is exactly what my job is and it is what I do for a living.
The codes mandate that if a circuit or device is worked on then the requirement to install GFCI protection is retro. If the circuit or devices are not worked on then there is no legal way that anyone either the buyer or seller can be forced to change anything from the original installation no matter if we like or not.

Originally Posted by jbushart

I don't blame you for wavering and adding new facts in your weak argument....but we can't let you off that easy.

I am not wavering and my argument is the LAW weather you want to accept it or not.
You tell someone that something is dangerous and they run straight into it anyhow who is at fault.
You told the buyer that there is a danger there. Buyer says he is going to buy anyway but does not address the issue no matter if it is mandated by the codes or not then it is “buyer bewares” not shame on the electrician for making a statement of point of law.

You got a used car for sale for $1000.
I hire a mechanic to look it over and the mechanic says the tires are just before blowing out but there is no law that can force him to put new tires on this car.
Car has an passed inspection and has sticker in the windshield.

I come to you and say put some tires on the car and I will buy it.

You say if I put new tires on it the price will go up.

I say no I will buy it as is.

On the way home I have a blow out and wreck and kill half dozen people.
Who is at fault?
You?
The mechanic?
The man that inspected the car?
Me?


Same as with a house. You inspect it and find fault. Seller says the electrician said there is no law that can force me to make these repairs. Buyer hires an electrician which makes the same legal statement. Buyer still buys and does not make repairs.
You..have..told..the..buyer..there..is..a..danger! (spacing to show emphasis)
Was the first electrician wrong for making a legal statement?
You..have..told..the..buyer..there..is..a..danger! (spacing to show emphasis)
Was the second electrician wrong for making a statement concerning the legal requirements concerning the installation?
You..have..told..the..buyer..there..is..a..danger! (spacing to show emphasis)
Buyer decides to buy the house without addressing the danger that you the professional has pointed out just because there is no legal way that the danger can be forced to be addressed.
You..have..told..the..buyer..
there..is..a..danger! (spacing to show emphasis)
Who is to blame should someone get hurt?

You made your statement based on safety, the electrician on point of law.
Now the buyer has both statements. It is the buyer who is making the decision to place legality over the safety issues not the Inspector or the electrician. This is easy for me to understand. Why is it so hard for others to understand?