CO death in newly built home

[Charley L. Bottger]

Originally Posted by rray

"If the seller cannot prove that the system has been inspected within the last 12 months, recommend complete system evaluation by a licensed HVAC technician before close of escrow."

I just used the words licensed contractor rather than HVAC tech same difference to me.

If you recommend a complete system evaluation by a tech if the system has not been service within the last 12 months. That is good CYA but my concept is the system is performing as intended or it is not and someone is going to have to pay for your further evaluation. If that is a standard statement in every report why not just have the HVAC Tech evaluate the system to begin with and cut you out of the cost of closing

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by cbottger

If you recommend a complete system evaluation by a tech if the system has not been service within the last 12 months. That is good CYA but my concept is the system is performing as intended or it is not and someone is going to have to pay for your further evaluation. If that is a standard statement in every report why not just have the HVAC Tech evaluate the system to begin with and cut you out of the cost of closing

Since I'm not a licensed HVAC tech, I cannot determine if "the system is performing as intended or it is not." It has been my experience that determining that definitively would require dismantling the furnace, especially with the newer high-efficiency closed systems. That I don't do. That's an area reserved by law to the licensed HVAC tech, not an unlicensed home inspector.

So if it hasn't been serviced by a licensed HVAC tech within the past two months, then that needs to be done, notwithstanding anything I might say in my report about the heating and cooling system. Licensed HVAC techs are, well, licensed. I'm just a lowly, unlicensed, generalist home inspector, so I will not intrude into areas reserved by law to licensed professionals in other industries.

As I said, "if the seller cannot prove that the system has been serviced within the past 12 months, recommend complete system evaluation by a licensed heating and cooling professional before close of escrow." That would typically mean that the seller would pay for it since they still own the property before close of escrow. However, such expense is negotiable here in California.

Since I don't bill to escrow, there is no need to "cut [me] out of the cost of closing."

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by rray

You get blasted?

I don't think it's necessary to use a meter to detect CO at the time of the inspection. After all, if there were high levels of CO present, the sellers would probably already be dead. Visual clues, appropriate recommendations for further evaluation if visual clues indicate a problem, and appropriate recommendations to sellers and buyers to put carbon monoxide alarms in their homes, can save lives.

Additionallly, if one has been reading about the storms in the Northwest, there is a carbon monoxide epidemic up there right now because people are using portable electricity generators and gas/charcoal grills inside their homes to provide heat.

Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.

Check out this web site for stories about carbon monoxide deaths and injuries.
It gets updated on a regular basis.
In fact, it looks like it is current through December 19 right now.

Russel,

We were being poisoned in our home every day almost, for two years and we weren't dead. Yet.

Our home was very old (1931) and had many leaks and drafts, no insulation, gaps everywhere. The city inspector that came to look at the furnace and exhaust pipe after we learned about the Carbon Monoxide, said that we ALL should have been dead. The ONLY thing that saved us was the gaps and leaks.

However, we all were VERY sick. Headaches, behavioral issues, nausea, etc...etc... For two years!

If I would have had an alarm installed in our house, then we never would have had this happen. If I would have had a home inspector when I bought the house, he MAY have found the problem IF he used a detector. If he wouldn't have, he NEVER would have found it because the exhaust pipe was hidden behind a false wall. This was put there deliberately by the sellers to hide the gaping hole in the exhaust pipe that was pouring fumes into our house every single day, even in the summer because my husband was cold all the time.

So, I will have to respectfully disagree with your statement above.

Thanks,
Wendy

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by rray

Since I don't bill to escrow, there is no need to "cut [me] out of the cost of closing."

The cost to pay you is still figured into closing costs since all expenses are worked into closing in many transactions nowadays. The funds may be advanced, or the buyer may count on being reimbursed, but it's still worked into the closing costs most times.

[Charley L. Bottger]

Originally Posted by rray

As I said, "if the seller cannot prove that the system has been serviced within the past 12 months, recommend complete system evaluation by a licensed heating and cooling professional before close of escrow." That would typically mean that the seller would pay for it since they still own the property before close of escrow. However, such expense is negotiable here in California.

Thats my point just not being serviced within the last 12 months does not mean the system is not performing as intended and is not justification in my opinion to call for further evaluation. I have to see, touch, or test as a valaid reason for further evaluation using normal operating controls and observing through normal excess panels.

I could use a dishwasher here as the same example but I won't go there. Lets spar again but I gotta go pick apples.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

If I would have had an alarm installed in our house, then we never would have had this happen.

Bingo! You win!

This also goes into every copy of my Interactive Report System:

Recommend having carbon monoxide detectors/alarms installed in bedrooms, hallways leading to bedrooms, near furnace and water heater, in garage, and in any room where it might be comfortable to fall asleep, such as a family room with a cozy fireplace, an entertainment system, and a comfrotable lounge chair or sofa.

And I'm thinking about putting this into Version 3 of my Interactive Report System:

Evaluate the level of risk you are willing to take concerning advice and recommendations provided in this report. Not responsible for advice and recommendations not taken.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

The cost to pay you is still figured into closing costs since all expenses are worked into closing in many transactions nowadays. The funds may be advanced, or the buyer may count on being reimbursed, but it's still worked into the closing costs most times.

The only "inspection" that is figured into closing costs here and in the other seven states where I have worked are appraisals. So I can't even agree with your "most" disclaimer, and I certainly cannot agree under any circumstances with your statement that "all expenses are worked into closing in many transactions." NOT!

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by rray

The only "inspection" that is figured into closing costs here and in the other seven states where I have worked are appraisals. So I can't even agree with your "most" disclaimer, and I certainly cannot agree under any circumstances with your statement that "all expenses are worked into closing in many transactions." NOT!

Extremely common here. I run into it all the time. It may not be law or anything, but it is becoming extremely common. Especially in 100% financing loans, which as we all know are extremely popular.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by cbottger

Thats my point just not being serviced within the last 12 months does not mean the system is not performing as intended and is not justification in my opinion to call for further evaluation.

It is for me. Difference in inspection protocols. But there's nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by cbottger

I have to see, touch, or test as a valaid reason for further evaluation using normal operating controls and observing through normal excess panels.

I don't. Every manufacturer I know of, as well as every utility company, recommends inspecting gas-using appliances annually. I'll go with that. They surely know more than I do. So if the seller cannot prove that their unit has been inspected within the last 12 months, then let's get it done, and let's get it done now, before close of escrow.

Originally Posted by cbottger

I could use a dishwasher here as the same example but I won't go there. Lets spar again but I gotta go pick apples.

Two different appliances. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different. I don't know of any dishwasher manufacturer that recommends having their dishwashers inspected annually. Nuff said on that one. Apples and oranges. Walnuts and raisins. Margaritas and beer.

You can give me a red box if you want. Please?

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Extremely common here. I run into it all the time. It may not be law or anything, but it is becoming extremely common. Especially in 100% financing loans, which as we all know are extremely popular.

I remember something else that you said was extremely common in Washington, yet every other Washington inspector chimed in to say that it was not. I'm going to have to let that one sit for a while. Certainly if that were true, there might be more inspectors getting paid through escrow rather than at the time of the inspection.

Certainly adding buyer-related inspection expenses into escrow closing costs is not common in most states, and it was not common in Washington the last time I did anything there, which was 2000. certainly things can change, but somehow I doubt that they have changed that much in six years.

Nonetheless, you may also give me a red box if you please. Thanks.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by rray

I remember something else that you said was extremely common in Washington, yet every other Washington inspector chimed in to say that it was not. I'm going to have to let that one sit for a while. Certainly if that were true, there might be more inspectors getting paid through escrow rather than at the time of the inspection.

Certainly adding buyer-related inspection expenses into escrow closing costs is not common in most states, and it was not common in Washington the last time I did anything there, which was 2000. certainly things can change, but somehow I doubt that they have changed that much in six years.

Nonetheless, you may also give me a red box if you please. Thanks.

Not every other Washington inspector has taken their Real estate license have they?

And no they didn't. I think one or two, and considering how many are actually in Washington, I don't think this board and it's members represent the thoughts and experience of all inspectors everywhere. So that argument doesn't hold water.

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Not every other Washington inspector has taken their Real estate license have they?

The State of Washington doesn't show you as having a real estate license:

https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/dolprod/bpdLicenseQuery/lqsLicenseDetail.aspx?SessID=2850&RefID=2129822

http://dor.wa.gov/content/home/BRD/R...h&City=Shelton

Originally Posted by wforsyth

I think one or two

And if I remember correctly, they provided definitive proof that you were wrong, at which point you took a four or five-day vacation from the NACHI message boards.

Since I've been here waiting for employees to return from today's inspections, and watching Star Trek: Voyager, I just decided to do some checking, especially since Ms Margarita and Dr Cuervo are not here to distract me. Here's what I found:

I talked to Washington Realtors in Olympia at 800-562-6024. They responded that "It is generally the obligation of the buyer to arrrange and pay for any inspections on the property. Certainly the buyer can arrange to pay for inspections through escrow but that generally is not done for home inspections."

I got the same response from Realtors at:

RE/MAX Metro, Seattle, 206-322-5700
Century 21 North Homes, Seattle, 800-531-0021
Century 21 Advanta, Spokane, 877-728-2100
Prudential Vancouver Mall, Vancouver, 360-256-1120
Coldwell Banker Everett, Everett, 425-290-7510

The lady at Zip Realty Seattle was kind enough to fax me a copy of what she said was the standard Washington real estate purchase contract. It says, "Unless otherwise provided in this Contract, the Evaluations & Inspections shall be paid for by Buyer and shall be conducted by individuals or entities of Buyer's choice."

All of them also said that if the home inspection fee is negotiated so that the seller agrees to pay for it, many times it is then paid as part of the closing costs. But that also is not what generally happens since the buyer generally pays for all inspections on the property.

I've always tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes you do lose even me.

[Charley L. Bottger]

RR
I don't know how this thread got from testing CO to escrows but it did take that turn. When you get paid or how is no concern of mine.

I do not play with the boxes my grandchildren do though

I have a high respect for your knowledge in this business as you appear to be very knowledgeable. Yes I would agree that we have different business protocol and I am sure what you do works for you or you would not be doing it. Mine also works for me.

I have been basically using you as a sounding board trying to get some forward moving thinking from some of the other inspectors. We get mostly peekers not many folks willing to provide their own thoughts. SILENCE!!!!!
</IMG>

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by cbottger

I have been basically using you as a sounding board trying to get some forward moving thinking from some of the other inspectors. We get mostly peekers not many folks willing to provide their own thoughts. SILENCE!!!!!

Yes, but perhaps silence is golden.

I remember what U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (R-Tex) once told me (loosely quoted): "Since only about 50% of people of voting age actually vote, when someone take the time to write me or call my, I take that letter or call as representative of at least two people of voting age." I do the same with NACHI and all other organizations that I have ever been involved with. Here at NACHI, since we have 9,200 members (plus or minus any invisible members), the voice of the 920 members could logically (courtesy of Mr Spock) be taken as the voice of 9,200 members, so one voice speaks for about 92 members. If I always remember that, then I can get a good idea for what's going on throughout the nation since this is the largest home inspector trade association (or pseudo-trade association, as the case may be).

[Russel Ray]

Originally Posted by cbottger

I don't know how this thread got from testing CO to escrows but it did take that turn.

Thread drift. It's common.