In Georgia, I had a 7-year-old log home with metal roof inspected. The inspector claimed to have inspected the roof with binoculars from the ground. However, because of the slope of the land you cannot view from the ground that portion of the roof where the main roof meets the porch roof.
Just after moving in, I discovered that the roof leaked all along the line where the main roof meets the porch roof. Turns out there was never any flashing installed! The inspector claims that he’s not responsible because Georgia code doesn’t require flashing (not true). The inspector came out and put tape (yes, tape!!!) on the roof which only caught the water and made the leaks 10 times worse. I had to pay a roofer to make the proper repairs.
The roofer says it that if only the inspector had looked, it was very obvious that there was no flashing.
Question: Is there ANY legitimate reason why an inspector would not be responsible for noting the absense of flashing?
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?
Is this the same home w/the chimney clearance issues?
As with any occupation,the quality of individual professionals varies.
If this is the same home,then clearly you sound dissapointed with your inspector.Have you contacted that inspector about your concerns?
With all due respect,I don’t think anyone on this board would know why any other individual inspector did or did not site any deficiencies.
It is pretty obvious that this inspector does not know what he is doing. What surprises me is that he inspects the roof fromt he ground, but yet when the problem arose, he was able to get up on the roof and put tape on the roof. Why would he not get up on the roof in the first place.
Unfortunately most SOP’s do not require an inspector to walk on the roof.
It would be intersting to know exactly what was written in that report with regards to the roof.
Shes has posted two other “problem” questions in other threads but dosent return to them? There have been request for pictures to “help” form a logical opinion of her issues from other inspectors in those threads, PLEASE FOLLOW UP on your threads if you need help…Im wondering if she really wants an answer? :roll:
Leanne, roof-to-wall junctions are notoriously difficult to flash in log homes and the methods are often suspect. If you look at the flashing (actually “counterflashing”) in this picture and envision the path rainwater will take as it runs down the wall, you’ll see the problem. When flat counterflashing is installed against the log wall, there are spaces behind the flashing between logs.
In this picture you’ll see that the spaces between the counterflashing and the logs have been filled with tan-colored caulk. Sometimes in areas like this inspectors will find **a lot **of caulk… imagine if these logs were 24 inches in diameter instead of 6 inches how difficult this area would be to seal!
Inspecting log homes is different from inspecting conventional homes and inspectors sometimes get beyond their capabilities without realizing it. If I’m inspecting a log home and I can’t walk the roof and can’t see a roof-to-wall junction, that’s what I’m going to write in the report, and I’m going to recommend you get a roofing contractor up there to evaluate the parts of the roof I can’t see so that you’ll know about conditions needing repair which existed before you bought the home.
He said NOTHING about the roof on the report, except that there were no problems and that he inspected the roof from the ground with binoculars.
Yes, he’s the same one who said he “ENTERED ALL” the attic, but said that the masonry chimney was “metal” and said nothing about the very obvious fire damage.
I’ll try to figure out how to post pictures. They’re quite damning.
This inspector was fired shortly after he the roof problem was found (fire damage had not yet been detected). He also missed electrical problems, plumbing problems, well problems, hot tub problems, and air conditioning problems (these were less serious problems and I admit these items MIGHT have been inspected properly, but I have to wonder - if he didn’t inspect the roof or attic, did he actually inspect ANYTHING??? He had arrived early, was let into the house by the seller’s realtor, and was just about ‘finished’ when I arrived.) The inspection company refuses to deal with me even though they have E&O insurance. It was a different employee of the inspection company who made the ridiculous roof repairs with tape, but the inspection company says that they aren’t responsible for the roof problems because they claim that Georgia doesn’t require flashing (I stated earlier that they’re so wrong about this).
As for the fire damage (it’s serious and very expensive to repair; a level 2 chimney/fireplace inspection revealed numerous code violations and and an unsafe chimney) the inspection company claims that NACHI does not require them to report fire damage.
I appreciate any and all advice and comments. Yes, I have an attorney, but I really need to know what NACHI standards require as far as the chimney and roof inspection. I’m a single teacher and would never protect an abusive/negligent co-worker. I’m hoping that those of you in your profession with the same integrity will speak candidly with me.
This was not a roof to wall junction. The main roof met the porch roof about 2 - 3 feet over the porch area (the leaks were on the porch a couple of feet away from the house wall) The professional roofer was able to easily install metal flashing.
I. The inspector shall inspect from ground level or eaves:A. The roof covering.
B. The gutters.
C. The downspouts.
D. The vents, flashings, skylights, chimney and other roof penetrations.
E. The general structure of the roof from the readily accessible panels, doors or stairs.
II. The inspector is not required to:A. Walk on any roof surface.
B. Predict the service life expectancy.
C. Inspect underground downspout diverter drainage pipes.
D. Remove snow, ice, debris or other conditions that prohibit the observation of the roof surfaces.
E. Inspect antennae, lightning arresters, or similar attachments.
2.8. Fireplace
[INDENT]I. The inspector shall inspect:
[INDENT]A. The fireplace, and open and close the damper door if readily accessible and operable.
B. Hearth extensions and other permanently installed components.
C. And report as in need of repair deficiencies in the lintel, hearth and material surrounding the fireplace, including clearance from combustible materials
II. The inspector is not required to:
A. Inspect the flue or vent system.
B. Inspect the interior of chimneys or flues, fire doors or screens, seals or gaskets, or mantels.
C. Determine the need for a chimney sweep.
D. Operate gas fireplace inserts.
E. Light pilot flames.
F. Determine the appropriateness of such installation.
G. Inspect automatic fuel feed devices.
H. Inspect combustion and/or make-up air devices.
I. Inspect heat distribution assists whether gravity controlled or fan assisted.
J. Ignite or extinguish fires.
K. Determine draft characteristics.
L. Move fireplace inserts, stoves, or firebox contents.
M. Determine adequacy of draft, perform a smoke test or dismantle or remove any component.
N. Perform an NFPA inspection.
[/INDENT]
Inspectors get killed walking roofs even when the SOP’s don’t require it. Imagine facing a 12/12 pitch on a three-story home on a hillside with a roof covered with ice and have to walk it to comply with the SOP’s.
Lets be serious here. We are not talking about putting ones life in danger. Common sense says that no one should walk a 12/12 pitched roof (at least not with a harness), or that we should walk ice or snow covered roofs.
From what Leanne has said, this preson should never have been inspecting. Why didnt this inspector put a ladder up to the eave and at least look at the deck over the porch. SOP is a minimum standard. The standard says your are not required to walk a roof. Does that mean we shouldn’t? Does that mean we should leave our ladder in the car? Or better yet, not even have one. But wait, we might need to look in the attic. But then again, isnt crawling an attic dangerous? Are we sure we want to do that. I may sound sarcatic, but we are professional home inspectors, and unfortunately, part of our job is dangerous. We have to know when, and how to limit those risks (and yes, I have fallen off a ladder).
Read Leanne’s post. This inspector showed up early, finished early. She has no idea what he did or what he did not do (although that is obvious by his report). There are times when we have to stop protecting other inspectors when they mess up. This inspector needs to own up to his mistakes. Unfortunately for Luanne, he is no longer in business, and probably cannot afford to pay for his errors.
An on top of that, you have an inspection compnay that is refusing to deal with a client. Where is the integrity here.
I would be curious to know IF the inspector did request a leve II chimney insepction in his report. If he did, as I said before, some of the blame will get deferred. But that is still no excuse for not reporting the conditions as they should have been.
You may be right, Mr. Siegel. Then, again, perhaps you are very, very wrong. As a home inspector, you know how difficult it is to defend yourself when you do not know you have been accused and have no opportunity to present your report and what went into it.
I am not defending the home inspector who apparently left an unhappy client in his wake. I am simply refusing to condemn him without knowing all of the facts.
The porch roof is not steep (I’m not sure of the exact pitch).
It appears that it IS a NACHI requirement to check for flashing, so am I right to assume that if an inspector decides NOT to walk on the roof and cannot see the roof with binoculars, he should note that on the report - instead of saying that he DID view the roof and that everything’s OK?
Also, I read over the NACHI standards and it doesn’t specifically say that an inspector has to report fire damage. But surely a NACHI inspector should report major problems, such as fire damage???
I walk 'em if they’re not too steep, slippery or fragile. I think it’s a good idea if an inspector’s comfortable doing it, I’m just leery about madating it with the SOP’s.
I’m hesitant to second-guess another inspector without seeing pictures, too. People should own up to mistakes, but none of us want to make them. Two sides to every story… actually that should be “two stories to every problem”.
The inspector did NOT recommend a level 2 chimney inspection. He said NOTHING about the fire damage.
He claimed he went into the attic, but obviously did not. Or worse, he saw the charred/badly burned wood and said nothing. The only thing he said about the attic was that the chimney was metal, when in fact it’s masonry.
When I discovered the fire damage many weeks after the inspection, I called in a chimney/fireplace expert who did a level 2 inspection. Thank goodness I never lit a fire in the fireplace.
I wish I could find something in NACHI literature/standards/code of ethics/training procedures that makes it obvious that an inspector has a duty to report obvious defects (especially life-threatening ones such as fire damage).
Fire damage in and of itself is not always “Life Threatening”.
Now if you have truly uncovered “Life Threatening” fire damage, the previous owners and or who ever made the substandard repairs are probably the most culpable parties.