When inspectors write up their home inspection reports, the tendency in the past has been to be as brief as possible, but being too brief may mean leaving too much open to interpretation. For many common narratives, the InterNACHI narratives give you the opportunity to choose between long and short narratives and between recommending a qualified contractor, a structural engineer, or another qualified professional.  Below are some sample narratives from three sections (out of 21) of the library. These samples do not include all narratives from these sections.

 

SCROLL DOWN or CHOOSE a LINK

Although roof covering materials are designed to protect the underlying home structure from moisture, most are not considered waterproof, but water resistant. They are designed to work together with an underlying membrane and the effectiveness of both the membrane and the roof covering material are dependent upon the material quality and the use of proper installation methods.

The roof was covered with composition asphalt shingles of a type called “T-lock”. T-lock shingles are no longer manufactured. If the roof is damaged or needs partial replacement, finding shingles to match the existing may be difficult. If acceptable replacements cannot be found, replacement of the entire roof-covering material may be necessary.

Laminated shingles

The composition asphalt shingles appeared to be of a type manufactured to be resistant to hail damage.

WARRANTY

Two types of warranties are offered when new asphalt shingles are installed; The manufacturer’s warranty, which covers the shingles themselves and varies among manufacturers, and the contractors warranty, which covers installation and workmanship. When a home is sold, a roof warranty may fully transfer to the buyer, may transfer for a shortened length of time, may transfer with limited coverage or may not transfer at all. You should ask the seller about how the sale of the home will affect any warranty presently covering the roof and confirm any seller claims by reading the warranty.

 

NUMBER OF LAYERS

The roof had one layer of composition asphalt shingles installed at the time of the inspection.

The roof had two existing layers of composition asphalt shingles installed at the time of the inspection. Two is the maximum allowed in ___. This condition will result in the following:

• Reduced asphalt shingle lifespan compared to similar shingles installed over a proper substrate.
• Any warranty which may have been in effect will be void.
• Shingles will be more easily damaged by hail.
• When new roofing is required, all three layers will need to be removed before new roofing material can be installed. This is much more expensive than simply adding another layer and you may wish to take this into account in your consideration of this property.

• Reduced asphalt shingle service-life compared to similar shingles installed over a proper substrate.
• Any warranty which may have been in effect will be void.
• Shingles will be more easily damaged by hail.
• When new roofing is required, all three layers will need to be removed before new roofing material can be installed. This is much more expensive than simply adding another layer and you may wish to take this into account in your consideration of this property.

• Reduced asphalt shingle service-life compared to similar shingles installed over a proper substrate.
• Any warranty which may have been in effect will be void.
• Shingles will be more easily damaged by hail.

Newer shingles installed over an older asphalt composition shingles or wood shakes or shingles may be more easily damaged by hail due to poor underlying support.

GENERAL CONDITION

Comp shingle OK

Asphalt composition shingles covering the roof of this home appeared to be in serviceable condition at the time of the inspection.

Comp shingle mostly OK

Although the asphalt composition shingles covering the roof of this home were not new, they appeared to be in generally serviceable condition at the time of the inspection. Any exceptions will be listed in this report.

 

END of USEFUL LIFE

At the time of the inspection, asphalt composition shingles covering the roof of this home appeared to be at or near the end of their useful lives. The Inspector recommends that before the expiration of your Inspection Objection Deadline, you consult with a qualified roofing contractor to discuss options and costs for replacement.

DETERIORATION

Shingle deterioration (moderate)

Although the asphalt composition shingles covering the roof of this home showed moderate deterioration, they appeared to be adequately protecting the underlying home structure at the time of the inspection.

Moderate deterioration (fiberglass)

Although the fiberglass asphalt composition shingles covering the roof of this home showed moderate deterioration, they appeared to be adequately protecting the underlying home structure at the time of the inspection.

At the time of the inspection, asphalt composition shingles covering some roof slopes    had severe deterioration visible and appeared to be at or near the end of their long-term service life. Other portions of the roof were in better condition. This condition can be due to exposure to prevailing weather patterns or directional exposure to sunlight. You should consult with a qualified roofing contractor before the expiration of your Inspection Objection Deadline to discuss options and costs for replacement.

You should consult with a qualified roofing contractor before the expiration of your Inspection Objection Deadline to discuss options and costs for replacement.

 

BATCH PROBLEMS

 

DAMAGE (wind)

The roof had areas of wind damage such as broken adhesive strips and creased or torn shingle tabs. The Inspector recommends replacement of the damaged shingles by a qualified roofing contractor to avoid damage from moisture intrusion.

Asphalt composition shingles covering the roof of this home were installed with joints aligned vertically at every other course. This installation method is called “racking”. Racking is an improper installation method for many shingle types. It is acceptable but not preferred for some shingles types and is the required method for a few shingle types. The inspector recommends that before the expiration of your Inspection Objection Deadline, you have the roof examined by a by a qualified roofing contractor to determine whether shingles have been improperly installed.

• Reduced asphalt shingle lifespan compared to similar shingles installed over a proper substrate
• Any warranty which may have been in effect will be void.
• Shingles will be more easily damaged by hail.

The home water was supplied from a public source.

The home water was supplied from a private well located on the property.

Water in the home was discolored and should be tested for contaminants by a qualified contractor.

Water in the home had a disagreeable odor and should be tested for contaminants by a qualified contractor.

Home water supply pressure was within the acceptable limits of 40 pounds per square inch (PSI) and 80 PSI at the time of the inspection.

Home water supply pressure was ___ at the time of the inspection.

Home water supply pressure was lower than the 40 pounds per square inch (PSI) considered adequate by generally-accepted current standards. The Inspector recommends service by a qualified plumbing contractor.

Home water supply pressure exceeded the 80 pounds per square inch (PSI) limit considered the maximum allowable by generally-accepted current standards. Excessively high water pressure is likely to cause leaks. The Inspector recommends service by a qualified plumbing contractor.

Home plumbing suffered from water hammer. Water hammer is a pressure surge caused by the sudden closing of a plumbing fixture. Consider installing a water hammer arrestor to reduce the chances of damaging the plumbing pipes.

 

The main water supply pipe was three-quarter inch copper.

The inspector was unable to identify the main water supply pipe or the main shut-off valve due to unfamiliarity with the relatively complicated plumbing supply system. The Inspector recommends evaluation of the water distribution system by a qualified plumbing contractor.

The main water supply was an approved plastic typical of this area for this situation.

The main water supply pipe was plastic not approved for this use. This improper condition should be corrected to avoid possible damage to the home structure from leakage.

The main water supply pipe was half-inch copper. This is considered small for a main water supply pipe and may not provide satisfactory water flow to the home.

The main water supply pipe was three-quarter inch galvanized pipe. This is an outdated material and as corrosion reduces the diameter of the pipe interior, water flow will be increasingly restricted. All galvanized pipe in the home may need to be replaced soon.

The main supply pipe was not visible.

The main water supply pipe had no protective sleeve where it passes through the concrete foundation. This may result in corrosion of the pipe and earlier failure than would result in a protected pipe.

The main water supply pipe from the well had been cut.

The main water supply pipe exhibited heavy corrosion which will eventually cause leakage.

The Inspector recommends that before the expiration of your Inspection Objection, you consult with a qualified contractor to discuss options and costs for correction.

The main water supply shut-off was located in the basement.

The main water supply shut-off was located in the basement utility room.

The main water supply shut-off was located in the crawlspace.

The main water supply shut-off was located in the mechanical room.

The main water supply shut-off was located in the garage

The main water supply shut-off was located in the laundry room.

Although the main water supply shut-off valve was not operated at the time of the inspection it was visually inspected and appeared to be in serviceable condition.

The main water supply shut-off valve was excessively corroded at the time of the inspection. Failure to replace the corroded valve may result in failure which can cause extensive damage.

The Inspector recommends valve replacement by a qualified plumbing contractor.

The main water supply shut-off valve was difficult to access. Consider having a more accessible main water supply shut-off valve installed for use during an emergency.

The main water supply shut-off valve had a broken handle at the time of the inspection. The Inspector recommends evaluation by a qualified plumbing contractor.

The handle was missing from the main water shut-off. The Inspector recommends that a handle be installed to allow shutting off water to the home in an emergency or to have work performed.

Active leaking visible at the main water supply shut-off valve at the time of the inspection should be corrected by a qualified plumbing contractor.

The main water supply shut-off valve appeared to be inoperable at the time of the inspection. The Inspector recommends evaluation and any necessary correction be performed by a qualified contractor.

The visible home water distribution pipes were a combination of half-inch and three-quarter inch copper.

Most water distribution pipes were not visible due to wall, floor and ceiling coverings.

The visible home water distribution pipes included three-quarter inch copper.

The visible home water distribution pipes were half-inch copper.

The home water distribution pipes included an approved plastic type.

The home water distribution pipes were Cross-linked Polyethylene, commonly called PEX, which is a flexible, vinyl-like material approved for this use.

Distribution pipes in the home included pipes made from Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC), which is not approved for this use. All such pipes should be replaced with a type approved for use as potable water distribution piping. The Inspector recommends that before the expiration of your Inspection Objection Deadline, you consult with a qualified plumbing contractor to discuss options and costs for replacement.

 The home water distribution pipes were Chlorinated Poly Vinyl Chloride (CPVC), which is a plastic type approved for this use.

Home water distribution pipes were Polybutylene. Polybutylene piping similar in appearance to piping in this home has been the subject of a national class action lawsuit. The Inspector recommends evaluation of the water distribution pipes by a qualified plumbing contractor.

Home water distribution pipes were Polybutylene.

Polybutylene piping similar in appearance to piping in this home has been the subject of a national class action lawsuit involving certain polybutylene plumbing systems and polybutylene yard service lines installed between January 1, 1978 through July 31, 1995. While scientific evidence is scarce, it is believed that oxidants in the public water supplies, such as chlorine, react with the polybutylene piping and acetyl fittings, causing them to scale, flake and become brittle. Micro-fractures result, and the structural integrity of the water distribution system is compromised. The system may become weak and fail without warning causing damage to the building structure and personal property. Throughout the 1980's lawsuits were filed complaining that allegedly defective manufacturing and installation caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Although the manufacturers have never admitted that this material is defective, they agreed to fund the Class Action settlement with an initial and minimum amount of $950 million. You'll have to contact the appropriate settlement claim company to find out if this property qualifies for a portion of this settlement. To find out more about this settlement visit http://www.pbpipe.com/faq_gnrl.htm#G11

The Inspector recommends evaluation of the water distribution pipes by a qualified plumbing contractor.

Distribution pipes in the home included plastic pipes of a type not approved for this use. All such pipes should be replaced with a type approved for use as potable water distribution piping.

The home contained galvanized steel water distribution pipes. These pipes are outdated and subject to corrosion which will eventually result in restricted flow and leakage and will need to be replaced.

Water flow in the home was satisfactory at the time of the inspection.

Plumbing distribution pipes in contact with each were made of different types of metal and may cause galvanic corrosion which will result in deterioration and eventual leakage. The Inspector recommends installation of a dielectric union by a qualified plumbing contractor.

The home was originally plumbed using galvanized water distribution pipes. The original pipes were abandoned and newer copper pipes were in use at the time of the inspection.

The visible water distribution pipes appeared to be in serviceable condition at the time of the inspection.

The visible water distribution pipes appeared to be in generally serviceable condition at the time of the inspection. Notable exceptions will be listed in this report.

Most visible water distribution pipes appeared to be in serviceable condition at the time of the inspection. Notable exceptions will be listed in this report.

Plumbing pipes were visible at the time of the inspection which appeared to have been installed by persons not familiar with good building practice.

The Inspector recommends evaluation of the plumbing system by a qualified plumbing contractor.

Plumbing pipes were visible at the time of the inspection which appeared to have been installed by persons not familiar with good building practice. This is an indication that plumbing may have been installed without the required building permits and the accompanying inspections. Non-permitted plumbing may contain hidden defects. You should ask the seller for documentation showing that this work was done with the required permits and inspections.

Water distribution pipes in contact with each other were made of different types of metal. Dissimilar metals in contact with each other in the presence of sufficient moisture can cause metal to deteriorate due to galvanic corrosion. The Inspector recommends installation of a dielectric union by a qualified plumbing contractor.

Water service to the home was shut off at the time of the inspection.

Most water distribution pipes were not visible at the time of the inspection due to wall, floor and/or ceiling coverings.

Distribution pipes visible in the crawlspace were corroded and showed signs of past leakage. The moisture meter showed no elevated levels of moisture in adjacent materials at the time of the inspection. This indicated that there has been no recent leaking. Monitor the pipes on a regular basis to prevent future damage from leaking pipes.

Actively leaking water distribution pipes visible in the crawlspace should be repaired by a qualified plumbing contractor to avoid damage to home materials or the development

of conditions which encourage the growth of microbes such as mold.

Water distribution pipes in the crawlspace were poorly supported. Generally-accepted current standards require that copper pipes of this diameter be supported a minimum of every 6 feet. The Inspector recommends that additional supports be added to prevent damage to pipes.

 

 

NARRATIVES: POOL & SPA

SKIMMER

 

DRAINS

 

AIR VENTURI

 

LADDER

 

CONTROL SYSTEMS

 

CIRCULATION TIME CLOCK

 

FIREMAN/DELAY SWITCH

 

MAIN DISCONNECT

 

CIRCUIT PROTECTION

 

GFCI PROTECTION

 

CONDUCTORS

 

CONNECTIONS

 

LIGHTS

 

UNDERWATER LUMINAIRES

 

 POOL HEATING SYSTEM

 

GAS or OIL HEATERS