3 home defects that can elude discovery

Image via Wikipedia

Who's liable for items overlooked during inspection? By Barry Stone
Inman News®

Share This

DEAR BARRY: We bought our home two months ago and have discovered three defects that our home inspector overlooked. These include a water leak under the kitchen sink, a gas leak in the front yard, and an unsupported PVC pipe for the front-yard hose faucet. Is our home inspector liable for these defects? --Lissa
DEAR LISSA: Some of these defects may involve liability and some may not. Here is a short review of each of these items:
1. If there was a visible plumbing leak under the kitchen sink, your home inspector probably should have seen it. If the cabinet below the sink was packed with miscellaneous stuff, the problem may not have been visible on the day of the inspection. In some cases, storage prevents the discovery of defects during an inspection.
2. If the gas was leaking at or near the exterior of the building, the inspector would most likely have encountered it. If the leak was occurring in one of the yard areas away from the building, it could easily have been missed.
3. If the yard faucet is installed on an unsupported PVC plastic pipe, support is needed to prevent breakage, but this is too simple a repair to involve concerns over liability. All that is needed is a metal stake driven into the ground and strapped to the PVC pipe.
When issues such as these arise, the home inspector should be contacted immediately. Reputable inspectors will address these concerns by revisiting the property to see what may have been missed. A mistake many people make is to have the problems repaired and then contact the inspector to demand payment.
When liability issues occur, the inspector should be given the opportunity to see what was missed during the inspection. Home inspection agreements, in many cases, specifically require notification prior to making repairs.
Hopefully, you have a home inspector who takes pride in his work and will seriously consider your concerns.
DEAR BARRY: We bought a foreclosed home, as is, from a bank. When we removed the old carpet, we found large cracks in the slab, leading to costly foundation problems. The contractor who repaired the foundation found evidence of previous foundation repairs that were done incorrectly.
We searched the county records and found that this older work had been done without a permit. Is the bank that sold us the properly liable for not disclosing this problem? --Carrie
DEAR CARRIE: Banks are exempt from disclosure laws because, in most cases, they are unfamiliar with the homes they acquire through foreclosure.
If you had bought the home from a private party, that person might have had knowledge of the substandard foundation repairs and would have been required to provide disclosure. In your case, the bank was probably unaware of the problem and could not have provided disclosure.
Unfortunately, some banks take advantage of the disclosure loophole by avoiding information that they might have to disclose. For example, if you had hired a home inspector and had then decided not to buy the property, the bank would probably not have requested a copy of the report.
Without having seen the report, the bank could maintain plausible deniability with other buyers.
To write to Barry Stone, please visit him on the Web at www.housedetective.com.

Related articles

• Sellers Thoughts On A Home Inspection (century21prolink.wordpress.com)
• Should you get a Home Inspection? (adrianacordero.wordpress.com)
• Home Inspection (adrianacorderorealestate.wordpress.com)

Beware of vague advice in home inspection report

Great Advice from Barry Stone

Hidden defects could've been discovered pre-purchase By Barry Stone

DEAR BARRY: Our home inspector failed to disclose that our roof is in deplorable condition. The inspection report says, "Due to the steepness of the roof, we were unable to walk on the roof and inspect the flashing, stacks and vent covers. We recommend having a qualified contractor evaluate further if desired."
This week, I walked on the roof with a roofing contractor and was astounded at the bad condition of the shingles. The roofer said the inspection report was worthless. Does the wording in the report absolve the inspector of liability? --Douglas
DEAR DOUGLAS: Most roofs can be reasonably inspected without walking on the surface. If it is a one-story roof, the inspector can go around the building with a ladder, placing it against the eaves in various locations, to view as much of the roof as possible.
In most cases, this enables the inspector to see visible defects. If the roof is on a two-story building, it is often possible to see defects by using high-powered binoculars.
If neither of these options was exercised, then your home inspector was not sufficiently motivated to find defects and was not doing a professional-quality job. In this case, however, alternative viewing methods were not necessary, as you and your contractor were able to walk on the roof.
Unfortunately, the fact that you waited until you had purchased the property before calling a roofing contractor weakens your claim against the inspector. If you had followed the advice in the inspection report and had called a roofing contractor before closing the deal, you could have known the condition of the roof in a timely manner.
On the other hand, the inspector's recommendation for further evaluation was not unequivocal. The report says, "if desired," rather than making a firm advisement.
The bottom line is that the roof defects could have been discovered by your home inspector if he had walked on the roof or had inspected it from a ladder.
DEAR BARRY: In a recent article, you advised a homebuyer to call real estate brokers and ask for a home inspector with a reputation as a "deal killer." You suggested this as a means of obtaining the name of a competent inspector.
As a real estate professional, I want an inspector who will give a fair and accurate assessment of the property. But these so-called "deal killers" are often more interested in killing the deal than providing objective disclosure. Killing a deal is not the buyer's objective. It is to know the true condition of the property before completing the transaction. --Janis
DEAR JANIS: The comment about "deal killers" in that article had nothing to do with home inspectors who actually kill deals. It was about home inspectors who are unfairly labeled as deal killers simply because they do very thorough inspections.
Obviously, there are many agents who would not label a qualified home inspector in this demeaning way. But there are many agents, as well, who commonly use this questionable label. Ask any group of experienced home inspectors, and all will tell you they have been labeled in this way by some agents. Fortunately, you are not one of those misguided professionals.
To write to Barry Stone, please visit him on the Web at www.housedetective.com.