SNations

I still disagree. There are various methods for flashing these details. What's deemed "best" today might be deemed "crap" tomorrow. If you use a method that involves a flashing product that comes with a built-in bevel, then you should install it that way. Such products are exceedingly rare in single family construction. (By the way, I work with them regularly in some of my outside gigs on multifamily jobs. The drip edges are also bevelled and hemmed and we include end dams that extend both above and below bevel at each end - each one is painstakingly custom fabbed in the field. If we're taking "best practices, I'd say that the JLC specs are crap and, therefore, "wrong.") The stuff off the shelf comes preformed with 90 degree angles. Are you proposing altering it in the field? When you buy and install pre-made flashing with 90-degree angles, there will be some that slope one way and some that slope another after they're installed. This is reality, not a drawing in a book. The installation will contain discrepancies. While that might make it "imperfect," it doesn't follow that it's, "wrong." Maybe what's "best" today will be "crap" tomorrow. Maybe not. I'll go with best practices at the time of construction. (Standards change, I know that. I said it here a few weeks ago.) If I'm a builder and the flashing comes with a 90-degree angle then I'm going to slap it up as fast as I can and then move on to the next house and not lose a minute of sleep. I run a business too, and I understand that you can't worry about every little detail, especially on something that has a very low chance of making a difference. But if it's my house, then I want to find one of the exceedingly rare pieces of flashing with the bevel built in, because I think that's best practice. And while I repeat that I'm not going to condone your local inspector's reporting methods, I'm not going to fault someone on the technical side for wanting to see best practices, especially when it comes to water resistance detailing.

I don't think it's wrong, no matter how strictly you speak. The downside to this is very close to zero. Yes, and I said pretty much exactly that in my first post. I said "Well sloped might be only infinitesimally better, and maybe not significantly better. . . ." Translation: the downside to this is very close to zero. So please be clear about my position. However, if the downside is not *exactly* zero then it's wrong. Maybe not wrong enough to bother fixing, and maybe not wrong enough for the builder to worry about in the first place. But still wrong, and JLC Best Practices clearly agrees. It's all a matter of how it's reported, and this guy appears to be going overboard with the fear factor. I certainly agree with that.

So is the bigger question this: Should we report on things that are wrong, strictly speaking, but won't make a difference? I would say the answer is, it depends. . . .

Yeah, that's right to a point; but saying they need to be replaced? He's pushing the credibility envelope there. Someday he's going to get called out by a builder, end up in court and then a siding manufacturer's tech rep is going to be called in by the other side as a witness and the tech rep will say something like, "Yeah, we liked those pics so we borrowed them from so-and-so. Sure, sloped flashings work better, but the truth is we don' t have any data anywhere to prove that flat flashings aren't working. We'll still honor the warranty on that product." Then he'll walk out with so much egg on his face he'll looks like a Denver Omellete with it's head stuck up it's ass. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Well, I'm not defending his reporting. I thought about making that point in my first post, but decided it was extraneous. On the other hand, he's never going to end up in court. We all know that. But if he does, and the rep says, "Sure, sloped flashings work better" then he'd win.

I think this fellow is right on the technical merits. Any exterior detail is going to work better and last longer if it sheds water well. Well sloped might be only infinitesimally better, and maybe not significantly better, but better nonetheless. And just because everybody does it wrong doesn't make it OK.

I have a friend who's a surgeon, and I asked him about this sort of thing a while ago. He said that no doctor would ever have to appear in court or at a deposition without charging a fair (but hefty) consulting fee, even if they're just testifying to facts. I don't see why your situation is any different. To Bill's point about just authenticating your report, maybe some sort of affidavit would suffice.

To consider having some work done won't prevent water damage. To prevent water damage you must actually take some action, not just consider it. Maybe you're trying to hedge your bet in that water damage might not occur even in the absence of any action. But you've done that in an inarticulate manner.

Maybe, but a newer Goodman furnace would only try to fire three times, then it would shut down. I don't think it would keep trying to fire for 45 minutes.

Air is a fluid. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid

When clients ask me something like this I tell them that the person doing the installation is a lot more important than the brand. That's almost always true.

Try Brick Industry Association Technical Note 28. www.gobrick.com/TechnicalNotes/LinkstoT ... fault.aspx

I'm with Kurt on this one. If there's a lawyer involved in a dispute between the buyer and seller, then the HI is part of that relationship, and you can't just end it. You could get saddled with lots and lots of legal issues that you don't want. Better to be a helpful partner up front, when the time commitment is minimal.

I don't know how things get on the radar, but I'm cynical enough to know that things don't get on the radar just because they deserve to be there. Take decks, for example. I think we all take deck safety seriously, looking at ledger board attachment and that sort of thing. There's even a deck safety awareness week, so it's definitely on the radar. So I looked up information from the North American Deck and Railing Association. Their website says that from 2000-2008 "at least" 30 deaths occurred from deck collapse. Let's assume the real number is 50% higher, or 45. And that's over a nine year span, which comes to an average of 5 a year. So that would make septic systems 10 times more deadly than decks. I would wager that last week, if you asked 1,000 HI's which was more deadly -- decks or septic systems -- at least 999 would have said decks. And if you had asked them which of these was 10 times more deadly than the other the response would have been unanimous for decks. But they all would have been wrong. (As a caveat, I'm just taking it as gospel that the 50/year figure is right. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I should look that up.) Things get on the radar for lots of reasons, in all professions and areas of interest. But we shouldn't assume that because something is on the radar that it actually deserves to be there. We need to double check the data and our assumptions on a regular basis. I think our profession would be well served by taking a good look at what we really think is important on a more regular basis and in a systemic manner.

If you look at the statistics of the causes of unintentional injuries and deaths in homes, 50 is a very small number. I'm not saying that anything more than 0 is acceptable. It'll just never be on the radar until items in the tens of thousands are eliminated. I'm not so sure of that. But even if it's true, to the larger point why isn't there more information passing around our profession regarding what those dangers are, because we should be concentrating more on them. Maybe we are, but I doubt it. I think we tend to concentrate on what we can see clearly, what we know for sure, and what is easy to detect. I'm quite certain that everybody on this forum notes an illegal double tap on a circuit breaker. But do double taps cause 50 deaths a year? Maybe the problem is that I do not have even the slightest idea what the answer to that question is. All I know is that a double tap is wrong (in most cases).

"Fifty children a year die from falling into unsecured septic systems." This just blows me away. If this is true, or even close, then it's a real eye opener. There are so many things that we focus on, like the minutia of the electrical system, that surely don't come anywhere close to being so dangerous that they kill 50 people a year. I think that one thing this industry could use is better feedback as to what's really dangerous and where the injuries/deaths are occurring so that we can better focus our attention.

I would say that it comes down to the definition of "bathroom". From the 2009 IRC, section 3501 Electrical Definitions: BATHROOM. An area, including a basin, with one or more of the following: a toilet, a tub or a shower. So I'd say you're right.

There are several cities around here that require an inspection from a city guy prior to a real estate transaction. But I don't think they ever go in the attic, and ductwork is definitely way beyond their interest level. Mostly they're looking for smoke/CO alarms, GFCI, grounded receptacles, hose spigots with anti-siphon, etc. MRB, I wish you luck. I think the guy you're dealing with is off his nut.

I disagree that peninsulas don't need a receptacle. IRC E3901.4.3 Peninsular countertop space. At least one receptacle outlet shall be installed at each peninsular countertop space with a long dimension of 24 inches (610 mm) or greater and a short dimension of 12 inches (305 mm) or greater. A peninsular countertop is measured from the connecting edge.

It looks to me like as long as there is another receptacle that properly serves this countertop then everything is OK. It's just that this receptacle can't be the one to serve this countertop. The CodeCheck book that I have has a picture of this situation with a hot crock pot on the countertop and it's plugged in to a receptacle too far below the countertop. The picture shows a baby reaching up to grab the plug, the implication being that the baby could pull the crock pot onto itself. I suppose you could call it unsafe to even have that receptacle there because it could be used for a kitchen appliance, and then the baby-pulling-the-plug scenario comes into play. I don't think I would say that, but I could understand the argument.

As late as 2006 the International Residential Code used to have sections only for combustion air all from inside, and all from outside. Now it also has a section for combined inside/outside combustion air. Does anybody know if the National Fuel Gas Code was similarly changed around 2009, or did it always have a section for combined inside/outside combustion air. I'm just curious.

I think you got ripped off. And I don't understand why this house is so unique when it comes to radon. Go down into any basement of any standard house with a radon mitigation system. Now envision the entire house being removed except the floor above, and the whole thing being covered with dirt. Isn't that your situation? Put in the same type of mitigation system. Also, it sounds like the system you have could allow ground water to infiltrate more easily. Even if this system gets the level under 4, a proper system would probably make it much less than that. Good luck.

No, it's not bad advice. You don't live in earthquake country, we do. Which makes more sense in a quake, to waste time running around looking for a wrench to shut off the gas or have one hanging next to the meter where you know exactly where to find it? Hanging a wrench next to the meter here is not commonly done; but most folks here know that in a quake they should shut off the gas immediately. Some prepare for it by putting a wrench at the meter and other folks have special valves installed on their houses that will automatically do it for them so they won't have to. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Understood. That's way different than why someone would suggest that around here. Hope this isn't a dumb question. Since you don't get much of a warning ahead of time, isn't it a little late in the game once one hits? I always point out the main gas shut off valve, and my client always yawns. Then one time a client asked very early in the inspection where the main gas shut off valve was. Being surprised, I asked why they were so interested. They were moving from California, where the first thing you do if an earthquake hits is to turn off the gas. Another interesting geographic difference.

I agree that the sun can cause problems. I think most people ignore the effects of the sun on ice dams.

After reading all your posts, it seems to me that all of your wrath is directed at your inspector, who didn't do enough to protect you from a crappy house. But why aren't you more mad at the builder, who actually built your crappy house? Is it because your builder is a nice guy who says please and thank you and cracks funny jokes occasionally? This guy left you without heat for a whole week, not to mention all the other problems you're still having. I think you should redirect the bulk of your anger towards the builder. If you're going to sue anybody, sue him.

I don't understand how an overhead garage door that was defective at the time of sale can be a legitimate claim for a home warranty insurance policy. I'm not sure I understand how anything can be a legitimate claim for a brand new homeowner, short of the house catching fire as you drive there from the closing. What kinds of claims was she trying to submit? If you say so, then I'm sure she was a very nice lady. That still doesn't mean she's not a barracuda.