HI Probes for Rot - The Owner Is P****d - Too Far?

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Steve Rush

Doesn't anybody read the SOP's of ASHI?

If deterioration is suspect the inspector is to probe.

My comment, failed during testing!

Secondly, the inspector did not cause the rot, deferred maintenance did. If there is a softball size of deterioration that is found during probing, the majority of the wall is toast. I would tell the guy not to kill the messenger. Blame yourself for not taking care of your property.

Steve Rush

On-Site Inspections

Yes we have read it. It does not say how you probe. If it is soft to me pushing my thumb in it. it needs to be repaired/replaced or what needs done to it needs done.

There was a home I did some time back that I pointed out at least 50 soft places in the siding.

My client had me come back later to check some of the items on the list of repairs and she showed me where the pest folks had dug out holes in the siding at ever place. Some of them where 2 - 3 wide.

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Steve Rush

Doesn't anybody read the SOP's of ASHI?

If deterioration is suspect the inspector is to probe.

My comment, failed during testing!

Um, you might want to go back and read them again. Particularly the part where it says, "Probing is NOT required when probing would damage any finished surface."

The whole "failed during testing" thing is just arrogant. There's no reason why you can't probe discretely enough to leave no discernable mark. Kurt explained how to do it with a thin-blade knife.

I'm astonished that this debate has gone on this long. What's so difficult about probing discreetly? Sheesh.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Steve Rush]

Actually Jim what is arrogant is a seller complaining about damage to his house caused by the inspector. The damage was already there, big time. The inspector just made it more apparent. What kind of finish is there if a softball sized piece of decay fell off? The intent of that comment in the ASHI SOPs is to not cause damage to a previous undamaged surface. That is how I read into it. How you read into it is to your discretion.

HI's are not there to be WDO inspectors but if deterioration is suspect they are to probe. Ice picks should not be used. As a WDO inspector as well, I use a flat blade screwdriver cross grain to the wood. If its damaged, with a little pressure it goes in, if not, no damage to the finish. Theres actually a scientific term for it. Its call the Brazeness test.

I was being fairly sarcastic about telling the seller failed during testing. More bravado in my posting as a joke. Sorry if it offended you. HI forums are used to present different opinions and perspectives and sometimes the humor gets lost in the translation.

I would be more tactful in my conversation with the seller unless he asked me to fix something that is part of my job to find. In which case I would have no problem stating that same comment to him.

As GW would say, its not my first rodeo!

Steve Rush

On-Site Inspections

www.on-siteinspections.com

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Steve Rush

Actually Jim what is arrogant is a seller complaining about damage to his house caused by the inspector. The damage was already there, big time. The inspector just made it more apparent. What kind of finish is there if a softball sized piece of decay fell off?

Gotta disagree. Appearances are important to sellers; it's a pride of ownership thing. It doesn't matter whether or not the stuff behind the paint is rotten, we shouldn't be destroying the finished surface of a house -- even if that finished surface is less than a millimeter thick. If the damage is that bad, we ought to be able to detect it without causing cosmetic damage.

The intent of that comment in the ASHI SOPs is to not cause damage to a previous undamaged surface. That is how I read into it. How you read into it is to your discretion.

There's really very little wiggle room there. It's written in plain English. "Probing is NOT required when probing would damage any finished surface." (The all caps NOT is part of the ASHI standard. I didn't add it.) What's there to "read into it?"

Two posts ago, you misrepresented the ASHI SOP in an attempt to convince people that ASHI required probing of finished surfaces, when, in fact, the opposite is true. If you want to probe finished surfaces, fine. But don't tell folks that ASHI requires it.

HI's are not there to be WDO inspectors but if deterioration is suspect they are to probe. Ice picks should not be used. As a WDO inspector as well, I use a flat blade screwdriver cross grain to the wood. If its damaged, with a little pressure it goes in, if not, no damage to the finish. Theres actually a scientific term for it. Its call the Brazeness test.

Actually, it's called a brashness test. And it doesn't work as you've described. A brashness test, by definition, damages the wood that you're testing whether it's rotted or not. To do a brashness test, you insert a screwdriver (or an ice pick or an awl) into the wood and you lever it to lift a string of the wood grain off the surface of the wood. If the lifted section of wood breaks in a line perpendicular to the grain, just above the probe, then you've discovered rot. If it breaks to one side or the other or if it just splinters apart, then you haven't necessarily disproved the presence of rot. The rot may still be present but hasn't advanced to a detectible stage yet.

A brashness test will severely mar sound wood.

I was being fairly sarcastic about telling the seller failed during testing. More bravado in my posting as a joke. Sorry if it offended you. HI forums are used to present different opinions and perspectives and sometimes the humor gets lost in the translation.

I would be more tactful in my conversation with the seller unless he asked me to fix something that is part of my job to find. In which case I would have no problem stating that same comment to him.

As GW would say, its not my first rodeo!

I'm not offended, just disheartened that people think they have to act like cowboys when inspecting a house.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[hausdok]

Hi All,

Since Steve and Jim took us there, you might be interested in this.

https://www.inspectorsjournal.com/forum ... rms=woeste

I probably should move stuff from the front page archives into the regular forum archives so folks can find it more easily.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[Steve Rush]

Originally posted by Jim Katen

Originally posted by Steve Rush

Actually Jim what is arrogant is a seller complaining about damage to his house caused by the inspector. The damage was already there, big time. The inspector just made it more apparent. What kind of finish is there if a softball sized piece of decay fell off?

Gotta disagree. Appearances are important to sellers; it's a pride of ownership thing. It doesn't matter whether or not the stuff behind the paint is rotten, we shouldn't be destroying the finished surface of a house -- even if that finished surface is less than a millimeter thick. If the damage is that bad, we ought to be able to detect it without causing cosmetic damage.

The intent of that comment in the ASHI SOPs is to not cause damage to a previous undamaged surface. That is how I read into it. How you read into it is to your discretion.

There's really very little wiggle room there. It's written in plain English. "Probing is NOT required when probing would damage any finished surface." (The all caps NOT is part of the ASHI standard. I didn't add it.) What's there to "read into it?"

Two posts ago, you misrepresented the ASHI SOP in an attempt to convince people that ASHI required probing of finished surfaces, when, in fact, the opposite is true. If you want to probe finished surfaces, fine. But don't tell folks that ASHI requires it.

HI's are not there to be WDO inspectors but if deterioration is suspect they are to probe. Ice picks should not be used. As a WDO inspector as well, I use a flat blade screwdriver cross grain to the wood. If its damaged, with a little pressure it goes in, if not, no damage to the finish. Theres actually a scientific term for it. Its call the Brazeness test.

Actually, it's called a brashness test. And it doesn't work as you've described. A brashness test, by definition, damages the wood that you're testing whether it's rotted or not. To do a brashness test, you insert a screwdriver (or an ice pick or an awl) into the wood and you lever it to lift a string of the wood grain off the surface of the wood. If the lifted section of wood breaks in a line perpendicular to the grain, just above the probe, then you've discovered rot. If it breaks to one side or the other or if it just splinters apart, then you haven't necessarily disproved the presence of rot. The rot may still be present but hasn't advanced to a detectible stage yet.

A brashness test will severely mar sound wood.

I was being fairly sarcastic about telling the seller failed during testing. More bravado in my posting as a joke. Sorry if it offended you. HI forums are used to present different opinions and perspectives and sometimes the humor gets lost in the translation.

I would be more tactful in my conversation with the seller unless he asked me to fix something that is part of my job to find. In which case I would have no problem stating that same comment to him.

As GW would say, its not my first rodeo!

I'm not offended, just disheartened that people think they have to act like cowboys when inspecting a house.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

Jim,

I reject the comment that I am a "cowboy" inspector or what you are insinuating as a maverick that goes against the grain of inspecting. You have no idea of my professionalism in the field, my success as an inspector or my credentials to make such a blanket comment. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just rendering my opinions and as you have done. Spirited discussion is one thing. This is moving beyond that into debate and bantering.

You have your opinion. I have mind. Lets just say we agree to disagree. I will not be your goat to be drug into further bantering in trying to prove a point or debate the issue. You win! Thread killed!

SR

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Steve Rush

You win! Thread killed!SR

Nah, I don't think so. If anyone is going to kill this thread, it oughta be me since I started it. I'm not ready to do that yet. This is obviously a testy issue, but it bears discussing every once in a while because inspectors do get into trouble over it and because what can impact one of us can impact all of us.

There's a reason why one learns a lot on TIJ - it's because we try (not always successfully, mind you) to keep ourselves in check and not make it our priority to win every argument. Sometimes folks are going to believe what they believe, so there's no use making a single argument the hill you die on. We've had folks that couldn't accept that in the past, who just decided to take their toys and go home, but most folks here keep things friendly and it doesn't become a test of wills - that's the way we like it.

Let's keep these discussions going and try not to take things so personally.

So, if one were to create a standard of practice for probing for wood decay and/or insect damage - one that wouldn't get an inspector nuked - what would it look like? Anyone want to take a stab at it?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Chad Fabry]

So, if one were to create a standard of practice for probing for wood decay and/or insect damage - one that wouldn't get an inspector nuked - what would it look like? Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Why re-invent the wheel? The ASHI standard states it nicely.

(Apologies to WJ)

Maybe it's just me but 99% of the time I know if a house has rot when I pull into the driveway. I've never had any urge to destroy finished surfaces or to probe conspicuously visible areas. Siding that's rotten looks rotten. I might put my Bic Stic in for photographic emphasis and leave a single 8 mm hole.

[ozofprev]

Yes, just look at post #23 again. Clearly, the wood is rotten. The screwdriver is cowboy. We have all seen this 'look' around windows and doors. We write it up without probing.

Probing -> perhaps it's a 'guy' thing. [:-cowboy]

[SonOfSwamp]

Originally posted by Chad Fabry

So, if one were to create a standard of practice for probing for wood decay and/or insect damage - one that wouldn't get an inspector nuked - what would it look like? Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Why re-invent the wheel? The ASHI standard states it nicely.

(Apologies to WJ)

Maybe it's just me but 99% of the time I know if a house has rot when I pull into the driveway. I've never had any urge to destroy finished surfaces or to probe conspicuously visible areas. Siding that's rotten looks rotten. I might put my Bic Stic in for photographic emphasis and leave a single 8 mm hole.

I'm with you on the rot recognition. For cryin' out loud, any semi-savvy HI ought to be able to throw the rot flag before he gets out of his truck. I must admit, I've been getting a laugh out of the notion that an HI has to stick a probe into rotten wood and take a picture of it to prove that he's Right About Rot. Heck, if the wood looks rotten, it is rotten. It doesn't need probing, it needs fixing.

Further, this notion that it's OK for a (let's say imaginary) HI to skin up somebody's house because he thinks ASHI said he should or shouldn't, could or couldn't do the brash and brazen tests, makes me itch a little. I also enjoy the irony that "brash" and "brazen" actually mean "shameless" and/or "impudent."

This thread takes me back to the days when I said that if (let's say an imaginary and oddly overmotivated) HI were to get up on my roof without my permission, I'd shoot him in the butt with my pellet gun, until he came down and went away.

WJ

[Les]

I am in the no probe camp on this one. I did probe once, while in college, but I did not inhale.

I carry a pocket knife and will poke around on occasion, but do not probe on a regular basis. I know of inspectors that carry an ice pick taped on an extension pole to poke at soffits etc.

If I were the homeowner and you damage my house, then you pay. If you poke a little hole in a window sill to see if it is rotted - OK. If you poke much more than that, you pay.

I never forget that I am in a person's home. If it is a vacant repo, I may adjust my attitude a little, but not much. Me thinks that some inspectors work too hard at this job and do get carried away with what protocols they are using.

I am not perfect and don't ever try to make my client think I have seen everything, just those items and issues that my education and experience allows me to see.

I hope Walter's pellet gun is one of the newer models and not an old Crossman .22cal pump up model!

[Brandon Chew]

The HI SOPs that I have read that mention probing, including the one proposed for NY state, do so within the context of looking for damage to structural components. They do not specifically mention wood decay or probing exterior components such as cladding, trim, or window or door jambs and sills. In the SOPs, inspection of exterior components fall under the catch-all of "observe and report the condition..."

I think probing is necessary in order to assess the extent of the damage to structural components. I want to know just how much of that sill, beam, column, or joist is still sound, and how much of it is damaged. I need this info to form an opinion and to convey to the client my thoughts on the size and urgency of the upcoming repair job. Where it does mention probing, I agree with Chad that the ASHI SOP says it well enough.

I routinely find and report wood decay of exterior components by using sight, touch (finger/thumb pressure), and sound (gentle tapping on suspect areas with a hard object such as the handle of my screwdriver). That's all I need to do in order to complete my evaluation of the exterior components, report my observations, and recommend repair or replacement of the damaged wood. I don't think probing is necessary in order to assess exterior components; in fact, since those exterior wood components rely on an unbroken finish to protect them from the weather, any probing that breaks the finish on wood that is not damaged has just made that wood susceptible to damage.

When I do probe on the exterior it is to check structural components that are exposed to the weather, or to go through a gap or hole in the the exterior components in order to probe into the structural framing. If I can't get to the structural framing without damaging exterior components, and I think the framing needs to be examined, I recommend an invasive inspection and I explain to my client why I feel one is necessary.

I have a job to do when I'm at someone's house and I get it done. At the same time I recognize that I'm a guest in someone else's home and I treat their property with respect.

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Chad Fabry

So, if one were to create a standard of practice for probing for wood decay and/or insect damage - one that wouldn't get an inspector nuked - what would it look like? Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Why re-invent the wheel? The ASHI standard states it nicely.

Maybe they do, but I wasn't referring to ASHI. I think there are more independents operating out here than there are association biased anyway. There should be some kind of generic description for the entire gig that folks can use, instead of having to say, I use the ASHI, NAHI, A.I.I., interNACHI, CREIA, etc., SOP.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[MMustola]

I'm in the very little probing camp. A small amount of visible decay could be just the tip of the iceberg. Many times there is no way to determine the extent of the damage without destructive testing.

It seems that many inspectors feel they have to determine the full extent of the problem. I just don't agree with this. When I find decay I certainly look further to find the source of moisture. Is there poor paint, missing caulk or flashing, improper grade, siding or brick installed wrong, leaking roof, etc.

If I found one of those defects and reported it, and the fact that the visible decay was a indication that the defect was causing a serious problem. I would then recommend that they have a qualified 'who ever' determine the extent of the problem and make the appropriate repairs. I would feel I did a good job as a home inspector.

I am there to look at dozens of items across many system in the house and don't what to get bogged down trying to determine the exact extent of the damage.

[Neal Lewis]

Originally posted by SonOfSwamp

Heck, if the wood looks rotten, it is rotten. It doesn't need probing, it needs fixing.

WJ

"The wood trim under the front bay window looks rotten. Poke it with an ice pick. If the ice pick goes in without much resistance, repair or replace the damaged wood and repaint."

Walter, these statements were both written by you. To me, they seem contradictory. You say you could recognize rot on a house from a Google satellite view (slight exaggeration), but you write in the report that it could be rot, but you're not sure. Go find someone other jerk to poke at it to determine if it is rot. You even give instructions on how to do it.

[StevenT]

Don't probe where you shouldn't. If what you are probing is finished and fancy, probe very gently. Don't leave any marks where they can be seen.

More than anything, always use proper precautions when probing something that can be damaged or cause injury. If you are not sure, err on the side of safety.

Some of us like to smoke afterwards.

[chrisprickett]

If anybody thinks for a minute that there is a black & white answer to this, I've got a ski slope in Phoenix for sale!

I've seen real life examples of it going both ways:

A: (In '04) Inspector sees rot at the eave of a roof. Reports it, takes pictures of it, says there's probably more that he can't see, and recommends repair by a roofer. Doesn't poke, prod, or probe. That was three years ago, and the buyer is still suing him for under-disclosing the problem. The BTR (our licensing poobahs) get involved and throw the guy under the bus. They say he didn't properly describe the problem because he said "eave" and not "sheathing, fascia, and soffit". They also picked the rest of his report apart and found some other minor reporting violations. Still fighting a stiff fine by the BTR and still dealing with the lawsuit. He is considering moving out of state so he's not slaughtered financially.

B: (Last summer) Another inspector sees what looks to be an obvious cover up of extensive T-1-11 rot. Pushes his thumb in to see if it's soft. The brand new coat of latex paint is the only thing between his thumb and a bunch of air. Makes a hole. Reports rot to buyer, along with picture of hole. Seller calls me (she states she's a minister and never lies-Ha!) Say my inspector damaged her property. Goes on to say that a "master carpenter" performed all repairs on the home and would NEVER cover up rot. After several calls and letters to our company, we rolled over and paid her around $500.

I am so glad I'm out of the business!

[SonOfSwamp]

Originally posted by Les

I hope Walter's pellet gun is one of the newer models and not an old Crossman .22cal pump up model!

.177 Crossman pump, with a scope. For pigeons, and maybe one day for an unfortunate muleheaded HI.

WJid="blue">

[SonOfSwamp]

Originally posted by chrisprickett

If anybody thinks for a minute that there is a black & white answer to this, I've got a ski slope in Phoenix for sale!

I've seen real life examples of it going both ways:

A: (In '04) Inspector sees rot at the eave of a roof. Reports it, takes pictures of it, says there's probably more that he can't see, and recommends repair by a roofer. Doesn't poke, prod, or probe. That was three years ago, and the buyer is still suing him for under-disclosing the problem. The BTR (our licensing poobahs) get involved and throw the guy under the bus. They say he didn't properly describe the problem because he said "eave" and not "sheathing, fascia, and soffit".

Well, as my daddy would've said, "He did it to his own self." With the possible exception of complicated construction, eave ain't sheathing, fascia or soffit. This backs up my oft-repeated notion that HIs will get in trouble if they don't know how to use the correct words to describe house parts. Do you remember if the rest of his report made sense, or did he advertise his shortcomings throughout his report?id="blue">

They also picked the rest of his report apart and found some other minor reporting violations.

See the pattern? If he had just described the problem(s) correctly, then told the customers plainly that the wood needed to be repaired and/or replaced, then repainted, he likely would've been OK. Usually, when I see an HI get in trouble on an issue like this, it's because he wishy-washed the problem, under-reported the consquences, passive-voiced the whole description, and insisted that he didn't do anything wrong.id="blue">

Still fighting a stiff fine by the BTR and still dealing with the lawsuit. He is considering moving out of state so he's not slaughtered financially.

B: (Last summer) Another inspector sees what looks to be an obvious cover up of extensive T-1-11 rot. Pushes his thumb in to see if it's soft. The brand new coat of latex paint is the only thing between his thumb and a bunch of air. Makes a hole. Reports rot to buyer, along with picture of hole. Seller calls me (she states she's a minister and never lies-Ha!) Say my inspector damaged her property. Goes on to say that a "master carpenter" performed all repairs on the home and would NEVER cover up rot. After several calls and letters to our company, we rolled over and paid her around $500.

I am so glad I'm out of the business!

I'm glad I'm out of the inspecting-houses-that-are-for-sale business. That HI had some bad fortune. Even so, if there were obvious rot, he had no reason to probe. If he'd kept his hands off of the punky T111, he wouldn't have even gotten the "master carpenter" argument. Most likely, the carpenter would be paying for the repairs...

WJid="blue">

[Les]

I'm still using open sights. That is my built in excuse for stray shooting.

One stroke for drama. Two strokes for un-invited boaters on the river. Three strokes for their canoe. Four strokes for sparrows. Five for squirrels and six for skipping across the lake. Have not seen any pigeons since the neighbor got laid off from General Motors!

[chrisprickett]

Originally posted by SonOfSwamp

Originally posted by chrisprickett

If anybody thinks for a minute that there is a black & white answer to this, I've got a ski slope in Phoenix for sale!

I've seen real life examples of it going both ways:

A: (In '04) Inspector sees rot at the eave of a roof. Reports it, takes pictures of it, says there's probably more that he can't see, and recommends repair by a roofer. Doesn't poke, prod, or probe. That was three years ago, and the buyer is still suing him for under-disclosing the problem. The BTR (our licensing poobahs) get involved and throw the guy under the bus. They say he didn't properly describe the problem because he said "eave" and not "sheathing, fascia, and soffit".

Well, as my daddy would've said, "He did it to his own self." With the possible exception of complicated construction, eave ain't sheathing, fascia or soffit. This backs up my oft-repeated notion that HIs will get in trouble if they don't know how to use the correct words to describe house parts. Do you remember if the rest of his report made sense, or did he advertise his shortcomings throughout his report?id="blue">

They also picked the rest of his report apart and found some other minor reporting violations.

See the pattern? If he had just described the problem(s) correctly, then told the customers plainly that the wood needed to be repaired and/or replaced, then repainted, he likely would've been OK. Usually, when I see an HI get in trouble on an issue like this, it's because he wishy-washed the problem, under-reported the consquences, passive-voiced the whole description, and insisted that he didn't do anything wrong.id="blue">

Still fighting a stiff fine by the BTR and still dealing with the lawsuit. He is considering moving out of state so he's not slaughtered financially.

B: (Last summer) Another inspector sees what looks to be an obvious cover up of extensive T-1-11 rot. Pushes his thumb in to see if it's soft. The brand new coat of latex paint is the only thing between his thumb and a bunch of air. Makes a hole. Reports rot to buyer, along with picture of hole. Seller calls me (she states she's a minister and never lies-Ha!) Say my inspector damaged her property. Goes on to say that a "master carpenter" performed all repairs on the home and would NEVER cover up rot. After several calls and letters to our company, we rolled over and paid her around $500.

I am so glad I'm out of the business!

I'm glad I'm out of the inspecting-houses-that-are-for-sale business. That HI had some bad fortune. Even so, if there were obvious rot, he had no reason to probe. If he'd kept his hands off of the punky T111, he wouldn't have even gotten the "master carpenter" argument. Most likely, the carpenter would be paying for the repairs...

WJid="blue">

Hindsight is 20-20. Wait until licensing comes to your state and pin-heads are in charge of picking apart inspection reports.

[Les]

I didn't probe any of these areas. I sensed them just by looking closely!

Image Insert:

74.39 KB

Image Insert:

62.72 KB

Image Insert:

77.75 KB

Image Insert:

85.93 KB

Image Insert:

85.8 KB

[Bain]

This is the wrong place to ask, but lots of times, like in Les's post above, when I click on the photos, nothing happens. I can't even right click and opt for "Open in a new window."

Is this a site flub, Mike and/or Mike, or is there a problem with my browser?

Edit: and part two of the question. The photos originally--on a 20" monitor--were the sizes of postage stamps, but after I responded, the photos were large and viewable. Must be something with my machine's settings.

[Michael Brown]

This is the wrong place to ask, but lots of times, like in Les's post above, when I click on the photos, nothing happens. I can't even right click and opt for "Open in a new window."

Is this a site flub, Mike and/or Mike, or is there a problem with my browser?

It's by design... if you see a dotted line around the image it will open in a new window because it's over a certain size and is resized for the screen. The images above are below that size and just display normally.

Michael Brown

DevWave Software Inc.

[hausdok]

Originally posted by admin

This is the wrong place to ask, but lots of times, like in Les's post above, when I click on the photos, nothing happens. I can't even right click and opt for "Open in a new window."

Is this a site flub, Mike and/or Mike, or is there a problem with my browser?

It's by design... if you see a dotted line around the image it will open in a new window because it's over a certain size and is resized for the screen. The images above are below that size and just display normally.

Michael Brown

DevWave Software Inc.

Huh, I learn something new every day around here.

OT - OF!!!

M.