Just for fun....

[DonTx]

This is for you die hard Code gurus. This is a long post, so be warned. (but shorter than most of Mikes [] )

This particular home was one I inspected in Dec. We have expansive type clay soil in this area and I routinely write up new homes without gutters. I use the IRC 801.3 as the code for this.

Anyway, my client is very anal but nice guy. He loves a good argument. The builder screwed up and stated that they follow the IRC so now that he's paid $1200 for gutters at the back of his home, he's trying to get the builder to reimburse some of his installation fee. It took the builder 3 months to reply to his letter. The builder first stated that they used the 6" in 10' rule, then stated they use a 12" overhang and feel that meets the code. I supplied him with R801.3 and R102.1. He even called the ICC Technical Assistance Director who agreed with us.

The builder finally responded in writing and this is their letter.

"Per Dale Phillips, code certified inspector, he states that the origination

of the specific code you are referring to, IRC2000code, R801.3, 'goes back

to the 1995 CABO code. HUD and VA examined this portion of the code and

rendered an interpretation (manual 4145.1 revision 2) that a home would be

in compliance if one of the following conditions were met.

1) The home had a minimum 24" eave

2) The home had a full system of gutters, downspouts, and splashblocks

3) The home was equipped with foundation perimeter grading that included a

system of swales to direct roof water away from the foundation and off the

lot.

Included with item #3 are minimum lot slope requirements and minimum slab

height requirements. After the federal government rendered its opinion, the

municipalities followed suit. The City of Houston as well as most other

municipalities in this area accept the HUD/VA interpretations.'

With this said, ******* Homes has chosen option #3 as the means of

handling rood water run off. We do not interpret the code as saying that

gutters are required around the entire house and garage. Therefore,

******* Homes will not be installing gutters on the rear of your home.

Establishing the proper drainage of water away from the foundation of your

home is our method of handling the run off of roof water, and therefore,

meeting code requirements in the construction of your home."

I think it is strange that the Technical Assistance Director of the ICC has

a different interpretation of the code than HUD and the VA supposedly do.

Are you aware of the 1995 CABO code, and can a builder use such a convoluted

excuse for not complying with the IRC?

A quick review of HUD Manual 4145.1 Rev 2 - Appendix 8 "SITE GRADING

AND DRAINAGE GUIDELINES" doesn't seem to echo the three conditions

Trendmaker listed. Also, it states that if some fairly strict drainage

requirements can't be met (6" in first 10', then 6" every 25' after that)

then "e. Roof drainage should discharge at least 5 feet away from building

walls when expansive, collapsible or erodible soils are present."

Here's the link I got this info from:

http://www.hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/cgi/ ... s1=(4145.1)op

1=AND&l=100&SECT1=TXT_HITS&SECT5=HEHB&u=./legis.cgi&p=1&r=17&f=G

I paid over $1200 for gutters and would really love to get some

reimbursement. Trendmaker has not been responsive as you can tell. (It was

January 21st when I asked for their opinion in writing)

Bold type is my clients comments.

My thoughts are that the home was not built in '95 and the CABO code does not apply in this case since the home was built in 2003 so when the code originated is irrelevant. This is also not a HUD/VA home nor is it in the Houston city limits. (besides, Houston requires new homes to have full gutters)

Your thoughts?

Donald

[n/a29]

The builder should put gutters all the way around the home, but the builder also has the right to charge for those gutters, so I don't think the client should get any money back for the cost he or she incurred to put the gutters on. Had the builder originally put gutters all the way around, he would have passed on that cost to the client in the price of the home, so it is a moot issue if you ask me.

A home buyer will never get more than what they pay for.

[swarga]

The Builder should put gutters around the perimeter of the roof. The builder has the responsibility to build a home that meets All of the codes that were adopted in that area when the permits for that house were pulled. Therefore If the 2000 or 2003 IRC was in effect when the permits were pulled and it is a documented fact that the soils are expansive. The builder should have budgeted for gutters. The client(Buyer) had every right to expect his New home to be in compliance with all of the codes.

The builder cannot decide to use the 1995 CABO because he wants to. He also cannot decide to use the 1984 NEC to get out of installing GFCI's in the kitchen. Those codes have been replaced by the new adopted 2000/2003 IRC and the 1999/2002 NEC.

Have you client contact his attorney and send the builder a letter. The letter should point out that his reference used to apply in Houston and even Houston has changed.

The builder needs to step up and pay the piper.

[Brian G]

Originally posted by IntegrityFirst

Had the builder originally put gutters all the way around, he would have passed on that cost to the client in the price of the home, so it is a moot issue if you ask me.

That's not a bad point Dan, but it's up to the builder to know what the codes call for in a given place and time. He has to build to those standards and charge accordingly when selling. IF the codes in effect at the time called for gutters, he missed his chance to charge for them then. My 2 cents, adjusted for inflation (worthless).

The attempt to harken back to the 1995 CABO codes is a farce.

Brian G.

[Steven Hockstein]

Until November of 2003, in NJ, plans for one and two family homes could have been submitted using CABO 1995. The 2000 IRC-NJ Edition was adopted last year but there was a six month grace period in which you could still use the old 1995 CABO (ending in November, 2003). This state is unusually slow in adopting new codes.

Just double check what code was applicable when the plans were submitted because you don't want to stick your foot into your mouth if you rely on a code reference that may be inappropriate.

[n/a29]

IF the codes in effect at the time called for gutters, he missed his chance to charge for them then. My 2 cents, adjusted for inflation (worthless).

I see your point. I agree that the builder should have built in accordance with current code and you are right trying to go back to a former code is bs. However, I don't know of too many builders that wouldn't still pass on the cost of the gutters to the client, whether it was before or after the sale.

[Tom Barber]

You would need to find out what code the builder used to pull the permit for this particular house. In VA when there is about to be a major code adoption, a lot of the larger builders will pull pemits under the old code for an entire subdivision. In VA you would have to go to the building dept. and find out which code was used to build that particular house.

Tom B. in VA

[n/a29]

Originally posted by Tom Barber

You would need to find out what code the builder used to pull the permit for this particular house. In VA when there is about to be a major code adoption, a lot of the larger builders will pull pemits under the old code for an entire subdivision. In VA you would have to go to the building dept. and find out which code was used to build that particular house.

Tom B. in VA

Very good point Tom.

[JerryM]

Per Section 1506 of the 2001 California Building Code (based on the 97 UBC) does not require rain gutters on R-3 units. However, the local jurisdiction can do so by city ordinance.

Personally, gutters are the only way to control roof drainage and I always suggested such when performing inspections.

You think anyone ever followed my advice?

Yah, right! [:-bigeyes