Recently purchased a house that I had inspected prior to closing. The
inspector was an overly qualified proff engineer (PE) home inspector.
I recently learned that he overlooked two very obvious and important
defects. Not sure I wish to persue this matter, but I wouldn't mind
getting opinions.

#1---Was told that this is a 1973 house, (county records on the
internet say this as well). However, I have found strong evidence that
this house was probably a total remodel of an older house built maybe
10-20 yrs prior. A)--there are exposed areas of the sheathing (siding)
in several places that are easily observed (where the exterior cedar
shakes don't quite cover). This sheathing is shiplap. I understand
that shiplap sheathing was replaced by plywood or particle board long
before 1973. Also, the foundation has lines etched all over showing
that before the shiplap boards were used as siding, they were used for
cement forms for the foundation. This is supported by the cement
stains seen on the shiplap boards.

#2--- This is a daylight basement. During the inspection, I pointed
out to the inspector that the basement was missing 300 sq feet in the
corner, when compared to the upstairs....I wondered what was in this
missing space. He just shrugged his shoulders. Well, I didn't know
enough to worry about it, but a recent re-inspection revealed the
obvious...the upstairs portion (above this missing 300 sq ft) is built
above a cement pad....presumably the old garage floor before the
remodel. While my original inspector may not have been expected to
know about the cement pad...he should have wondered what the upstairs
was sitting on, if not the basement walls. A quick look around the
outside shows absolutely no crawlspace access or even ventilation. It
was easy to see that part of the hous was built on a fully enclose,
inaccessable, unventilated void. It was obvious that this wasn't a
cement slab, because the hardwood floors above sound very hollow.
Obviously, this devalues the house because it is an undesirable defect
that cannot be fixed....who knows what condition the framing / subfloor
is down there after 30 yrs of unventilated...the old garage floor is
cement and could be damp. I'm guessing there is around 4 inches of
space beneath the 2x8 floor joists and the cement floor....not enough
of a void to ever put in access...ie cralspace.

I am not sure if I want to sue the inspector (I already know the bit
about liability waivers....and I don't believe that releases them from
negligence in my area). Some considerations are #1--even if my house
is a 1960 isntead of 73....it will be hard for me to quantify my
damages in dollar terms (court may say the house is still worth what I
paid....defense might claim that houses in the 60's are often built
better than the 70's) #2--the crawlspace/void isn't necessarily a
problem as there is no sign of mold/damage. How can I say how much
this defect is worth in damages? #3--If I persue this case and
research the records and find that the house is a remodel....someday
when I sell it, I will have to disclose this fact which might make it
hard for me to sell or lower the value.

This is all very frustrating for me as these defects were pretty
obvious (the second inspector found them in minutes....along with
completely worthless siding on the whole house.) As I said my first
inspector is a lic engineer (so was the 2nd) with 35 yrs of experience
and thousands of inspections under his belt...so this is unbelievable.
If I had known about any of this I would have walked away from that
house like it was on fire. Now I own it and am indebted for 30yrs.
Just curious if anyone has thought of anything that has yet to occur to
me....doubtful as I've been dwelling on it a lot.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Recently purchased a house that I had inspected prior to closing.
. . .
I am not sure if I want to sue the inspector (I already know the bit
about liability waivers....and I don't believe that releases them from
negligence in my area). . . .
when I sell it, I will have to disclose this fact which might make it
hard for me to sell or lower the value.

Your first task is to find out whether licensed inspectors can
be held financially liable for defects in the property or only for
the amount of their iinspection fees. (Ontario law specifies
the latter.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

"1---Was told that this is a 1973 house, (county records on the
internet say this as well). However, I have found strong evidence that

this house was probably a total remodel of an older house built maybe
10-20 yrs prior. A)--there are exposed areas of the sheathing (siding)

in several places that are easily observed (where the exterior cedar
shakes don't quite cover). This sheathing is shiplap. I understand
that shiplap sheathing was replaced by plywood or particle board long
before 1973. Also, the foundation has lines etched all over showing
that before the shiplap boards were used as siding, they were used for
cement forms for the foundation. This is supported by the cement
stains seen on the shiplap boards. "

If you have a claim as to the age of the house being misrepresented, I
would think
the direct and obvious claim is against the seller, not the home
inspector. The problem
of course is proving damages. You could consult with a real estate
agent or appraiser to
get an opinion as to what effect this has on the appraised value. You
may find there is a
negligible or zero effect.

"Obviously, this devalues the house because it is an undesirable defect

that cannot be fixed....who knows what condition the framing / subfloor

is down there after 30 yrs of unventilated...the old garage floor is
cement and could be damp. I'm guessing there is around 4 inches of
space beneath the 2x8 floor joists and the cement floor....not enough
of a void to ever put in access...ie cralspace. "

I'd do what is necessary to get this ventilated. To do that, you'll
have to cut holes in
the foundation which will give you the opportunity to make them large
enough to have
access. Then you can assess what conditions are under there. You may
be lucky and
have no damage. If there is damage, then you can assess how much and
decide what
to do. IMO, it's unlikely that you'll find enough damage to warrant
the cost of litigation on the
chance you could prevail and get a decent recovery.

In my state of Washington, home inspectors have sometimes been
sucessfully sued, and other times protected by their blanket laibility
waivers.

An inspector may not be expected to draw conclusions, but he should be
expected to point out unusual/questionable things ie--shiplap sheathing
is unexpected on a 1973 house.

On 22 Jan 2006 10:41:24 -0800, someone wrote:

--even if my house
is a 1960 isntead of 73....it will be hard for me to quantify my
damages in dollar terms (court may say the house is still worth what I
paid....cut--the crawlspace/void isn't necessarily a
problem as there is no sign of mold/damage. How can I say how much
this defect is worth in damages? cut Now I own it and am indebted for 30yrs.

Uh, excuse me, but what are you actually out money-wise?

Would you NOT have bought the house if you had know that (gasp, the
horror!) it had actually first been built in 1960 instead of 1973?
It's not like somebody claiming a house was new never been lived in
and it actually was 13 years old. 33 vs. 46 years old, present
condition matters much more than original year.

And the house has had a room on a slab since 1973 with no mold or
damage, but now you say this is a "defect"???? Whole houses are built
on slabs.

Actually, I would say it's likely that the house was built BEFORE
1960, as 13 years is rather soon to do a major remodel. But maybe it
was only 1960.

What counts is the value of the house TODAY, not what year it was
first built. You were probably happy to get your bid accepted. And
now you just have buyer's remorse. (This wouldn't be your first
house, would it?)


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

I have had previous properties that were "remodels" meaning different
builders added-on or structurally modified buildings. Sometimes these
things can turn out as good or better than a regular house....but lots
of times it is just some ham-fisted idiot. The usual way a regular
house gets built is that a proffesional builder starts from scratch and
builds according to plan. The odds of getting a lemon house are
greater with a remodel of an old structur (old basements get more prone
to leaking as they age....who knows if the plumbing was redone 15 years
can make a difference in plumbing systems (they develope slow leaks
over time). Houses are like people, and there is a difference between
the overall condition of a 30 yr old to a 45 yr old. At the time I
made my purchase, my inspector should have given me the chance to
decide if I wanted to purchase a house that not only is older than what
I've been told, but also the product of some major remodel/additons
(peiced together by an unknown) The signs were obvious, and he screwed
up by not noticing.

Secondly, I'm not complaining that part of the house is built on a
slab, but rather the house contains a 300 cubic foot unventilated and
innaccesable void (that has a slab for the floor.) Cement absorbs
water and could cause this void to be moist (I have no way of seeing
whats going on down there) Also there are plumbing lines and drains
down there...if there is ever a problem I'd have to rip out my hardwood
floors to access them.

I have had previous properties that were "remodels" meaning different
builders added-on or structurally modified buildings. Sometimes these
things can turn out as good or better than a regular house....but lots
of times it is just some ham-fisted idiot. The usual way a regular
house gets built is that a proffesional builder starts from scratch and
builds according to plan. The odds of getting a lemon house are
greater with a remodel of an old structur (old basements get more prone
to leaking as they age....who knows if the plumbing was redone 15 years
can make a difference in plumbing systems (they develope slow leaks
over time). Houses are like people, and there is a difference between
the overall condition of a 30 yr old to a 45 yr old. At the time I
made my purchase, my inspector should have given me the chance to
decide if I wanted to purchase a house that not only is older than what
I've been told, but also the product of some major remodel/additons
(peiced together by an unknown) The signs were obvious, and he screwed
up by not noticing.

Secondly, I'm not complaining that part of the house is built on a
slab, but rather the house contains a 300 cubic foot unventilated and
innaccesable void (that has a slab for the floor.) Cement absorbs
water and could cause this void to be moist (I have no way of seeing
whats going on down there) Also there are plumbing lines and drains
down there...if there is ever a problem I'd have to rip out my hardwood
floors to access them.

I have had previous properties that were "remodels" meaning different
builders added-on or structurally modified buildings. Sometimes these
things can turn out as good or better than a regular house....but lots
of times it is just some ham-fisted idiot. The usual way a regular
house gets built is that a proffesional builder starts from scratch and
builds according to plan. The odds of getting a lemon house are
greater with a remodel of an old structur (old basements get more prone
to leaking as they age....who knows if the plumbing was redone 15 years
can make a difference in plumbing systems (they develope slow leaks
over time). Houses are like people, and there is a difference between
the overall condition of a 30 yr old to a 45 yr old. At the time I
made my purchase, my inspector should have given me the chance to
decide if I wanted to purchase a house that not only is older than what
I've been told, but also the product of some major remodel/additons
(peiced together by an unknown) The signs were obvious, and he screwed
up by not noticing.

Secondly, I'm not complaining that part of the house is built on a
slab, but rather the house contains a 300 cubic foot unventilated and
innaccesable void (that has a slab for the floor.) Cement absorbs
water and could cause this void to be moist (I have no way of seeing
whats going on down there) Also there are plumbing lines and drains
down there...if there is ever a problem I'd have to rip out my hardwood
floors to access them.

In article . com,
says...

Secondly, I'm not complaining that part of the house is built on a
slab, but rather the house contains a 300 cubic foot unventilated and
innaccesable void (that has a slab for the floor.) Cement absorbs
water and could cause this void to be moist (I have no way of seeing
whats going on down there)

It shouldn't be at all difficult to snake a camera down there -- if
people can inspect the inside of a buried 2-inch pipe, you can
certainly find someone to inspect a void under your floors.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Updated Infrared Photography Gallery:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html