http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...e=album-invite

Thanks for the responses that I got on my original question a few
weeks ago! We had a roofer out to look at it, who said we needed a
carpenter. From the carpenters, we've found that we need to remove
that section of gutter, have the soffit re-attached properly so that
there is no gap, then have new guttering installed there, since the
current guttering has sagged with the soffit.

We can remove the guttering pretty easily and the carpenter fee
shouldn't be all that much. But the new guttering (25-30 feet worth)
could cost a few bucks.

Someone recommended contacting the inspector. We did that, and as one
would expect, he doesn't believe this is something he should have
seen. In his words, "I did not climb in your attic....and did not see
the condition that you describe. The condition of the soffit being
pulled down and having a gap, unless wood rot was evident, probably
would not have been noted in my inspection." He believes this is
something the seller should have disclosed, and is therefore the
seller's responsibility. This is a condition that can be seen from
the outside, so I'm not sure what his not going in the attic has to do
with anything-- other than make him look kind of foolish, because
shouldn't an inspector go in the attic at some point?

So we're looking at a ping-pong match here to determine who is
"responsible" for not telling us about this condition. I'm not
interested in a money grab-- but we've already had to pay a couple
hundred bucks to fix things that the seller was supposed to fix, but
didn't fix properly (they wired a dryer plug receptacle incorrectly,
didn't properly fix a leaking pipe, left the kitchen sink disposal in
non-working order by trying to dispose of their entire refrigerator
before moving out), and I'm kind of tired of just swallowing this
stuff.

So I'd just like a few opinions-- pursue the seller, further pursue
the inspector, or let the whole thing drop?

sffleague wrote:

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...e=album-invite

..
Someone recommended contacting the inspector. We did that, and as one
would expect, he doesn't believe this is something he should have
seen. In his words, "I did not climb in your attic....and did not see
the condition that you describe. The condition of the soffit being
pulled down and having a gap, unless wood rot was evident, probably
would not have been noted in my inspection." He believes this is
something the seller should have disclosed, and is therefore the
seller's responsibility. This is a condition that can be seen from
the outside, so I'm not sure what his not going in the attic has to do
with anything-- other than make him look kind of foolish, because
shouldn't an inspector go in the attic at some point?
...

I don't think the seller is going to be involved. If it was something
you did not see, then they likely would not have seen it either. On the
other hand let's talk about this inspector.

Who hired the inspector? I am assuming he was working for you. What
credentials did he provide? License? Was there a written contract? Some
inspectors are worthless, and it sounds like you had one. I can't imagine
any legit inspector; inspecting a home without going up on the roof. A good
inspector is well worth the cost, but it looks like this one was not worth
anything.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

I would say drop it. Fix the problem and get on with life. Yea, the
inspector sounds like he hid a half a%^ job, I should have gone on the roof
and in the attic but you may have had a different agreement with him
(Cheapest price huh?)

A couple of bucks for a rake board and a new gutter. Do the board yourself,
have a gutter co do a seamless gutter. Its a small job. Cost me $700 for a
cape cod at lest 4 times as much gutter and included drops and was in a
color.

"sffleague" wrote in message
m...

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...e=album-invite

Thanks for the responses that I got on my original question a few
weeks ago! We had a roofer out to look at it, who said we needed a
carpenter. From the carpenters, we've found that we need to remove
that section of gutter, have the soffit re-attached properly so that
there is no gap, then have new guttering installed there, since the
current guttering has sagged with the soffit.

We can remove the guttering pretty easily and the carpenter fee
shouldn't be all that much. But the new guttering (25-30 feet worth)
could cost a few bucks.

Someone recommended contacting the inspector. We did that, and as one
would expect, he doesn't believe this is something he should have
seen. In his words, "I did not climb in your attic....and did not see
the condition that you describe. The condition of the soffit being
pulled down and having a gap, unless wood rot was evident, probably
would not have been noted in my inspection." He believes this is
something the seller should have disclosed, and is therefore the
seller's responsibility. This is a condition that can be seen from
the outside, so I'm not sure what his not going in the attic has to do
with anything-- other than make him look kind of foolish, because
shouldn't an inspector go in the attic at some point?

So we're looking at a ping-pong match here to determine who is
"responsible" for not telling us about this condition. I'm not
interested in a money grab-- but we've already had to pay a couple
hundred bucks to fix things that the seller was supposed to fix, but
didn't fix properly (they wired a dryer plug receptacle incorrectly,
didn't properly fix a leaking pipe, left the kitchen sink disposal in
non-working order by trying to dispose of their entire refrigerator
before moving out), and I'm kind of tired of just swallowing this
stuff.

So I'd just like a few opinions-- pursue the seller, further pursue
the inspector, or let the whole thing drop?

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
sffleague wrote:


http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...e=album-invite

..
Someone recommended contacting the inspector. We did that, and as one
would expect, he doesn't believe this is something he should have
seen. In his words, "I did not climb in your attic....and did not see
the condition that you describe. The condition of the soffit being
pulled down and having a gap, unless wood rot was evident, probably
would not have been noted in my inspection." He believes this is
something the seller should have disclosed, and is therefore the
seller's responsibility. This is a condition that can be seen from
the outside, so I'm not sure what his not going in the attic has to do
with anything-- other than make him look kind of foolish, because
shouldn't an inspector go in the attic at some point?
...

I don't think the seller is going to be involved. If it was something
you did not see, then they likely would not have seen it either. On the
other hand let's talk about this inspector.

Who hired the inspector? I am assuming he was working for you. What
credentials did he provide? License? Was there a written contract? Some
inspectors are worthless, and it sounds like you had one. I can't imagine
any legit inspector; inspecting a home without going up on the roof. A
good
inspector is well worth the cost, but it looks like this one was not worth
anything.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math




The inspection reports I've seen carry a phrase something like "Inspector is
not responsible for anything missed."

In other words, you're outta luck.

"sffleague" wrote in message

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...e=album-invite


Someone recommended contacting the inspector. We did that, and as one
would expect, he doesn't believe this is something he should have
seen. In his words, "I did not climb in your attic....and did not see
the condition that you describe. The condition of the soffit being
pulled down and having a gap, unless wood rot was evident, probably
would not have been noted in my inspection." He believes this is
something the seller should have disclosed, and is therefore the
seller's responsibility.

IMO, the home inspector is a weasel. I don't know that the sellers would
have know about it to disclose the problem. That is why you hire an
inspector; to FIND problems. He should have been in the attic. Maybe you
can ask for a refund? Report him to some association of inspectors?

You probably have no recourse, unfortunately, but I'd be sure the realtors
involved know about the guy's ethics and poor inspection procedures.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"sffleague" wrote in message

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...e=album-invite


Someone recommended contacting the inspector. We did that, and as one
would expect, he doesn't believe this is something he should have
seen. In his words, "I did not climb in your attic....and did not see
the condition that you describe. The condition of the soffit being
pulled down and having a gap, unless wood rot was evident, probably
would not have been noted in my inspection." He believes this is
something the seller should have disclosed, and is therefore the
seller's responsibility.

IMO, the home inspector is a weasel. I don't know that the sellers would
have know about it to disclose the problem. That is why you hire an
inspector; to FIND problems. He should have been in the attic. Maybe you
can ask for a refund? Report him to some association of inspectors?

Yes, but the op says you can see it from the ground. That means the
inspector is direlict. And the purpose of the inspection is not to
get the inspection cost refunded if the inspector screws up, but to
avoid the cost of needed repair and that means that the inspector
becomes liable for the cost of the repair.

You probably have no recourse, unfortunately, but I'd be sure the realtors
involved know about the guy's ethics and poor inspection procedures.

I agree, that the op is likely to get any money, but he should take
the extra effort to try to get that inspector barred from the trade.

x-no-archinve: yes
George E. Cawthon wrote:


Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"sffleague" wrote in message

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...e=album-invite


Someone recommended contacting the inspector. We did that, and as one
would expect, he doesn't believe this is something he should have
seen. In his words, "I did not climb in your attic....and did not see
the condition that you describe. The condition of the soffit being
pulled down and having a gap, unless wood rot was evident, probably
would not have been noted in my inspection." He believes this is
something the seller should have disclosed, and is therefore the
seller's responsibility.

IMO, the home inspector is a weasel. I don't know that the sellers would
have know about it to disclose the problem. That is why you hire an
inspector; to FIND problems. He should have been in the attic. Maybe you
can ask for a refund? Report him to some association of inspectors?


Yes, but the op says you can see it from the ground. That means the
inspector is direlict. And the purpose of the inspection is not to
get the inspection cost refunded if the inspector screws up, but to
avoid the cost of needed repair and that means that the inspector
becomes liable for the cost of the repair.


You probably have no recourse, unfortunately, but I'd be sure the realtors
involved know about the guy's ethics and poor inspection procedures.


I agree, that the op is likely to get any money, but he should take
the extra effort to try to get that inspector barred from the trade.

IMHO, it is a dishonerable trade; rather than be barred, the inspector
will just be a local hero. He and his buddies will just have a good
laff at the OP's expense.

I'm sure there are some fine home inspectors out there, but I don't
think there are very many.

As far as telling the realtor, the realtor doesn't care. The realtor
just wants to close the deal, and a thorough inspection will
occasionally break a deal.

You buy a house, and you get screwed by everybody who can butt in and
demand a fee. That's part of the deal, and it's best not to dwell on it
and just get over it. To a lesser extent, the same thing happens to the
seller.

Best regards,
Bob

zxcvbob wrote:
x-no-archinve: yes


You probably have no recourse, unfortunately, but I'd be sure the
realtors
involved know about the guy's ethics and poor inspection procedures.


I agree, that the op is likely to get any money, but he should take
the extra effort to try to get that inspector barred from the trade.

IMHO, it is a dishonerable trade; rather than be barred, the inspector
will just be a local hero. He and his buddies will just have a good
laff at the OP's expense.

I'm sure there are some fine home inspectors out there, but I don't
think there are very many.

As far as telling the realtor, the realtor doesn't care. The realtor
just wants to close the deal, and a thorough inspection will
occasionally break a deal.

A very important point. Realtors (both the seller's and the buyer's)
have the same goal sell as many homes for as much as possible. They are all
on the seller's side, including the one who claims to represent the buyer.
They all get paid on commission. If they recommend an inspector, you can be
sure it is one that never finds any problems.

My advice is to hire a lawyer or a realtor who will work on a fixed fee
not commission.

I do disagree about home inspectors. There are many good ones, but
there are also many very bad ones. This is one area we need more local
attention in licensing.


You buy a house, and you get screwed by everybody who can butt in and
demand a fee. That's part of the deal, and it's best not to dwell on it
and just get over it. To a lesser extent, the same thing happens to the
seller.

Best regards,
Bob

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"HeatMan" wrote in message
. net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
sffleague wrote:



http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...500&mode=invit
e&cmp=EMC-IS_other&creative=album-invite

..
Someone recommended contacting the inspector. We did that, and as one
would expect, he doesn't believe this is something he should have
seen. In his words, "I did not climb in your attic....and did not see
the condition that you describe. The condition of the soffit being
pulled down and having a gap, unless wood rot was evident, probably
would not have been noted in my inspection." He believes this is
something the seller should have disclosed, and is therefore the
seller's responsibility. This is a condition that can be seen from
the outside, so I'm not sure what his not going in the attic has to do
with anything-- other than make him look kind of foolish, because
shouldn't an inspector go in the attic at some point?
...

I don't think the seller is going to be involved. If it was something
you did not see, then they likely would not have seen it either. On the
other hand let's talk about this inspector.

Who hired the inspector? I am assuming he was working for you. What
credentials did he provide? License? Was there a written contract? Some
inspectors are worthless, and it sounds like you had one. I can't imagine
any legit inspector; inspecting a home without going up on the roof. A
good
inspector is well worth the cost, but it looks like this one was not worth
anything.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math




The inspection reports I've seen carry a phrase something like "Inspector is
not responsible for anything missed."

In other words, you're outta luck.


I say sue the home inspector.

I was talking with one recently and he got to telling me how his liability
insurance rates have been sky-rocketing. Not particularily his, but the home
inspection business in general

On 12 Aug 2004 07:16:38 -0700, (sffleague)
scribbled this interesting note:

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?i...e=album-invite

Thanks for the responses that I got on my original question a few
weeks ago! We had a roofer out to look at it, who said we needed a
carpenter. From the carpenters, we've found that we need to remove
that section of gutter, have the soffit re-attached properly so that
there is no gap, then have new guttering installed there, since the
current guttering has sagged with the soffit.

A couple of more cents worth he

You bought an old house. It is in used, not new condition. It will
never be in new condition again. Unless you are made out of money,
learn how to do these minor repairs yourself. If you can assemble a
moderately difficult Lego set, you are capable of doing any and all
the repairs you mention for a fraction of the cost of hiring anyone
else to do it for you...and that also includes home inspection.

If the condition you cite was obvious, why didn't you note it before
buying the property? Pulling off a section of facia, repairing a
section of soffit, putting it back together, caulking, priming,
painting, well all that is not very difficult. I'd be more concerned
about what caused the condition to begin with? Unless it was slapped
together in a slip-shod fashion and was in the process of simply
falling apart, something caused this problem. Fix that, repair the
damage, install some new gutter, and be done with it.

Fault? There is no fault. It is always the case that the buyer should
beware. In today's risk-averse society everyone seems to want to hold
someone else responsible instead of owning up to their own
responsibility. A leaky pipe, a stuck disposer, a mis-wired plug, all
these are minor items that ought not ever be real issues as they are
all relatively trivial to fix!

--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

"John Willis" wrote in message

Fault? There is no fault. It is always the case that the buyer should
beware. In today's risk-averse society everyone seems to want to hold
someone else responsible instead of owning up to their own
responsibility.

For the most part, I agree. In this case, however, the OP paid a
professional to do the inspection. As a professional, he should be able to
find things that Joe Sixpack would not think to look for.

If I was buying a house today, I'd forego the inspector and do it myself.
I've heard of too many incompetent ones. OTOH, I have a bit of knowledge
about houses but I know of many people that don't have a clue. They are prey
for the unscrupulous home inspector.
Ed

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:53:15 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
scribbled this interesting note:


"John Willis" wrote in message

Fault? There is no fault. It is always the case that the buyer should
beware. In today's risk-averse society everyone seems to want to hold
someone else responsible instead of owning up to their own
responsibility.

For the most part, I agree. In this case, however, the OP paid a
professional to do the inspection. As a professional, he should be able to
find things that Joe Sixpack would not think to look for.


In principle I agree with you except the opinion of the inspector is
exactly that...his opinion. As such it is only worth what his
experience in the field of residential construction makes it worth. I
don't know about most home inspectors, but I suppose many only study
texts enough to pass a state mandated test. The opinion of these kinds
of inspectors is worthless. Of course that is what I think of most
home inspectors anyway!:~)

If I was buying a house today, I'd forego the inspector and do it myself.
I've heard of too many incompetent ones. OTOH, I have a bit of knowledge
about houses but I know of many people that don't have a clue. They are prey
for the unscrupulous home inspector.
Ed

Again, I agree. Which is why the best protection a person can have
when buying something worth as much as a house can be is education.
Besides, if you are going to be a home owner then you really need all
the education about how the various items that make up your house work
and work together. But I suppose that goes against the grain of the
Instant Fulfillment most people today want...


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

John Willis wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:53:15 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
scribbled this interesting note:


"John Willis" wrote in message

Fault? There is no fault. It is always the case that the buyer should
beware. In today's risk-averse society everyone seems to want to hold
someone else responsible instead of owning up to their own
responsibility.

For the most part, I agree. In this case, however, the OP paid a
professional to do the inspection. As a professional, he should be able to
find things that Joe Sixpack would not think to look for.



In principle I agree with you except the opinion of the inspector is
exactly that...his opinion. As such it is only worth what his
experience in the field of residential construction makes it worth. I
don't know about most home inspectors, but I suppose many only study
texts enough to pass a state mandated test. The opinion of these kinds
of inspectors is worthless. Of course that is what I think of most
home inspectors anyway!:~)


If I was buying a house today, I'd forego the inspector and do it myself.
I've heard of too many incompetent ones. OTOH, I have a bit of knowledge
about houses but I know of many people that don't have a clue. They are prey
for the unscrupulous home inspector.
Ed


Again, I agree. Which is why the best protection a person can have
when buying something worth as much as a house can be is education.
Besides, if you are going to be a home owner then you really need all
the education about how the various items that make up your house work
and work together. But I suppose that goes against the grain of the
Instant Fulfillment most people today want...


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)


That's great if you're paying cash for the house. If there's a lender
involved, they'll insist on a professional home inspection, and the
buyer gets to pay for it. Follow the guy around with a croquet mallet
and watch him work. Ask lots of questions. Bean him occasionally if
he's not doing his job.

Bob

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:26:03 -0500, zxcvbob
scribbled this interesting note:

John Willis wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:53:15 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
scribbled this interesting note:


"John Willis" wrote in message

Fault? There is no fault. It is always the case that the buyer should
beware. In today's risk-averse society everyone seems to want to hold
someone else responsible instead of owning up to their own
responsibility.

For the most part, I agree. In this case, however, the OP paid a
professional to do the inspection. As a professional, he should be able to
find things that Joe Sixpack would not think to look for.



In principle I agree with you except the opinion of the inspector is
exactly that...his opinion. As such it is only worth what his
experience in the field of residential construction makes it worth. I
don't know about most home inspectors, but I suppose many only study
texts enough to pass a state mandated test. The opinion of these kinds
of inspectors is worthless. Of course that is what I think of most
home inspectors anyway!:~)


If I was buying a house today, I'd forego the inspector and do it myself.
I've heard of too many incompetent ones. OTOH, I have a bit of knowledge
about houses but I know of many people that don't have a clue. They are prey
for the unscrupulous home inspector.
Ed


Again, I agree. Which is why the best protection a person can have
when buying something worth as much as a house can be is education.
Besides, if you are going to be a home owner then you really need all
the education about how the various items that make up your house work
and work together. But I suppose that goes against the grain of the
Instant Fulfillment most people today want...


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)


That's great if you're paying cash for the house. If there's a lender
involved, they'll insist on a professional home inspection, and the
buyer gets to pay for it. Follow the guy around with a croquet mallet
and watch him work. Ask lots of questions. Bean him occasionally if
he's not doing his job.

Bob

That might actually get a little information into the thick head of
the average inspector!:~)


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)