permit inspections

[Swingman]

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

It's so damn unusual that I actually write letters of commendation/recommendation to the subcontractors that simply do what they were paid to do. I'm tickled to do it for the most part. Hoping that the effort will insure repeat performance, and that the amount of time expended will be paid back in spades.

LOL ... I just used that very term (idealistic) against a client in onsite meeting yesterday.

In the Austin area, I had just caused the demolition of this "green/conservation minded to the extreme" client's old house on a 10 tract to make way for the new.

The old house had been built back in the 70's by a "Mother Earth" hippy couple who lived in it for about ten years before it obviously fell down around their ears.

When I heard, for the 50th time, "we'd like to do this and this (basically to reduce some type of imagined environmental impact issue), I pointed the now bare ground where the old house recently stood and said "You see that old house over there?".

She stopped and with a puzzled look said, "But, there is no longer a house over there!"

I said "Precisely! .. and the reason there is no longer a house there is because it was built with 100% "idealism", without the least regard for "realistic" building practices!".

After the silence, that was pretty much the end of "saving the 30 year old single pane windows", to put back in an energy efficient, new home in lieu of new, low E, double pane glass that will _really_ have an impact on the environment! ;)

[Swingman]

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

covered by sheetrock, it was just

Another excellent reason why a buyer should _always_ require a 3rd party inspection before closing on a home. AAMOF, most lenders are now requiring one ... a good thing!

As I mentioned before, this happens enough that it is almost automatic to check before firing up an AC in new construction. IOW, what happened to you is indeed inexcusable, and one of the reasons the "trades" are not paid in full until the building final is passed, and with all systems going full blast, giving me the opportunity of doing a "backcharge" under their contract in the event of a similar, expensive to repair, incident.

In your case, the builder should have been all over the plumbing contractor for missing the connection; and the HVAC subcontractor for not insuring that both drainage and overflow lines were operational (attic insulation is often the last thing to go in and it is very common to see the overflow pan drain stopped up with insulation _before_ the units are even powered).

[Han]

"David G. Nagel" wrote in news:lJ1qk.25048$ [e-mail]:

That's my plan. Our 30 year-old kids are supposed to know about this.

[Mark & Juanita]

Absolutely. At the time, we were young and naive and didn't think one would need a house inspector for a new construction home bought from a tract builder.

[krw]

I did.

Even worse. Inspections show nothing.

[J. Clarke]

Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled, inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company says "sorry, your fault".

[Douglas Johnson]

I keep hearing this, but I've been over my homeowner's policy (Texas HO-B) pretty carefully and can't find a clause that lets them deny a claim based on permitting and/or inspection. Do you have a reference for this? Thanks, Doug

[J. Clarke]

There's more to insurance law than the words in the policy. You really need to ask a lawyer versed in Texas insurance law this question, however I suspect that you will find that there is by case law or statute an exclusion for damage caused by gross negligence or reckless or illegal conduct on the part of the policyholder. It doesn't say in the policy that there is an exclusion for an arson fire in which the policyholder was the arsonist, but do you really think that they'd pay off on that? Homeowner-conducted repairs that were not done in accordance with the law are less clear cut but they give the insurance company wiggle room.

[Douglas Johnson]

Which is why I asked for a reference. This insurance threat has been endlessly repeated on Usenet, but I've never seen any authoritative source. I'd love to settle the issue one way or the other. -- Doug

[jo4hn]

When I was selling my previous house, the prospective buyer hired an inspection company to look at my place. The chap they sent out was a disaster. His crowning achievement was in a spare bedroom where he found NOT ONLY a dead electrical outlet, but also a switch that "didn't seem to do anything". You guessed it: a wall switch that controlled an outlet. There were a couple minor items on his list that I fixed but nearly all were similar if not quite as spectacular as the switched outlet.

The buyer was a PITA who thought if he could keep grumbling and bitching that I would give him the house. I got tired of it, told the real estate whiz bang to put it back on the market. The buyer then buys it "as is" for the price I had listed. Once in a while there is justice.

curmudgeonly yours, jo4hn

[J. Clarke]

So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.

[Douglas Johnson]

I was hoping you had some references. Thanks, Doug

[Swingman]

"jo4hn" wrote

Luck of the draw ... I've had the "wall switch" issue to deal with numerous times. On one recent inspection, the inspector spelled commode "kamode", and condenser "condinsir" three times each on the same report ... obviously not a typo.

Worst I've had recently is when a 3rd party, PE, moonlighting as a home inspector and who charged the buyer $650 for the inspection when the average going rate is $350, apparently tried to turn a faucet head in the 2nd floor utility room that didn't turn; broke the faucet, causing a leak under the sink, didn't say anything about it, and 18 hours later I had to deal with water damage to the first floor ceiling.

The buyer's were apologetic, but didn't offer to pay anything, apparently betting, correctly, that I wasn't about to let the cost of repairs to me, the builder, kill a $650K deal, so we ate it.

The same inspector scared the hell out of the homeowners with totally false information about the safety of the code required arc-fault breakers in the bedrooms, and wrote up the wrong AC unit for what was an unnecessary "repair" in any event ... and, back on your topic, as he was walking out the front door after being paid, told the buyer that the wall switch to turn off the upstairs balcony lights didn't work ... you guessed it ... it was a three way switch! :(

I've got plenty more "3rd party Inspector Closeau" stories, but I'll quit there. :)

[J. Clarke]

Would you grow up.

[dpb]

J. Clarke wrote: ...

Be _far_ better if you'd verify your facts before posting fud... :(

--

[J. Clarke]

It amazes me that people get angry at being told that if they ignore the law they can get in trouble.

[Frank Boettcher]

I'm not seeing anyone getting angry. I'm seeing individuals asking for a reference to back up a statement. I've heard the same statement a number of times, have asked for a reference myself and have never been offered one or ever seen a case that backs up the statement.

It seems to be a popular troll for scaring people into thinking insurance, warranties, etc. are not going to protect them.

Had a plumbing failure that caused a great deal of water damage several houses ago. There was no way to ascertain whether the failed plumbing was original or add on and whether if add on, was covered by permit and inspected. Insurance adjuster never mentioned it, just processed the claim. As was the case the repair to the plumbing ($50), was not covered, but the damage, several thousand, was.

An anecdotal sample of one.

Frank

[Chris Friesen]

Not true around here at least (Saskatchewan, Canada).

My insurance company has no idea about the actual state of the house...they just work off actuarial tables based on type of construction, age of house, etc.

Hypothetically assuming what you say is true, how exactly would it be enforced? How would the insurance people know whether something was done by you or by someone else before you bought the house?

Chris

[J. Clarke]

No, it's for scaring people into dotting their "i"s and crossing their "t"s so that if something does go wrong their asses are covered. What objection do you have to doing this? Is the 25 bucks or whatever for a permit going to mean the difference between survival and starvation for you? Did a building inspector rape your cat?

If permits are required for "new work" and it wasn't on the original approved plan then it's not covered.

Now suppose the damage had been several hundred thousand? Do you think that they might have scrutinized the situation a bit more carefully?

Insurance companies are about profit, just like any other business. It costs more on a small claim to contest the claim than it does to pay it, even if the claim might be slightly questionable. If it's a big claim and might be the result of something that the insurance company is not required to cover then they may very well choose to contest it.

[J. Clarke]

Huh? How do actuarial tables enter into paying off a claim? Actuarial tables are used to assess rates, not to determine damages or whether the company is going to pay off on a given claim.

How would you prove that you didn't do it? And suppose that you do it and it fails after you sell the house and the next owner's insurance company decides to come after _you_ for doing illegal and substandard work? Then what?