Your attic access is smiling?

People love to install pull down stairs as the means of attic access,  Stairs tend to make the attic space more useful as one is not teetering on a step ladder to get things up and down.

Before I go further in this discussion, I want to state that attics are for insulation–not storage or other purposes even though commonly done.  There are numerous problems with using attic space for things other than insulation and this article is NOT about all of those things.

At this time I only want to discuss the pull down stair attic access.

As you can see by this infrared picture, the pull down stairs is staring right at us and gives away the problem.

I am smiling because of how much I am costing you!

The two beady white eyes are all that shows of the zipper seam of the insulating cover between the poor seal of the lid.  This picture is what the lid looks like without the infrared.

Pull down stairs

The foam zipper cover made to improve energy efficiency is a whopping R-3.8 at a cost of around $116.00 from the Big Orange Toolbox.  Modern standards require that attic hatches be insulated to the same level as the rest of the attic.  In other words R-38 to R-49.  Some sort of thick foam cover would be necessary.  And, of course with that much insulation in the attic any storage floor system gets quite complicated.

This next picture is what the R-3.8 foam cover looks like with the infrared camera and with the stairs pulled down.  As you can see, it represents little resistance to heat flow from the warm attic. 

This greatly increases energy consumption due to heat loss in the winter and heat gain in the summer.

Like I started out at the beginning of this conversation, it is best to leave the attic to insulation–and find a better place for the Christmas decorations and stuff your kids will have to deal with when you are gone.

 

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

Going above and beyond

As home inspectors we hear over and over that if we go outside the standards of practice we open ourselves up to more liability. 

Let’s put liability aside for a moment (or at least come at it from a different angle) and discuss another good reason for going beyond the standards of practice.  To the degree that we provide a level of detail beyond the sop’s we can have a pool of information to better support what we did or did not do during the inspection. 

This can be accomplished not only by providing more detailed information in the report itself but also by having a large number of pictures that support both the written report and also provide a resource that one can go back to if questions arise.  With excessive pictures (350 to 450 for the “average” home) the inspector can essentially repeat the inspection from their computer.

greatbeyondWe all hate those calls that begin with: “A couple of months ago you inspected my home……..” 

Ninety-nine percent of the time the rest of the sentence goes something like, “…..and now we would like you to inspect another one for us.” 

We keep our fingers crossed about the sentence not continuing with, “…..and you missed XY & Z and we want to know what you are going to do about it.”

I can argue that the number of calls like this goes way down as the level of detail in the report goes up. 

I witness this in the discussions I have with other inspectors that strictly adhere to the sop’s and who routinely surrender the cost of the inspection back to their clients, or pay even larger amounts in claims for things actually missed or that they had no way of “proving” that they did not miss. 

I have even known inspectors that just consider some amount of reverse flow of money a “normal” cost of doing business.  I think it is important to keep this reverse flow of money to a minimum.  I have always been able to support either in the written report or in photos what the “truth” of the matter was.  Given that in 13+ years I have only had two such incidents, I jump to the conclusion that I am doing something right.  In the first of these incidents there were four items that were claimed to have been missed and all were sufficiently covered in the report–and in redundant fashion–and were even in the summary.  Sometimes it is helpful to read the report.

In this case, the client simply did not sufficiently read the report, but instead relied too heavily on what was discussed during the inspection.  While tons of stuff will be discussed during the inspection, it is fairly typical for issues that are not deal breakers to either not be fully discussed or possibly not be discussed at all during the inspection and only fully revealed in the context of the completed report.

In this one instance I should have perhaps made it clearer that the report was paramount to the most complete understanding of the house’s condition.  In any court of law, it is the written report that will largely be relied upon to either support or refute either party’s claims.  I for one would rather know in my heart that in fact the consumer was actually taken care of, even if at first they were not aware of it, than to fall back on a SOP that allowed me to not say anything about something, or did not specify a higher level of detail. With this detailed approach, all parties of the process, agents, buyers and inspectors, are best protected.

In the second incident, the glare of the sun prevented me, or allowed me, to miss the gutter was hanging off the fascia at one end, and I had the washed out picture to show for it.  Unfortunately, the cover picture of the report itself showed the hanging gutter quite clearly.  That cost me $75.00 for client to hire a handyman to reattach the gutter, but was not enough to clean the egg off my face.

While some Home Inspectors will choose to use the SOP as an “out,” I would much rather rely on my report–and of course the minimum Standards of Practice are easily covered by the report anyway. 

Just like the Building Codes are the worst house we are allowed to build, so to the Standards of Practice define the worst inspection we are allowed to do.

By Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

If you enjoyed this post, and would like to get notices of new posts to my blog, please subscribe via email in the little box to the right. I promise NO spamming of your email! 🙂

Testing for Asbestos

While I always have to chuckle to myself whenever anyone buying a 1967 house wants to know if the house has asbestos in it, or whether I do testing for asbestos, I always do my best to take their questions seriously.  I realize that in all walks of life people don’t know what they do not know, and what good does it do to poke fun at them?

The fact that any house from 1967 is going to have asbestos in it, seems to not be common knowledge.

I know for a fact that there is endless stuff I do not know.  It is “normal.”  I think we can all appreciate what a pain in the butt it is dealing with someone that knows it all.

At a recent inspection of a 1967 house, the inevitable question came up when we went into the laundry and saw the floor covered with 1967 vintage vinyl tiles.  Now typically, I don’t have any problem telling my client that the tiles from this time period are “considered to contain asbestos,” but that only testing can tell you for sure.

This is a useless exercise as near as I can tell, but from a liability standpoint it is what home inspectors will say.

In this case however I was able to categorically state:  “yes—the tiles contain asbestos,” as there was a box of the same tiles, unused and stored, in the closet in the laundry room.

asbestos tiles

No testing necessary.

By Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

If you enjoyed this post, and would like to get notices of new posts to my blog, please subscribe via email in the little box to the right. I promise NO spamming of your email! 🙂