Michael Thomas
06-03-2010, 07:52 AM
Pulled up to another re-sided frame wreck in Portage Park yesterday afternoon and my heart sank, this is the fourth one of these I've done this year in this part of town for first-time buyers looking for starter homes, and I knew where this was heading; when the broker called me a few minutes later to tell me she'd be late (this is a broker I know well, who works with a lot of first-time buyers, and never complains when I pull no punches in reporting what I find at some of these properties) I told her:
"I sure hope you recommended me because you want an evil, deal killing inspector on this one... because that's what's probably going to happen"
"It's that bad"
"Well the people who did the roofing and siding, they were probably thrown out of the Home Depot parking lot by the other day laborers as a disgrace to the trade..."
"I see..."
So I did the inspection. The buyers walked. And I got the usual compliments: "That was really an eye-opener. I learned something new about once a minute. I don't regret spending the money at all, I feel like it was an education."
And I gave them a partial refund, and didn't have write yet another a pointless report detailing 20 years of deferred maintenance and abject uncaring incompetence by low bidder contractors and ludicrous attempts at "repairs" by moronic "handyman", and I'll get the next inspection, and maybe a third if it takes the buyers that long to begin understand how to evaluate the properties they are looking at.
But the truth is I'm really not enjoying this process anymore - I'd much rather be inspecting properties reasonably well-informed people would buy as starter homes, and the whole thing got me thinking: what kind of assistance can I give these buyers (that is reasonably intelligent buyers who know nothing about residential construction and maintenance, and are financially restricted to the low-end of the market) to help them evaluate the properties are looking at so that at least by the second inspection I'm inspecting inspecting houses it possibly makes sense for them to buy?
Perhaps, as an article on my website, or some other public venue.
Which got me thinking about a list of very general criteria to help in evaluating such homes, the point being that each of these conditions is not a deal killer in itself, but rather that when you start to see combinations of them pile up, the odds that the property will have significant problems increase.
A few that came to mind immediately for starter properties in my market here in Chicago, just based on yesterday's inspection:
1). A simple roof is better than a complicated roof. Every time that you add a dormer or a valley you are adding to the complexity of the roofing and the flashing an increasing the likelihood of problems. And very complicated roofs (roofs that look a lot more complicated than most of the other roofs on the block) are a lot more likely likely to have problems than simple ones.
2) Construction designs that do not allow any access to the underside of the roof (the attic) are more difficult to inspect and evaluate than construction designs which allow you to observe the underside of the roof for structural problems and leaks. The more the underside of the roof you can observe, the better the chances that inspector can determine the condition of the roof.
3) Caulking as a substitute for correct repairs. The problem with caulking that it is seldom a long-term repair and often makes long-term repairs more difficult. If you see a lot of "caulking" that looks like it was added after the house was built, especially if it is on the roof or where something meets the roof, is a sign that there may have been leaks and that the leaks were not properly repaired. And lots and lots of caulking is a sign that there were probably lots and lots of leaks. Extensive caulking around doors and windows that looks like it was installed after the property was built is also a frequent indication that leaks have been improperly repaired.
4) No large sections of the property should look "crooked", exterior walls should not be visibly leaning over compared to adjacent properties, and parts of the roof that look like they were intended to be straight lines should be straight lines, not dip in the middle or slope downwards toward one end.
5) All other things being equal, a house with the original siding or masonry is easier to evaluate than house which is been re-sided, vinyl and aluminum siding jobs can hide a multitude of sins.
6) Houses with vinyl or aluminum siding with obvious defects such as more than one or two missing pieces of siding, siding which appears "wavy" when viewed along its length or obviously "sloppy" siding jobs (pieces which don't seem to meet up, or pieces which meet up in obviously illogical ways, or which seem to leave some areas uncovered for no logical reason) are indications of "low bidder" siding jobs where the workers were unable or unwilling to pay careful attention to what they were doing, and if they didn't bother to do what you can see right, they probably did what you can't see underneath the siding at doors and windows even worse...
So. Pointless exercise, or potentially useful?
"I sure hope you recommended me because you want an evil, deal killing inspector on this one... because that's what's probably going to happen"
"It's that bad"
"Well the people who did the roofing and siding, they were probably thrown out of the Home Depot parking lot by the other day laborers as a disgrace to the trade..."
"I see..."
So I did the inspection. The buyers walked. And I got the usual compliments: "That was really an eye-opener. I learned something new about once a minute. I don't regret spending the money at all, I feel like it was an education."
And I gave them a partial refund, and didn't have write yet another a pointless report detailing 20 years of deferred maintenance and abject uncaring incompetence by low bidder contractors and ludicrous attempts at "repairs" by moronic "handyman", and I'll get the next inspection, and maybe a third if it takes the buyers that long to begin understand how to evaluate the properties they are looking at.
But the truth is I'm really not enjoying this process anymore - I'd much rather be inspecting properties reasonably well-informed people would buy as starter homes, and the whole thing got me thinking: what kind of assistance can I give these buyers (that is reasonably intelligent buyers who know nothing about residential construction and maintenance, and are financially restricted to the low-end of the market) to help them evaluate the properties are looking at so that at least by the second inspection I'm inspecting inspecting houses it possibly makes sense for them to buy?
Perhaps, as an article on my website, or some other public venue.
Which got me thinking about a list of very general criteria to help in evaluating such homes, the point being that each of these conditions is not a deal killer in itself, but rather that when you start to see combinations of them pile up, the odds that the property will have significant problems increase.
A few that came to mind immediately for starter properties in my market here in Chicago, just based on yesterday's inspection:
1). A simple roof is better than a complicated roof. Every time that you add a dormer or a valley you are adding to the complexity of the roofing and the flashing an increasing the likelihood of problems. And very complicated roofs (roofs that look a lot more complicated than most of the other roofs on the block) are a lot more likely likely to have problems than simple ones.
2) Construction designs that do not allow any access to the underside of the roof (the attic) are more difficult to inspect and evaluate than construction designs which allow you to observe the underside of the roof for structural problems and leaks. The more the underside of the roof you can observe, the better the chances that inspector can determine the condition of the roof.
3) Caulking as a substitute for correct repairs. The problem with caulking that it is seldom a long-term repair and often makes long-term repairs more difficult. If you see a lot of "caulking" that looks like it was added after the house was built, especially if it is on the roof or where something meets the roof, is a sign that there may have been leaks and that the leaks were not properly repaired. And lots and lots of caulking is a sign that there were probably lots and lots of leaks. Extensive caulking around doors and windows that looks like it was installed after the property was built is also a frequent indication that leaks have been improperly repaired.
4) No large sections of the property should look "crooked", exterior walls should not be visibly leaning over compared to adjacent properties, and parts of the roof that look like they were intended to be straight lines should be straight lines, not dip in the middle or slope downwards toward one end.
5) All other things being equal, a house with the original siding or masonry is easier to evaluate than house which is been re-sided, vinyl and aluminum siding jobs can hide a multitude of sins.
6) Houses with vinyl or aluminum siding with obvious defects such as more than one or two missing pieces of siding, siding which appears "wavy" when viewed along its length or obviously "sloppy" siding jobs (pieces which don't seem to meet up, or pieces which meet up in obviously illogical ways, or which seem to leave some areas uncovered for no logical reason) are indications of "low bidder" siding jobs where the workers were unable or unwilling to pay careful attention to what they were doing, and if they didn't bother to do what you can see right, they probably did what you can't see underneath the siding at doors and windows even worse...
So. Pointless exercise, or potentially useful?