Why you really need to get on that roof!

[Scott Patterson]

At this mornings inspection I really did not want to get up on the roof. The pitch was about 6/12 but we had fog earlier and it was around 29f! So I waited to do the roof the last thing and it had warmed up to around 32f!

The ice was off the roof and the sun was out so I felt OK getting up on it. from the ground the 7 year old roof looked in pretty good shape, I really did not expect to find anything.

Surprise! I found the following and from the ground the problems were not visible.

[Nick Ostrowski]

That flashing boot looks pretty bad for a 7 year old roof. I assume they didn't change that when they redid the roof.

Just another reason a roof should be walked whenever possible and safety permits.

[Rick Hurst]

I'm sure the huge beam of daylight entering the attic would have been another clue that sewer vent boot may be damaged. :D

Do you also comment on those sewer vents not being painted as the one I see in the background of your picture?

rick

[Ted Menelly]

At this mornings inspection I really did not want to get up on the roof. The pitch was about 6/12 but we had fog earlier and it was around 29f! So I waited to do the roof the last thing and it had warmed up to around 32f!

The ice was off the roof and the sun was out so I felt OK getting up on it. from the ground the 7 year old roof looked in pretty good shape, I really did not expect to find anything.

Surprise! I found the following and from the ground the problems were not visible.

A friend of mine has a remote control helicopter that could hold a camera. The only problem with that is human operator error and of course...machines stop working for what ever reason the wish to stop working. He can fly that thing with some serious precision but what about the ooops factor.

It looks like they chipped the rest of that pesky chimney cap off cause it was in the way. I agree with the vent boot being gone all the way for 7 years. They just used an old one when doing the roof over.

[Joe Klampfer]

Surprise! I found the following and from the ground the problems were not visible.



Good catch ! I'll admit, there's been a few roofs I didn't climb due to conditions and have thought about getting a AR Drone helicopter to video or take stills remotely. Has anyone played with one of these ?

Parrot AR.Drone - How does it work? - AR.Drone specifications (http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/usa/how-does-it-work)


Sorry Scott, not trying to derail your thread :)

[Ted Menelly]

Good catch ! I'll admit, there's been a few roofs I didn't climb due to conditions and have thought about getting a AR Drone helicopter to video or take stills remotely. Has anyone played with one of these ?

Parrot AR.Drone - How does it work? - AR.Drone specifications (http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/usa/how-does-it-work)


Sorry Scott, not trying to derail your thread :)

Its own generated WiFi network. Doesn't that mean you could send it directly to a laptop with a WiFi connection and record it. If so I would rather have controls for it instead of trying to control it with a phone and connections maybe being lost.

Pretty cool though

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

SCOTT

i hear you--we don't want to miss anything--but be cautious with frost and snow under your ladder---i spent 8 days lying on the couch--watching every second of every football game from 12/28--01/05/11 because i fell off a slippery slope

cvf

[Ted Menelly]

SCOTT

i hear you--we don't want to miss anything--but be cautious with frost and snow under your ladder---i spent 8 days lying on the couch--watching every second of every football game from 12/28--01/05/11 because i fell off a slippery slope

cvf

I hope you are OK Charlie....But on a lighter note....Did it knock any sense into you :p

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

sorry picture

[Benjamin Thompson]

sorry picture
Do you mean Ted's avatar? I think he was trying for irony!

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

try again

my knee picture--and don't look up my shorts

cvf

[Ted Menelly]

try again

my knee picture--and don't look up my shorts

cvf

A little puffy there Charlie. I feel for that pain. Nothing more serious than a bash like that other than the snap you here sometimes with a fall like that.

[Matt Fellman]

I wandered onto a roof last week and just about became a statistic... the house faced due east and the morning sun had melted the frost and the shingles were dry. As I got off my ladder I reminded myself "only walk on the east surfaces"..... which was fine until I found bad flashings, bad chimney mortar, stopped to take notes into my recorder...... took a moment to enjoy the view and do all the other things I usually do while on a roof.

Of course, I forgot and took a step on the west face near the ridge and pretty much hit the surface instantly.... Luckily, the roof was low slope, there was a near by roof vent and I was only one story off the ground so hopefully I wouldn't have been hurt too bad. Also, I often wonder if I'd be able to grab the gutter as I "fly" by and if it would hold me?

Anyhow.... be carful. It pisses me off that I've become so comfortable on roofs that I can have a lapse like that. It's been bugging me ever since. A moment of carlessness can cost you any future moments you might have otherwise enjoyed.

[Peter Russell]

Nice find Scott. I walk any roof I can safely access too.

I know an inspector who uses a telescoping painting pole with a tripod mount attached to it. He put the camera on video mode and records tough areas that are not accessible.

In NH, most of the time, you can either walk or not.

[chuck altvater]

Wow, that chimney crown (or lack thereof) is definitely justification for going on the roof.

Of course anytime a property changes ownership there is supposed to be a Level 2 Chimney Inspection performed by a Certified Chimney Sweep. How many Home Inspectors have a partnership with a local chimney sweep to ensure a proper chimney inspection is performed whenever a property changes ownership?

Chuck

[Ken Amelin]

Scott,

A good pair of binoculars would have spotted those defects.

I don't believe in walking on roofs. It's not necessary, it's dangerous, and it subjects the inspector to additional liability. (If Matt slipped and grabbed the gutter and it broke - who do you think would have to pay. They wouldn't even care about the bum-leg).

Not to degrade anyone - but IMO it's almost stupidity to walk on a roof. It's not necessary, it's not a requirement in anyones standard of practice (that I'm aware of) and our business is supposed to be for "professionals" - not for tradesmen.

You should recommend that a roofer, walk on the roof - not a home inspector. We should act in a manner that is "professional" - do what we can to improve our image and charge fees accordingly.

[David D. Whitt]

Scott,

It makes me wonder that if the roofer skimped on a $7 pipe boot, what else they may have avoided doing to save money. I am in N. Alabama and I see missing felt paper and ridge vent not being cut. I do understand about not wanting to get up on the roof but your clent is propably very grateful.

Stay Safe out there fellas

[chuck altvater]

Ken,

If not a roofer, then certainly a Chimney Sweep when he performs the Chimney Inspection. I spot problems on roofs all the time when performing chimney inspections. When the inspection is for the sale of a property (Level 2 Inspection) I often am sub-contracted to a home inspector and do the inspection, including sweeping if required, while he does the rest of the house. Since I am a roof-walker by trade I can easily let the Home inspector know if there are any problems on the roof while I am inspecting the Chimney crown, cap and flue(s).

Chuck

[Ken Amelin]

If not a roofer, then certainly a Chimney Sweep when he performs the Chimney Inspection. I spot problems on roofs all the time when performing chimney inspections. When the inspection is for the sale of a property (Level 2 Inspection) I often am sub-contracted to a home inspector and do the inspection, including sweeping if required, while he does the rest of the house. Since I am a roof-walker by trade I can easily let the Home inspector know if there are any problems on the roof while I am inspecting the Chimney crown, cap and flue(s).

Chuck,

I agree. Let the licensed roofing contractors and certified sweeps do the detailed evaluations. We only need to indentify potential problems and recommend further evaluation or repair. We are not a know all - do all profession.

[Stuart Brooks]

I use a digital camera in movie mode on the end of a 25' extension pole to capture views of places I can't reach, steep pitches, etc. I would just like to have a pole that was stiffer when extended fully.

[Daniel Rogers]

No one noticed t's a cap over a cap? definitely old with that amont of deterioration. Those synthetic rubber seals take about 8-10 years to break down in the Virginia sun around here. It's an architectural shingle grade shingle which last considerably longer but I still see pock marks and erosion on these which suggest they're getting old. If it's a layover, and probably is, they cook faster and die sooner.
I rarely walk on roofs. Been inspecting for 23 years and never had a claim brought against me on missed roof issues. The only thing I really can't see are the tops of chimneys but most of the time you can evaluate the clues and other factors and give advice or make informed recommendations from that.

[chuck altvater]

With this chimney, the missing crown wash should be visible form the street with a pair of binoculars, along with the amount of water penetration into the masonry.

Anytime you see water penetration into the masonry like that it is a good indication that the crown wash is in need of repair.

Chuck

[Ted Menelly]

Scott,

A good pair of binoculars would have spotted those defects.

I don't believe in walking on roofs. It's not necessary, it's dangerous, and it subjects the inspector to additional liability. (If Matt slipped and grabbed the gutter and it broke - who do you think would have to pay. They wouldn't even care about the bum-leg).

Not to degrade anyone - but IMO it's almost stupidity to walk on a roof. It's not necessary, it's not a requirement in anyones standard of practice (that I'm aware of) and our business is supposed to be for "professionals" - not for tradesmen.

You should recommend that a roofer, walk on the roof - not a home inspector. We should act in a manner that is "professional" - do what we can to improve our image and charge fees accordingly.

This is not directed at you but all that practically never walk on roofs.

I am very cautious when walking roofs and if it does not feel right at the moment (I do not care if it is almost flat) I back down the ladder and inspect from the eves and ground.

In saying that I cannot tell you the amount of times I looked the roof over from the ground, including new roofs where I thought everything looked fine, where I later got to the opposite side or the back of the home to find out I could get up from a lower level and when I did go up found either slight to pretty serious damage or defective application.

To not go on a roof if in fact you can safely do so is a huge mistake and an injustice to your clients.

I repeat the above. Countless occasions over the decades I thought everything looked fine from the ground to later see that things were far from fine. In some of those cases the roof looked perfectly fine from the ground only to see a decade more wear to the roof than thought of from looking from yhe ground and any roofer would have said it was re-roof time. Serious multiple thousands in costs to your clients in either immediate or a relatively short time that they should not have had to put out for or at the least have been aware of.

[Nick Ostrowski]

Walking roofs is a necessity for most if not all houses around here. Most houses in Philadelphia have flat roofs and cannot be seen from ground level. Binoculars will do you no good on roofs like these. Inspect flashings with binoculars? Not around here. And equally important to me is being to get a look down inside the chimney whenever possible. Deteriorated terra cotta flue liners or chimney deterioration are very common around here and a new flu liner will run $1,000 - $2,000. Not to mention the abominations John and I see that masquerade as chimneys.

It may be acceptable to buyers in some areas but I'd get a lot of crooked looks from buyers if I never walked roofs and looked at them with binoculars only. I'd say knowing the condition of the roof is one of the top concerns for most of my clients.

[Stuart Brooks]

This is not directed at you but all that practically never walk on roofs.

I am very cautious when walking roofs and if it does not feel right at the moment (I do not care if it is almost flat) I back down the ladder and inspect from the eves and ground.

In saying that I cannot tell you the amount of times I looked the roof over from the ground, including new roofs where I thought everything looked fine, where I later got to the opposite side or the back of the home to find out I could get up from a lower level and when I did go up found either slight to pretty serious damage or defective application.

To not go on a roof if in fact you can safely do so is a huge mistake and an injustice to your clients.

I repeat the above. Countless occasions over the decades I thought everything looked fine from the ground to later see that things were far from fine. In some of those cases the roof looked perfectly fine from the ground only to see a decade more wear to the roof than thought of from looking from yhe ground and any roofer would have said it was re-roof time. Serious multiple thousands in costs to your clients in either immediate or a relatively short time that they should not have had to put out for or at the least have been aware of.

I agree Ted - I go up when I feel it is safe to do so. I never go to an inspection, well almost never, saying I won't go on the roof. The almost never is for 3 story townhouses and the like. I can usually see the front with binoculars. Sometimes I have to use the camera on a pole from the deck on the rear because the rear side isn't visible from the ground.

[Nick Ostrowski]

Here's a prime reason why we need to get on roofs around here. This roof was flat and nothing on it observable from ground level. This sucker would probably start around $2,000 to make it right again.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/fireplaces-chimneys-solid-fuel-burning-appliances-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/19699-dmv-chimney-repairs.html

[Rick Hurst]

Rule #1. Get Home Safely

If one does not feel safe getting on a roof, then don't do it but you should alway document to your client "how" you looked at the roof either from the ground with binoculars or the drip edge. Be sure to document areas of the roof you could not see properly either.

JMHO

rick

[Marc Morin]

If you don't walk roofs which can't be viewed from the ground or eave then you're likely disclosing to the client that this is the case and for them to get a roofer. Those clients would not likely call you if a defect was discovered later (say by the next inspector hired by a future buyer then purchasing the home from your past client), as the aforementioned roofer would be on the hook.
In Southern California, there are so many complex tile roofs as well as flat roofs hidden by parapet walls that you really have got to get up there to see what's going on. Deferring to a roofer just costs you money (you can't charge full pop and tell them that you're passing on the roof). Further, 90% of business is referral...there just aren't many 'referred' inspectors who will categorically not walk roofs.

[chuck altvater]

This is not directed at you but all that practically never walk on roofs.

I am very cautious when walking roofs and if it does not feel right at the moment (I do not care if it is almost flat) I back down the ladder and inspect from the eves and ground.

In saying that I cannot tell you the amount of times I looked the roof over from the ground, including new roofs where I thought everything looked fine, where I later got to the opposite side or the back of the home to find out I could get up from a lower level and when I did go up found either slight to pretty serious damage or defective application.

To not go on a roof if in fact you can safely do so is a huge mistake and an injustice to your clients.

I repeat the above. Countless occasions over the decades I thought everything looked fine from the ground to later see that things were far from fine. In some of those cases the roof looked perfectly fine from the ground only to see a decade more wear to the roof than thought of from looking from yhe ground and any roofer would have said it was re-roof time. Serious multiple thousands in costs to your clients in either immediate or a relatively short time that they should not have had to put out for or at the least have been aware of.

I was on a roof yesterday where unknown to me the homeowner had a second roof built over the original roof sometime in the early 1990s. There was no sign of the second roof from inside the attic when I did my chimney inspection and the underside of the roof looked fine with no signs of water damage, but I almost put my foot through a rotten spot when walking on the roof near the chimney! that's when the homeowner told me he had the second roof done to extend over the patio so it would be one continuous roof line from the peak to the outside edge of the patio! The original roof was still intact and in good repair and under the new roof (which is rotten).

Not only could this damage not be seen from the ground, it couldn't be seen from the attic and is major code violation in my state. If the homeowner hadn't disclosed the fact of the second roof to me there would be no way to know about it without having felt the rotten spot.

Chuck

[Mike Wakefield]

This thread has generated lots of interesting information, but there is one item I'd like to add. Whenever you use a ladder to climb to a roof, you should tie the ladder to the gutter or any other handy feature to make sure it doesn't blow over. It makes getting down a real pain! Here in Colorado, it's not that uncommon to have a gust of wind come up. Don't ask me how I know.

[Rick Hurst]

Mike,

It happened to me last week. Fortunately the neighbor across the street saw it happen looking out his window and came over with his ladder to help me out. In my teens, I would have just jumped. Not anymore.

rick

[Dana Bostick]

I use a digital camera in movie mode on the end of a 25' extension pole to capture views of places I can't reach, steep pitches, etc. I would just like to have a pole that was stiffer when extended fully.

I have the same problem! My pole is not stiff any more.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Rick Strand]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a comment on the "reverse" corbelling on the top brick courses? Seems like very poor practice to me. What happened to the cap? The right side of the chimney seems to be bowing out as well.

[Scott Patterson]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a comment on the "reverse" corbelling on the top brick courses? Seems like very poor practice to me. What happened to the cap? The right side of the chimney seems to be bowing out as well.

This house was 57 years old and that chimney is what it is.... It started out in the crawlspace as a massive concrete and brick structure that ends up with a the fireplace in the center of the home. The masonry is exposed but covered with a parge goat so it looks like part of the wall, it is a massive fireplace. I bet that you could put 5' logs in it the fireplace if you wanted to do so. When the chimney hits the attic area it trims down a couple of feet on each side and then exits the roof to what you see in the picture. This design is very very common with this age home in the Nashville area.

As for what happened to the cap? Good question that I doubt anyone could answer. I asked the owner and he had no idea that the crown/wash was missing off it. My SWAG is that when that fancy shroud was placed on the chimney several years back that they either removed it or just ignored it.

I did not see any bowing, I think that it an illusion from the way I was straddling the ridge on the roof.

[Michael Thomas]

Some of the GPS controlled devices capable of autonomous hover would work well for roof and chimney inspections, the problem is they cost $3K and up. Get them down to $500, and I'd be walking a *lot* fewer roofs.

[Jim Hintz]

I use a digital camera in movie mode on the end of a 25' extension pole to capture views of places I can't reach, steep pitches, etc. I would just like to have a pole that was stiffer when extended fully.
Stuart, check at your local cement finishing tool supplier for the 6ft. aluminum extension poles, "the type a finisher would use to wipe down a big slab with a pool trowel or fresno", not the heavy screw together type used on a Bull Float.. I have four and they snap together in a flash and they're very rigid too. Happy hunting. Jim Hintz

[Denny Waters]

With weather conditions you will be buying a lot of copters.

[Paul Duffau]

Scott,

A good pair of binoculars would have spotted those defects.

I don't believe in walking on roofs. It's not necessary, it's dangerous, and it subjects the inspector to additional liability. (If Matt slipped and grabbed the gutter and it broke - who do you think would have to pay. They wouldn't even care about the bum-leg).

Not to degrade anyone - but IMO it's almost stupidity to walk on a roof. It's not necessary, it's not a requirement in anyones standard of practice (that I'm aware of) and our business is supposed to be for "professionals" - not for tradesmen.

You should recommend that a roofer, walk on the roof - not a home inspector. We should act in a manner that is "professional" - do what we can to improve our image and charge fees accordingly.

Here in Washington State, it is part of the Standard of Practice to traverse the roof (and atttic, crawlspace) when, in the opinion of the inspector, it is safe to do so.

I like to add the "in the opinion of the inspector" because I've had disagreements with clients who will tell me that I "have" to walk the roof - whether the roof is safe or not. I just point out the line in the standard and tell them I'm the "decider" since it's my bod on the roof.

Paul Duffau

[Scott Patterson]

Here in Washington State, it is part of the Standard of Practice to traverse the roof (and atttic, crawlspace) when, in the opinion of the inspector, it is safe to do so.

I like to add the "in the opinion of the inspector" because I've had disagreements with clients who will tell me that I "have" to walk the roof - whether the roof is safe or not. I just point out the line in the standard and tell them I'm the "decider" since it's my bod on the roof.

Paul Duffau

Ask them to join you on the roof when they are not happy with you not getting on a roof that you are not comfortable with. Your state's requirement is common with most licensed states.

[neal lewis]

I rarely walk on roofs. Been inspecting for 23 years and never had a claim brought against me on missed roof issues. The only thing I really can't see are the tops of chimneys

Typical reasoning for not doing a thorough inspection, IMHO.

Also, how do you see inside the chimney flue if you don't get up there and take the cap off the flue?

[Darren Miller]

How about the fact the bricks are not solid bricks or filled solid?

[Denny Waters]

Since we are on the subject of doing a good job, anybody have a good article about how the one hour check box inspectors tend to be pandering to the Realtors? Preferably an article not written by a home inspector.

[Bruce Ramsey]

Wow, that chimney crown (or lack thereof) is definitely justification for going on the roof.

Of course anytime a property changes ownership there is supposed to be a Level 2 Chimney Inspection performed by a Certified Chimney Sweep. How many Home Inspectors have a partnership with a local chimney sweep to ensure a proper chimney inspection is performed whenever a property changes ownership?

Chuck

Chuck, can you provide a more information regarding "supposed to". Is it local law or just "good practice"?

A home inspection is a general visual inspection of visible components. A Level 2 chimney inspection is above and beyond a home inspection. Just as an invasive inspection of a heat exchanger by an HVAC contractor is beyond a home inspection. Both worthwhile inspections and activities but not generally included in most home inspections.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

CHUCK

can you show me where a level 2 chimney inspection is required during a real estate transaction?? spoke to a few real estate agents in colorado and that's news to them and me. if you have info to pass on to us here please do. are you a chimney inspector??

thanks

cvf

[Michael Chambers]

I learned my lesson on one of my earliest inspections. It was a two story roof, and getting up on it would be a pain, but was relatively safe as long as I paid attention to what I was doing. At first I wasn't going to try, but I could not see everything well enough from the ground, especially the chimney crown. When I did get up there, I was sure glad I made the effort, and so were my clients when I showed them this photo.

[Rick Hurst]

Michael,

Was the water damaged drywall in the den not enough of a clue that something was wrong?:D

rick

[Jerry Peck]

Of course anytime a property changes ownership there is supposed to be a Level 2 Chimney Inspection performed by a Certified Chimney Sweep.

The part about "by a Certified Chimney Sweep" should be left out as there are others who can do it. It is NOT IN ANY requirements that it should be done by a Certified Chimney Sweep.


Chuck, can you provide a more information regarding "supposed to". Is it local law or just "good practice"?


can you show me where a level 2 chimney inspection is required during a real estate transaction??

It is required in NFPA 211.

- 14.1 General. Inspections shall be conducted by a qualified agency.
- - - 14.2.1 The type of inspection shall be determined in accordance with Table 14.2.1.
- - - 14.4.1 Circumstances. A Level II inspection shall be conducted under the following circumstances:
- - - - (3) Upon sale or transfer of the property.

I only typed the applicable paragraphs and subparagraphs as the online version is read only, cannot copy and paste.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

THANKS JERRY

i will have to wait till monday to call the city of boulder co, on this one--it doesn't get any stricter then there. but have talked to five agents and they know nothing about this being mandatory. stay tuned

does anyone else out there put this in there report, recommending a level II inspection of chimney, and say it is mandatory- i just recommend having flue be cleaned by licenced chimney sweep

thanks

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

i will have to wait till monday to call the city of boulder co, on this one--it doesn't get any stricter then there.


Charlie,

The Florida Building Code references NFPA 211 as a referenced standard.
- However, the FBC also states:
- - 102.4 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference. Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.
- And chimney "inspection" is not listed or addressed in the FBC ... so ... can one apply NFPA 211 with regard to chimney "inspections"? It depends ... ;) ... maybe, maybe not. :(

The IRC referenced standards lists:
- 211—03 Chimneys, Fireplaces, Vents and Solid Fuel Burning Appliances .. R1002.5

IRC R1002.5 says: (bold is mine)
- R1002.5 Masonry heater clearance. Combustible materials shall not be placed within 36 inches (914 mm) of the outside surface of a masonry heater in accordance with NFPA 211 Section 8-7 (clearances for solid-fuel-burning appliances), and the required space between the heater and combustible material shall be fully vented to permit the free flow of air around all heater surfaces.
- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. When the masonry heater wall is at least 8 inches (203 mm) thick of solid masonry and the wall of the heat exchange channels is at least 5 inches (127 mm) thick of solid masonry, combustible materials shall not be placed within 4 inches (102 mm) of the outside surface of a masonry heater. A clearance of at least 8 inches (203 mm) shall be provided between the gas-tight capping slab of the heater and a combustible ceiling.
- - - 2. Masonry heaters tested and listed by an American National Standards Association (ANSI)-accredited laboratory to the requirements of UL 1482 may be installed in accordance with the listing specifications and the manufacturer’s written instructions.

The IRC SPECIFICALLY limits the reference to NFPA 211 to section 1002.5 as stated above.

Yes, you will need to check and see if NFPA 211 has been adopted locally, and if adopted locally, has it been adopted locally in whole in only specific sections.

[Ted Menelly]

THANKS JERRY

i will have to wait till monday to call the city of boulder co, on this one--it doesn't get any stricter then there. but have talked to five agents and they know nothing about this being mandatory. stay tuned

does anyone else out there put this in there report, recommending a level II inspection of chimney, and say it is mandatory- i just recommend having flue be cleaned by licenced chimney sweep

thanks

cvf


Mr Charlie

What's up with calling Agents to get answers toinspection questions. Why would they know or if they new why would they know details and laws.

Just curious. I never heard that an inspector calls a list of Real Estate Agents to get answers to inspections. I am thinking that you get all your work from agents and have a very serious and deep relationship with them.

Actually I have read you statement a few times and thought I was reading it wrong. Do all home inspectors in your area have a such a serious bond with the Realtors that they call the Realtors for inspection questions?

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

ted

first off how i do my business is my business. and chuck stated it was a must do in all real estate transactions, so that meant everyone should know about it. so yes i did call some realestate agents i deal with and ask if they knew of this requirement. and they all said NO. i always write up chimneys in my report that i recommend they have evaluated by licensed chimney technician--not that it is mandatory.

sorry if a ruffled your feathers and you do your business different- i appreciate your input here, but don't tell me how to run my business, that by the way was up 20% last year. you didn't read a thread from me about the phone not ringing, and things being slow-- i'm a no crap inspector and don't pander to agents--that is why they like me and send their clients to me. leave at that Ted

cvf

[Ken Rowe]

Mr Charlie

What's up with calling Agents to get answers toinspection questions. Why would they know or if they new why would they know details and laws.

Just curious. I never heard that an inspector calls a list of Real Estate Agents to get answers to inspections. I am thinking that you get all your work from agents and have a very serious and deep relationship with them.

Actually I have read you statement a few times and thought I was reading it wrong. Do all home inspectors in your area have a such a serious bond with the Realtors that they call the Realtors for inspection questions?

Says the guy who does Sunday inspections to make his referring agent happy.

I am doing a Sunday inspection tomorrow. I usually never do a Sunday inspection but the need arose. This inspection came from a Realtor referral.I don't understand the hypocrisy Ted. You're continuously bashing agent referrals yet continue to take referrals then brag about them here.

Charlie,

The National Fire Protection Association recommends the level II exam when real estate changes hands. Key work being recommends. It's not mandatory here in MN, but may be elsewhere.

[Michael Chambers]

Michael,

Was the water damaged drywall in the den not enough of a clue that something was wrong?:D

rick

Actually Rick, much of the interior construction was framed out from this chimney, and not in direct contact with it, including in the finished attic rooms. I do roofs first, and after seeing that chimney, I checked real thoroughly all the way down to the basement, the only place where any portion of the chimney was exposed. The lower 2 to 3 feet did show elevated moisture readings, but then we hadn't had any significant precipitation to speak of either for several weeks prior. There was no staining anywhere except for the lower end of the chimney in the basement.

Mike

[Ted Menelly]

Says the guy who does Sunday inspections to make his referring agent happy.
I don't understand the hypocrisy Ted. You're continuously bashing agent referrals yet continue to take referrals then brag about them here.

Charlie,

The National Fire Protection Association recommends the level II exam when real estate changes hands. Key work being recommends. It's not mandatory here in MN, but may be elsewhere.


I am doing the Inspection on Sunday because my client is a nurse not to make the referring agent happy. her 12 hour days make it difficult since today is her day off. The referring agent will not be there anyway. That agent did not call me, or set up the inspection, pick the inspection time or even try to guide me in anyway or control anything about the inspection time, process or report. The agents that refer me are about 99.9% absent when I do an inspection. Just the clients are there. There is absolutely no interference from Realtors at my inspections. On a very extremely rare occasion an agent may show up and a more extreme case they may try to interfere. Those interfering agents are the clients agent not my referring agent.

That with the exception of one Realtor and I stopped taking referrals from him. He slowly slid to the dark side trying to suggest that I say this or why did I write up that...."I am trying to sell a home here Ted. Was it really necessary writing everything up that was wrong with the left exterior of the home?"

Hypocrisy ?????????????????? You must be thinking of someone else. I consistantly say that not getting referrals would temporarily hurt my business but would normal out after a while and be for the best for the Real Estate industry. No hypocrisy what so ever

Bragging ?????????????????? Not in the slightest. If you are talking about my disclaimer that I do get referrals from Realtors ???????????/ Why would you call that bragging. I just got finished saying that ALL Realtors should be banned from giving referrals. It would be best for the industry in all.

Your company has one of the most aggressive Realtor marketing programs out there. Without that Realtor marketing of your company it would not exist. I say that in experience with a few individuals that worked for your company in the past. Not an insult to you. I just know the program.

I will say no more.

You have a nice day

Charlie

I just was in aw that you were calling Realtors instead of fellow local or at least state inspectors or members of inspector association.

I simply did not understand the relationship.

I hope you did not take that as a personal insult.

[Darren Miller]

Here's the standard macro I insert in every report with a chimney:

NFPA recommends that every home involved in a real estate transaction receive a 'LEVEL II' inspection. This includes video taping the interior of the flue. You need to contact a local chimney contractor for further information. This should be completed prior to expiration of inspection period. Chimney Safety Institute of America (http://www.csia.org/)


Not to get off topic, but I will work seven (7) days a week. I am in the service business; If someone needs a Saturday or Sunday inspection, I'm more than happy to do it. Several years ago I even conducted an inspection on Easter Sunday. Didn't bother me any; I did what I did and met my family later on. If that bothers any of you guys, then go pound salt! Just like Charlie said, I run my business the way I want; I service my clients the best I can.

[Ken Rowe]

Your company has one of the most aggressive Realtor marketing programs out there. Without that Realtor marketing of your company it would not exist. I say that in experience with a few individuals that worked for your company in the past. Not an insult to you. I just know the program.


Wow. I didn't realize my little LLC was that prominent in the inspection world. If you're talking about the company I worked for a few months back you're incorrect. I left for a few reasons. One being that the company refused to market. I'm not talking about marketing to realtors. They refused to market at all. Marketing was left to the individual inspectors.

[Ken Rowe]

Not to get off topic, but I will work seven (7) days a week. I am in the service business; If someone needs a Saturday or Sunday inspection, I'm more than happy to do it. Several years ago I even conducted an inspection on Easter Sunday. Didn't bother me any; I did what I did and met my family later on. If that bothers any of you guys, then go pound salt! Just like Charlie said, I run my business the way I want; I service my clients the best I can.

I didn't see anyone mention, "Darren Miller needs to stop doing inspections on Sunday".

[Ted Menelly]

Wow. I didn't realize my little LLC was that prominent in the inspection world. If you're talking about the company I worked for a few months back you're incorrect. I left for a few reasons. One being that the company refused to market. I'm not talking about marketing to realtors. They refused to market at all. Marketing was left to the individual inspectors.

You are making me proud Ken. Off on your own and left the baggage behind.

You will like you "little" LLC far better Ken.

I guess the company you were working for changed tremendously. I know folks from that companies former life. They may have done the marketing but it was the companies marketing plan and it was relentless.

I was never sure why anyone was working for that company or others because the inspectors had to do the marketing, pay for their own vehicles, office expenses etc etc etc and the only thing the company offered was group E+O and some discounted medical benefits but they still paid for a good portion of that and then of course they had the wonderful opportunity to give a very large portion of what they took in to the Mother company and it was a pretty big percent.

Just never got it.

Again, good luck. I am sure you have a million or so contacts out there after working for them for so long that should benefit greatly. After all. They all have your number.

I wish you the best.

[Ken Rowe]

Thanks Ted, I'll pm you the facts.

[Jerry Peck]

The National Fire Protection Association recommends the level II exam when real estate changes hands. Key work being recommends.


Ken,

"Recommends"?

What part of "shall" means "recommend"? (I've added bold, underlining, and red for you in the below)

It is required in NFPA 211.

- 14.1 General. Inspections shall be conducted by a qualified agency.
- - - 14.2.1 The type of inspection shall be determined in accordance with Table 14.2.1.
- - - 14.4.1 Circumstances. A Level II inspection shall be conducted under the following circumstances:
- - - - (3) Upon sale or transfer of the property.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Chapter 13 Maintenance

-13.1 Initial Installation. Initial installation of chimneys, fireplaces, and vents shall allow inspection of the surroundings to determine that the required clearances have been maintained and that correct provisions for support, stabilization, future inspection, and maintenance are in place.

-13.2 Annual Inspection. Chimneys, vireplaces, and vents shall be inspected at least once a year in accordance with the requirements of Section 14.2
Exception: Type B and Type BW gas venting systems.

-13.3 Inspection -- Connections. Connectors, spark arresters, cleanouts, and tee fittings for chimneys and for oil and pellet venting systems shall be inspected at least once a year for soundness and deposits.
Exception: Connectors for Type B gas venting systems.


-10.5 Notice of Usage.

--10.5.1 In those localities where solid and liquid fuels are used, gas vents shall be plainly and permanently identified with a label attached to the wall or ceiling at a point where the vent connector enters the gas vent. The label shall read as follows: "This Gas Vent Is for Appliances That Burn Gas. Do Not Connect to Solid or Liquid Fuel-Burning Appliances or Incinerators."

--10.5.2 Where a Type B gas vent, Special Gas Vent, or pellet vent is used as the liner for a masonry chimney, the chimney shall be plainly and permanently identified by a label attached to the wall or ceiling adjacent ot the point where the connector enteres the chimney and that reads as follows: "This Chimney Liner is for [type, category of appliance] Appliances That Burn [type of fuel] Only. Do Not Connect Other Types of Appliances."

-10.6 Installation.

--10.6.1 Type B, Type BW, and Type L vents shall be listed and installed in full compliance with the terms of their listing and the manufacturers' installation instructions.

--10.6.2 Vents installed through insulation or areas to be insulated shall be separated by a physical barrier to establish and maintain the minimum air space clearance required by the vent manufacturer.

--10.6.3 Vents that pass through the floors of buildings requiring the protection of vertical openings shall be enclose within an approved enclosure.

---10.6.3.1 The enclosure walls shall have a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour where a vent as described in 10.6.3 is located in a building less than four stories in height.

---10.6.3.2 The enclosure walls shall have a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours where a vent as described in 10.6.3 is located in a building four or more stories in height.

As far as video being required, that's not what NFPA 211 actually says:

---14.4.2.3 The inspection shall include examination of accessible areas of all chimney flues and the internal surfaces of all flue liners incorporated within the chimney with video scanning equipment or other means used as necessary to observe those areas.

A Level II is an examination and evaluation, that includes sizing, spacing and suitability, etc. it may involve de-installation of appliances, componanents, etc.. A Level I is not the same thing, its more "annual maintenance".

Michael C's picture looks like a vent with questionable installation.

NFPA 211 does NOT have the power of law "shall" where it has not adopted! It does however function as an accepted professional performance standard of those employed to work upon chimneys, etc. But where NOT adopted as law, it would have no effect as to REQUIRE a Level II inspection take place upon a real estate transaction. IF one is voluntarily contracted, however, it SHOULD guide the professional's PERFORMANCE of same (unless the "professional" is using "some other standard of performance").

Therefore, the use of the phrase "the National Fire Protection Association 'recommends' (a Level II inspection/evaluation of a chimney upon sale or transfer of property...etc.) " in those jurisdictions where NFPA 211 has NOT been adopted as code/LAW (statute, ordinance, etc.), would in fact, be correct.

[Ted Menelly]

At this mornings inspection I really did not want to get up on the roof. The pitch was about 6/12 but we had fog earlier and it was around 29f! So I waited to do the roof the last thing and it had warmed up to around 32f!

The ice was off the roof and the sun was out so I felt OK getting up on it. from the ground the 7 year old roof looked in pretty good shape, I really did not expect to find anything.

Surprise! I found the following and from the ground the problems were not visible.

I got on a one story low pitch roof today. There was about a half inch of translucent snow on it. It was slippery but the low slope was easy to handle it. A slightly higher pitch and no translucent snow and I would not have considered it. I wish I found a concern for just my efforts but alas there were none :)

[Jerry Peck]

NFPA 211 does NOT have the power of law "shall" where it has not adopted! It does however function as an accepted professional performance standard of those employed to work upon chimneys, etc. But where NOT adopted as law, it would have no effect as to REQUIRE a Level II inspection take place upon a real estate transaction. IF one is voluntarily contracted, however, it SHOULD guide the professional's PERFORMANCE of same (unless the "professional" is using "some other standard of performance").

Therefore, the use of the phrase "the National Fire Protection Association 'recommends' (a Level II inspection/evaluation of a chimney upon sale or transfer of property...etc.) " in those jurisdictions where NFPA 211 has NOT been adopted as code/LAW (statute, ordinance, etc.), would in fact, be correct.


Incorrect again.

THE NFPA "requires" ... THE NFPA does NOT "recommend" ... that the chimney be inspected.

Whether or not the NFPA is adopted locally ... THE ... NFPA ... REQUIRES ("shall") ... the chimney be inspected.

Now, if the NFPA 'is not' adopted locally, then one can "recommend" using the NFPA, but THE NFPA still "requires" the inspection under those conditions.

And we are talking about THE NFPA, not what one can do.

You, Watson, can "recommend" anything you want, in fact, you can even recommend doing as the NFPA "requires", even though the NFPA may not be adopted in whatever area you are referring to.

But that does not alter the NFPA, and the NFPA "requires" ("shall") that the chimney be inspected under certain circumstances, one of which is the sale or transfer of a structure which contains the chimney.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

ted

was this another sunday inspection that you never do, or the same one mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. and snow on the roof and you went up on it??

cvf

[Ted Menelly]

ted

was this another sunday inspection that you never do, or the same one mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. and snow on the roof and you went up on it??

cvf

That would be the same inspection. Maybe the only one in the past year on Sunday. Not practically ever a call for it. Well, maybe 2 in the past year..

Anyway the roof did actually have snow on it. A wet snow that you could see through to the roof. It was a low pitch but was slick. Just one side of the roof had the snow due to the way it was blowing in wet.

The first snow of this winter so far. We usually never have much if any. We had a good bit around Christmas last year that lasted a week because it fell in 2 increments.

I got a bit of Charlie weather today. I do not miss working with that wet snow falling on your head. I like snow as long as it is not covering for long periods and does not fall much. I grew up in winter wonderland North East

[Ken Rowe]

Ken,

"Recommends"?

What part of "shall" means "recommend"? (I've added bold, underlining, and red for you in the below)

Jerry, what part of
It's not mandatory here in MN, but may be elsewhere. means it is only recommended everywhere? (I've added bold, underlining and red for you in the quote.

[neal lewis]

NFPA recommends that every home involved in a real estate transaction receive a 'LEVEL II' inspection. This includes video taping the interior of the flue.

What about doing the Level II without using a camera, using "other means"?

From NFPA: A Level 2 inspection shall also include a visual inspection by video scanning or other means in order to examine the internal surfaces and joints of all flue liners incorporated within the chimney.

It's not so easy finding a reputable company using a camera. Darren, Certified out your way has a camera, but told a client recently they don't use it because it's a scam. And what's up with the chimney guys who have the camera, but don't even carry a ladder?

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, what part of

My replying to Watson and not your post ... did you miss?

Or what part of my reply to Watson was not understood?

We have been discussing what the NFPA requires (the NFPA uses the word "shall", which means it is "required"), and the NFPA "requires" what it requires NO MATTER WHERE you are.

YOUR AREA may not "require" the NFPA to be followed, nonetheless, though, the NFPA STILL "requires" the same thing.

Let's say Town A "requires" all dog owners to register their dogs, and let's say that Town B does not give a crap about dogs. With that as a given, and if you are in Town B, Town A STILL REQUIRES all dog owners to register their dogs. The NFPA STILL REQUIRES the inspections - unless someone is re-writing the NFPA to suit their area, and then it is no longer the NFPA, it would be a locally amended NFPA.

[Ken Rowe]

My replying to Watson and not your post ... did you miss?

Or what part of my reply to Watson was not understood?

We have been discussing what the NFPA requires (the NFPA uses the word "shall", which means it is "required"), and the NFPA "requires" what it requires NO MATTER WHERE you are.

YOUR AREA may not "require" the NFPA to be followed, nonetheless, though, the NFPA STILL "requires" the same thing.

Let's say Town A "requires" all dog owners to register their dogs, and let's say that Town B does not give a crap about dogs. With that as a given, and if you are in Town B, Town A STILL REQUIRES all dog owners to register their dogs. The NFPA STILL REQUIRES the inspections - unless someone is re-writing the NFPA to suit their area, and then it is no longer the NFPA, it would be a locally amended NFPA.

Oh I get it now. Your trying to tell everyone that we should be telling our clients that a level II chimney exam is required on all real estate transactions. Even though it isn't. I may be mistaken, but don't the codes need to be adopted locally before they are enforceable?

Again you've only produced "part" of the story. Page 2 of the same document you paraphrased states,
Law and Regulations Users of NFPA Documents should consult applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of its codes, standards, recommended practices, and guide, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing soNFPA themselves are saying they have no authority. So unless federal, state, or local laws or codes "require" an inspection they have no authority to require it either. This is why my reports state, "The NFPA recommends a level II examination", because they cannot legally require one.

[Darren Miller]

What about doing the Level II without using a camera, using "other means"?

From NFPA: A Level 2 inspection shall also include a visual inspection by video scanning or other means in order to examine the internal surfaces and joints of all flue liners incorporated within the chimney.


Well now, what would include 'other means'? If you have a two story structure, how else would you inspect it; a still camera, a mirror?

By the way, when I see a problem with a chimney or B vent, I include W. Ryan & Sons phone # and web site.

[Darren Miller]

I just added the word 'usually' to my macro. ;)

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

hey all

just got my calls answered and the state of Colorado, city of Denver, and the city of Boulder, as well as the state board of realtors. do not enforce NFPA 211.14.1 or any of it. the only NFPA regulation they enforce of course is the co detectors in homes. so i guess i don't have to change my report writing from recommend to required. i guess all states are different, but it should be in reports that we recommend having that puppy evaluated

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

Oh I get it now. Your trying to tell everyone that we should be telling our clients that a level II chimney exam is required on all real estate transactions. Even though it isn't. I may be mistaken, ...

No, you still don't get it, and, yes, you are mistaken.

THE ... yes, THE ... NFPA ... REQUIRES ... yes, ... REQUIRES the chimney inspections. Nothing you or Watson can do to change that. THE NFPA *does not* "recommend" those inspections - those inspections are "required".

*IF* NFPA 211 is adopted locally, then those inspections *are required* by the local AHJ as well as by NFPA.

*IF* NFPA 211 is not adopted locally, then those inspections *are still required* by NFPA ... but not by the local AHJ.

Get it now?

Whether or not the local AHJ adopts the NFPA *does not affect or change the NFPA in any way*.


Again you've only produced "part" of the story. Page 2 of the same document you paraphrased states, NFPA themselves are saying they have no authority. So unless federal, state, or local laws or codes "require" an inspection they have no authority to require it either. This is why my reports state, "The NFPA recommends a level II examination", because they cannot legally require one.

As I stated above: "No, you still don't get it, and, yes, you are mistaken."

[Ken Rowe]

Jerry, apparently you did not read the previous quote, so I'll post it again:


Law and Regulations Users of NFPA Documents should consult applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. NFPA does not, by the publication of its codes, standards, recommended practices, and guide, intend to urge action that is not in compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing so

Unless the NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices and guide are adopted locally they are just a bunch of written words. Not enforceable whatsoever. You'd be misleading your clients by telling them the NFPA requires a chimney inspection...unless you also told your clients that the NFPA has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Telling people that the NFPA requires a chimney inspection (when you know it's not adopted in your area) would be the same as citing a building code from China. It has no bearing unless it's adopted locally.

[Nick Ostrowski]

Maybe commissioner Gordon could send the Bat beacon out to Bob Harper to weigh in on this.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

The National Fire Protection Association has no power to REQUIRE anything.

NFPA 211 is a performance standard, which may or may not be utilized by one performing construction, maintenance, inspection, or evaulation. It has become a "performance standard" by those who perform/conduct the "work" therein described.. It is also drafted as so as to make it available to be adopted as model code language, which MAY be adopted and incorporated into local ordinance, statute, law (with or without ammendments).

NFPA 211 has no power of law in and of itself, and neither does the National Fire Protection Association; and neither the document nor the organization which drafted/copyrighted it has any AUTHORITY to REQUIRE anything, except of its membership.

NFPA 211 provides the guidelines for the performance of a "Level II" Inspection. (Note roman numeral "II" not "2"). If one is performing a "Level II" Inspection, the "requirements" for such and a certification claiming having done so are spelled out (to a degree). NFPA 211 becomes the basis/standard for evaluation of said Inspection and the performance thereof; however, neither the document itself, nor the organization which holds the copyright, can MANDATE that an inspection, Level II or otherwise, occurs in the first place.

[Jim Mushinsky]

How many home inspectors settle insurance claims for damaging the roof?

MA Home Inspector Standards of Practice prohibits a home inspector from walking on the roof unless they have a signed document from the home owner relieving them of all liability and potential damage.

Be sure to check the warranty statements from the manufacturer. Point loads on the roof a.k.a. walking on the roof by non-authorized roofing contractors may void the warranty for damages to the shingles.

Of course, safety is rule #1, as many before me have already written. Manage your home inspector business actions wisely. Too many active home inspectors providing expert witness services against their competitors.

[Ted Menelly]

How many home inspectors settle insurance claims for damaging the roof?

Never. I have never damaged a shingle when walking on the roof and someone would be hard pressed to prove it. I have never heard of anyone stating complaints about them damaging shingles while inspecting never mind settling for damages.

MA Home Inspector Standards of Practice prohibits a home inspector from walking on the roof unless they have a signed document from the home owner relieving them of all liability and potential damage.

That is insane but I would not put it past the Mass for feeling they need to protect everyone.

Be sure to check the warranty statements from the manufacturer. Point loads on the roof a.k.a. walking on the roof by non-authorized roofing contractors may void the warranty for damages to the shingles.

Again someone would be hard pressed to prove a home inspector damaging shingle. It can be passed on to the next person saying they found the damage. Who is to say they did not damage them.

Of course, safety is rule #1, as many before me have already written. Manage your home inspector business actions wisely. Too many active home inspectors providing expert witness services against their competitors.

Now there is something we ca agree on but where would one find an expert witness about home inspection unless the expert witness was or use to be a home inspector

[Jim Mushinsky]

Hi Ted, Thanks for your comments. Maybe I can learn something from you. One of my issues is that home inspectors often comment on loss of granules on shingles as a condition of degradation/deterioration. While walking on a roof, I have never been able to not disturb some of the granules. I can always hear some of the granules rolling into the gutter. Thus, I disclose to the home owner that there may be some loss of granules due to walking/inspecting the roof. How do you avoid disturbing any of the granules? Very rare for me to have a home owner agree to a roof walk. One of the other items I requires is for complete photographs of the attic sheathing prior to the walking of the roof. All water stains, discolorations, delaminating plywood, etc, must be acknowledged.

[Ted Menelly]

Hi Ted, Thanks for your comments. Maybe I can learn something from you. One of my issues is that home inspectors often comment on loss of granules on shingles as a condition of degradation/deterioration. While walking on a roof, I have never been able to not disturb some of the granules. I can always hear some of the granules rolling into the gutter. Thus, I disclose to the home owner that there may be some loss of granules due to walking/inspecting the roof. How do you avoid disturbing any of the granules? Very rare for me to have a home owner agree to a roof walk. One of the other items I requires is for complete photographs of the attic sheathing prior to the walking of the roof. All water stains, discolorations, delaminating plywood, etc, must be acknowledged.

That is the insanity of it all. Of course you will at least slightly disturb granules on the roof but a hard rain will more than likely disturb more than that as long as you are careful on a roof.

Again I have never heard of anyone paying out on liability or even have a complaint about ruining or damaging a roof because they get up there and inspect it. We are not butchers and just the thought that a home owner does not want you getting on their roof to inspect it for a new buyer is insanity in itself. I can guarantee that even though I have been inspecting all my life I can tell you that I have not damaged a roof to the point where someone could actually tell before during or after the fact. Fact is for someone to spot a few loose granules to inspect it after you inspected that roof they would have to be on their hands and knees with a magnifying glass looking at every foot fall you had and doing more damage than you could ever do..

Depending on the roof I may not get on it if it is too steep as this will guarantee you may damage shingles but even then if it is not too hot out you could walk that roof, carefully, and no one could follow your path unless it is seriously steep. The greater the pitch the easier it is to inspect from the eves and you probably get a better look anyway and would not have to walk the roof.

Back to the seller not wanting someone to inspect their roof that gets on roofs everyday (in the busy times) for the sake of full disclosure to a perspective buyer, as long as it is safe to get on that roof, is foolishness. If there were no paper to sign or a demand that you get permission to walk the roof to inspect it then it would not be made out to be such a big deal and no one would ever say "you are not getting on my roof!"

Also the insanity that the roof gets walked on once in how many years for an inspection ??????????? and someone is afraid that an experienced man walks their roof to look at it is going to cause undo damage to their roof. What are they thinking up there in the cold nasty whether North East where I lived for 36 years.

Insanity abounds. But now on the other hand. You folks get higher prices than we do in slab land....much higher...and you don't have to get on a roof. Good for you.

Complete photographs of every square inch of the underside of the sheathing or just that you inspected it and took pictures of possible concerns? You know and I know that getting pics of every square foot of sheathing is about completely impossible in most attics anyway. Never mind even seeing every square foot. That is impossible.

I may take a lot of pictures but I am not taking photos of anything but concerns in the home not everything that is not a concern and I believe that is what you must do with that roof.

Like I said, I lived in Mass for 36 years. I still have a multitude of family up there. Until you live somewhere else, and I am not talking a year or 2, you will never know the constraints Mass puts to everything. Got to protect everyone from everything having everyone question everybody about everything. It becomes such a way of life that you do not even realize it.

The commonwealth state. I guess that about says it all.

[Darren Miller]

MA Home Inspector Standards of Practice prohibits a home inspector from walking on the roof unless they have a signed document from the home owner relieving them of all liability and potential damage.


Not to offend anyone on this board but that sounds like the PERFECT out for a lazy home inspector.

[Robert Pike]

This is not directed at you but all that practically never walk on roofs.

I am very cautious when walking roofs and if it does not feel right at the moment (I do not care if it is almost flat) I back down the ladder and inspect from the eves and ground.

In saying that I cannot tell you the amount of times I looked the roof over from the ground, including new roofs where I thought everything looked fine, where I later got to the opposite side or the back of the home to find out I could get up from a lower level and when I did go up found either slight to pretty serious damage or defective application.

To not go on a roof if in fact you can safely do so is a huge mistake and an injustice to your clients.

I repeat the above. Countless occasions over the decades I thought everything looked fine from the ground to later see that things were far from fine. In some of those cases the roof looked perfectly fine from the ground only to see a decade more wear to the roof than thought of from looking from the ground and any roofer would have said it was re-roof time. Serious multiple thousands in costs to your clients in either immediate or a relatively short time that they should not have had to put out for or at the least have been aware of.

I concur-If its safe I will walk the roof. Of course walking up a steep roof is easy, however coming down may be a little more difficult, especially when is wet, mossy, has pine debris or is120 degree. I always find something I couldn't see from the ground or the binoculars.If its safe do it !

[Jim Mushinsky]

Hi Ted, Sounds like you got my point spot on, and know quite a bit about "The Commonwealth". The worse part is the high activity on the letters from The Law Firms of Douai, Cheetem, and Howe. I don't know for sure, but the rate is rumored to be around $100 for each granule. ( just kidding :) )

Insanity is a good word for what goes on here. Seller's and seller agents swearing roofs don't leak and basements/crawl spaces that are dry as a bone. They can do this while watching water drip from the sheathing or standing in a basement/crawl space puddle.

Of course, when they acknowledge the water, it must have been something the home inspector broke due to an error or omission.

The insanity became rampant when the license and insurance was required. Now there is a pool of money for lawyers to target.

As soon as you mention something like you're walking on the roof would not do as much damage as a hard rain, then they have an agreement to damage, now they just have to determine how much. Complete Insanity. Well enough of the rant.

In MA we must learn how to effectively inspect roofs without walking the roof. Think of it as a challenging exercise when you do not have the luxury of choosing to walk on the roof.

By the way. Many great comments from other inspectors. This is a very good forum. I wish I had more time to read and respond.

[Ted Menelly]

I concur-If its safe I will walk the roof. Of course walking up a steep roof is easy, however coming down may be a little more difficult, especially when is wet, mossy, has pine debris or is120 degree. I always find something I couldn't see from the ground or the binoculars.If its safe do it !

But just think of the excitement in your day while sliding over the edge of that roof trying to make a prejudged landing...and not break anything...like yourself :D

[Ashley Eldridge]

Maybe commissioner Gordon could send the Bat beacon out to Bob Harper to weigh in on this.

I believe it was stated accurately when someone said that although it may not be required, because the NFPA 211 is not adopted in a specific area, it is still the standard of practice in the industry. I would expect that anyone looking for direction or definition describing what is included in the inspection process would embrace the NFPA 211 levels of inspection whether they are mandated in any given area or not.

It is a method of protecting both the inspector and the consumer by being clearly defined. Not using a formally adopted procedure leads to differing expectations and that confusion can cause conflict resulting in litigation. Why not avoid the conflict by being a better communicator?

Ashley Eldridge
CSIA Director of Education
Chimney Safety Institute of America (http://www.csia.org)

[Kevin Kramer]

There is a brand new (roof inspection risk management) professional association that has been created specificaly for non-construction roof access professionals like ourselves called ACRABAT (The Association for Rope Accessed Building Assessment Technicians) acrabat.org index (http://www.acrabat.org) . They have developed standards for lifeline assisted roof access void of 99% of the risk for personal injury.

All of this has spawned out of the Insurance Industry (claims adjusters) but will work for us too.

I too believe that the ONLY way to obtain the accuracy our customers deserve is to get on the roofs of the homes we inspect.

[Daniel Rogers]

ACRABAT ?? ROFLMAO

[Ted Menelly]

There is a brand new (roof inspection risk management) professional association that has been created specificaly for non-construction roof access professionals like ourselves called ACRABAT (The Association for Rope Accessed Building Assessment Technicians) acrabat.org index (http://www.acrabat.org) . They have developed standards for lifeline assisted roof access void of 99% of the risk for personal injury.

All of this has spawned out of the Insurance Industry (claims adjusters) but will work for us too.

I too believe that the ONLY way to obtain the accuracy our customers deserve is to get on the roofs of the homes we inspect.

If i nneeded a lifeline to get on a roof then that is when I stop getting on roofs. The picture below would require a lifeline and my life is just to precious even if a large part of it is over.

[John Kogel]

If i needed a lifeline to get on a roof then that is when I stop getting on roofs. The picture below would require a lifeline and my life is just to precious even if a large part of it is over.No, Ted. The lifeline is not for climbing with. It is to save you if you fall.
The trouble I have with ropes is getting it attached in the first place. Attached to what?

[Rick Cantrell]

"Attached to what?"

Satellite Dish, TV antenna, roof vent, gutter, I don't care if I'm falling.

[Stuart Brooks]

No, Ted. The lifeline is not for climbing with. It is to save you if you fall.
The trouble I have with ropes is getting it attached in the first place. Attached to what?

Same question here.
Some sucker has to climb up to the ridge with a tie down and anchor it in place. Of course that lucky person has all the safety benefits of the most modern OSHA approved Sky Hook 300XL. When everybody else is back down safely on the ground, having a nice cold drink, some "body" has to remove the tie down, patch the holes, and get back down without the benefit of the Sky Hook 300Xl. We need shoes with gravity amplifiers.

[Ted Menelly]

No, Ted. The lifeline is not for climbing with. It is to save you if you fall.
The trouble I have with ropes is getting it attached in the first place. Attached to what?

well , if you are using a life line then you are literally climbing with it. There is that little problem that it does have to attach somewhere. That means you have to go up and attatch it somewhere. If I was that concerned I would not be onthe roof ;)

[Don Hester]

Ted,
I would walk that roof, yeah right, not unless I was properly harnessed and tied off and on a boom.

Anyway, wow, damaging the roof by walking it. I guess if that was the case it is time for a new roof and my client should know.

I agree safety first if you doubt it at all do go up there.

I am pretty conservative with walking the roof, but I want to walk every one. You just can not see things from ground observation you can see up there.

I roofed (union boy) as a young one and it did not take me long to figure that was not the profession for me.

I know I see more issues on roofs than almost anywhere else on a home. Roofers are famous for shortcuts. They know most are not going there to check their work. I see poor work all the time on new homes.

Air-tools are great but in the wrong hand they can make a mess of a roof.

[Kevin Kramer]

A "Lifeline" is a component of a "Personal Fall Arrest System" and ACRABAT standards were created with the expressed purpose of training roof inspection trades people on how to set them from the safety of terra firma (ground level) and being able to use that lifeline for mobillity.

Anchors fall into two seperate catagories:

Fixed & Portable

Both types of anchors are situated at ground level so their is literally no climbing (not even on the ladder) until roof inspector is secured to their lifeline.

People, This Is Not New Stuff Here!

State Farm Ins is the 5th largest company in the world and they have been using it to manage the risk associated with high angle roof inspection for years.

What Does This Mean?

Well, while Daniel Rogers is rolling on the floor laughing his @$$ off and completing suspect work based on what he speculates is going on with the roofing system, you could be putting him (and all the other home inspectors who refuse to climb roofs) out of a job with reports that reflect the true merits of the situation.

It is not nearly as hard as you think, I have been doing it for years with a few hundred dollars worth of equipment. Outside of a church steeple, there really isn't a roof system that i cannot get on with the use of a little technique and line placement devices that are good for up to about 120 ft high structures.

Remember: A Fool Knows Everything but A Wise Man Knows Nothing.

Laugh if you want to Daniel but somthing tells me that none of you guys looked into this.

[John Kogel]

A "Lifeline" is a component of a "Personal Fall Arrest System" and ACRABAT standards were created with the expressed purpose of training roof inspection trades people on how to set them from the safety of terra firma (ground level) and being able to use that lifeline for mobillity.



somthing tells me that none of you guys looked into this.
Nope, I checked it out. I think the training program has merit.
Lifelines have been discussed before. Some home inspectors maybe will take the time to string up a rope. But the general feeling is that for the small price of a home inspection, we check from the top of the ladder, and if it's unsafe to go further without a lifeline, we come down and move on.
Nevertheless, I have ropes in my truck for those special occasions, and am not too proud or too rushed to use a line once in a while.
I copped these pics from the website.
BTW, if you tie off to a car in the driveway, make sure the keys are in your pocket. [:>O]

[Kevin Kramer]

Thanks John,

I'm glad to see that there are others like me who are aware of the fact that lifelines are definite risk management solution for roof inspection.

I believe that the title of this thread says it all because as professionals, we must get on the roof system to assess the merits of the situation.


PS - Nice pictures of a Line Launcher and Rope Caddy.

[Ralph Schade]

I've hired a couple of new guys that were hanging around today's inspection.......

[Kevin Kramer]

Remember people that the goal here is 100% access with 0 incidents.

Don't end up like this roof inspector (claims adjuster) who slipped off a steep roof last week and ended up with two broken legs.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q184/Saltstorm/2BrokenLegs.jpg

[Raymond Wand]

Up here in Ontario if the Ministry of Labour catches anyone on a roof without a fall arrest system on you will be fined.

[Kevin Kramer]

Interesting.

OSHA does not require independent inspection (working in a non-construction capacity) professionals to have anything more than a "risk management plan".

Now tell me that this is not just a little vague.

[Jerry DiGiovanni]

In the vegas area any inspector that dose not walk a roof is missing a multitude of sind mainly because building inspectors will not climb a ladder

[Michael Thomas]

I've been for writing these up for years, especially when the installation in into OSB sheathing, and getting static for it, and I just *knew* I was gonna' run into this eventually, and get a nice picture to add to reports to explain *why* I report it: