PDA

View Full Version : Leaking bathtub



Marc M
05-24-2011, 10:01 PM
This is a leaking bathtub, second floor. No stains, no water visible on floor. Would have walked right past it. Dodging bullets...

Eric Barker
05-25-2011, 08:23 AM
Was your determination based upon anything other than the IR image?

Tim Spargo
05-25-2011, 08:39 AM
Same question as Eric's.. or ditto.

Ken Rowe
05-25-2011, 09:20 AM
Obviously the exterior wall / ceiling junction of a tuck under garage so if it was a leak couldn't it have been coming from the exterior? Possibly siding or window? Or even an opening in the wall's vapor barrier which has created a large amount of condensation? What makes you say bathtub without other investigation?

Marc M
05-25-2011, 08:05 PM
Was your determination based upon anything other than the IR image?

What...? You guys doubting my skills?;) I have a method for this.
BTW, my determination was based on the obvious. After I located this, the seller cut a hole in the ceiling and there it was. Didnt tell him to, but "he just had to know". Oh yea, after I spotted the stain in the IR, I followed up with my moisture meters. I use two different meters, just to rule out most false +'s.
I have more like this..
I scan prior to running any water..then I run the water for 15+ minutes. Trade secret...Shhh

Ken Rowe
05-25-2011, 09:18 PM
So you didn't actually confirm a bathtub leak just by using the IR camera as you implied in the first post.

Marc M
05-25-2011, 11:06 PM
So you didn't actually confirm a bathtub leak just by using the IR camera as you implied in the first post.

Huh? Yes. I scanned the bottom. Saw the discoloration. The seller cut the hole. We saw it leaking. I would say that is a confirmation from the IR camera. You cant "confirm" a leak with a tool that measures heat. Just observe. Then use another tool to narrow the possibilities and apply experience.
FYI, all the other pics were all taken this month & repaired and were also confirmed second story bathtub/shower leak.

Eric Barker
05-26-2011, 05:41 PM
What...? You guys doubting my skills?;) I have a method for this.


Marc, It's my nature to doubt and be anal. :D

Marc M
05-26-2011, 08:44 PM
Marc, It's my nature to doubt and be anal. :D
No worries, here's another for you. These are two from today. One is from testing the shower pan and water coming from under the pergo adjacent to the pan, and the other was under a tub. I assume the tub leaked based on my expert anaylsis, but could not confirm.;)
Have no idea with the shower.

Ian Page
05-28-2011, 12:52 AM
Marc
I'm sure you have posted this before but what IR equipment are you using?

Marc M
05-28-2011, 08:18 AM
Ian,
we're using the Fluke TI32. I'd probably re think the purchase if I could do it again....:(
I think using IR is a great way to limit your liabilities as an inspector. If not for anything else. But, you dont need to spend $7-8-9 K to get these results. The smaller 1500-2500 units work just as good, just the image quality isnt. Her's an example... Actually, this image is too small to get a good idea..but you get the picture.(no pun intended)

Ian Page
05-28-2011, 10:58 PM
Thanks for the info. and insight.

Marc M
05-28-2011, 11:06 PM
Ian,
I dont want to give you the wrong impression about this tool. I was actually referring to using this specific model for HI...Industrial IR inspections are a whole different conversation. The TI32 is perfect for this.

Ian Page
05-28-2011, 11:25 PM
Marc
I certainly see their value - being very aware of liability issues. A few more inspections and I should be able to afford the deposit;). Do you typically charge for using it or is it just another tool in the bag - for your own edification.

Marc M
05-29-2011, 12:11 AM
Marc
I certainly see their value - being very aware of liability issues. A few more inspections and I should be able to afford the deposit;). Do you typically charge for using it or is it just another tool in the bag - for your own edification.

For HI, it is just another tool in the bag. We do have contracts to inspect roofs and assembly lines etc... which we get paid for. We did pretty well last year as an "add-on" to HI but not as a stand alone business. I've made my money back on the camera. I'm thinking about getting a smaller unit for HI, I hate having to subject the TI to daily wear & tear with HI without getting reimbursed for it.

Marc M
05-29-2011, 11:38 PM
Here's a pretty good pic..

Ian Page
05-29-2011, 11:51 PM
Marc
Good pics. Was any of what the image revealed visible to the naked eye? Did you suspect any issues before the IR camera was used?

Marc M
05-30-2011, 07:57 AM
Marc
Good pics. Was any of what the image revealed visible to the naked eye? Did you suspect any issues before the IR camera was used?

Good question. Yes and no. Sometimes there is discoloration at the stab connection, or on the insulation plate. And other times nothing. But more times than not, when there is discoloration, there are issues. below for example...
Now with that being said, I would say that Challenger main disconnects are more frequently hotter than others. And after my inspection, and after the electrician inspects the panel, they (most of the time) replace the main if the bus is not damaged, and save it for me. There are fewer times where there has "not" been an issue than has been.
Not all IR scans I do, where there is a hot disconnect present represent an issue. Load etc.. has to be factored in as well. Stuff you know i'm sure.

Marc M
05-31-2011, 09:19 PM
Shower pan today, viewed from the adjacent closet. Another notch in the tubstopper.

Ian Page
06-01-2011, 12:04 AM
Marc
Good pic. and very convincing. Was this issue detected by any other sense before you used the IR ? Or did the camera substantiate the condition already detected?

Marc M
06-01-2011, 08:30 AM
No, not really. Didnt see anything obvious. I actually scan around and under bathrooms prior to and after my inspections. I only do this because i dont have the time to go inch by inch with a moisture meter. It's only after I see a potential issue that i use the MM, in this case i just pulled the carpet back and there it was. here is the pic that i saw that alerted me to the issue initially.
I used a grey scale inverted image to better see the water.

Ian Page
06-01-2011, 11:01 PM
Thanks. The IR certainly seems to be a worthwhile tool but I'm not sure (other than from the potential liability of missing something standpoint) that it is a cost-effective investment. Perhaps other users can attest to any additional return by charging more for it's use or whether it is just used as a 'selling' feature for the business. I would like to have one, however. I just wonder about stuff I may have overlooked or which was hidden by a fresh coat of paint or newly installed floor covering.

Marc M
06-02-2011, 07:53 AM
Thanks. The IR certainly seems to be a worthwhile tool but I'm not sure (other than from the potential liability of missing something standpoint) that it is a cost-effective investment. Perhaps other users can attest to any additional return by charging more for it's use or whether it is just used as a 'selling' feature for the business. I would like to have one, however. I just wonder about stuff I may have overlooked or which was hidden by a fresh coat of paint or newly installed floor covering.

I agree completely...great tool mostly to reduce liabilities. That said, it is also a great tool to locate issues that help our clients.
Some HI's charge more to make their money back, however, there are those of us (like me) who do not. Like I mentioned before, commercial applications is where you will likely make your money back, at least more quickly than residential. However, with that said; it's all about creating a need. It "is" a fantastic selling feature for sure.
HaHA, I think wondering about stuff that you may have overlooked is just part of this business. Its pretty difficult to know everything, so when you learn somethng new, its natural to wonder about all the hundreds/thousands of houses you did before this one.
I do have to say; I find leaks pretty frequently so the camera helps. Like I said, its worth spending the money, but for just a tool, I'd just spend less of it.:)

Gary wellborn
12-19-2011, 08:46 AM
I have been using IR for 12 years and I would not want to do an inspection without it. The cost of the cameras today are nothing compared to the cost 2 years ago and if you go back ten years the cost will seem to be extremely low in comparison.
Factor in the capabilities and more importantly the knowledge that is available about thermal imaging and its applications and you have a very valuable tool.
In the end it is always about knowledge isn't it.

David J. Smith
12-20-2011, 07:44 AM
I disagree about the liability issue, the standards of practice I work with clearly state it is a visual inspection, the standards are incorporated into into the inspection contract. One could make the argument that you are increasing your liability by using specialized equipment.

Gary wellborn
12-20-2011, 09:29 AM
Absurd on its face. If that was true every tool in your bag could present its own liability issue.
With IR there is only an enhanced visual inspection and at some point you must let the customer decide if they want the service.
We do use a contract agreement that spells out its use and limitations just as we do with any inspection.
Supplied as a supplemental service where charges are extra, get the contract signed and inform the client as to the proceedure and reporting that will be applied.
IR is not a stand alone diagnostic tool and many techniques ( depending on the situation ) are used to verify indication of defect or anomolies.
Have you any first hand knowledge of anyone using IR in the building inspection side that has been sued?
I personaly have not met or talked with anyone who has been sued.

Jerry Peck
12-20-2011, 04:49 PM
the standards of practice I work with clearly state it is a visual inspection,

"a visual inspection"

So, as such, you do not carry ANY tools of ANY type with you, correct?

Not even a flashlight, nor a ladder, nor a screw driver, nor ... any other tool.

David J. Smith
12-20-2011, 05:58 PM
Now we are stretching it in the other direction.

The tread started off by stating that a bullet was dodged because of an infrared camera, by the standards of practice there was no bullet to dodge.

Our standards were recently changed to state that if there is a is an indication of a water leak then it must be tested with a moisture meter, which meant all the inspectors who did not already have a meter had to go out and buy one. The test result has to be mentioned in the report.

The infrared camera may be useful and have its place but some here are coming off as infrared camera salesmen or trying to make a sale to a client.

I can't remember a case where an infrared camera would have avoided a call back.

Just out of curiosity and from a business stand point how much time does an IR inspection add to the overall inspection? How much extra do you charge? I have heard some provide their clients a recording of the IR inspection, does anyone do that?

Jerry Peck
12-20-2011, 06:12 PM
the standards of practice I work with clearly state it is a visual inspection,


"a visual inspection"

So, as such, you do not carry ANY tools of ANY type with you, correct?

Not even a flashlight, nor a ladder, nor a screw driver, nor ... any other tool.


Now we are stretching it in the other direction.

Not stretching it at all - you said it was a "visual inspection", I simply explained why it is not a "visual inspection", thus thinking one can hide behind the "visual inspection" in a contract is erroneous.


Our standards were recently changed to state that if there is a is an indication of a water leak then it must be tested with a moisture meter, which meant all the inspectors who did not already have a meter had to go out and buy one. The test result has to be mentioned in the report.

That is all an infrared camera is in a sense: a moisture meter.

Instead of using electronics to electrically detect *what might be moisture* behind the surface, the infrared camera is using electronics to thermally detect *what might be moisture* behind the surface, and instead of a digital, analog, or lights/buzzer to indicate its results, the infrared camera uses a visual image to display its results. One could use an infrared camera in much the same way they use a moisture meter, and they would not need to use it for any of the other things it can detect.

Gary wellborn
12-21-2011, 09:30 AM
IR Cameras are way more than just a moisture meter and have many applications beyond moisture detection.
Perhaps if all you use it for is detecting moisture you should just stick with a meter and forego the expense, training and experience that is needed to get the most from a Thermal camera.
The use of a camera can extend the time of a home inspection but not drastically and we do charge extra for a complete IR scan.
We use a scan schedule designed to fit the type of thermal inspection we are contracted to do.
If you would like more information please contact me at
877-370-1144 toll free or email me at gwellborn1@gmail.com.

Jerry Peck
12-21-2011, 04:42 PM
IR Cameras are way more than just a moisture meter and have many applications beyond moisture detection.

Gary,

The point being discussed is that an infrared camera 'can be used as a moisture meter', and, thus, when the standards of practice specifically "require" a home inspector to have a "moisture meter", the infrared camera could do that - the different is in the method of detection and displaying the results.

Obviously, yes, an infrared camera is (underlining is mine) "way more than just a moisture meter", which is my point in having and using an infrared camera - it has many more uses than many people think of.

Gary wellborn
12-21-2011, 05:36 PM
OK, I guess I did not read enough of the postings. Thanks for the clarification.

Marc M
12-22-2011, 10:37 PM
Last week... More than just a moisture meter..

James Duffin
12-23-2011, 05:46 AM
Just curious as to what happens when you say there is a problem based only on the IR scan and when the electrician and plumber comes out to fix the problem they do not find the problem because it is not visible to the naked eye? Most sellers are not going to allow their house to torn up for a fishing expedition.

Michael Bronner
12-23-2011, 07:01 AM
I imagine an IR camera will soon become just another tool in our bags and it is just a matter of time before all who do not own one will buy one and begin using it during a routine inspection. Just like taking pics during an inspection and including them in reports, or using a pin or surface moisture meter, a CO detector, a gas dectector, ect. Soon, if an inspector does not own an IR camera, our clients will begin asking if you use one and if not, you may not get hired for the job. Technology and competition, one way or the other, will eventually dictate our tool bag contents.

Question though on some of the moisture pics: Based on the size of the some the water leaks and the depth of color (I assume it means level of moisture), how in the world did a visible stain not be apparant? The photos under flooring are really quite compeling though, I must admit. However, IR pics inside panels are interesting but I simply use a laser thermo to tell the temp of wiring and breakers without the use of a $2000.00 piece of equipement..seems just as effective.

An IR camera will be the next big addition to my tool bag...as soon as work picks up and I can justify the costs.

Marc M
12-23-2011, 09:08 AM
Just curious as to what happens when you say there is a problem based only on the IR scan and when the electrician and plumber comes out to fix the problem they do not find the problem because it is not visible to the naked eye? Most sellers are not going to allow their house to torn up for a fishing expedition.

Yea James, that is a problem. Most electricians don't have this and will see the pics and dismiss them. Some times the heat wont exceed what they see as typical so again, they will dismiss the issue. In one of those pics of a feeder, it was barely warmer then the opposite, but clearly there is an issue with the connection. Only once has anyone complained about my images, but she was a listing agent "protecting her seller".
With moisture, I will almost 100% of the time confirm moisture with my other meters.

James Duffin
12-23-2011, 10:58 AM
Yea James, that is a problem. Most electricians don't have this and will see the pics and dismiss them. Some times the heat wont exceed what they see as typical so again, they will dismiss the issue. In one of those pics of a feeder, it was barely warmer then the opposite, but clearly there is an issue with the connection. Only once has anyone complained about my images, but she was a listing agent "protecting her seller".
With moisture, I will almost 100% of the time confirm moisture with my other meters.

Do you have any idea (%-wise) how many non-visible problems are investigated and repaired based on your images? There is really no way to track the % accurately but I am just wondering if you have any idea at all. I would guess the percentage would be low.

Marc M
12-23-2011, 11:23 AM
Do you have any idea (%-wise) how many non-visible problems are investigated and repaired based on your images? There is really no way to track the % accurately but I am just wondering if you have any idea at all. I would guess the percentage would be low.

On the contrary, I would say the % is quite high. As a matter of fact, on electrical I would say it was around 60% +
With moisture I'd place it at or above 90%

James Duffin
12-23-2011, 11:52 AM
Good info....thanks! Is the i7 good enough for a typical home inspector?

Marc M
12-23-2011, 06:20 PM
You bet...Matter of fact, Once I got better educated and a thousand or so scans under my belt, I was a little disappointed I spent $9,000 on my mine. Yours will see what mine sees, although the differences are many, the most obvious one being the resolution.
I7 is a great place to start IMO.

Marc M
12-30-2011, 08:26 PM
Leaking shower pan...Yes, a second story pan.
Hmm, a little out of focus.

Rick Strand
12-30-2011, 09:21 PM
Marc,

What areas do you scan? What made you decide to point your IR camera towards the garage ceiling at an exterior wall? I assume you look under and around all bath areas? How about windows? How much time does the IR add to a home inspection?

Wow, thats a lot of questions, how about one more... IR guys seem to be unanamous that if you don't get the 240 X 320 camera you will regret it. I have a hard time justifying the $7,500+ and training just to give the service away for free and open myself up to "well... you had a magic IR camera and you didn't find the hidden leakage"!!

Marc M
12-30-2011, 09:35 PM
Marc,

What areas do you scan? What made you decide to point your IR camera towards the garage ceiling at an exterior wall? I assume you look under and around all bath areas? How about windows? How much time does the IR add to a home inspection?

Wow, thats a lot of questions, how about one more... IR guys seem to be unanamous that if you don't get the 240 X 320 camera you will regret it. I have a hard time justifying the $7,500+ and training just to give the service away for free and open myself up to "well... you had a magic IR camera and you didn't find the hidden leakage"!!

I scan any area that may have moisture in the wall. Concrete / soil over the weep screed thus the inside wall (like today), under all bathrooms, under all laundry rooms and just about anywhere pipes may exist. I will do walls and other stuff after it rains. But mostly for the wow factor, but I do on occasion find leaks doing this. Doing these scans takes only about 10 minutes. I scan multiple times during plumbing tests just in case I'm flooding the ceiling cavity.:D
I think any IR camera will work fine for this business, really. If I did it over, I'd get the cheaper unit to start with. here's an image of a leak I stumbled across...its from the adjacent unit in a townhouse.

Rick Strand
12-30-2011, 09:57 PM
10 minutes to scan everywhere water may be present? That last scan looks like the bottom corner of a closet, I can see myself missing large areas of the home such as this. My concern is that the client will assume I will find all defects, including ones that are not visible. This would be a reasonable expectation if I was getting paid for an IR inspection where everything gets scanned but if just part of a home inspection, and included for free, there must be a lot of surfaces that dont get scanned. Scares the hell out of me and don't see how I can make any more money or even recoupe the cost of the camera.

Just want to clarify the tone of my posts, I am only trying to learn from your experience.:)

Marc M
12-30-2011, 11:02 PM
10 minutes to scan everywhere water may be present? That last scan looks like the bottom corner of a closet, I can see myself missing large areas of the home such as this. My concern is that the client will assume I will find all defects, including ones that are not visible. This would be a reasonable expectation if I was getting paid for an IR inspection where everything gets scanned but if just part of a home inspection, and included for free, there must be a lot of surfaces that dont get scanned. Scares the hell out of me and don't see how I can make any more money or even recoupe the cost of the camera.

Just want to clarify the tone of my posts, I am only trying to learn from your experience.:)

LOL, you may not recoup the cost unless you charge for specific services. If you do it, you're doig it for you (CYA) and / or your clients best interests. Just tell them that you're not scanning every wall as this is not an IR scan of the house. My clients are pretty cool, and thus totally understand. Matter of fact...I'm helping an agent help her client with a leak in a wall that her "other" inspector missed.:eek: Damned if you do, damned if you don't huh?

Jerry Peck
12-31-2011, 04:00 PM
LOL, you may not recoup the cost unless you charge for specific services.

I disagree.

I did not charge extra for it, but because I had it I got a lot more referrals ... meaning that I recouped the cost of the camera and training ($14,500) within a very short while and did not have to charge extra to use it.

Marc M
12-31-2011, 06:56 PM
I disagree.

I did not charge extra for it, but because I had it I got a lot more referrals ... meaning that I recouped the cost of the camera and training ($14,500) within a very short while and did not have to charge extra to use it.

I can see where that can happen. Up here everyone had an IR camera. Where did you go to get the training?

Jerry Peck
12-31-2011, 09:32 PM
I can see where that can happen. Up here everyone had an IR camera. Where did you go to get the training?

More people have them now than back when I had mine, I bought mine in 2004 as I recall, not many home inspectors had one back then.

I lived in South Florida at the time and FLIR was frozen in Up North, so they came down to Ft. Lauderdale in January for their training week, and being as I lived 'around the corner', so to speak, I jumped at the chance for them to come to me instead of me having to go to them.

Although, when you go to them you get to see their setup up there and that can lead to learning more simply because there are some many things around to play with and use, unlike when they can only bring limited equipment with them when traveling to other locations.

Nonetheless, though, they were basking in 85-90 degree weather with us while the weather Up There was in the 20s and below, as I recall. :cool:

Marc M
12-31-2011, 10:54 PM
Went 3 for 4 today in shower pans. :eek:

Rick Strand
01-01-2012, 10:27 AM
Are you flooding the pans with a dam?

Marc M
01-01-2012, 10:51 AM
Are you flooding the pans with a dam?

No not a dam, but it is an ancient Chinese secret. ;)

Technically, I did kinda go 4 for 5 yesterday if you include the bathtub leak.

Jerry Peck
01-01-2012, 11:50 AM
Are you flooding the pans with a dam?

That's the best way to check them. Flood them almost to the top of the threshold, about 1/2" to 3/4" down depending on the tile/marble/stone thickness. :)

Marc M
01-01-2012, 01:19 PM
That's the best way to check them. Flood them almost to the top of the threshold, about 1/2" to 3/4" down depending on the tile/marble/stone thickness. :)

Oh man, you're giving away my secrets...;)
Yea, I actually use a tub stopper, or four (in this case). Obviously working like gangbusters. (although I have no idea what that means)

Jerry Peck
01-01-2012, 02:23 PM
Oh man, you're giving away my secrets...;)
Yea, I actually use a tub stopper,

"tub stopper"

Huh?

That is quite risky.

You need to get some of the ones made for testing shower pans, like this one: Bathtub and Shower Drain Stopper - Mfg# #144 (http://www.professionalequipment.com/bathtub-shower-drain-stopper-144/plumbing-accessories/)

I used to carry four of them, one for normal shower, two for deeper showers (one on top of the first one) and up to four for those old tiled bathtubs.

Marc M
01-01-2012, 04:17 PM
"tub stopper"

Huh?

That is quite risky.

You need to get some of the ones made for testing shower pans, like this one: Bathtub and Shower Drain Stopper - Mfg# #144 (http://www.professionalequipment.com/bathtub-shower-drain-stopper-144/plumbing-accessories/)

I used to carry four of them, one for normal shower, two for deeper showers (one on top of the first one) and up to four for those old tiled bathtubs.

Yea, Tub stopper, "tomato..tomahto..
Jerry, get a short piece of PVC for your stoppers, that way you can cut one of the stoppers low for those short pans and use the PVC to extend the top of the stopper for the taller pans that are a little too short for "doubled up" tub stoppers..
P.s., you're welcome for such a brilliant idea. ;)

Jerry Peck
01-01-2012, 05:49 PM
Yea, Tub stopper, "tomato..tomahto..
Jerry, get a short piece of PVC for your stoppers, that way you can cut one of the stoppers low for those short pans and use the PVC to extend the top of the stopper for the taller pans that are a little too short for "doubled up" tub stoppers..
P.s., you're welcome for such a brilliant idea. ;)

Had not thunk of dat! :)

By the way, are those 'kill' marks on that stopper? :cool:

Marc M
01-01-2012, 07:10 PM
Had not thunk of dat! :)

By the way, are those 'kill' marks on that stopper? :cool:

Yea, the plastic pipe is nice because you can adjust it up and down to the perfect height. And yes, those are my kill marks. I figure its a good way to see how much money I'm saving my clients..got 3 more just like it..:eek:

Marc M
01-12-2012, 10:53 PM
Another kill...:D

Garry Sorrells
01-13-2012, 05:21 AM
Marc,
Do you scan the area before you fill the pan, before and after shots?

Marc M
01-14-2012, 12:57 AM
Marc,
Do you scan the area before you fill the pan, before and after shots?

Yes. I want to eliminate the potential for unnecessary damage as a result of my test. Most people, however, don't take an hour long shower with 3" of water in their pan.;)

Jerry Peck
01-14-2012, 09:42 AM
Most people, however, don't take an hour long shower with 3" of water in their pan.;)

That's why it's called a 'test' and a shower is not testing the pan.

Marc M
01-14-2012, 11:20 AM
That's why it's called a 'test' and a shower is not testing the pan.

I actually just had this exact conversation with an agent the other day. He wouldn't allow the test because they (sellers) use the shower every day...

Jerry Peck
01-14-2012, 11:35 AM
He wouldn't allow the test because they (sellers) use the shower every day...

I always loved those responses as that opened the door for my responses, such as: Let's see, the house is $2.3 mil, your commission is, what, 3%, that means you will be making about $69 k, which is good because that full custom granite shower stall is worth about $50 k, and you KNOW the buyers will not just want the bottom and the pan re-done, they will demand the ENTIRE shower be re-done so it all matches like it does now ... all of your work and you only make about $17 k, which is still actually pretty good ... (and then I would smile) ... it's a lot more than I am charging, so I will need you to sign a notarized affidavit that you would not allow me to test the shower and that you are guaranteeing that the shower does not leak.

There usual response was something to the effect of they were not about to do either, no letter stating they would not allow me to test the shower and that they certainly were not guaranteeing the shower pan ... it was about that time they noticed that I was documenting what was being said during the conversation and they really started freaking out ... and allowed me to test the shower pan. :cool:

Rick Strand
01-14-2012, 11:43 AM
I can explain to a client or used house sales person that a component failed during 'normal operation', I can not justify water running out of a first floor ceiling after 'testing'.

I would not allow an inspector into my home carrying a device with kill marks on it.

Jerry Peck
01-14-2012, 12:56 PM
I can explain to a client or used house sales person that a component failed during 'normal operation', I can not justify water running out of a first floor ceiling after 'testing'.

With some further training and knowledge of how shower pans are 'supposed to be' constructed and installed, and the materials used for shower pans, and you would understand that the shower pan 'should' hold water to the top of the threshold where the shower pan is (i.e., just below the tile on the threshold) and the shower pan should hold that water until the water evaporates into the air ... yes, the shower pan should not leak ... not just for 5 minutes, not just for 10 minutes, not just for 1 hour even - if the shower pan is properly constructed of the proper materials the should pan should not leak ... period.


I would not allow an inspector into my home carrying a device with kill marks on it.

That inspector would have a real easy time explaining to the buyer *WHY* the shower pan *NEEDS* to be tested, and that the marks indicate the unfortunate fact that the shower pan *NEEDS* to be tested because *SO MANY* are installed incorrectly.

At that point, if you were the seller and I were the buyer, *YOU* would personally guarantee, with a cash bond payable to me, that the shower pan will not leak ... or ... you could elect to cancel the contract - your choice, sir.

Any smart buyer would be willing to walk away and leave you sputtering something about why ... why ... why ... and all you would hear next is the closing of the front door as you lost *ANOTHER* sale because of your stance.

Again - your choice.

Rick Strand
01-14-2012, 01:56 PM
You have made the assumption that I do not have this knowledge, which is incorrect. If I was the home owner and had no water staining before you started, you would be held responsible for damaging my home. If in no other way, with a scathing review somewhere or a firestorm with my listing agent.

I understand that as a buyer, I would want the info provided by the use of a dam but as an inspector, can not justify the risk. This is an old argument and you will not convince me to start using one just as I will not convince you to stop :)

Nick Ostrowski
01-14-2012, 02:30 PM
I can see where a home owner would have a problem with a testing method that turned up leaks and made their ceiling wet and stained when no signs of an issue or defect previously existed. While an argument can certainly be made that the testing method is valid and brings the problem to light, an argument can also be made that the testing method exceeded the normal conditions under which the shower would be used. Most people do not shower in two inches of water around their feet unless they let hair and soap scum build up inside the drain and never clean it. An inspector could probably make windows leak at every inspection if he took a garden hose and blasted the exterior window for 5 minutes straight and said the test replicates wind driven rain that can be experienced during a tropical storm.

If you're going to use testing methods that create issues/stains/damage where no visible damage previously existed, you'll need to be very convincing as to why you are not at fault or your E&O better be up to date. It is a very slippery slope and one I do not care to walk.

Whatever you're doing Marc, it is obviously working for you. More power to you. Around here in SE Pennsylvania, an IR camera and the training courses would be lot a money out the door. Buyers around here love the idea of extra services and tests until they find out they have to pay for them. I've gotten maybe 5 or so inquiries about IR scanning in 8+ years. It's just not in demand around here.

Marc M
01-14-2012, 04:56 PM
I can explain to a client or used house sales person that a component failed during 'normal operation', I can not justify water running out of a first floor ceiling after 'testing'.

I would not allow an inspector into my home carrying a device with kill marks on it.

Well..if you add up the "kill marks" and and then multiply that by four, which the number of these that I have with "kill marks", and then attach a real dollar figure to it... I'd say I'm doing a great service to my clients, despite what the seller or agent(s) thinks. My client are my number one priority.

Jerry Peck
01-14-2012, 05:47 PM
You have made the assumption that I do not have this knowledge, which is incorrect. If I was the home owner and had no water staining before you started, you would be held responsible for damaging my home.

You might try to hold me responsible, but once I personally ripped out the tile and showed you WHY the shower pan WAS leaking, YOU would be paying ME for my efforts, much to your chagrin.

Unless, of course, you had elected not to have me test it and my buyer walked, in which case it would up to the next inspector to address your stubbornness and, yes, lack of knowledge, about shower pan leaks.

Rick Strand
01-14-2012, 06:04 PM
The problem with your invitation to a pissing match is that we will both get wet... No thanks.

Marc M
01-14-2012, 07:50 PM
You have made the assumption that I do not have this knowledge, which is incorrect. If I was the home owner and had no water staining before you started, you would be held responsible for damaging my home. If in no other way, with a scathing review somewhere or a firestorm with my listing agent.

I understand that as a buyer, I would want the info provided by the use of a dam but as an inspector, can not justify the risk. This is an old argument and you will not convince me to start using one just as I will not convince you to stop :)

It's hard for me to understand why so many do not perform this test. My IR images and the marks on my stoppers posted here indicate that it happens pretty often. So because of SOP's you are willing to walk away from an issue you were paid to find? Not to knock SOP's but unless your state mandates that you not go above them, they're useless IMOP.
You are not forcing it to leak, just testing the integrity of the component.

Nick Ostrowski
01-15-2012, 10:55 AM
It's hard for me to understand why so many do not perform this test. My IR images and the marks on my stoppers posted here indicate that it happens pretty often. So because of SOP's you are willing to walk away from an issue you were paid to find? Not to knock SOP's but unless your state mandates that you not go above them, they're useless IMOP.
You are not forcing it to leak, just testing the integrity of the component.

I can't speak for all but I believe it is because most inspectors don't want the potential headache of dealing with a pissed off homeowner. Some sellers take things personally and get mad at us for finding issues as it is.

Garry Sorrells
01-15-2012, 11:25 AM
Marc,
Reluctant to interject a comment into the testing issue.
Testing to the maximum requirements as opposed to testing to the level of normal use is where many have the issue. Many feel that if something is working under normal use, that is what is expected. Being subjected to a situation that is far beyond how an item will be used exceeds normal expectations is not expected. Once an item is put in service, typically its expectations are reduced.

Something like a new car that can handle the engine being red lined and reaching 130 mph and held there as original testing criteria. Normal operation does not subject the engine to that stress and few expect that performance once placed into service. The normal expectations is based on normal use.

In the case of the shower pan it is not considered a shallow bath tub with a shower head. So many feel that why test to a level that is not reflective of normal expectations. Many would think that soaking the shower walls would be a better test for leakage and ultimately more beneficial.

One might argue that the overload protection should be tested to verify that the breakers actually trip as designed. But I do not think anyone will be shorting out the electric as a test to verify the breaker operation.

The issue may revolve around at what point do you test to code test requirements or maximum design features.

Jerry Peck
01-15-2012, 04:00 PM
The problem with your invitation to a pissing match is that we will both get wet... No thanks.

Not inviting you to a pissing match, you would probably win that one, just encouraging you get further education on how shower pans are constructed ... er ... on how shower pans SHOULD BE constructed, and the materials used for the shower pans.

Jerry Peck
01-15-2012, 04:09 PM
Gary,

I am glad you worded you post the way you did as that allows me to refer to inspecting that way:

In the case of the shower pan it is not considered a shallow bath tub with a shower head.

If you filled a tub up to the overflow to test the overflow (that should be how you are testing tubs), would you expect the tub to leak? If you filled the tub up to just below the over-flow rim of the tub, would you expect the tub to leak? Or to re-phrase it differently, you would expect the tub to *not leak*, correct?

That is because a tub is a formed water reservoir which is designed and intended to hold water and not leak. Agreed?

A shower is simply a free-form tub with a low over-flow rim (the threshold) and the shower pan is, like the tub, expected to *not leak* when filled to the top of the shower pan (and to not leak immediately if filled to the top of the threshold, it should over flow the threshold, yes, but not immediately leak under the tile on the top of the threshold - that should take time).

As such, the best way to think of a shower is exactly as a bathtub with a low over-flow rim.

Now, if an inspector does not fill a tub with water, yeah, I guess I would also expect that same inspector to not test a shower pan either.

Marc M
01-15-2012, 09:40 PM
Marc,
Reluctant to interject a comment into the testing issue.
Testing to the maximum requirements as opposed to testing to the level of normal use is where many have the issue. Many feel that if something is working under normal use, that is what is expected. Being subjected to a situation that is far beyond how an item will be used exceeds normal expectations is not expected. Once an item is put in service, typically its expectations are reduced.

Something like a new car that can handle the engine being red lined and reaching 130 mph and held there as original testing criteria. Normal operation does not subject the engine to that stress and few expect that performance once placed into service. The normal expectations is based on normal use.

In the case of the shower pan it is not considered a shallow bath tub with a shower head. So many feel that why test to a level that is not reflective of normal expectations. Many would think that soaking the shower walls would be a better test for leakage and ultimately more beneficial.

One might argue that the overload protection should be tested to verify that the breakers actually trip as designed. But I do not think anyone will be shorting out the electric as a test to verify the breaker operation.

The issue may revolve around at what point do you test to code test requirements or maximum design features.




I get your point. However, the only way to test the corners of the pan is to fill it. I get the normal use argument etc...and can respect that point of view. But even with normal use, eventually the pan will leak. That's when the phone rings and you get the "you missed it," "would have never bought this house had I known...", "I could have used that in my negotiations if you just looked for it / found it..." etc.... conversations. Which is the reason that I have never got that call. In fact, never in all the hundreds of pans I've found has a seller ever called to complain. Just lucky I suppose..;)

Garry Sorrells
01-16-2012, 05:12 AM
Jerry,
I probably have asked this before, since this has been a discussion in the past.

Do you fill the tub to the overflow and let run for 15 min to check if the overflow is seated correctly?

Marc M
01-16-2012, 09:30 AM
Jerry,
I probably have asked this before, since this has been a discussion in the past.

Do you fill the tub to the overflow and let run for 15 min to check if the overflow is seated correctly?

I don't...may cause damage to the ceiling.:D

Garry Sorrells
01-16-2012, 09:56 AM
In general not looking for a fight only understanding to thought process and maybe a little devil advocate for discussion purposes. Others will be interested, I think.

Marc,
Jerry stated:
"...the best way to think of a shower is exactly as a bathtub with a low over-flow rim. ..."

and Marc you stated:
"...I don't...may cause damage to the ceiling ..."

Now the question is what is the difference in testing the shower pan and the tub overflow? If either fails to perform correctly damage will occur. By filling the shower pan you are testing to determine if there has been a failure, so does it not follow that testing of the tub overflow would be called for to determine if there has been a failure?

Either pan liner or tub overflow will cause damage if the installation has failed. Under normal use the overflow will not be used, only under extreme conditions does it come into use. What is your criteria of discrimination for testing.

Marc M
01-16-2012, 10:18 AM
In general not looking for a fight only understanding to thought process and maybe a little devil advocate for discussion purposes. Others will be interested, I think.

Marc,
Jerry stated:
"...the best way to think of a shower is exactly as a bathtub with a low over-flow rim. ..."

and Marc you stated:
"...I don't...may cause damage to the ceiling ..."

Now the question is what is the difference in testing the shower pan and the tub overflow? If either fails to perform correctly damage will occur. By filling the shower pan you are testing to determine if there has been a failure, so does it not follow that testing of the tub overflow would be called for to determine if there has been a failure?

Either pan liner or tub overflow will cause damage if the installation has failed. Under normal use the overflow will not be used, only under extreme conditions does it come into use. What is your criteria of discrimination for testing.

I was actually only kidding with that response.;) But... I do test the overflow. I suppose I'm a little different when it comes to inspecting. I walk tile roofs, perform level II chim scans, test pans and tub overflows and a few others that are beyond the SOP's set forth by _________ (insert any association here). It's all about the client brother. And a little CYA thrown in for good measure...
You have to admit, however, there is nothing like water running from a can light or register to liven things up at your inspection.:eek:

Jeffrey L. Mathis
01-16-2012, 01:51 PM
This has been a generally enjoyable thread. But I'm not filling a tub up to the over-flow. I'm telling my clients up front that I do not, that in my experience most all leak, and to assume so.
As for the shower-you can only do what time and tide allows. Fill the shower at arrival and evacuate and exit. If it's a second floor shower in a home that has any time on it, common sense must prevail. What you see is what you get. Explain your limitations. My report system has a space at the top of each component for me to set the parameters.


JLMathis

Jerry Peck
01-16-2012, 04:01 PM
Jerry,
I probably have asked this before, since this has been a discussion in the past.

Do you fill the tub to the overflow and let run for 15 min to check if the overflow is seated correctly?

I covered the overflow with my hand and filled the tub as fill as I could get it without overflowing the tub (my hands never totally covered the overflow inlets no matter how hard I tried).

If the overflow was not properly seated, or the washer not installed/missing/damaged/etc., then it leaked.

Marc M
01-26-2012, 05:06 PM
Uno mas...

Ian Page
01-26-2012, 11:59 PM
In decades of making plumbing and leak repairs, I have rarely come across an incident where the homeowner has reported the tub overflow leaked while taking a bath. I've encountered leaks around the tub, from the supply lines, valves, walls and perimeter - all caused while using the tub under normal circumstances. On the odd occasion where leakage was exposed, an unattended child and filled the tub. I have encountered leaking overflows when the shower is operating and water runs into the overflow from above.

To that end I see little value in filling a tub to see if the overflow works or not but I do operate the shower and, if possible, spray water onto the overflow - then examine the area that is likely affected by the water intrusion. It's not perfect and I don't have an IR camera but I also figure that if the tub/shower is in normal use and has an active leak, some staining or other damage will likely be visible.

The same applies to built on-site, hot mopped, shower pans. I see little value in filling them to a point of near overflow. If it has an active leak under normal use then I anticipate any leak would be exposed visually -sop for the majority of inspectors. Formed fiberglass pans rarely leak, but if they do the crack or damage in the fiberglass is usually pretty visible, which would be called out (as a leak potential) in any event.

Marc M
01-27-2012, 12:09 AM
If it has an active leak under normal use then I anticipate any leak would be exposed visually

Almost NONE of the pans that I find leaking have any sign or indication that they leak.
This last one leaked in less than 5 minutes. Normal use, non normal use...the thing was destined to leak and it had my name all over it. "Ring Ring... hello, Mr. inspector..you missed my shower pan leak and now it's damaged my $20,000 floor". Never had one of those calls but I'm sure it goes something like that.

Ian Page
01-28-2012, 08:17 AM
Marc
I'm not doubting the value of an IR camera - just the value of filling tubs and shower pans to capacity - in the normal course of an inspection. And, to that regard, being potentially held responsible for resulting damage.

Jerry Peck
01-28-2012, 12:17 PM
To that end I see little value in filling a tub to see if the overflow works or not ...

I found many, many, many tubs leaking at the overflows, and had I not tested the tubs to that level ... *I* ... may have been the one getting the call Marc does not want to get, that no home inspector wants to get - Mr. Inspector, my tub leaked and the ceiling below it fell onto the dining room table and broke all of my priceless heirloom china ...

I don't understand why some home inspectors chose not to test the tubs to the overflow (many leak at the overflow), undermount sinks to the countertop (many leak at the undermount seal), metal sinks to the overflow (many leak at the metal overflow), etc.

Ian Page
01-28-2012, 01:22 PM
Jerry
Because of the potential, real or percieved, liabilities. Bearing in mind, at a typical home inspection we are at the sellers home - who is not paying for our services - and any damage which could be avoided by adopting alternative, albeit less than perfect, makes more sense, a personal decision and IMO a better business decision...but to each his/her own.

There may be an issue regarding E and O insurance, and whether the insurance company would pay out if a satisfactory test could have been performed in a less intrusive manner. Any Home Owners Ins. would likely defer costs/damages to the HIs insurance co.

Jerry Peck
01-28-2012, 03:44 PM
any damage which could be avoided by adopting alternative, albeit less than perfect, makes more sense,

Any alternative which does not produce the same results (exposing a leak) is not a suitable alternative in my mind, and if the alternative does produce the same results (it leaks) - then the same damage, if any, will happen.

The advantage of the infrared camera is that you can check it before, check it during, and then possibly be able to stop before the damage is visible or amounts to much, besides, the damage was not caused by you, the damage would be caused by the improperly sealed overflow (most of the time the gasket is not even installed - the plumber goes to install the gasket and overflow to the tub, the gasket falls to the floor behind the tub, and the plumber simply assembles the overflow anyway, even though they could have reached around the tub and put the gasket back in place - why? - because 'no one will ever know').

[/quote]There may be an issue regarding E and O insurance, and whether the insurance company would pay out if a satisfactory test could have been performed in a less intrusive manner. Any Home Owners Ins. would likely defer costs/damages to the HIs insurance co.[/QUOTE]

Most contracts include an item where the buyer agrees to pay for any damage caused by the inspection ... and for the savvy buyer that leads back to 'the inspection and test did not cause' the damage, 'the defect which the inspection found caused' the damage.

Any way, I never had a problem with finding defects through finding water running down through ceilings, light fixtures, across floors, etc., my buyers never had a problem with that method either.

Jeffrey L. Mathis
01-30-2012, 10:12 AM
Hey Ian:

I'm sticking with my way.
I tell the client up front that I'm not going to do it.
When my brother died, I was selling his townhouse. An inspector filled past the over-flow. It leaked. A thousand dollars later, it was fixed.
The facts are that a substantial amount will leak.
Just tell your client that. We don't need to hurt sellers just because we can. And no one needs to fill a tub up that far anyway.
I've learned more from reading Mr. Peck's posts than most classes I've taken. But I can't go there this time.

JLMathis

CHARLIE VAN FLEET
01-30-2012, 07:42 PM
HEYALL

call your insurance company and ask them if you are covered if you fill the tub to the overflow and you cause a leak--or the shower pan. let us know what they say--i know what mine said

cvf

Nick Ostrowski
01-30-2012, 07:47 PM
Charlie, who is your carrier and what was their response? I assume based on the way you say it means they said you would not be covered. If that is the case, did they explain why you would not be covered for any damage incurred by this testing method?

I have no plans to perform this type of test. I'm just curious as to what an insurance provider has to say about it.

CHARLIE VAN FLEET
01-30-2012, 07:54 PM
nick

they said it is not in my sop. and that is what they cover me for. i had to submit my agreement and assoc sop to them. i know sometimes we go above the sop to help-but i'm not going to do something that can cause damage-- trying to cause an issue is not something i will do.

cvf

Jerry Peck
01-30-2012, 07:59 PM
HEYALL

call your insurance company and ask them if you are covered if you fill the tub to the overflow and you cause a leak--or the shower pan. let us know what they say--i know what mine said

cvf


Charlie, who is your carrier and what was their response? I assume based on the way you say it means they said you would not be covered. If that is the case, did they explain why you would not be covered for any damage incurred by this testing method?

I have no plans to perform this type of test. I'm just curious as to what an insurance provider has to say about it.

Why are you concerned what you insurance says about testing showers and bathtubs? You don't file a claim with them, you didn't *cause* the leak - the leak was already there.

If you operate a furnace and the house burns down, does your insurance cover it? Call them, they will probably say no.

What you guys seem to be missing (at least to me) is that you ask the seller or sellers agent if there are any leaks (they say no), then you tell them you are going to be testing such and such (they say no problem, no leaks), now, if there is a leak - you were given bad and incorrect information, possibly even fraudulent (if there was intent) ... either way ... the damage from the leak *you discovered* - *not caused* - is not your responsibility, nor that of your insurance company.

I lived in a very litigious state with almost as many lawyers as California has, maybe more, and I - and most other home inspectors - tested those things ALL THE TIME ... not sure what the perceived problem is. I did it for almost 20 years - other home inspectors down there (South Florida) are still doing it.

CHARLIE VAN FLEET
01-30-2012, 08:20 PM
jp

sorry i don't ask the seller or their agent squat--they are not my client--plus don't want to hear MY HOUSE IS IN GREAT SHAPE--that is not my responsibilty--it is suppose to be in the disclosure paper work TO THE CLIENT--that almost always states DO NOT KNOW.I HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING AT THAT PAPER.

will sometimes after inspection. but i know driving sop or laws says don't drink and drive--don't drive on the wrong side of the street--don't run stop signs etc. if i did i'd have trouble,with my insurance and the judge--just saying--be careful out there--**** flows down hill. and do i trust my insurance coveage--hell no.but have never had to use them and thats the way i want to keep it---and i don't do my client any injustice--i am thorough, i think i am and have had no complaints. again i say call your insurance company

cvf.

Ken Rowe
01-30-2012, 09:54 PM
Actually, my insurance carrier said the same thing. Yes, it was fully explained to them. They noted it was not testing using "normal operating conditions". I have to agree. Blocking the drain to fill the shower pan with standing water is not normal operating conditions.

Ian Page
01-31-2012, 01:42 AM
Like all HIs I test stuff that should work under normal operating conditions. Like all HIs I find stuff that doesnt work, under normal operation conditions, Like many HIs, I have been 'blamed' for causing a malfunction if the stuff failed to perform the way it should, with the claim that, "... it was working perfectly fine before the inspector messed with it." Granted, with a little explanation to the owner/seller the allegations/claims are usually withdrawn and there is no or little cost to the HI, save goodwill, a possible new customer and pissed off realtor(s).

However...it's awfully hard to placate a seller who now has potentially several hundred, perhaps thousands of dollars worth of repairs, to a ceiling/furniture/flooring while their house is for sale, just to prove a point. Just guess who they are going to turn to for compensation?...It sure as hell won't be the buyer who has just walked because an expensive leak was discovered. Even though that leak may have been there prior to testing - just not visible. The buyer/customer may be very grateful for saving them money and aggravation. The homeowner may make a claim against their own home owner's insurance policy but as soon as the causation is determined, guess who is going to bite the wiener? I suppose in defense you could say, "Jerry said it was okay..." Their, response, "...Oh, okay then, if Jerry said..." :rolleyes:

The lack of an extensive, non-normal operating condition test, may be a dis-service to the buyer/customer and could lead to a subsequent claim. But if the reason for not conducting such a test and the possible repurcussions are explained beforehand, any claim is mitigated.

For me it's the real possibility of uncontrolled collateral damage which is the dermining factor but, as I said before...to each his/her own.

Jerry Peck
01-31-2012, 04:21 PM
Like all HIs I test stuff that should work under normal operating conditions.

MOST HIs test things as they were designed and intended to work, which is, after all, what you are saying that they are doing ... working as designed and intended - and which is above and beyond 'normal operating conditions'.

Do you set the thermostats all the way up for heat?

That is not a 'normal operating condition', very few, if any, home owners will turn the thermostat all the up for heat ... that is above and beyond 'normal operating conditions'.

You can think of MANY examples which exceed 'normal operating conditions'.

Saying you test under 'normal operating conditions' is like saying you are doing a 'visual home inspection' when you are not.

CHARLIE VAN FLEET
01-31-2012, 04:27 PM
jp

i set the thermostat to fire the furnace--maybe three degrees higher then wher it is set

and i don't agree with what you just wrote--i don't do a visual inspection--i inspect to find issues--not cause any.

cvf

Jerry Peck
01-31-2012, 04:33 PM
sorry i don't ask the seller or their agent squat

You don't ask the seller or their agent if it is okay to operate EVERYTHING?

And that if there is something they are aware of that 'should not be operated FOR ANY REASON' now is the time to speak up?

Maybe THAT is how and why all the inspectors down here (and other places) can test things better without having to worry about any gripping from the sellers when something goes wrong ... 'the sellers (or their agent) stated that it all work and to go ahead and test everything'.


--they are not my client--plus don't want to hear MY HOUSE IS IN GREAT SHAPE--that is not my responsibilty--it is suppose to be in the disclosure paper work TO THE CLIENT--that almost always states DO NOT KNOW.I HAVE GIVEN UP LOOKING AT THAT PAPER.

And that paper will do diddly squat when the seller calls you about something which is no longer working or which they claim you broke.

ASK THEIR PERMISSION to test *everything*, when something goes wrong ... THEY GAVE their permission for you to test *everything*.

I always thought the above was included with Home Inspection 101, Day 1, Hour 1.

Gosh, now maybe I know why we as home inspectors in Florida, and especially in South Florida, can test so much more ... *we asked permission* ... the seller said *sure, EVERYTHING WORKS fine* ... little do the sellers know what they are doing when giving that permission.

Jerry Peck
01-31-2012, 04:36 PM
i inspect to find issues--not cause any.

That is all that we do too when inspecting to find out if the system/item/component is 'working as intended'.

Marc in California apparently has no problems testing for 'working as intended'.

When you test the heat or air conditioning, to what standard are you referring to when you say that something does or does not 'work'?

Nick Ostrowski
01-31-2012, 05:03 PM
Using the approach to inspect everything to see if it will perform as intended, we could......

- run a hose full blast against exterior windows and roof flashings for a few minutes to replicate rain from a wind driven tropical storm and see if they leak
- overload circuits to see if the breakers will trip
- fill washing machine, water heater, and AC air handler overflow pans with water to make sure they drain out and determine where they drain too
- fill perimeter troughs in the basement (finished or not) with water to make sure the water makes it to the sump pit

I'm sure there are others I'm leaving out. If you want to do all these things, have at it.

Ian Page
01-31-2012, 05:49 PM
I can't say that I have never asked the seller if there are specific issues I should be aware of, but if I have, it's rare. 95% of the time I never meet the sellers so have no opportunity to ask. I do ask to review any disclosure forms. However, if I told the seller I was going to fill the tub/shower pan to 'force' the exposure of a pre-existing leak, which may result in untold damage that they will be responsible for, when no prior damage or visual problems have been noted, I fully expect their response to would be..."Not this house, not in my lifetime..." or something similar but less polite. Who could blame them?

Jerry Peck
01-31-2012, 05:51 PM
- run a hose full blast against exterior windows and roof flashings for a few minutes to replicate rain from a wind driven tropical storm and see if they leak

I realize the above is in jest, but ... :p ... there WAS an inspector in South Florida who did that (and other things) and he charged MORE THAN I DID and his market was my market AND HIGHER (yep, I never quite was able to break into his market of of 30,000-40,000 square foot homes, my large one were in the 20,000-25,000 square foot range). :)

That just proves THERE IS A MARKET for home inspector like that. :cool:

Ted Menelly
01-31-2012, 05:55 PM
I have never asked a seller anything about operating anything unless it was a new item that I was not familiar with and that does happen on a rare occasion. I absolutely never ask an agent anything about operating anything ever.

I already have permission to come into their home for a home inspection. If they have doubts that should have inquired to their realtor long before I got there.

You book an inspection for a potential buyer. You already have permission to test connected items in the home weather it be operating a window or HVAC system or swimming pool or anything coming along with the home. Not quite sure with the non understanding about already being given permission.

Nick Ostrowski
01-31-2012, 06:03 PM
No jest intended Jerry. It's testing to see if the windows will perform as intended under the force of tropical storm wind driven rain, which is not out of the realm of possibility. Apparently from what you say, there is another inspector who did this very thing. It's not my thing.

An inspector can explain these tests any way he likes and he can justify the reason for them any way he likes too. Convincing the sellers and his insurance carrier of the same is another matter. And as Ken and Charlie have already stated, their carriers will not cover any damages incurred by the intentional flooding of a shower pan. You don't have to agree with it or like it but if your carrier will not cover you for for damages incurred, you proceed at your own risk. Based on that alone, most inspectors will not incorporate this type of testing into their inspections.

Jerry Peck
01-31-2012, 06:39 PM
No jest intended Jerry. It's testing to see if the windows will perform as intended under the force of tropical storm wind driven rain, which is not out of the realm of possibility.

Actually, that hose test means, and proves, dis-proves, absolutely nothing.

Only a real ASTM test means or proves anything. And when you get into the ASTM you realize it does not test the window anywhere near design loading, and that what 99% of the people seeing a 'leak' would call a 'leak', while that other 1% who know the ASTM test will say that the window did not leak, even with water inside on the ledge of the window.


Apparently from what you say, there is another inspector who did this very thing.

Yep, and even though we argued and explained that his hose test was meaningless, he kept doing them, and that kept him 'on top' of the 3-4 of us in South Florida who were 'at top' of the market.

His clients like the fact that he did those hose tests, because, like you, they thought that test would show if the windows would leak "under the force of tropical storm wind driven rain, which is not out of the realm of possibility".


An inspector can explain these tests any way he likes and he can justify the reason for them any way he likes too.

I agree there.


Convincing the sellers and his insurance carrier of the same is another matter.

Not sure why you guys keep going back to your "insurance" ... your insurance *has absolutely NOTHING* to do with testing showers, tubs, or even windows - well, okay, maybe testing windows like that because, while testing tubs and showers is actually testing to see if they work as intended, a hose test on a window tests absolutely nothing, especially nothing related to how a window is intended to work.


And as Ken and Charlie have already stated, their carriers will not cover any damages incurred by the intentional flooding of a shower pan.

There you are going back to that "insurance" thingy again - insurance has NOTHING to do with it.

Besides, you are not doing anything like "the intentional flooding of a shower pan" as that implies that you are "flooding" the shower pan until it overflows, and, OF COURSE it will overflow water that way. However, that has no semblence to a proper shower pan test in which the shower pan is filled to about 1/2" or so below the threshold (below the tile, below the thin set, and below the Durock - if that was used on top of the shower pan at the top of the curb/threshold) ... the entire intent is to NOT "flood" the pan, but to verify that the pan will hold water to the level that the shower pan is intended to hold water.

Not sure why you and some others - thankfully, not all others - are having a hard time understanding this aspect of testing shower pans.


You don't have to agree with it or like it but if your carrier will not cover you for for damages incurred, you proceed at your own risk. Based on that alone, most inspectors will not incorporate this type of testing into their inspections.

Again, back to that "insurance" thing - there is NOTHING for your "insurance" to cover - the seller covers it ... that pan IS SUPPOSED TO NOT LEAK ... it really is that simple. Any damage resulting from a pan leak is the contractor's fault who installed the pan, not the inspector's fault for finding the leak.

I fail to grasp why the above is so hard to grasp - the inspector DID NOT CAUSE anything, not the leak, not any damage, nada.

I can see that this is a bit of wasted time being as you have not grasped it at this point, and that some other inspectors have not grasped it either - and I am glad that other inspectors can and do understand the difference. Oh, well, to each their own.

CHARLIE VAN FLEET
01-31-2012, 06:58 PM
jp

95% of the time here in colorado the seller and their agent is not present at home inspection--they are told to be missing --don't see don't talk to.. i like it that way---so i can do my job. what do you call them up and talk about their house prior to inspection. don't get it

cvf

Nick Ostrowski
01-31-2012, 07:22 PM
There is nothing for insurance to cover ONLY if you can convince the seller the new stain and water damage created during your testing is the result of a faulty installation or damage despite the fact there was no damage or stains before you got there. True, the pan should not leak. But if it never showed any signs of leakage before you got there, and then after you inspect stains exist, the finger points at you for better or worse Maybe you and Marc are very convincing in explaining that the damages incurred by your testing methods are not your faults. I suspect that is likely not the case for most of us which would leave us wide open to headache complaints and being sued. Therefore, insurance coverage does have something to do with whether or not to test shower pans. Sellers sometimes get pissed off enough at our findings in their house even though we did nothing to create the defects. But, couple that with creating stains on their ceiling from your testing methods and you have a recipe ripe for a lawsuit. If an HI wants to take that chance, it's his choice.

It's not a matter of grasping anything Jerry. You have your opinion on the matter and I have mine. I hear what your saying and explaining. I just don't agree with you. See how I was able to express my stance without any passive aggressive insults? You should try it.

Ted Menelly
01-31-2012, 08:40 PM
I actually just had this exact conversation with an agent the other day. He wouldn't allow the test because they (sellers) use the shower every day...

The realtor would not allow the test:confused:

And the realtor had the command decision, why?
.
You were the one given permission to inspect the home, not the realtor.

Jerry Peck
01-31-2012, 08:42 PM
jp

95% of the time here in colorado the seller and their agent is not present at home inspection--they are told to be missing --don't see don't talk to.. i like it that way---so i can do my job. what do you call them up and talk about their house prior to inspection. don't get it

cvf

Charlie,

I always preferred the seller not to be there, and (typically) no agent would stick around while I did my inspection (I was there too long for them to stick around and lose business), but we made it a point to tell someone, usually it would be the seller's agent, that I would be inspecting *everything* and that if there was any leaks or things not working right then they (representing the seller) should let us know right then. Usually, the agent would call the seller to clear it with them, sometimes I would get that 'you are not going to test blah-blah-blah' I mentioned in other threads, I would explain that blah-blah-blah must not be working, otherwise we would be able to test it, and if it was not working then that would be the first item written up in the report as needing to be corrected/repaired/etc., it did not take long to convince them that - if nothing was leaking or not working - let us test it (i.e., give us permission to test it).

*IF* it leaked and caused damage ... it was not my fault ... THEY said it did not leak and that I could test it ... thus the damage was a result of a faulty blah-blah-blah. All *I* did was 'test it'.

That worked for us in South Florida and was used by many across Florida - I can't say all home inspectors in Florida as I did not know them all, and there were a few in South Florida who did not test that way either, but the rest of us knew which inspectors they were - those other inspectors were real estate agent huggers. They couldn't find anything wrong with anything even if they fell through the bottom of the tub, there would be some positive remark in the report about why that was a good thing. :D

Jerry Peck
01-31-2012, 08:44 PM
There is nothing for insurance to cover ONLY if you can convince the seller the new stain and water damage created during your testing is the result of a faulty installation or damage despite the fact there was no damage or stains before you got there. True, the pan should not leak.

By jove! I do believe you've got it! :D

(Is that positive enough for you?) ;)

Ken Rowe
01-31-2012, 10:18 PM
Jerry,

I've asked this before and I'll do it again now. Please provide some sort of professional standards (ASTM or whatever) which describes shower pan testing in a finished home. I'm fairly certain none exists. The shower pan test being described here should be done prior to the tile work, not after the bathroom and the rest of the home is finished.

Ian Page
02-01-2012, 12:12 AM
Quote: "Besides, you are not doing anything like "the intentional flooding of a shower pan" as that implies that you are "flooding" the shower pan until it overflows, and, OF COURSE it will overflow water that way. However, that has no semblence to a proper shower pan test in which the shower pan is filled to about 1/2" or so below the threshold (below the tile, below the thin set, and below the Durock - if that was used on top of the shower pan at the top of the curb/threshold) ... the entire intent is to NOT "flood" the pan, but to verify that the pan will hold water to the level that the shower pan is intended to hold water."

Jerry - I think you just shot yourself in the foot with the above statement...
Few - if any 'shower pans' are intended to hold water. If they were they'd come equipped with a drain stopper (and probably not considered a shower pan). They are generally not designed or specifically intended to hold water. The water test, during construction is a verification of the pan not leaking over time, because it is impractical and usually not plumbed to have a shower running at the framing stage. Filling the pan during construction is the only practical method. The pan's ability to hold water is more of a positive by-product than the intended purpose.

I accept that pans do fill - or slow drain, either by intention or blockage but any resulting damage from a pan leak is an unintended consequence caused by an associated factor beyond design or function. A leaking shower pan during normal operation is obviously reportable. I have no problem with running a shower for a moderately excessive duration because other issues may be exposed - but that's the intended purpose of the shower - not to go skinny dipping in four inches of water.

Ted Menelly
02-01-2012, 06:08 AM
Absolutely rediculous comments and questions.

A shower pan is not designed to hold water?????


Show me some specs stating this is how a shower pan is tested.

Stop. Please stop.

Jerry Peck
02-01-2012, 06:39 PM
Jerry,

I've asked this before and I'll do it again now. Please provide some sort of professional standards (ASTM or whatever) which describes shower pan testing in a finished home. I'm fairly certain none exists. The shower pan test being described here should be done prior to the tile work, not after the bathroom and the rest of the home is finished.

Ken,

You have asked before, and this has been posted before.

And not only posted by myself but by others as well.

READ the attached pdf file.

The shower pan test is intended to be done 'at the time of installation' ... AND ... at any time afterward when someone either suspects a leak or is verifying that there is no leak - THE TEST IS THE SAME.

Bottom of second page, item 8. Read the second to last line: "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE."

*IF* that was done ... there WILL NOT BE ANY LEAKS ... and if that was NOT done ... then THAT is what the shower pan test is trying to determine.

If *YOU* don't want to test the shower pan, it is quite simple ... DON'T TEST IT ... but don't blame not testing it on "insurance" - what a lame excuse - "insurance" as nothing to do with it ... either the shower pan leaks - or it does not. It really IS that plain and simple.

Ken Rowe
02-01-2012, 10:39 PM
Ken,

You have asked before, and this has been posted before.

And not only posted by myself but by others as well.

READ the attached pdf file.

The shower pan test is intended to be done 'at the time of installation' ... AND ... at any time afterward when someone either suspects a leak or is verifying that there is no leak - THE TEST IS THE SAME.

Bottom of second page, item 8. Read the second to last line: "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE."

If you have other documentation stating that shower pan testing should be done by flooding the pan after the installation is complete, please post it.

*IF* that was done ... there WILL NOT BE ANY LEAKS ... and if that was NOT done ... then THAT is what the shower pan test is trying to determine.

If *YOU* don't want to test the shower pan, it is quite simple ... DON'T TEST IT ... but don't blame not testing it on "insurance" - what a lame excuse - "insurance" as nothing to do with it ... either the shower pan leaks - or it does not. It really IS that plain and simple.

Thanks for posting this Jerry and helping me prove my point. As you pointed out in step 8 of the installation testing of the shower pan is performed. There are 11 steps in the installation. The shower pan is to be tested prior the mortar and tile installed. No where does it say the shower pan should be tested after the installation is complete. "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE" does not mean if it leaks, finish the installation then test it again. It means if it leaks at step 8, fix it before completing the installation.

Darrel Hood
02-02-2012, 06:23 AM
I seldom have any contact at all with the sellers or the listing agents. Most of the time, I don't even know the seller's name, and it doesn't matter. I coordinate with the buyer or the buyer's agent. It is their role to assure the inspection is permitted, including all that makes up an inspection. Do any of the Texas inspectors in this group routinely have contact with the sellers?

Marc M
02-02-2012, 08:30 AM
I'm sort of confused. Inst the bathtub overflow installed to facilitate the runoff in the event you forget to turn off the water while filling the tub? So in light of this, it is installed for a specific purpose and intended to perform as expected, when expected. So IMOP is should be tested under those conditions. We all likely test components every day that treads the line or goes beyond our scope..even if just a little. I bet you SOP says you cant walk across joists in the attic due to insulation or whatever. I do every day. But then I do not inspect by any SOPs. IMOP, they just limit your ability to perform your job. My two pennys. ;)

Jerry Peck
02-02-2012, 03:47 PM
No where does it say the shower pan should be tested after the installation is complete. "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE" does not mean if it leaks, finish the installation then test it again. It means if it leaks at step 8, fix it before completing the installation.

"No where does it say the shower pan should" ... NOT ... "be tested after the installation is complete."

I'm glad you pointed out that it DOES NOT say that it should not be tested after the installation is complete. Thank you. :p

It says "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE", and if you suspect a leak, or are trying to verify that it does not leak, and YOU NOW KNOW that it required to be "LEAK FREE", then that test IS THE TEST to be used to determine if it is still leak free.

Ken Rowe
02-02-2012, 09:58 PM
"No where does it say the shower pan should" ... NOT ... "be tested after the installation is complete."

Jerry, I asked you to provide documentation of an approved testing procedure for shower pans after the installation is completed. You did not provide this. You provided a testing procedure during installation. Not the same at all.


I'm glad you pointed out that it DOES NOT say that it should not be tested after the installation is complete. Thank you. :p Common sense Jerry, which apparently you lack. The testing procedure you posted does not say to test it after the installation is completed. Testing should be done during the installation, step 8 of 13 or 14 steps of the installation process. If the manufacturer wanted the pan tested after the installation was complete it would be listed as the last step. It's sad that I have to point this out to you.


It says "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE", and if you suspect a leak, or are trying to verify that it does not leak, and YOU NOW KNOW that it required to be "LEAK FREE", then that test IS THE TEST to be used to determine if it is still leak free.
Right, it is required to be leak free prior to finishing the installation. Now post what I asked for, an approved, non invasive test for shower pans after the installation is complete. Good luck because there isn't one.

Come on "codeman" prove me wrong. Show me a manufacturer, ASTM or any organization who advises to flood the shower pan after the shower is completely finished. Heck, I'd even take the documentation of the shower stopper manufacturer that states it is designed to test the shower pan after (not during) the shower installation.

Ian Page
02-02-2012, 11:36 PM
Marc
You are correct - bathtub overflow is intended to drain water in the event of over filling the tub and should not leak. However, the odds of the overflow being properly installed, or that the seal has not deteriorated over time are, at best, 50/50. Consequently I include a disclaimer in my report stating such, including that a test of filling the tub overflow level to determine the voracity of the overflow was not performed as damage may result if leaking occurs. I also include (if appropriate) - no evidence of leaking was observed at this time. I have never had a problem with the disclaimer.

Bear in mind also that any tub filling to overflow level is a pretty rare occurrence and I think buyers/homeowners understand that. I know the sellers certainly appreciate the consideration.

Garry Sorrells
02-03-2012, 12:39 PM
-I have enjoyed the discussion. Especially since it has stayed fairly civil.

Many times the cost of inspecting or testing an item exceeds the cost of its replacement.
Other times the replacement cost is only a small amount more than the inspection or test.

In the case of the tub over flow system it is just far less costly to replace the gasket rather than bother to test it. It is the world of preventative maintenance. I agree that testing will prove something, but just replacing is a far easier approach. By the time you filled the tub you could have replaced the gasket and reset it correctly. I know, you are not there to make repairs. It just becomes part of the list of things to do or have done when buyer takes possession.

Shower walls, pan and drain assemblies are something else.
If a shower utilizes a no caulk drain gasket it should be dissembled and reset as a preventative measure.
If the shower has a lead pan it is either leaking or will leak, typically at the drain site.
Showers with newer flexible (PVC) liners, like all thing, vary with quality of the installation.
Ridged pans are about material quality, installation and drain line connections.
The Sun will rise and pans will fail.
I think all will agree that shower pans will leak at some time.
Even done correctly it ultimately will be about what part of the installation fails first.

Ken, though Jerry was off on the Oatey installation instruction as a requirement for future testing. It is a generally construction industry standard, that if there is a question if the pan has failed from initial construction, to flood the pan. There may be a issue as to depth of water. 1 inch to height of the curb/threshold. It is by common agreement not to go above the curb/threshold, :-). http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/icons/icon12.gif This flooding test (been around for years) (used by the trades) is typically to verify if the visual damage is a result of the pan and not from some other cause. Most often without the use of a IR camera. The unknown issue is how the pan was built. Even in wheel chair accessible showers the shower walls will have the liner 3-4 inches or higher as a common practice.

In defense of Jerry and others I do not think that there is a formal statute as a definition of normal use. It is mostly by accepted convention what normal use or operation is, unless manufacture describes in specifications. If it goes to a Judge it is what ever they accept or determine. An insurance company will call it the way they see it or want to see it. Jerry and others look at the pan as a system to be tested to its maximum limits or integrity of function. With the view that the pan should function as first installed.

Others look at the pan in a limited fashion in that use under less than maximum design limits can be acceptable. Running water in the shower and splashing around with the water draining out with no signs of leakage.

Doesn't it really boil down to what the client wants? What clients level of expectation? Inspecting/testing to an agreed level is where the contract for services comes in to play. If a testing procedure is not allowed by the property owner, which is within their rights, that is just stated to the client. Explanation of possible problems resulting from non testing is a discretion of the tester or an explanation of what testing was done and with what results. It's all about communication.

Not explaining the test to the client or owner prior to and as part of the report may be looked as being disingenuous. After generating a leak from a test and then saying " I ran water in the shower and it showed a leak " which is something of a half truth when the shower was filled with 3" of water and held for 3 hrs as the test method. As opposed to " after blocking the drain and raising the water level 3 inches in the shower for 3 hrs to test the pan integrity, water was observed coming from the ceiling below shower". "The shower pan leaks".

I would say "go for the gusto" and test to the maximum possible, but inform the owner exactly what you are going to do. Be up front unlike some other comments made in other forums.

Ken Rowe
02-03-2012, 01:53 PM
Ken, though Jerry was off on the Oatey installation instruction as a requirement for future testing. It is a generally construction industry standard, that if there is a question if the pan has failed from initial construction, to flood the pan. There may be a issue as to depth of water. 1 inch to height of the curb/threshold. It is by common agreement not to go above the curb/threshold, :-). http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/icons/icon12.gif This flooding test (been around for years) (used by the trades) is typically to verify if the visual damage is a result of the pan and not from some other cause. Most often without the use of a IR camera. The unknown issue is how the pan was built. Even in wheel chair accessible showers the shower walls will have the liner 3-4 inches or higher as a common practice.

Garry, IPC requires a minimum water depth of 2 inches during the test. If the curb isn't high enough a temporary one needs to be built. Chapter 3 - General Regulations (http://publicecodes.citation.com/icod/ipc/2009/icod_ipc_2009_3_sec012_par009.htm?bu=IC-P-2009-000004&bu2=IC-P-2009-000019)


In defense of Jerry and others I do not think that there is a formal statute as a definition of normal use. It is mostly by accepted convention what normal use or operation is, unless manufacture describes in specifications. If it goes to a Judge it is what ever they accept or determine. An insurance company will call it the way they see it or want to see it. Jerry and others look at the pan as a system to be tested to its maximum limits or integrity of function. With the view that the pan should function as first installed.
I wasn't looking for a "formal statute as a definition of normal use". I was looking for documentation of an approved testing method after the installation is complete. Jerry claims they exist, but has not provided one yet.


I would say "go for the gusto" and test to the maximum possible, but inform the owner exactly what you are going to do. Be up front unlike some other comments made in other forums.

"test to the maximum possible"?? Does that mean we should get in the shower and jump up and down to see if it will hold up? Should we toss something at the bathroom mirror to see if it's safety glass? Or should we maybe use some common sense and other inspection methods?

Maybe pull a nearby heat register out and slide bore scope between the duct and floor sheeting to look under the shower. Maybe look at the adjacent walls of the shower, and use a moisture meter at the base of those walls. How about using an uv light on the ceiling below the shower to look for covered stains. There are many ways to determine if there's an existing problem without creating a bigger problem. Heck, I'd rather get permission to drill a 3/8 inch hole in the ceiling below the shower to get the bore scope in it than risk damaging the house.

Jerry Peck
02-03-2012, 05:14 PM
Jerry, I asked you to provide documentation of an approved testing procedure for shower pans after the installation is completed. You did not provide this. You provided a testing procedure during installation.

Ken ... I DID provide you documentation on how to test a shower pan - that test is applicable WHENEVER a shower pan is to be tested.

Ken, you sound like that person who asks for a hot dog with ketchup, mustard, and onions, then, when given what they asked for, says that they don't like ketchup, the mustard is not the right mustard, and they are allergic to onions, and, by the way, the hot dog doesn't taste any good either. People like that (like you) can never be pleased - go back and review your posts, you will see that.

You wanted a stated and documented test - I gave you a stated and documented test ... from the manufacturer of the shower pan material too. Don't like? Don't do it. YOUR CHOICE. But IT IS *THE* APPROVED TEST.

Ken Rowe
02-03-2012, 05:39 PM
Ken ... I DID provide you documentation on how to test a shower pan - that test is applicable WHENEVER a shower pan is to be tested.

Ken, you sound like that person who asks for a hot dog with ketchup, mustard, and onions, then, when given what they asked for, says that they don't like ketchup, the mustard is not the right mustard, and they are allergic to onions, and, by the way, the hot dog doesn't taste any good either. People like that (like you) can never be pleased - go back and review your posts, you will see that.

You wanted a stated and documented test - I gave you a stated and documented test ... from the manufacturer of the shower pan material too. Don't like? Don't do it. YOUR CHOICE. But IT IS *THE* APPROVED TEST.

No Jerry, you gave an application during the installation of the shower pan. No matter how you want to twist it, the manufacturer specifically states, by the order of the installation instructions, that the pan needs to be tested prior to finishing the install. This does not mean it it applicable for home inspectors or anyone else after the shower install is completed.
Scenario:

Attorney for the seller: Did you test the shower pan according to the manufacturer's instructions?
Home Inspector: Yes I did.
Attorney for the seller: So, according to the instructions I had you previously read for us, you tested the shower pan prior to the installation of the tile and grout?
Home Inspector: Well, no...the shower was completely finished when I tested it.
Attorney for the seller: So you didn't really test it according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Home Inspector: Well no, but Jerry Peck said I could test it this way.

Ted Menelly
02-03-2012, 06:08 PM
Some folks just get way way way way to wrapped up in themselves

A shower pan, even the old ones, were designed , or suppose to be designed, to hold water. Even if temporarily directing the water to the drain.

Why. Because water does get behind the tile and can cause a great amount of damage over time. Why does a leaking shower pan, even if it is only slight, cause damaged? Hm, I think it might be from water getting past that shower pan/liner/plastic box etc etc etc etc and gets to the wood and the wood gets wet, dries out, gets wet, dries out etc, and rots.

Why would one test a shower pan filling it with water to 3/4 to an inch below the threshold? Because this test will, if it is leaking that slight bit, accelerate the amount of water getting behind it so you can see by eye, IR camera, moisture meter, if it is leaking. If it is leaking you pass the info on to your client, that is paying you to find such things.

If you don't want to test a shower pan then live with it and don't. But to constantly try your damnedest to explain away a thousand times why you should not test that shower pan and how do you do it and where do you fill it to etc etc etc etc is absolutely foolish. It is designed to hold water. Some designs are better than others but that is what they are meant to do. Hold water until it gets to the point of draining away. If there is a tare in it. If there are nails banged thru it to low in the pan. If the drain was not hooked up properly etc etc etc etc. It will leak and needs repair.

If it does not hold water and or direct it to the drain so damage does not come to the surrounding home

It is faulty and needs repair. There is no hiding behind it. Leaks..... bad. No leaks.... good.

What the heck is so dam difficult to understand. Show me the documentation. Show me the court case. Talk to your lawyer. For gosh sakes man. If Home Inspection is that scary get the hell out of the business.

Common sense is at the very very least what all home inspectors should have. If that is lacking then find a job where you do not need it.

No, I am not coming back with documentation. Cases. Legal ethics. Moms permission. Cousin Vinni's blessing.

Common sense.

Marc M
02-03-2012, 06:16 PM
Some folks just get way way way way to wrapped up in themselves

A shower pan, even the old ones, were designed , or suppose to be designed, to hold water. Even if temporarily directing the water to the drain.

Why. Because water does get behind the tile and can cause a great amount of damage over time. Why does a leaking shower pan, even if it is only slight, cause damaged? Hm, I think it might be from water getting past that shower pan/liner/plastic box etc etc etc etc and gets to the wood and the wood gets wet, dries out, gets wet, dries out etc, and rots.

Why would one test a shower pan filling it with water to 3/4 to an inch below the threshold? Because this test will, if it is leaking that slight bit, accelerate the amount of water getting behind it so you can see by eye, IR camera, moisture meter, if it is leaking. If it is leaking you pass the info on to your client, that is paying you to find such things.

If you don't want to test a shower pan then live with it and don't. But to constantly try your damnedest to explain away a thousand times why you should not test that shower pan and how do you do it and where do you fill it to etc etc etc etc is absolutely foolish. It is designed to hold water. Some designs are better than others but that is what they are meant to do. Hold water until it gets to the point of draining away. If there is a tare in it. If there are nails banged thru it to low in the pan. If the drain was not hooked up properly etc etc etc etc. It will leak and needs repair.

If it does not hold water and or direct it to the drain so damage does not come to the surrounding home

It is faulty and needs repair. There is no hiding behind it. Leaks..... bad. No leaks.... good.

What the heck is so dam difficult to understand. Show me the documentation. Show me the court case. Talk to your lawyer. For gosh sakes man. If Home Inspection is that scary get the hell out of the business.

Common sense is at the very very least what all home inspectors should have. If that is lacking then find a job where you do not need it.

No, I am not coming back with documentation. Cases. Legal ethics. Moms permission. Cousin Vinni's blessing.

Common sense.


What is this common sense that you speak of ??:D

Ted Menelly
02-03-2012, 06:16 PM
I seldom have any contact at all with the sellers or the listing agents. Most of the time, I don't even know the seller's name, and it doesn't matter. I coordinate with the buyer or the buyer's agent. It is their role to assure the inspection is permitted, including all that makes up an inspection. Do any of the Texas inspectors in this group routinely have contact with the sellers?


Seller?

One in maybe 25, who knows, 50. Practically never. And then only in the beginning or they pop back in when I am packing up. Listing agents even less to absolutely never. Buyers agents, rarely to never. Clients, most in the end of the inspection but some an hour or so in and a very few the entire time.

I have 2 tomorrow that are going to be there from the start, the buyers that is. Sellers were called by CSS and won't be there at the inspection. I also talked to the agents, buyers, and they won't be there either.

Ted Menelly
02-03-2012, 06:21 PM
What is this common sense that you speak of ??:D

Not sure. I think it is the 2 cents I carry in my pocket so I am never broke. :D

Also. I do fill tubs to the over flow. Why would I not. I personally have never seen the tub not full enough to not make it to the overflow but maybe that is just my family or is it the world. If not that full before getting in it is after jumping in or running more hot water to warm it up.

Oh wait. I think that is the type of common sense I am talking about.

Uh oh. Looky here. Another leak.

Common sense. Building sense. Contractor sense. In the field for ever sense. Inspector sense. Life sense.

Ken Rowe
02-03-2012, 09:33 PM
Common sense is at the very very least what all home inspectors should have. If that is lacking then find a job where you do not need it.

No, I am not coming back with documentation. Cases. Legal ethics. Moms permission. Cousin Vinni's blessing.

Common sense.


Common sense? It's common sense not to cause unwarranted water damage to a home. Do inspectors dump a 5 gallon bucket of water on the floor of a finished basement to make sure the floor is sloped to the floor drain? No, there are other ways to check it.

Documentation? Everything a home inspector inspects for or the process they use to inspect needs to be backed by some sort of documented building requirement, manufacturer's specifications or any of several authoritative bodies. We can't just make up our own testing procedures, damage people's home and say, "Oh, that's the way it's done." Neither can we take a manufacturer's installation process out of order and claim it's an approved method.

The banter between Jerry and myself really has nothing to do with whether or not to test or inspect shower pans. He claims flooding the shower pan during a home inspection is an approved method for testing. I claim there is no approval for flooding a shower pan after the shower is fully assembled. I asked him to show documentation for his "approved" method. He can't because it doesn't exist.

Ian Page
02-04-2012, 12:27 AM
Ken, I agree.

Ted /Jerry
Where in the world do you get the notion that shower pans are meant or designed to HOLD water. They are specifically designed to DRAIN water. Being constructed and designed without any method whatsoever to prevent the free flow of water, they are nothing more than a large funnel, preferably impervious to water as it flows down the neck (drain hole). If holding water was important and an integral aspect of their function, why are they sloped to the unstoppered drain? A drain, incidentally, fully one third larger than a typical tub drain.

Granted, some pans may be custom built with some kind of stopper mechanism but the vast majority are not. Those, if they exist, should 'hold' water because they are intended and designed to do so and tested acccordingly. Typical shower pans are not.

By Ted's analysis, guttering should be installed level and not drain to a downspout. Do you test the guttering by plugging the downspout and flooding it to see if it 'holds' water? Probably not. Do you pull up the carpet to look for possibly cracks in the slab when no adverse indications exist? Do you jam a screwdiver blade into a receptacle to see what happens at the panel? And if not, why not... because you use experience, knowledge, common sense or other non-injurious methods, which should be consistent throughout an inspection, not picking and choosing what area you want to apply your interpretation of common sense to.

There are several aspects of a home inspection that we 'disclaim' without harm or foul, not subjecting a pan or a tub to extremes (and rare in the real world), are just two of many.

If the pan leaks, it leaks. If the leaking is visible (by whatever means) and that leaking is caused by normal (even abnormal but not absurdly excessive) application, report it. If you don't find anything, using whatever methods you chose in your normal sop, you report that to. All reports should say that items checked and examined were normal/satisfactory or abnormal/unsatisfactory - within useful expected life or whatever, however you chose to report it, at the time of the inspection. If you miss something - we all do - you hope the consequences are not great or too costly.

Jeffrey L. Mathis
02-04-2012, 03:47 PM
Like I said earlier, I learn more from Mr. Peck than anywhere else. I don't make it a steady practice to ask the seller in advance. I will in the future.

JLMathis

Jerry Peck
02-04-2012, 04:10 PM
Where in the world do you get the notion that shower pans are meant or designed to HOLD water.

What is so hard to understand about "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE"?

How does one know that it is "LEAK FREE" unless one tests it?

Jerry Peck
02-04-2012, 04:12 PM
I don't make it a steady practice to ask the seller in advance. I will in the future.

Jeffery,

I had a short one page 'Seller Questionnaire' of questions I would ask the seller or their agent, with the most important questions leading to them saying that it was okay for me to test everything because everything worked and nothing leaked.

If it did not work or did leak ... any resulting damage was not of my concern - THEY gave me permission to test it. Worked for me and for many other other inspectors in South Florida.

Ted Menelly
02-04-2012, 04:22 PM
All i will say is

Robots following. Script.

Funnel water huh? Well i guess in your not so logical common sense a faulty, poorly built pan would funnel some of the water to the drain and leak the rest into a home if someone, like many take a long shower and the wash cloth fell on the drain and a bit of water fills into the pan.

Mopped in, metal pan, poly, plastic. Any and all were meant and are meant to hold water.

Why the heck do you think they are there. Why do you think so much effort continuously goes into newer and better designs. Why do you think they are put there to hold water back from the structure.

Oops. Hold water back from the structure.

And you have rehabbed how many homes. Done how many pans over. Why did you repair/replace the pans. Oops. Water was leaking thru.

Dont replace those pans/liners. Darn things are not meant to hold water. Just tile on the plywood or slab. When water gets behind that tile you will find out faster when water starts getting thru.

This keeps going and going for the sake of no common building sense.

Books, reports, documentation. Show me the money or i will keep diing it wrong forever.

Ya know. I bet you dont need documentation or case study to know it hurts like hell to smash your thumb with a hammer

No, absolutely not is the answer to what some believe what a home inspection is. Documentation to verify all your findings. Case studies for proof. If its wrong write it up. Damn it all to hell with case studies.

I want to meet some of these folks that taught some of you how to be a home inspector.

A mind of your own and not one that was implanted by someone else. A free thinking individual with common sense.

Oh well. Back to work. See yea.

Ken Rowe
02-04-2012, 10:22 PM
What is so hard to understand about "REPEAT UNTIL THE INSTALLATION IS LEAK FREE"?

How does one know that it is "LEAK FREE" unless one tests it?


What is so hard to understand "REPEAT UNTIL LEAK FREE" is stated in the middle of the installation instructions and before you finish the install it needs to be leak free. What is so hard to understand that this has nothing to do with testing after the installation is complete?

Ken Rowe
02-04-2012, 10:28 PM
All i will say is

Documentation to verify all your findings. Case studies for proof. If its wrong write it up. Damn it all to hell with case studies.

I want to meet some of these folks that taught some of you how to be a home inspector.

A mind of your own and not one that was implanted by someone else. A free thinking individual with common sense.

Oh well. Back to work. See yea.

So besides flooding the shower pans, what other procedures do you do while performing a home inspection that you cannot show some sort of procedural documentation?

What else do you write up without any documentation to support your findings?

How would you know if it's "wrong" unless there was some sort of documentation?

Just curious.

Instead of going into a half page tirade, just answer the question.

You know, this reminds me of a conversation I had with a couple of local code inspectors. We were discussing testing of GFCI outlets. Their claim is the only approved method for testing is with a three prong GFCI tester. My argument was the manufacturers don't recognize the handheld testers and neither does the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Even after showing them manufacturer's instructions and the documents from the CPSC they wouldn't believe it. Even after they could find nothing to document their case. Just because a product is available (water pan testing stoppers, GFCI testers, flexible waste pipes, air admittance valves) doesn't mean they are approved for use whenever and wherever you want.

Ian Page
02-04-2012, 11:58 PM
So Ted, now we have gone from "...holding water." to, "...holding water back from the structure." Your description, not mine and there is a significant difference between the two. Shower walls, waterproofing membrane, tile, glass, fiberglass etc, do that. The shower pan should only accomplish the same. No-one, repeat, no-one, myself included, is saying that pans should not be leak free. Of course they should, no disagreement here.

The only argument is what method(s) is acceptable and to what lengths should one go to to satisfy a leak-free determination. I, and others, are of the opinion that filling the pan to near capacity holds inherrent risk of avoidable damage. You, and others believe it's the only way to test it's integrity. Any resulting damage, though preventable, is both acceptable and collateral.

I, and others, prefer to err on the side of caution absent any documentation supporting the need or requiremeent to semi-flood a finished pan, with consideration given to potential damage. You, and others, obviously do not. You seem to care not if damage, caused by your testing method, ensues because it is satisfactory proof of a leak. I wonder, do you return or call the homeowner, days later to seee if any water has seeped into the ceiling after the filled pan has been allowed to drain? I, and others, have attempted to provide rationale for our position. Your position is, it's the only way to perform a meaningful test. As I have said repeatedly...to each his own.

Jerry, in your "Sellers Questionnaire" do/did you also specifically describe the manner by which you would test the integrity of the shower pan and further explain that damage could be caused by such a testing method, for which you would not be held accountable? Perhaps you could post a copy of your Questionnaire. Though I rarely see sellers, it may be useful to have something similar on hand.

Ken Rowe
02-05-2012, 01:05 AM
Ian,

Apparently some inspectors like to do things quick and easy and don't care if they cause avoidable damage. They enjoy finding this huge leak for their customers. It makes them feel important. Personally I like to find the small leaks before they turn into big leaks and avoid damaging property that doesn't belong to me.

Ian Page
02-05-2012, 01:38 AM
Ken

Amen to that...No ego-boosting here. Just honest, professional and considerate service to all parties involved in a real estate transaction.

Jerry Peck
02-05-2012, 09:57 AM
Jerry, in your "Sellers Questionnaire" do/did you also specifically describe the manner by which you would test ...

No, I did not specifically state that I would insert my SureTest circuit tester into each receptacle outlet; nor did I specifically state that I would be switching all lighting fixtures on/off; nor did I specifically state that I would be inspecting the attic/crawlspace with a bright flashlight; nor did I specifically state that I would be operating the dishwasher through the longest cycle, or the clothes washer through the longest cycle, or the clothes dryer through the longest cycle; nor did I specifically state that I would be operating the microwave oven or the range/cooktop; nor did I specifically state that I would be testing all GFCI receptacles; nor did I specifically state that I would be filling the tub to the overflow level (which is the same as operating the appliances through their longest cycle); nor did I state that I would be filling the shower stalls up to just below the tile/marble/granite at the threshold/curb (which is the same as operating the appliances through their longest cycle); nor did I specifically state that I would be removing the covers to the electrical panel, the air handler, etc.; nor did I specifically state that I would be looking up into the fireplace and down the chimney; nor did I specifically state ad infinitum.


Perhaps you could post a copy of your Questionnaire. Though I rarely see sellers, it may be useful to have something similar on hand.

I have copied and pasted the information on the seller questionnaire below:
- ON-SITE SELLER INTERVIEW INFORMATION

- - CLIENT SHOULD ALWAYS ASK THE SELLER TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:

- - - ARE YOU THE CURRENT OWNER? -
- - - OWNER IN SINCE / OR HOW LONG -
- - - ARE THERE ANY APPLIANCES, EQUIPMENT, OR FIXTURES THAT WE SHOULD NOT OPERATE / INSPECT / TEST? -
- - - - IF SO, WHY SHOULD WE NOT OPERATE / INSPECT / TEST THOSE ITEMS? -
- - - ARE THERE ANY ROOMS OR AREAS WE SHOULD NOT ENTER? -

- - - APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LIVING AREA (HEATED AND COOLED SPACE) - SF
- - - APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TOTAL AREA (INCLUDING GARAGE/PORCHES) - SF

- - - APPROXIMATE YEAR BUILT OR AGE OF BUILDING -
- - - APPROXIMATE YEAR OF ADDITIONS (IF ANY) -
- - - APPROXIMATE YEAR OF MAJOR REMODELING (IF ANY) -

- - - APPROXIMATE YEAR FASCIA REPAINTED LAST? -
- - - APPROXIMATE AGE OF ROOF OR YEAR REPLACED -
- - - REPAIRS MADE HOW LONG AGO AT: -
- - - CURRENT KNOWN ROOF LEAKS: -

- - - TERMITES? -

- - - PLEASE MARK ANY AND ALL THAT APPLY:
- - - DRAINAGE OR FLOODING PROBLEMS, WHERE? -
- - - STORM DAMAGE, WHAT AND WHERE? -
- - - SMOKE, FIRE OR RELATED DAMAGE? -
- - - KNOWN SETTLEMENT CONCERNS? -
- - - KNOWN PAST OR PRESENT OTHER LEAKS OR WATER STAINING/DAMAGE? (SUCH AS AROUND WINDOWS, DOORS, THROUGH WALLS, ETC.) WHERE? -
- - - KNOWN PAST OR PRESENT ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS? -
- - - KNOWN PAST OR PRESENT PLUMBING PROBLEMS? -
- - - KNOWN PAST OR PRESENT A/C PROBLEMS? -
- - - ANY DO-IT-YOURSELF WIRING, PLUMBING, A/C OR STRUCTURAL WORK? -
- - - ANY ADDITIONS, REMODELING, ALTERATIONS DONE WITHOUT THE PROPER PERMITS? -

The questionnaire looks innocent enough - but I get the information I am looking for.

Why questions like: APPROXIMATE YEAR FASCIA REPAINTED LAST? Because if the fascia has been repainted recently and I see water stains from leaks, then I know the roof *is still* leaking, that the damaged fascia was repaired to try to hide the damage, etc.

Nick Ostrowski
02-05-2012, 10:27 AM
No, I did not specifically state that I would insert my SureTest circuit tester into each receptacle outlet; nor did I specifically state that I would be switching all lighting fixtures on/off; nor did I specifically state that I would be inspecting the attic/crawlspace with a bright flashlight; nor did I specifically state that I would be operating the dishwasher through the longest cycle, or the clothes washer through the longest cycle, or the clothes dryer through the longest cycle; nor did I specifically state that I would be operating the microwave oven or the range/cooktop; nor did I specifically state that I would be testing all GFCI receptacles; nor did I specifically state that I would be filling the tub to the overflow level (which is the same as operating the appliances through their longest cycle); nor did I state that I would be filling the shower stalls up to just below the tile/marble/granite at the threshold/curb (which is the same as operating the appliances through their longest cycle); nor did I specifically state that I would be removing the covers to the electrical panel, the air handler, etc.; nor did I specifically state that I would be looking up into the fireplace and down the chimney; nor did I specifically state ad infinitum.


.

Of all the things listed above, the two I bolded are the only ones that have a higher than normal potential for creating stains or moisture damage where none previously existed.

We are guests in the homes we inspect. Despite what some may think, we do not have free run to do whatever we please. Yes, we have a job to do and that is to inspect and find defects. But we should also leave the house as we found it. If a testing procedure used by the inspector is known by said inspector (based on their experience) to have a high probability of creating a leak and moisture damage/staining, then the inspector has an obligation to let the seller know beforehand that the test he will be performing has a high probability of creating leaks and staining their ceiling. From there, it is up to the seller to decide if they want to allow the inspector to perform that test.

Walking a roof, taking the cover off a service panel, taking a hood cage cap off a flue, and operating a dishwasher do not have high probabilities of creating damage. Testing a shower pan in a manner designed to force water to leak through unseen gaps and voids does. The seller should be made aware of the planned testing procedure and given the choice to allow or refuse the test. I suspect we would all like to have the same courtesy extended to us in our homes.

Jerry Peck
02-05-2012, 01:01 PM
Of all the things listed above, the two I bolded are the only ones that have a higher than normal potential for creating stains or moisture damage where none previously existed.

Nope.

That is why I would run the clothes washer and dishwasher on their longest cycle - that is typically *not* done, and just because it does not leak on the normal cycle does not mean it will not leak on the longest cycle.

Which is no different than Ted explained about filling the tub to the overflow - many people will fill the tub so full that when they get in, the water displaced by their body rises above the overflow and runs out it - filling to the overflow simply tests for the worst case condition, and a condition that happens all too frequently.

And which is really no different than filling the shower for a shower test to make sure the shower pan does not leak when the plumbing is stopped up, which is also a condition that happens all too frequently (once is all too frequently, and we hear about plumbing getting stopped up all the time - I for one did not want to receive a phone call stating that their plumbing stopped up, their shower filled up, and leaked through the walls, and that the plumber told them that their home inspector should have discovered the leaking shower during their home inspection last year).

You guys can keep coming up with all your reasons as to why NOT to test the showers, no problems, I've said that several times in posts above.

Just don't try to blame NOT testing showers on "insurance" - I've also said that above too.

And don't try to blame NOT testing showers on your thinking that shower pans are not designed or intended to hold water and not leak - several of us have present documentation that shower pans are designed and intended TO NOT LEAK.

Don't want to test showers? That is your call.

Just don't try to blame 'your call to not test showers' on anything other than your own thinking ... there are no reasons 'not to test showers', there are plenty of reasons 'to test showers', just man-up to the fact that you decided on your own to 'not test showers'. No one is going to ridicule you for not testing showers; however, will some of us will try to give you the evidence and facts on why you should test showers, yeah, we will try to do that.

But it is your call to make. Accept that it was your call to make and move on. Don't try to put the blame for that call on anyone or anything else.

Ian Page
02-05-2012, 01:56 PM
Jerry, thank you for posting your Questionnaire. However, I see nothing in it that warns/advises the homeowner that certain test procedures may result in damage. Is that intentional? Don't you think that such a warning might be advisable? I can't believe it is your intention to trick, trap or mislead the homeowner. However your, "... looks innocent enough..." statement, infers such. If a warning were included do you assert that homeowners would still permit testing of the tub/shower in the manner previously described?

On another, but related note. There are many Inspectors reading these posts who rely on your expertise. On occasions I, and others have differing, yet just as valid opinions and share a responsibility to advise that Jerry's word is not gospel, that there are/maybe alternatives. I do generally appreciate your knowledge and insight, however. On this occasion, you and those that support your view for the flimsy reasoning attested, are IMO, just plain wrong. Man up and admit it...:D

Ken Rowe
02-05-2012, 01:56 PM
Jerry,

I notice you didn't say that you created a partial blockage of the discharge tubes for the dishwasher or washing machine to see if they would leak. Why would you create a blockage in the shower?

As I've previously stated, "Normal operating control". You set the washing machine to run at the longest setting. That's normal, there's a dial or knob for that. Creating a blockage in the shower drain is not normal operating controls.

And yes, it was me who decided that I would not test showers by flooding the pan. The reasons for that decision are:

flooding the pan is not an approved testing method after the shower is completely built
my insurance will not cover non approved testing methods
there are other ways to find the leaks without risking water damage to the houseSee Jerry, I make decisions based on information available. There is typically a reason behind everything I do or don't do during an inspection. I just don't do or do something just for the heck of it.


I don't jamb a rag down the furnace vent to see if it will back draft either.

Jerry Peck
02-05-2012, 03:15 PM
Jerry, thank you for posting your Questionnaire. However, I see nothing in it that warns/advises the homeowner that certain test procedures may result in damage.

You mean like including something like: 'my circuit tester may find a loose electrical receptacle and cause that to move around when I plug the tester in, which in turn may cause the conductors to short or ground out, which in turn may cause a fire and burn the house down.'?

Of course not, who do you think you are kidding? EVERYTHING the home inspector does/touches COULD CAUSE DAMAGE. Now you are just being childish like Ken in trying to defend your not testing showers and tubs.

Like I said, if you decide not to test them, then just man-up and admit it, and don't bother trying to blame someone or something else for your choice not to test them.

DO YOU ADVISE THE HOMEOWNERS THAT SOMETHING YOU DO OR TEST COULD CAUSE DAMAGE? Of course not. But something you do or test *could* cause damage.

Do you probe wood to find out if the wood is damaged? Do you tell the owner that you may be damaging their wood when you probe?

Some people here are just getting to silly and way out there in trying to defend their decision. Go talk amongst yourselves and work out why you don't test tubs or showers, I am sure the majority of the people here are long past being ready for this thread to end.

Jerry Peck
02-05-2012, 03:20 PM
I notice you didn't say that you created a partial blockage of the discharge tubes for the dishwasher or washing machine to see if they would leak. Why would you create a blockage in the shower?

See Jerry, I make decisions based on information available.

Apparently you do not think about things much, not if you make decisions based on information available and then post the above.

Ken, THINK, man, THINK ... why would I, or any home inspector, NOT PLUG the shower drain ... (so the darn thing does not overflow the threshold/curb).

Was that so hard Ken? You are beginning to no longer ... er ... you have been not ... making much sense in your defense of not testing tubs and shower.

THINK, Ken, THINK.

Crimeny, some of these guys are really getting weird and way out there in trying to defend a decision they made.

(sigh)

Rick Cantrell
02-05-2012, 03:46 PM
Below is a form I use to inform the HO and purchaser about testing the shower pan

Request and Authorization to test Shower Pan


Notice to purchaser and homeowner.
A standard test of the shower has been or will be performed.
The standard test is very much like normal use of the shower.
Sometimes the normal activity of using the shower may not reveal a defect in a shower pan.
Therefore a Shower pan test is recommend to be performed.
Before consenting to the shower pan test you need to understand
The test does not create a leak;
However the test may expose an existing defect that will allow water to leak.
If a defect exists, water can leak causing substantial damage.
Some defects and leaks may not be readily observable or detectable.


The shower pan test consist of:
#1 Removing the shower drain cover plate
#2 Inserting the appropriate plug into the drain of the shower to stop water from draining
#3 Filling the shower pan to within ½” of the shower curb height
#4 Allowing water to remain in the shower pan 4 hours or longer
#5 After the allotted time, remove the drain plug, and observe water drainage
#6 Observe for water that has leaked around the shower, and if practical under the shower
#7 Reinstall shower drain cover
#8 Report observations and make recommendations.

I understand and agree to; the limitations, and accept the risk involved.

Address: __________________________________________________ _____________________


Property owner or agent: __________________________________________________ ________

Date: ___________________________________________


Prospective purchaser or agent: __________________________________________________ ___

Date: ___________________________________________

Ken Rowe
02-05-2012, 03:58 PM
You mean like including something like: 'my circuit tester may find a loose electrical receptacle and cause that to move around when I plug the tester in, which in turn may cause the conductors to short or ground out, which in turn may cause a fire and burn the house down.'? Plugging something into a receptacle is "normal operation". Flooding a shower pan is not. Thank you for a great example.




Like I said, if you decide not to test them, then just man-up and admit it, and don't bother trying to blame someone or something else for your choice not to test them. You're getting the terms "testing the shower pan" and "flooding the shower pan" mixed up. Nobody here has said we don't test or inspect shower pans. We just don't flood them. Or are you saying the only way to check for a leaking shower pan is to flood them?



Do you probe wood to find out if the wood is damaged? Do you tell the owner that you may be damaging their wood when you probe? Probing wood is a requirement and has a definition in nearly all home inspection associations. There is not only documentation to support this action it is mandatory by most associations. Flooding the shower pan is not a requirement and there is no documentation to support it being done in a completed shower.




Ken, THINK, man, THINK ... why would I, or any home inspector, NOT PLUG the shower drain ... (so the darn thing does not overflow the threshold/curb).



Why? Because there is no need to and no documentation to support this activity. A good inspector can find if the shower pan has leaked in the past and doesn't need a big wet spot to figure it out.

It's nothing more than grandstanding at the expense of the seller's house.

Ken Rowe
02-05-2012, 04:02 PM
Rick,

Where did you get this process from?


#1 Removing the shower drain cover plate
#2 Inserting the appropriate plug into the drain of the shower to stop water from draining
#3 Filling the shower pan to within ½” of the shower curb height
#4 Allowing water to remain in the shower pan 4 hours or longer
#5 After the allotted time, remove the drain plug, and observe water drainage
#6 Observe for water that has leaked around the shower, and if practical under the shower
#7 Reinstall shower drain cover

Just curious because it's not the same requirements in the IBC.

Rick Cantrell
02-05-2012, 04:08 PM
Rick,

Where did you get this process from?

Just curious because it's not the same requirements in the IBC.

I came up with it on my on after reading from several sources.

Nick Ostrowski
02-05-2012, 04:13 PM
Below is a form I use to inform the HO and purchaser about testing the shower pan

Request and Authorization to test Shower Pan


Notice to purchaser and homeowner.
A standard test of the shower has been or will be performed.
The standard test is very much like normal use of the shower.
Sometimes the normal activity of using the shower may not reveal a defect in a shower pan.
Therefore a Shower pan test is recommend to be performed.
Before consenting to the shower pan test you need to understand
The test does not create a leak;
However the test may expose an existing defect that will allow water to leak.
If a defect exists, water can leak causing substantial damage.
Some defects and leaks may not be readily observable or detectable.


The shower pan test consist of:
#1 Removing the shower drain cover plate
#2 Inserting the appropriate plug into the drain of the shower to stop water from draining
#3 Filling the shower pan to within ½” of the shower curb height
#4 Allowing water to remain in the shower pan 4 hours or longer
#5 After the allotted time, remove the drain plug, and observe water drainage
#6 Observe for water that has leaked around the shower, and if practical under the shower
#7 Reinstall shower drain cover
#8 Report observations and make recommendations.

I understand and agree to; the limitations, and accept the risk involved.

Address: __________________________________________________ _____________________


Property owner or agent: __________________________________________________ ________

Date: ___________________________________________


Prospective purchaser or agent: __________________________________________________ ___

Date: ___________________________________________


Thanks for sharing this Rick. This is a good common sense approach that sets the expectation in advance and covers your own butt. Using this type of form is the only way I would consider making this type of shower pan test part of my inspections.

Rick Cantrell
02-05-2012, 04:24 PM
Thanks for sharing this Rick. This is a good common sense approach that sets the expectation in advance and covers your own butt. Using this type of form is the only way I would consider making this type of shower pan test part of my inspections.

Not trying to offend anyone, but I think it's irresponsible not to advise the buyer on the need to perform a shower pan test, and just as irresponsible not to advise the HO of the risk of the test.
If the HO accepts the risk I test it, if the HO does not, I don't test it.
Some do, some don't.

BTW I posted this 4 months ago on a similar thread.
http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/plumbing-system-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/27023-testing-shower-pan.html

Ken Rowe
02-05-2012, 04:37 PM
I came up with it on my on after reading from several sources.

If you know the sources, please list them if you can.

Rick Cantrell
02-05-2012, 04:49 PM
If you know the sources, please list them if you can.

Look in the thread of the link I provided.

Ted Menelly
02-05-2012, 07:44 PM
Every installation of shower pans is filled with water and allowed to set over time.

If they leak then then are emptied and inspected further to find out where the leak is.

Any building inspector on the planet will fail a shower pan of any kind if it leaks water. It won't get a little gold star because it does not hold water.

Any plumber fills a shower pan/liner with water and tests it for leaks. If it leaks they repair the leak or rip out the pan liner and start over if it does not hold water.

Hold water. Hold back water. Hold in water. Keep water off, away from, From getting to, the surrounding home. This can cause damage to a home just from a small drip over time. Rooted plywood, sub floor, surrounding framing, surrounding drywall wall near the pan liner, cause mold inside the walls and I guess we can go on for days.

Fact and absolute fact is no matter what you refuse to read, look up, not read, not listen to, any of those and another page full, the pan liner, gasket to etc etc etc etc, is meant to hold water no matter which term you wish to use.

If you find a leak in the liner, pan etc, then you pull it apart and repair it to make it water tight, hold water, hold back water, hold in water etc etc etc etc

Please stop with the foolish statements that there is no test, no documentation and the best of all, no reason if you are a good inspector.

If you don't want to test don't. It is that absolute and simple un til the test becomes required due to the vast amount of leaks are found

This is not grandstanding stupid, dumb, ignorant, dishonest or any other statement you wish to choose.

Yes. Your, no matter who you are, statements are foolish. Stop, think, digest exactly what happens when a shower pan/liner is installed and then inspected by every municipal inspector out there (unless he is just not doing his job). They fill that liner to inspect for leaks. Why? because it is designed to hold water. If it doesn't it fails by the inspector and by the plumber putting it in. The plumber knows the ramifications if his liner/pan leaks after the folks find it when they move in. That's right. They get a call for a warranty repair for a shower pan leak and have to pull it apart and repair it....... for a service charge at best and the rest is free.

Ken and Ian. Just keep walking into those bathrooms and turning the water on long enough to make it look like you ran it, take a picture of it and tell the folks everything appears to be in good order. That is the easy way out and what a scripted inspector does that just learned the "process " of home inspection.

Someone on here said that once. "Anybody can learn the "process" of home inspection". That is a scripted inspector that will find every reason there is to be able to run thru an inspection as quick as possible and cause no ripples on the way.

Again. Please look at a picture of a pan liner before inspection or should I say before it goes on to the finishing of the shower and ask yourself just how and why would anyone want to fill it with water. Why does anyone go to all that trouble to make basically a bath tub that holds water if it were not necessary. Then ask yourself just how the best way to test it to see if a tare happened or someone ran a bunch of screws or nails real low in that liner.

A shower may have water getting behind the tile and a drip drip may happen that takes a long time to become noticed and then there is a good bit of damage to the surrounding wood, framing, flooring, drywall ceiling below etc etc etc.

You are not going to find evidence by being a "good inspector" and just walking past it and flashing the water on for a few minutes or seconds to wet the walls.

Here. I will post a picture of a "water proof" ( I wonder why they use a water proof liner) liner for you so you don't have to do any of your own looking. Just stare at it for a long while and contemplate what you are looking at. What it is for. What it is meant to do and best yet.....the best way to test it.

That is all the help I can give you folks. You are a bunch of nice guys but seriously.....Look at the picture and think. Please. Nothing of the installation of this particular liner. I just did what anyone can do and found it in Google images.

Jerry Peck
02-05-2012, 07:58 PM
It's nothing more than grandstanding at the expense of the seller's house.

TOTALLY WRONG ... it is nothing more than DOING MY JOB FOR THE BUYER ...

Ken, I don't know about you, but *I* *DON'T WORK FOR THE SELLER* (you seem to be more concerned about the seller than the buyer). :eek:

Marc M
02-05-2012, 08:59 PM
and just as irresponsible not to advise the HO of the risk of the test.
If the HO accepts the risk I test it, if the HO does not, I don't test it.
Some do, some don't.l (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/plumbing-system-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/27023-testing-shower-pan.html)

What if the house is bank owned?

Jerry Peck
02-05-2012, 09:11 PM
What if the house is bank owned?

Marc,

I'm going to leave this thread to you and Ted to finish. I am apparently not getting through to some of the guys here.

Nick Ostrowski
02-05-2012, 09:27 PM
Jerry, you don't have to win all the time (or maybe you feel you need to). Just because you don't have everybody agreeing with you and thanking you doesn't mean this wasn't worthwhile. You're right that some shower pans have hidden defects that cannot be found by just turning the shower on and letting it run for a minute or two. But in the same breath, you're wrong to not advise the seller that your test may bring hidden defects to light that may create damage to their home.

I'm sure many of us can come up with things we do during our inspections that the many inspectors do not. It doesn't make us better. It just makes us different and maybe time and experience will lead us to change the way we do things.

Ken Rowe
02-05-2012, 10:23 PM
Let's take a look at just how wrong you are Ted:


Every installation of shower pans is filled with water and allowed to set over time. I'll guarantee the shower pans put in prior to 1990 have never been purposely flooded to look for leaks. Sorry Ted, but most of the houses I inspect are over 40 years old. Maybe you meant to say "Every current installation..." but that isn't what you said.



Hold water. Hold back water. Hold in water. Keep water off, away from, From getting to, the surrounding home. This can cause damage to a home just from a small drip over time. Rooted plywood, sub floor, surrounding framing, surrounding drywall wall near the pan liner, cause mold inside the walls and I guess we can go on for days. Which can be determined by a diligent inspector without damaging the house.



Please stop with the foolish statements that there is no test, no documentation and the best of all, no reason if you are a good inspector. I've asked you to provide documentation of testing procedure after the install is completed and you can't.


Ken and Ian. Just keep walking into those bathrooms and turning the water on long enough to make it look like you ran it, take a picture of it and tell the folks everything appears to be in good order. That is the easy way out and what a scripted inspector does that just learned the "process " of home inspection. Apparently you missed my post regarding bore scopes, moisture meters and thermal cameras. But, you seem to miss things quite often.


Someone on here said that once. "Anybody can learn the "process" of home inspection". That is a scripted inspector that will find every reason there is to be able to run thru an inspection as quick as possible and cause no ripples on the way. Like I said, flooding the shower pan and damaging the house is the quick and dirty way of inspecting. Pretty easy to plug the drain and turn the shower on then wait for the damage. It takes more time and knowledge to actually inspect for the damage without damaging the house.



A shower may have water getting behind the tile and a drip drip may happen that takes a long time to become noticed and then there is a good bit of damage to the surrounding wood, framing, flooring, drywall ceiling below etc etc etc.

You are not going to find evidence by being a "good inspector" and just walking past it and flashing the water on for a few minutes or seconds to wet the walls. The same thing can be said for a loose piece of siding or trim, but I'm sure as heck not going to take 10 gallons of water and dump into it to see if it stains the drywall in the house. This job is all about common sense.


Here. I will post a picture of a "water proof" ( I wonder why they use a water proof liner) liner for you so you don't have to do any of your own looking. Just stare at it for a long while and contemplate what you are looking at. What it is for. What it is meant to do and best yet.....the best way to test it. Yes, the best way to test that shower pan is by flooding it. However, it seems to be missing something. Hmm, maybe tile and grout. You know, the stuff that finishes off the shower? The same stuff that's present in every house a home inspector inspects.
We aren't code enforcement plumbing inspectors. We aren't there during the installation process.

Ken Rowe
02-05-2012, 10:30 PM
TOTALLY WRONG ... it is nothing more than DOING MY JOB FOR THE BUYER ...

Ken, I don't know about you, but *I* *DON'T WORK FOR THE SELLER* (you seem to be more concerned about the seller than the buyer). :eek:

Doing your job is finding the leak. Doing your job well is finding the leak without damaging the house. I didn't say anything about the seller or working for the seller. I said I don't want to damage the house by doing a procedure which does not have verifiable documentation. I also gave examples previously of how I inspect shower pans. How exactly is not damaging the house related to working for the seller?

Ken Rowe
02-05-2012, 10:45 PM
Look in the thread of the link I provided.

After going through 2 other links from the one you provided I saw you posted several installation links (testing prior to finishing the installation) and a DIY site for testing shower pans. Nothing to do with home inspectors and certainly not industry standards for home inspectors and nothing even close to the IPC testing requirements.

Ian Page
02-05-2012, 11:57 PM
Ted

Thanks for the picture...I have but one question. Is the stopper/plug supplied with the pan after completion? No? Really?
I rest my case.

Jerry - if you are still here. With all your knowledge and experience of what unforseen damage can occur from a leaking shower, previously unsuspected. Not to mention your litigation and consultation experience, would you ask/suggest/expect and recommend flooding the pan to a brand new Inspector conducting his/her first inspection? Or would you explain that there are risks involved and allow them to make their own decision? If they chose not to flood-test the pan would you consider their actions lacking and a dis-service to the buyer?

Jeffrey L. Mathis
02-06-2012, 04:05 PM
Now I might be guilty of sitational ethics, but this is how I see it:
If the house has some age and the fixtures are over finished living space, I'm not going to risk damaging the property. The unit has functioned as intended.
Common sense dictates that it is not a leak issue.
If it's new, test it.
If it's on the first floor-flood it, test it. water on framing won't kill anything. I'm not doing any harm to a property just to make a point. That's why we have image problems at least around here-invasive testing.
The damned inspector came in and now it's broke.
But I don't check wood rot with anything other than my finger either.

JLMathis

Rick Cantrell
02-06-2012, 04:17 PM
I can understand someones hesitation to fill the shower pan, I had the same concern. But I also see the need to confirm that the pan is or is not leaking, that is why I came up with the shower pan test form.
If the seller agrees to the test, they have accepted the risk.
I perform the test.
If they refuse the test, I don't test.
REO's are as is, no test.

Jerry Peck
02-06-2012, 05:59 PM
Jerry, you don't have to win all the time (or maybe you feel you need to). Just because you don't have everybody agreeing with you and thanking you doesn't mean this wasn't worthwhile.

Nick,

I don't have to be right all the time, and in fact I am not right some of the time and I acknowledge that.

There are enough people agreeing with me that I am letting them carry this on for those who continue to dismiss it ... that is if they even want to carry this on - at some point one understand that some people simply will not, do not want to, consider the reason for change, and at that point there is no need to continue to try to educate those people.


would you ask/suggest/expect and recommend flooding the pan to a brand new Inspector conducting his/her first inspection?

If they chose not to flood-test the pan would you consider their actions lacking and a dis-service to the buyer?

They should first understand how the shower pan is constructed and why the shower pan is constructed that way, and that the shower pan *is not supposed to leak*. Once they understand that, which should be a priority during their training, then, yes, I would expect them to test shower pans as described, and, yes, I would recommend they get permission to test as that alleviates and 'risk of damage' as the seller or sellers agent (i.e., seller through their agent) has stated that the home inspector can inspect everything and that nothing leak and everything works as it should.

If they did not test the shower pan, they are doing a disservice to their client and they would be setting themselves up for writing a check to replace the leaking shower pan and *all* the tile in the shower. Do you think their client should be left on the hook because the new inspector did not understand the importance of testing the shower pan? How about not going on a low and easy to access roof? How about problems with the electrical panels?

Where would YOU draw the line as being a good inspector and not doing much for your client?

Makes it a bit hard to draw that line, doesn't it?

Ken Rowe
02-06-2012, 05:59 PM
Rick,

I'm curious as to the percentage of sellers allowing the test compared to those who refuse.

Nick Ostrowski
02-06-2012, 06:44 PM
I can say in my nine years of inspecting, I have not one received one callback/complaint about a leaking shower pan nor have I received a complaint that I missed something my client(s) feel I should have found in regard to the shower install.

Ken Rowe
02-06-2012, 09:26 PM
I can say in my nine years of inspecting, I have not one received one callback/complaint about a leaking shower pan nor have I received a complaint that I missed something my client(s) feel I should have found in regard to the shower install.

Same here. I've found many leaking pans and never flooded a pan.

Ken Rowe
02-06-2012, 09:41 PM
Nick,

Where would YOU draw the line as being a good inspector and not doing much for your client?

Makes it a bit hard to draw that line, doesn't it?

As I said previously, a good inspector can find the leak without damaging the house. The other guys are are quick and dirty and don't care if they follow documented protocols or not. That's the line you speak of.

Even with flooding the pan a small leak over a finished ceiling may not show up at the inspection or even days, possibly weeks before it finally seeps through the drywall. So you wouldn't see it during an inspection and may show up shortly after the client closes on the house. What good is that?

Ian Page
02-06-2012, 11:21 PM
The only sure way to test the integrity of a finished pan by flooding, is; using a plumber's plug, fill it with a known volume of water, wait a specified time - at least 4 hrs, the standard for a liner/waterproofing membrane install during construction but probably significantly longer for a finished pan and then re-measure the water. Anything less than the exact original amount proves a leak. Hardly practical but anyone interested in making your inspection a 2 dayer...?:( Or, you can flood it to a level of your choice, wait up to four hours, if no outward sign of a leak, roll the dice and call it good to go. 'Cuz that's the way Ted and Jerry do it....

Rick Cantrell
02-07-2012, 01:07 PM
Rick,

I'm curious as to the percentage of sellers allowing the test compared to those who refuse.

Except for foreclosures about 50% accept the test
Foreclosures, 0%

Those most likely to leak are:
DIY's, Unskilled workers, Flippers, 70-80% regardless of age

40+ years old, 50-70%
30-40 years old, 25-35%
20-30 years, 5%
<20 years, Have not found any (except for DIY and flippers)

These numbers are estimates, I do not keep statistical records.

CHARLIE VAN FLEET
02-07-2012, 04:55 PM
all

what i don't get is why are you talking to sellers on what you can and can't do. they are not your client. are you asking the sellers agent if you can. i don't want to talk to seller or their agent--just want lock box to get in and them gone. thats my take

cvf

Dom D'Agostino
02-07-2012, 04:55 PM
"if no outward sign of a leak, roll the dice and call it good to go. 'Cuz that's the way Ted and Jerry do it...."

Now that's original....

Rick Cantrell
02-08-2012, 06:59 AM
all

what i don't get is why are you talking to sellers on what you can and can't do. they are not your client. are you asking the sellers agent if you can. i don't want to talk to seller or their agent--just want lock box to get in and them gone. thats my take

cvf

Georgia does not have a state license for home inspectors, however, the city I live in (Columbus) does have license requirements for home inspectors. One of the requirements is; the home inspector is responsible for damages the home inspector causes. Additionally, the home inspector is required to have $100k in GL insurance to cover damages. So even if I did not cause the leak, my actions did result in additional damages that I could be responsible to repair. I would not be responsible to repair the shower pan, but I may be responsible to repair damages that result from the leaking shower pan. This is why I came up with the shower pan test as an additional service, and the shower pan test form. With the shower pan test form, the homeowner (not the buyer) is requesting the test. Now the rules have change since the HO is requesting the test, the HO is accepting the risk.

Jimmy Roberts
02-08-2012, 08:55 AM
Low cost Ir camera.
What&#39;s hiding in infrared, make your own infrared camera. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMpgeFoYbBI)

Marc M
02-09-2012, 08:15 PM
Bam...! Nother notch..;)

Marc M
02-11-2012, 07:32 PM
One more...hey.., that makes 2 for 2 this week. Or 100%. Can you imagine if I "didn't " test them?
In this image you can see the heat through the wall, from the HOT water I ran.

Marc M
02-11-2012, 09:46 PM
Confirmation..

Darrel Hood
02-12-2012, 04:25 AM
Is there a way to stop getting the email notices for a specific thread?

Marc M
02-12-2012, 08:09 AM
Is there a way to stop getting the email notices for a specific thread?

just unsubscribe..

Darrel Hood
02-12-2012, 08:20 AM
If I unsubscribe, that stops all email notifications. I don't want to stop all the notifications, just for specific threads. Oh well.

Marc M
02-12-2012, 08:21 AM
If I unsubscribe, that stops all email notifications. I don't want to stop all the notifications, just for specific threads. Oh well.

Yea, you should be able to stop getting notifications on specific threads such as this one only.

CHARLIE VAN FLEET
02-12-2012, 05:59 PM
agree darell

this ones is endless

chas