leaking window?

[Peter Louis]

I inspected this house last Nov. The client recently installed laminate floor & found water stain under carpet next to window, then removed dry wall as pics. The interior was just repainted before inspection. No stain on the dry wall & carpet during inspection. The client shows understanding it was difficult to find latent damage. But anything we can do more than that? large window, wood siding & brick stone veneer underneath.

[Scott Patterson]

I inspected this house last Nov. The client recently installed laminate floor & found water stain under carpet next to window, then removed dry wall as pics. The interior was just repainted before inspection. No stain on the dry wall & carpet during inspection. The client shows understanding it was difficult to find latent damage. But anything we can do more than that? large window, wood siding & brick stone veneer underneath.

The IR proponents will love this one! :)

Experience has taught me to always use a moisture meter under large windows like that. I would say that about 30% of the time I will find that the windows(not really the windows, it is the flashing and the way they were installed) are leaking.

[Peter Louis]

moisture meter is only good for half inch deep.

If the client does not replace the floor, this cannot be found until everything got worse. I never saw weep hole on stone veneer. That might help to prevent this but I did not see rain screen practice in place.

[Vern Heiler]

There's a GIANT white hole in the siding next to the window:D .

[Scott Patterson]

moisture meter is only good for half inch deep.

If the client does not replace the floor, this cannot be found until everything got worse. I never saw weep hole on stone veneer. That might help to prevent this but I did not see rain screen practice in place.

You need to look at the Tramex Moisture Encounter, they will detect moisture more than an inch in depth without probes. They are a non-invasive meter that every home inspector should have in their tool bag.

That stone looks like a lick and stick (faux stone) cladding, it will not have weeps like brick. It is more like hardcoat stucco as far as the instalation of it.

I'm betting that is a flashing/install problem with the windows. Only way to tell is to do a hydrostatic test and see where the water is entering.

[Peter Louis]

for sure it is a flashing problem, if it was a rain screen, the water got behind cladding still had chance to drain & dry. This one the water got trap behind sill & rot the hardboard/house wrap.

Hi Scott: you mean the stone cladding is like hardcoat stucco to drain water?

[Jim Luttrall]

I'm betting that is a flashing/install problem with the windows. Only way to tell is to do a hydrostatic test and see where the water is entering.
I agree with you Scott except "hydrostatic test".... never heard of that in relation to windows, only sewers. ???

[Raymond Wand]

No gutter above the window, water driping on faultiy flashing.
Appears to be no flashing above window just a board.
Note the water stains on stone veneer bottom right.

[Dom D'Agostino]

Experience has taught me to always use a moisture meter under large windows like that. I would say that about 30% of the time I will find that the windows(not really the windows, it is the flashing and the way they were installed) are leaking.
.
Agreed, and I would add any window installed in that fashion, no matter what size.

Peter, are you saying that you don't, or didn't, scan the wall below the windows with a meter, or that you did in this case and didn't detect anything?

[Peter Louis]

.
Agreed, and I would add any window installed in that fashion, no matter what size.

Peter, are you saying that you don't, or didn't, scan the wall below the windows with a meter, or that you did in this case and didn't detect anything?

only if there is sign of suspicious moisture, I use surveymaster. This is flashing on top of arch portion. BTW Can you explain this fashion? Thanks

[Peter Louis]

No gutter above the window, water driping on faultiy flashing.
Appears to be no flashing above window just a board.
Note the water stains on stone veneer bottom right.

It was snowing day before inspection.

[Dom D'Agostino]

only if there is sign of suspicious moisture, I use surveymaster.....BTW Can you explain "this fashion"? Thanks
,
Eyebrow/arch top, (difficult to flash properly) , no overhang or soffit or gutters, no visible head flashing (I know you said it was there, I can't see it in the photo), 2 different siding types terminating at the window sill, stone veneer or similar product, etc. etc.

It takes only seconds to run the moisture scanner on the interior of windows like these. You'll be surprised what you discover.

Dom.

[Scott Patterson]

I agree with you Scott except "hydrostatic test".... never heard of that in relation to windows, only sewers. ???

Just a fancy name for spraying water from a stationary position!

[Scott Patterson]

for sure it is a flashing problem, if it was a rain screen, the water got behind cladding still had chance to drain & dry. This one the water got trap behind sill & rot the hardboard/house wrap.

Hi Scott: you mean the stone cladding is like hardcoat stucco to drain water?

Kind of. The faux stone is stuck onto what would be the scratch coat of a stucco system. The wall is pretty designed the same way as you would a hardcoat stucco wall.

[Scott Patterson]

only if there is sign of suspicious moisture, I use surveymaster. This is flashing on top of arch portion. BTW Can you explain this fashion? Thanks

FYI, the Surveymaster is a good moisture meter but it is limited. It is great for tile and flooring but not walls. It reads at max about 1/2 of an inch. You need to invest in a Tramex Moisture Encounter as well.

[Peter Louis]

Tramex Moisture Encounter is good for 1". I could get one. At this situation I am a little upset on the work I have done plus the client did not blame me. SOP covered my ass. If we use a device, hopefully we can detect the moisture. But 2 problems: 1, Could it mislead us? 2, We could not find anything if the leaker got seasonally dry. Therefore, do we put our liability in danger? Does the insurer still cover us?

Thank you guys wisdom reply

[Jerry Peck]

Tramex Moisture Encounter is good for 1". I could get one. At this situation I am a little upset on the work I have done plus the client did not blame me. SOP covered my ass. If we use a device, hopefully we can detect the moisture. But 2 problems: 1, Could it mislead us? 2, We could not find anything if the leaker got seasonally dry. Therefore, do we put our liability in danger? Does the insurer still cover us?

Thank you guys wisdom reply

A) Plain old common sense aspect: The more tools you have, the lower your liability because the more you will find.

The above is true.

B) Afraid of potential for doing more than minimum aspect: Every tool you have increases your liability because you are doing more than a "visual inspection".

The above is home inspector lore.

C) Some people will try to combine the two aspect: Moisture meters are good, have good ones, this reduces your liability because you can find more; but ... having an infrared camera will increase your liability because you may interpret it incorrectly or it might not show something.

The above is new home inspector lore being passed around by those who 'have all the gadgets they want but don't want to buy an infrared camera', therefore 'one more tool' is a 'bad thing'. This flies in the face of common sense (see A above).

If a home inspector could x-ray, MRI, ultra-sound, etc., a house, would that increase liability or decrease liability? Decrease liability because you could see more (you could 'see' 'almost everything').

I have frequently stated (yes, this is an exaggeration) the following: Some day a home inspector will drive up to a house in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer, go back to the control center in the trailer, one side of the trailer detaches and raises up and over the house, the home inspector switches some switches, spins some dials, and out prints EVERYTHING wrong with that house, all done within 30 minutes, then hands the buyer a bill: $30,000.00, then drives to the next inspection. :D

[Peter Louis]

A) Plain old common sense aspect: The more tools you have, the lower your liability because the more you will find.

The above is true.

B) Afraid of potential for doing more than minimum aspect: Every tool you have increases your liability because you are doing more than a "visual inspection".

The above is home inspector lore.

C) Some people will try to combine the two aspect: Moisture meters are good, have good ones, this reduces your liability because you can find more; but ... having an infrared camera will increase your liability because you may interpret it incorrectly or it might not show something.

The above is new home inspector lore being passed around by those who 'have all the gadgets they want but don't want to buy an infrared camera', therefore 'one more tool' is a 'bad thing'. This flies in the face of common sense (see A above).

If a home inspector could x-ray, MRI, ultra-sound, etc., a house, would that increase liability or decrease liability? Decrease liability because you could see more (you could 'see' 'almost everything').

I have frequently stated (yes, this is an exaggeration) the following: Some day a home inspector will drive up to a house in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer, go back to the control center in the trailer, one side of the trailer detaches and raises up and over the house, the home inspector switches some switches, spins some dials, and out prints EVERYTHING wrong with that house, all done within 30 minutes, then hands the buyer a bill: $30,000.00, then drives to the next inspection. :D

Sorry JP, alway found your knowledgeable posts. But this one really puzzled me. What is your point?

[Jerry Peck]

What is your point?


Therefore, do we put our liability in danger?

Answering that question.

The better your tools, the more tools you have, the more "likely" you are to find something, which means ... oh, wait, I already answered your question: Every additional thing you can do DECREASES your liability.

Yes, you mentioned "We could not find anything if the leaker got seasonally dry.", but you do not know whether you would have found 'something' with a better moisture meter, or an infrared camera, or ... ???

Thus, I was "Answering that question."