Leaking shower pan.

[Vern Heiler]

Lots of posts about how and when to flood a shower pan to check for leaks, but not much said about what should be explained and what should be recommended. I have found leaking shower pans before and plenty of moisture damage in the crawlspace to warrant recommending replacement of the shower pan liner. Today I found a leaking pan with only a small amount of staining and slight drip that I caused by flooding the bottom of the shower floor. Cracks in the grout were at far end of shower and normally do not get flooded.

Should we recommend replacement of the pan liner regardless?

If one shower has a leaking liner found by flooding the floor, should we assume the rest of the showers in the house are bad as well?

Her is what I put in the report, give me your views (all are welcome):

Grout is cracked or missing at the shower wall to pan interface. Moisture and stains observed in the crawlspace beneath the shower indicates the shower pan liner is bad or missing. The shower pan liner is the last defense against moisture damage to wood framing beneath the shower. Repair of the liner is often an expensive undertaking as demolition of the tile is necessary. Sealing of the shower pan and walls can prevent moisture damage but this course of action requires vigilance in maintaining perfect seals. Recommend inquiring with a qualified tile contractor regarding repair of the liner.

Thanks

[Jerry Peck]

Should we recommend replacement of the pan liner regardless?

That is the only repair.

Keep in mind that the way the shower stall (not shower pan) test is performed could show a leak caused not by the shower pan but by the riser from the valve to the shower head, at the back of the shower head, the shower valve.

On two story houses the shower stall test is also testing the drain line from the shower stall.

The testing is a lot more involved if you want to isolate down to which is leaking (and, yes, it is almost always the shower pan which is leaking).

[Steven Turetsky]

That is the only repair.

Keep in mind that the way the shower stall (not shower pan) test is performed could show a leak caused not by the shower pan but by the riser from the valve to the shower head, at the back of the shower head, the shower valve.

On two story houses the shower stall test is also testing the drain line from the shower stall.

The testing is a lot more involved if you want to isolate down to which is leaking (and, yes, it is almost always the shower pan which is leaking).

I agree that normal testing of the shower stall will not pinpoint the problem (if any).

If you want to determine if the pan is leaking, you would have to open the drain and stop it with a balloon. Then fill the pan with water from other than the shower itself. If the pan does not hold the level then you know it is leaking. 24 hours is usually the desired test time.

[tom daley]

Vern,
for what its worth, i hope you dont mind me saying that my take on your reported item is that its too long and too detailed.

For me, the less detail, especially prescription, then the less possibility of liability - i'm not detailing a remedial schedule, i'm simply reporting in the simplest possible way.

A smart lawyer told me to: "Eliminate, eliminate, less is best in any written inspection report, verbosity is like chattering on a court stand - dont do it, answer briefly. Stay with yes and no, brevity is your friend."

Perhaps:

"Tile grout and caulk are missing from the shower pan surround.
The shower pan failed my water test.
Moisture & moisture stains were observed below the shower pan.
We recommend an inspection by a licensed tile contractor."

I wouldn't assume one bad liner makes all liners bad. I would test them all.
I notice that you dont mention the tiled walls or any glass enclosure and door(s). Or the plumbing, but maybe i'm getting ahead of myself.
We dont flood "the floor" we water test the shower pan.
If a licensed contractor is referred to then he's "qualified" - end of story.

I'm sure that others have plenty to say about prescribing and recommending, and i stand to be corrected & educated.

[Jim Luttrall]

Lots of posts about how and when to flood a shower pan to check for leaks, but not much said about what should be explained and what should be recommended. I have found leaking shower pans before and plenty of moisture damage in the crawlspace to warrant recommending replacement of the shower pan liner. Today I found a leaking pan with only a small amount of staining and slight drip that I caused by flooding the bottom of the shower floor. Cracks in the grout were at far end of shower and normally do not get flooded.

Should we recommend replacement of the pan liner regardless?

If one shower has a leaking liner found by flooding the floor, should we assume the rest of the showers in the house are bad as well?

Her is what I put in the report, give me your views (all are welcome):

Grout is cracked or missing at the shower wall to pan interface. Moisture and stains observed in the crawlspace beneath the shower indicates the shower pan liner is bad or missing. The shower pan liner is the last defense against moisture damage to wood framing beneath the shower. Repair of the liner is often an expensive undertaking as demolition of the tile is necessary. Sealing of the shower pan and walls can prevent moisture damage but this course of action requires vigilance in maintaining perfect seals. Recommend inquiring with a qualified tile contractor regarding repair of the liner.

ThanksI agree with Jerry, replacement is the only true repair.
Grout, caulk, and other forms of sealing are only bandaids not repair.

Each pan liner stands or fails on its own merit and is the reason we test.

"I noted water leaking at the xyz from the shower. Have a competent plumber isolate and repair the source of the leak."

[Jerry Peck]

Perhaps:

"Tile grout and caulk are missing from the shower pan surround.
The shower pan failed my water test.
Moisture & moisture stains were observed below the shower pan.
We recommend an inspection by a licensed tile contractor."

"Tile grout and caulk are missing from the shower pan surround." That almost implies that grout and caulking will solve the problem.

"The shower pan failed my water test." Don't know that it is the shower pan which is leaking.

"Moisture & moisture stains were observed below the shower pan." That is good, that is what you saw.

"We recommend an inspection by a licensed tile contractor." Tile contractor? Tile contractor is not going to fix anything - that needs a plumbing contractor.

Maybe something like this:
- Moisture & moisture stains were observed below the shower stall area. This most likely indicates that the shower stall is leaking. Have a licensed and qualified plumbing contractor determine what is leaking, making appropriate corrections.

It very well could be - likely is - the shower pan, but that is not known at this time. The tile contractor cannot address this issue other than to replace the cosmetic grout and caulk ... which will have no affect on whatever is leaking.

[tom daley]

I quote your: "the shower stall is leaking" - shower stall implies the tiled walls, the enclosure and door(s), if any, the pan, the shower drain and the in-the-wall plumbing.

If, by "shower stall" you mean only the tiled walls then its eminently appropriate to refer to a Tile Contractor.

"grout and caulk" imply nothing more than that they are in need of attention. There's no transition to the next sentence.

"Shower pan failed my water test" implies nothing beyond the test failing, there's no mention of leaking. It doesn't suggest why it failed.

The Tile/Plumbing contractor who comes first business is perhaps a regional thing. Non-union Tilers round here often fix shower drains and liners. But i do take your point and your wording.

[Jerry Peck]

"Shower pan failed my water test" implies nothing beyond the test failing, there's no mention of leaking. It doesn't suggest why it failed.

Except that you are stating ... specifically stating ... that the "shower pan" "failed" and you really do not know, nor have you actually identified, that the shower pan failed your test.

All you know is that "something" failed the test ... "something" or "some component of" the shower stall failed the test.

The test does not test the tile or grout. The test does not test the shower enclosure door if present.


The Tile/Plumbing contractor who comes first business is perhaps a regional thing. Non-union Tilers round here often fix shower drains and liners. But i do take your point and your wording.

The shower pan is a plumbing fixture ... do tile contractors replace tubs in your area?

If so, then I guess the tile contractor would also replace the shower pan. If not, then they should not be replacing the shower pan either.

That could be a regional thing, but unless the tile contractor is also a plumbing contractor the tile contractor should not be replacing the shower pan.

[Marc M]

How about this..."I stopped up the pan, ran the water for 3 hours and now the pan is leaking, you may want to fix it if you plan on using it". BTW, here's proof...

[Jerry Peck]

How about this..."I stopped up the pan, ran the water for 3 hours and now the pan is leaking, you may want to fix it if you plan on using it". BTW, here's proof...

Marc,

You still do not know that it is the "pan" which is leaking - you only know that something is leaking during the test.

was it the drain

was it the riser to the shower head from the valve

was it the pan (probably, yes, but you don't know it was the pan without further individualized testing of the components)

[Marc M]

Marc,

You still do not know that it is the "pan" which is leaking - you only know that something is leaking during the test.

was it the drain

was it the riser to the shower head from the valve

was it the pan (probably, yes, but you don't know it was the pan without further individualized testing of the components)

I suppose you are correct. That said, in my experience, however, the damage signature either under a house or viewed IR, is usually somewhat wide-spread "suggesting" a pan as opposed to narrow usually in the vicinity of a trap/drain. But as you stated, no way to say for sure.
Also keep this In mind..if the pan is completely stopped,then water shouldn't enter the drain. Not how I do it, but just sayin..

[Jerry Peck]

I suppose you are correct. That said, in my experience, however, the damage signature either under a house or viewed IR, is usually somewhat wide-spread "suggesting" a pan as opposed to narrow usually in the vicinity of a trap/drain. But as you stated, no way to say for sure.

Marc,

When the pan leaks, the water runs across the floor to the hole cut for the drain and drips down to the ceiling where it spreads out.

When the riser to the shower head or the valve leaks ... the same thing happens.

When the drain leaks ... the same thing happens.

When the drain pipe leaks at a fitting .. the same thing may happen, or it may make the long skinny evidence.

[Vern Heiler]

That is the only repair.

Keep in mind that the way the shower stall (not shower pan) test is performed could show a leak caused not by the shower pan but by the riser from the valve to the shower head, at the back of the shower head, the shower valve.

On two story houses the shower stall test is also testing the drain line from the shower stall.

The testing is a lot more involved if you want to isolate down to which is leaking (and, yes, it is almost always the shower pan which is leaking).


How about this..."I stopped up the pan, ran the water for 3 hours and now the pan is leaking, you may want to fix it if you plan on using it". BTW, here's proof...
Who assumes the liability for this test? It is surly outside the realm of normal use and borders on exhaustive testing, as I know of no one who wades in there shower for 3 hours. Do you get something signed by the homeowner?

[Jim Luttrall]

Who assumes the liability for this test? It is surly outside the realm of normal use and borders on exhaustive testing, as I know of no one who wades in there shower for 3 hours. Do you get something signed by the homeowner?
Obviously, there are at least two sides to this debate.

My personal method is to put in my stopper which I purchased from PE on-line store. Run the shower long enough to get water over the entire shower floor if possible. I think my stopper is 2 inches tall which almost never approaches topping the curb due to the slope of the floor. I maintain water for about 15-30 minutes then check for leaks. There is almost never any damage to the structure unless it was there before I started. Then I am just confirming the water was from the shower rather than the roof, etc.
Keep in mind it is much simpler here since 90% of the homes are slabs and most don't have tiled showers upstairs. I personally don't test prefabricated shower pans since I can see the surface and intended drain path.
I really don't think my method is outside the realm of normal use since I have used many showers that had slow drains and had similar amounts of water collect during normal use. Kids putting a rag over the drain, etc. bring on similar depths. Now if you overflow the curb due to inattentiveness it is the same as overflowing a tub, you messed up.

Bottom line is this, this is not exhaustive nor invasive testing that will damage anything unless there is a defect in the design or installation. I did not cause the defect, just found it for my client. That is my job and I am comfortable with using this simple test. It adds about 5 minutes to my routine.

Your mileage may vary.

[Vern Heiler]

Obviously, there are at least two sides to this debate.

My personal method is to put in my stopper which I purchased from PE on-line store. Run the shower long enough to get water over the entire shower floor if possible. I think my stopper is 2 inches tall which almost never approaches topping the curb due to the slope of the floor. I maintain water for about 15-30 minutes then check for leaks. There is almost never any damage to the structure unless it was there before I started. Then I am just confirming the water was from the shower rather than the roof, etc.
Keep in mind it is much simpler here since 90% of the homes are slabs and most don't have tiled showers upstairs. I personally don't test prefabricated shower pans since I can see the surface and intended drain path.
I really don't think my method is outside the realm of normal use since I have used many showers that had slow drains and had similar amounts of water collect during normal use. Kids putting a rag over the drain, etc. bring on similar depths. Now if you overflow the curb due to inattentiveness it is the same as overflowing a tub, you messed up.

Bottom line is this, this is not exhaustive nor invasive testing that will damage anything unless there is a defect in the design or installation. I did not cause the defect, just found it for my client. That is my job and I am comfortable with using this simple test. It adds about 5 minutes to my routine.

Your mileage may vary.
My test is very similar, Marcs test is not. I do question the reliability of my test, as I know that a well grouted/caulked shower stall can hold enough water that a leaking pan liner will never show up visually and most likely will not saturate the mortar enough to wet the sub floor.

[Jerry Peck]

The liability question is easily addressed by asking if everything works properly - with a yes answer the owner or owners' representative has accepted the liability of anything not working properly (which includes leaks); with a 'I don't know' answer the inspector's job is to inspect/test to find out; with a seller disclosure disclosing nothing the seller accepts the liability.

All the inspector need do is ask 'I need to inspect and test things, is there anything not working that I should know about and not inspect or test?' If nothing is said then inspect and test away.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - I hope nobody listens to that advise.

A home inspection is by definition a visual inspection. Any testing beyond that required in the standards of practice and approved by manufacturers for their products requires written permission to avoid liability.

And not a single home inspector does a purely "visual inspection" ... or is that what caused the complaints against you? I hope nobody listens to your advise.

Not a single home inspector follows their SoP and does not exceed it in any way.

Your posts and advise are off-base, indicate a lack of knowledge while thinking that you know it all, and you bad mouth people while complaining that they are bad mouthing you ... and we should listen to what you say ... ? You have got to be out of your friggin' mind if you think that.

[Jerry Peck]

A word of caution to all ...

We need to remain vigilant about feeding the Troll and not*allow ourselves be lulled in feeding the Troll without realizing what we are doing.

[Marc M]

A word of caution to all ...

We need to remain vigilant about feeding the Troll and not*allow ourselves be lulled in feeding the Troll without realizing what we are doing.

What's feeding the troll mean? I've seen this a few times in here.

Vern our tests are a lot shorter in time then the city's inspection of 24 hours. We do a lot of tests that you may not considered normal for HI and are paid for by buyers, sellers, investors, insurance companies, lawyers, contractors that are not typical. Spray rack testing, shower pan testing, flood testing, sewer video inspections, chimney scans...

[Raymond Wand]

Marc asked what 'feeding the troll means.'

For information purposes only -

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6]

[Scott Patterson]

I just simply report leaks with a shower like this:

I found water seeping from what appears to be the shower pan. You should have a qualified person determine the source of the leak and then make the appropriate repairs which if it is the shower pan will include its replacement.

Most of the time I include an IR or normal photo.

[Vern Heiler]

What's feeding the troll mean? I've seen this a few times in here.

Vern our tests are a lot shorter in time then the city's inspection of 24 hours. We do a lot of tests that you may not considered normal for HI and are paid for by buyers, sellers, investors, insurance companies, lawyers, contractors that are not typical. Spray rack testing, shower pan testing, flood testing, sewer video inspections, chimney scans...
Marc, your post (with IR pic) did not indicate the pan test was done for anything other than HI.
What was the condition of the grout/caulk in the shower stall? Was it ceramic tile or other? Were the grout lines wide or narrow? Just trying to get a better feel for the shower pan test.

I just simply report leaks with a shower like this:

I found water seeping from what appears to be the shower pan. You should have a qualified person determine the source of the leak and then make the appropriate repairs which if it is the shower pan will include its replacement.

Most of the time I include an IR or normal photo.
Scott, NC incorporated "DDID" into law in 2010, so short answers are no longer acceptable.

The direction I gave is what has everyone's shorts in a wad. In my observations the plumber never tiles the bathroom. Depending on the design and age of a shower, replacing the pan liner can evolve into a complete remodel of the entire bathroom; which is why I recommend talking to a tile contractor rather than a plumber. This house is 20 years old with no settling issues. I suspect the pan liner has been bad from the start and delaying replacement of the liner is an option with risk, as stated in the report. My question now is, how reliable is the pan test we do as HI's in finding leaking pan liners, and if we make it leak with known grout/caulk problems, how urgent is replacing the liner which may lead to the very large expense of a remodel?

[Scott Patterson]

Marc, your post (with IR pic) did not indicate the pan test was done for anything other than HI.
What was the condition of the grout/caulk in the shower stall? Was it ceramic tile or other? Were the grout lines wide or narrow? Just trying to get a better feel for the shower pan test.

Scott, NC incorporated "DDID" into law in 2010, so short answers are no longer acceptable.

The direction I gave is what has everyone's shorts in a wad. In my observations the plumber never tiles the bathroom. Depending on the design and age of a shower, replacing the pan liner can evolve into a complete remodel of the entire bathroom; which is why I recommend talking to a tile contractor rather than a plumber. This house is 20 years old with no settling issues. I suspect the pan liner has been bad from the start and delaying replacement of the liner is an option with risk, as stated in the report. My question now is, how reliable is the pan test we do as HI's in finding leaking pan liners, and if we make it leak with known grout/caulk problems, how urgent is replacing the liner which may lead to the very large expense of a remodel?

Vern, what is "DDID"?

[Vern Heiler]

Vern, what is "DDID"?
Acronym for the four components of an accurate observation and report. (as stated by the licensure board)

D escribe the system or component
D etermine what is wrong
I mplication what can happen
D irect what should the client do

(descriptions are mine, I was trying to find the boards wording but broke fitting in the main water line while soldering 3" fitting in crawlspace, so now I'm back in the crawlspace:()

[Jerry Peck]

My question now is, how reliable is the pan test we do as HI's in finding leaking pan liners, and if we make it leak with known grout/caulk problems, how urgent is replacing the liner which may lead to the very large expense of a remodel?

Vern,

First ... "if we make it leak" ... you are not making it leak, you are looking for, and sometimes finding, an existing leak.

Second ... "leak with known grout/caulk problems" ... leaking has nothing to do with grout/caulk problems. Leaking has to do with the pan liner (the material and installation of that material as the pan liner), drain connection and piping, and the riser to the shower head.

If a shower pan liner leaks, it needs to be replaced as there is no other way to correct the issue. How urgent it correcting a leaking shower pan liner? It should not have been leaking at all, not at any time, and the leak could cause structural damage and other damage. Whether or not the entire bathroom is typically remodeled at the same time that a leaking shower pan liner is replaced should not affect your recommendation to have the shower pan liner replaced by a plumbing contractor - remodeling is a completely separate issue and does not affect the shower pan liner repair. If someone wants to save money and combine remodeling with the shower pan repair ... that is not something you need to be, or even should be, addressing (unless you want to verbally explain the benefits of combining the work to the same time, but it really should not have any bearing on how you report a shower pan leak).

When you report a flat roof leaking, do you base your contractor recommendation on the fact that if they were to install new sloped trusses over the existing flat roof that it would make sense to do that work at the same time? I doubt it. But that would be the time to do that work, would save a bunch of money to do it then,

[Scott Patterson]

Acronym for the four components of an accurate observation and report. (as stated by the licensure board)

D escribe the system or component
D etermine what is wrong
I mplication what can happen
D irect what should the client do

(descriptions are mine, I was trying to find the boards wording but broke fitting in the main water line while soldering 3" fitting in crawlspace, so now I'm back in the crawlspace:()

Got it, not a fun repair....

Okay, so this is what I had in my post "I found water seeping from what appears to be the shower pan. You should have a qualified person determine the source of the leak and then make the appropriate repairs which if it is the shower pan will include its replacement."

So if I wrote it this way, it would be OK?
I found water seeping from what appears to be the shower pan or plumbing hidden by the shower walls. You should have a qualified plumber or shower expert determine the source of the leak and then make the appropriate repairs which if it is the shower pan will include its replacement. If this is not done additional water damage to the home will occur.
I added plumbing hidden by the shower walls, plumber or shower expert and the last sentance.

[Mark Reinmiller]

L
If one shower has a leaking liner found by flooding the floor, should we assume the rest of the showers in the house are bad as well?

Sealing of the shower pan and walls can prevent moisture damage but this course of action requires vigilance in maintaining perfect seals.


I see no reason to assume that other shower pans would be leaking.

I would not use the sentence above about sealing the shower pan. First, I assume you mean sealing the floor of the shower, not the pan. Second, grout is porous and sealing is not a correct repair, no matter how well it is performed or maintained.

[Rick Cantrell]

I see no reason to assume that other shower pans would be leaking.
If the showers are 40-50 years old, then all are subject to leaking soon.
But even then, if it is not leaking, it is not leaking.



I would not use the sentence above about sealing the shower pan. First, I assume you mean sealing the floor of the shower, not the pan. Second, grout is porous and sealing is not a correct repair, no matter how well it is performed or maintained.
I agree. Sealing the grout is in no way a repair.
When I find caulk in the shower at the floor, I'm very concerned that it has been leaking and the HO made an attempt to stop the leak with caulk.

[Stephen Gaudet]

Vern,

I come across tile surrounds that I know leak. If it has damage that would leak into the ceiling below I do not test it I just write it up it needs repair. In most cases you can see the water stains on the ceiling below. I also have a thermal camera and a moisture meter.

Bottom line I don't have to prove it leaks. If you cause a leak be ready for a claim that you caused a problem in the owners house. Years back I tested a fiberglass shower stall that had a leak I ran it under normal conditions, no leaks present when I left. However, when I came back 48 hours later to pick up my radon monitor the ceiling had fallen down. As you can expect the owner tried to get me to fix it. I did not. Sine then I picked up a thermal camera.

FYI, "all" tile surrounds eventually leak due to the grout being porous. In most cases it will break down and leak within 10 years.

Keep it simple.

Steve

[Jerry Peck]

Vern,

I come across tile surrounds that I know leak. If it has damage that would leak into the ceiling below I do not test it I just write it up it needs repair. In most cases you can see the water stains on the ceiling below. I also have a thermal camera and a moisture meter.

Bottom line I don't have to prove it leaks. If you cause a leak be ready for a claim that you caused a problem in the owners house. Years back I tested a fiberglass shower stall that had a leak I ran it under normal conditions, no leaks present when I left. However, when I came back 48 hours later to pick up my radon monitor the ceiling had fallen down. As you can expect the owner tried to get me to fix it. I did not. Sine then I picked up a thermal camera.

FYI, "all" tile surrounds eventually leak due to the grout being porous. In most cases it will break down and leak within 10 years.

Keep it simple.

Steve

Steve,

The tile surround is the non-permeable wall finish which is required on shower wall, in that each tile is non-permeable the tile itself does not leak, however, the tile covering system leaks (from day one) into the wall substrate behind the tile.

One of the problems with tile walls is that, in older days (5 years ago and older basically) green board was used behind tile (it is allowed to be used behind tile) in the shower areas (but not allowed to be used behind tile in the shower areas) and it is the wall substrate which fails, not the tile and grout (it failed to prevent water from going through as soon as it was installed and water turn on). Tile should be on cementitious tile backer board - not a gypsum core board.

[Stephen Gaudet]

Jerry,

I agree with your post. However, if the grout has open gaps in it, it most likely leaks. Experience has shown me with a moisture meter and IR it's there. This includes multi million dollar homes that the stall itself possibly cost more than 15k to build. I ran across such a stall late last year that 6 people could fit in it and it also had steam. In the garage below the ceiling had a hugh area were the leak was.

In this case the sellers realtor said it was fixed. I asked if I could run it and I did, for over 30 minutes. At first my camera saw little change. However, when I returned for my radon pickup 48 hours later and there was a leak 6'x6' at least.

Point being we as inspectors do not know how these units were built. The weakest link "I've" seen is the grout. If it's not perfect I write it up. When in doubt I write it up, cya.

Steve

[Vern Heiler]

Steve,

The tile surround is the non-permeable wall finish which is required on shower wall, in that each tile is non-permeable the tile itself does not leak, however, the tile covering system leaks (from day one) into the wall substrate behind the tile.

One of the problems with tile walls is that, in older days (5 years ago and older basically) green board was used behind tile (it is allowed to be used behind tile) in the shower areas (but not allowed to be used behind tile in the shower areas) and it is the wall substrate which fails, not the tile and grout (it failed to prevent water from going through as soon as it was installed and water turn on). Tile should be on cementitious tile backer board - not a gypsum core board.
If green board is "older days" what do you call the one inch mortar on steel lath that I just removed from mine?

[Jerry Peck]

However, if the grout has open gaps in it, it most likely leaks.

Even with perfectly good grout in a brand new installation, spray water on the grout once and the substrate will starting getting moisture in it. Grout or not grout.

I wouldn't really call that a leak anymore than I would call an open atrium a roof leak ... sure, rain is coming in through the opening into the atrium, but it isn't "leaking".

[Don Hester]

Back up on topic of comments. Why is having a descriptive comment bad if it can bring some understanding to the buyer.

Short and sweet works well for the home inspector but rarely helps the client understand the situation.

Here I was taught to use "FIR" for report writing.

Finding
Implication
Recommendation


Here is one from an actual report that I saw- "Rim joist exposed but painted."

So if you have little construction knowledge what would that tell you. It was accurate.

When the client brought me in I saw the exposed rim joist and nicely painted, with the deck installed on, there was no ledger, building wrap or flashings. The good thing was there was a roof over it protecting it from most of the weather.

I am not implying that short and sweet is not always bad, but often there is more to the story and a little information can help with the understanding and the picture.

I am writing for my client not a lawyer who may be out to get me. If I end up getting sued I lost no matter how much I was right or wrong.

Bedside manner is the best recipe for not getting in trouble.

[Ted Menelly]

What's feeding the troll mean? I've seen this a few times in here.

Vern our tests are a lot shorter in time then the city's inspection of 24 hours. We do a lot of tests that you may not considered normal for HI and are paid for by buyers, sellers, investors, insurance companies, lawyers, contractors that are not typical. Spray rack testing, shower pan testing, flood testing, sewer video inspections, chimney scans...

Excellent answer Marc. Of course we have discussed this before in testing shower pans. Fact is the shower pans and tubs are filled for the city inspector and at the very least has the water sit in the pans for the minimum of 24 hours and I have seen days.

[Stephen Gaudet]

If green board is "older days" what do you call the one inch mortar on steel lath that I just removed from mine?

I guess I'm getting lost on this topic. We have a shower stall, it's "appears" to be leaking.

1). how many people would fill it to see if they can make it leak? ans, not me any signs of damage is enough to write it up.

2). unless you were there to see how this was constructed why would you go beyond writing it up it needs repair? keep in mind we're not contractors and if we go beyond how it should be, could be repaired we can be sued.

ASHI SOP

13. GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
13.1 General limitations
A. The inspector is NOT required to perform actions, or to make determinations, or to make
recommendations not specifically stated in this Standard.
B. Inspections performed using this Standard:
1. are not technically exhaustive.
2. are not required to identify and to report:
a. concealed conditions, latent defects, consequential damages, and
b. cosmetic imperfections that do not significantly affect a component’s performance of its
intended function.

I see a tile surround loose tiles or cracks in the grout, simple, write it up. If I come across a situation like Donald described where I can see how it's constructed and the flaws I explain it. If I can't see it it's a general description, nothing fancy.

Observed cracked and missing grout in shower stall, appears to be leaking in ceiling below. Have qualified contractor review and estimate cost of repairs prior to close.

FYI:I use this on all my repair statements, "Have qualified(plumber, electrician) contractor review and estimate cost of repairs prior to close." By doing this I have flipped the responsibility of getting it looked at to the buyer...and it's now urgent.

Steve

[Vern Heiler]

Even with perfectly good grout in a brand new installation, spray water on the grout once and the substrate will starting getting moisture in it. Grout or not grout.

I wouldn't really call that a leak anymore than I would call an open atrium a roof leak ... sure, rain is coming in through the opening into the atrium, but it isn't "leaking".
What do gout sealers and additives such as "Grout Boost" do for resisting moisture?

The caulk I have mentioned in previous posts is in regard to the corners. The forums that tile setters frequent have there own debate regarding grout or caulk at plane changes.

[Jerry Peck]

Vern our tests are a lot shorter in time then the city's inspection of 24 hours. We do a lot of tests that you may not considered normal for HI and are paid for by buyers, sellers, investors, insurance companies, lawyers, contractors that are not typical. Spray rack testing, shower pan testing, flood testing, sewer video inspections, chimney scans...


Excellent answer Marc. Of course we have discussed this before in testing shower pans. Fact is the shower pans and tubs are filled for the city inspector and at the very least has the water sit in the pans for the minimum of 24 hours and I have seen days.

24 hours?

Granted, as Ted said, the water is likely in the shower pan for a few days, even longer, but ... most likely the water was ever deep enough anyway.

From the 2012 IRC (bold is mine)
- P2503.6 Shower liner test.
- - Where shower floors and receptors are made water tight by the application of materials required by Section P2709.2, the completed liner installation shall be tested. The pipe from the shower drain shall be plugged water tight for the test. The floor and receptor area shall be filled with potable water to a depth of not less than 2 inches (51 mm) measured at the threshold. Where a threshold of at least 2 inches high does not exist, a temporary threshold shall be constructed to retain the test water in the lined floor or receptor area to a level not less than 2 inches deep measured at the threshold. The water shall be retained for a test period of not less than 15 minutes and there shall be no evidence of leakage.

[Ted Menelly]

I guess I'm getting lost on this topic. We have a shower stall, it's "appears" to be leaking.

1). how many people would fill it to see if they can make it leak? ans, not me any signs of damage is enough to write it up.

2). unless you were there to see how this was constructed why would you go beyond writing it up it needs repair? keep in mind we're not contractors and if we go beyond how it should be, could be repaired we can be sued.

ASHI SOP

13. GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
13.1 General limitations
A. The inspector is NOT required to perform actions, or to make determinations, or to make
recommendations not specifically stated in this Standard.
B. Inspections performed using this Standard:
1. are not technically exhaustive.
2. are not required to identify and to report:
a. concealed conditions, latent defects, consequential damages, and
b. cosmetic imperfections that do not significantly affect a component’s performance of its
intended function.

I see a tile surround loose tiles or cracks in the grout, simple, write it up. If I come across a situation like Donald described where I can see how it's constructed and the flaws I explain it. If I can't see it it's a general description, nothing fancy.

Observed cracked and missing grout in shower stall, appears to be leaking in ceiling below. Have qualified contractor review and estimate cost of repairs prior to close.

FYI:I use this on all my repair statements, "Have qualified(plumber, electrician) contractor review and estimate cost of repairs prior to close." By doing this I have flipped the responsibility of getting it looked at to the buyer...and it's now urgent.

Steve

As any inspector does/should. It is not your responsibility. It is the buyers to have repaired before closing or what ever arrangements they wish to do. I tell everyone of my clients that the after math of what I find has absolutely nothing to do with me. I do not care if they fix it, have it fixed, the seller fix it or allowances given. My job absolutely without doubt stops when I finish my home inspection. There is no continuing anything. I have made an absolute decision that I do not go back after I left unless it is for money. I went there originally to make a living and maybe a bit more. I am not going back unless it is a continuation of my living making. NO matter what the repair the answer is "It does appear that repairs were made". Was it done right "it appears to have been done correctly but I cannot see behind it, under it and I am not going to guess the process they went into for the repairs".


I am not covering my backside. I am doing what I need to do to do my job correctly. I do not go to work thinking about lawyers before, during or after the inspection. Every single person I have seen get in trouble over something had a cover thine ass report. If it "appears" to the client you are there to cover your ass first and foremost they will do everything they can to spank that backside for you.

I highlight all concerns in blue followed by pictures. I do not hide the concern in the middle of 2 paragraphs of ridiculous crap.

I do fill the shower pans with water. If they leak then they leaked before I got there as well. I created no problem. The problem was already there. The amount of water that does come through is generally minimal at best because I do not have it sitting there to the next day. If there appears to be any concerns with the shower pan when I get there, grout, cracks etc etc etc I do not test the pan in any way. I write it up as in need of follow up behind me to evaluate just the extent of repairs needed. That covers the vast amount of tiled shower pans by the way. They are far and few between that have no concerns even in very new homes.

I have stopped using the "qualified" contractor etc. It is not up to me to determine if the contractor is qualified. It is not up to me if they use a qualified contractor. They can do it all by themselves if they wish to.

Actually I have always thought adding Qualified/licensed/master was all a bit foolish. No offense to anyone on that. If they do not know that they should hire or ask the seller to hire a qualified individual then I cannot help them in the slightest.

[Jerry Peck]

I have stopped using the "qualified" contractor etc. It is not up to me to determine if the contractor is qualified. It is not up to me if they use a qualified contractor. They can do it all by themselves if they wish to.

Actually I have always thought adding Qualified/licensed/master was all a bit foolish. No offense to anyone on that. If they do not know that they should hire or ask the seller to hire a qualified individual then I cannot help them in the slightest.

The reason to keep using that a qualified and licensed contractor do the work is that when Billy Joe Bob Bubba does the work and it fails, falls apart, or injures someone, when the client's attorney sends the letter demanding money for the repairs because the client agreed to repairs by Billy Joe Bob Bubba because you, the inspector, did not recommend a proper contractor ... your return letter through your attorney includes the report where it does recommend that a qualified and licensed contractor do the work, and, that Billy Joe Bob Bubba is neither qualified nor licensed and therefore the amount of money you are sending their direction is the what the postage on the letter cost - but that you doubt they will be able to retrieve that monetary value from the U.S. Post Office as the letter was delivered and the value of the postage used up.

[Marc M]

Marc asked what 'feeding the troll means.'

For information purposes only -

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6]

Thanks Raymond. You'd think I would have known that having a computer for so many years.

[Marc M]

The reason to keep using that a qualified and licensed contractor do the work is that when Billy Joe Bob Bubba does the work and it fails, falls apart, or injures someone, when the client's attorney sends the letter demanding money for the repairs because the client agreed to repairs by Billy Joe Bob Bubba because you, the inspector, did not recommend a proper contractor ... your return letter through your attorney includes the report where it does recommend that a qualified and licensed contractor do the work, and, that Billy Joe Bob Bubba is neither qualified nor licensed and therefore the amount of money you are sending their direction is the what the postage on the letter cost - but that you doubt they will be able to retrieve that monetary value from the U.S. Post Office as the letter was delivered and the value of the postage used up.

Why is it our obligation to recommend a contractor qualified or not?
We don't use any "recommended" or recommend anyone unless its to conduct a specialized evaluation that we weren't hired to do or is beyond our scope. We don't use suspected or the term appears. It is or either it isn't.
And pan tests in my jurisdiction of LA County is 24 hours.

[Ian Page]

24 hours?

Granted, as Ted said, the water is likely in the shower pan for a few days, even longer, but ... most likely the water was ever deep enough anyway.

From the 2012 IRC (bold is mine)
- P2503.6 Shower liner test.
- - Where shower floors and receptors are made water tight by the application of materials required by Section P2709.2, the completed liner installation shall be tested. The pipe from the shower drain shall be plugged water tight for the test. The floor and receptor area shall be filled with potable water to a depth of not less than 2 inches (51 mm) measured at the threshold. Where a threshold of at least 2 inches high does not exist, a temporary threshold shall be constructed to retain the test water in the lined floor or receptor area to a level not less than 2 inches deep measured at the threshold. The water shall be retained for a test period of not less than 15 minutes and there shall be no evidence of leakage.

P2503.6 refers to a shower liner test and such test done during new construction or remodel AND prior to the application of finish product. It doesn't seem to me to be appropriate to apply new construction testing procedures to the home inspection level especially when other surfaces have been applied potentially changing the dynamic of a previously unfinished product or a work in progress.
As Home Inspectors, we typically do not have the ability to test shower pan liners, nor are we required to. They may be tested by default when inspecting the pan for leakage but using the section quoted to affirm that need is largely erroneous at the HI level.
While some, perhaps many or even most Inspectors seal the drain and fill the pan with water to test for leaks, the pan is nothing more than a large basin to facilitate drainage. If it was meant to be filled with water as part of its design feature it should be equipped with a plugging mechanism and considered a tub as opposed to a drainage pan. Yes accidents can occur. Kids could put something over the drain, run the shower and fill the pan to the point of flooding but that's beyond the design function of the pan.

Using the same rationalization for shower leakage, how many inspectors turn on the shower and use the hand held shower head, if one is installed, to spend 10 minutes forcing water into every nook and cranny inside the shower to detect possible leaks. Or even bring their own hand held shower head for the purpose of conducting such a test? Rhetorically - If not, why not? :)

[Jerry Peck]

P2503.6 refers to a shower liner test and such test done during new construction or remodel AND prior to the application of finish product. It doesn't seem to me to be appropriate to apply new construction testing procedures to the home inspection level especially when other surfaces have been applied potentially changing the dynamic of a previously unfinished product or a work in progress.

It is and it isn't - the reason I posted that is previous posters stated the code inspection test had water in it for 24 hours and I pointed out that the time is 15 minutes (albeit the water is typically in there for much longer, but the required code test time is only 15 minutes).


As Home Inspectors, we typically do not have the ability to test shower pan liners, nor are we required to. They may be tested by default when inspecting the pan for leakage but using the section quoted to affirm that need is largely erroneous at the HI level.

See above.


While some, perhaps many or even most Inspectors seal the drain and fill the pan with water to test for leaks, the pan is nothing more than a large basin to facilitate drainage. If it was meant to be filled with water as part of its design feature it should be equipped with a plugging mechanism and considered a tub as opposed to a drainage pan.

It is equipped with a plugging mechanism - the hair strainer. There are also plugging devices on the market known as 5" flat tub stoppers.

Regardless of whether there is a built-in stopper like a tub, ANY drain is susceptible to stopping up or becoming clogged, the basin which is connected to that drain is expected hold water and not leak until the basin is overflowed.


Using the same rationalization for shower leakage, how many inspectors turn on the shower and use the hand held shower head, if one is installed, to spend 10 minutes forcing water into every nook and cranny inside the shower to detect possible leaks.

More than you think, but not for 10 minutes ... ANY good inspector SHOULD use the hand shower and spray it around the seam of an enclosure and check for leaks ... you do not do that?

[Vern Heiler]

More than you think, but not for 10 minutes ... ANY good inspector SHOULD use the hand shower and spray it around the seam of an enclosure and check for leaks ... you do not do that?
Jerry if you did or do this it is simply dog and pony show, if there are no visible cracks in the grout or caulk; there is no way you will get water to seep through and be visible outside the stall with a 5-10 second spray.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry if you did or do this it is simply dog and pony show, if there are no visible cracks in the grout or caulk; there is no way you will get water to seep through and be visible outside the stall with a 5-10 second spray.
Vern, cracked grout has nothing to do with a defective pan/liner.
Having cracked grout simply means the grout is cracked.
Even if there was no grout at all, the pan/liner would not leak unless it had a defect.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry if you did or do this it is simply dog and pony show, if there are no visible cracks in the grout or caulk; there is no way you will get water to seep through and be visible outside the stall with a 5-10 second spray.

Try to explain that to the builders and others who have seen water going through with the first spray of water.

Guess we were all the same figment of our imagination at the same time. :)

[David Dolch]

I am not a inspector, nor am I a professional tile installer. However, I have re-built a number of bathrooms / showers - especialy the two in this house that previously leaked. I also did extensive research, and asked numerous people about water proofing showers.

Grout, tile, caulk, substrate - these are not part of the waterproofing system.

The pan liner, pan, waterproofing behind the membrane, or topical membrane are what makes the shower waterproof.

If you are building a pan, you can either do a mud pre-slope, liner, mud bed, then tile. In this case the liner is what provides the waterproofing. Or you can do a preslope / mud bed all in one and then use a paint on topical membrane (such as Redgard) or a membrane sheet (such as Schulter Kerdi). Wall either get a waterproofing layer behind the substrate (in which case the substrate needs to be water stable - cement board), such as tar paper or plastic, which then overlaps the pan membrane, providing a path to the drain, or a membrane can be applied over the substrate. Paint on membranes need to be over cement board, however the preferred substrate for Kerdi is drywall. Local codes may not permit it, but if they do, it is in fact the manufactures preferred substrate.

Changes of plane in the tile (corners, floor to wall, etc) should be caulked from the onset. Not for waterproofing reasons, because because grout will crack in these location due to expansion and contraction. A properly waterproofed shower should not leak, from anywhere (walls, floor, joints) even before any tile is placed.

-dave

[Vern Heiler]

I am not a inspector, nor am I a professional tile installer. However, I have re-built a number of bathrooms / showers - especialy the two in this house that previously leaked. I also did extensive research, and asked numerous people about water proofing showers.

Grout, tile, caulk, substrate - these are not part of the waterproofing system.

The pan liner, pan, waterproofing behind the membrane, or topical membrane are what makes the shower waterproof.

If you are building a pan, you can either do a mud pre-slope, liner, mud bed, then tile. In this case the liner is what provides the waterproofing. Or you can do a preslope / mud bed all in one and then use a paint on topical membrane (such as Redgard) or a membrane sheet (such as Schulter Kerdi). Wall either get a waterproofing layer behind the substrate (in which case the substrate needs to be water stable - cement board), such as tar paper or plastic, which then overlaps the pan membrane, providing a path to the drain, or a membrane can be applied over the substrate. Paint on membranes need to be over cement board, however the preferred substrate for Kerdi is drywall. Local codes may not permit it, but if they do, it is in fact the manufactures preferred substrate.

Changes of plane in the tile (corners, floor to wall, etc) should be caulked from the onset. Not for waterproofing reasons, because because grout will crack in these location due to expansion and contraction. A properly waterproofed shower should not leak, from anywhere (walls, floor, joints) even before any tile is placed.

-dave
Agreed on all points, however Grout, tile and caulk, are often waterproof; making our spray or flood test of questionable value. The tub surround I just removed in my home had nothing but tile, grout and one inch of mortar on steel lath. Fourty years and raised two children that used the shower, no leaks.

[Marc M]

I am not a inspector, nor am I a professional tile installer. However, I have re-built a number of bathrooms / showers - especialy the two in this house that previously leaked. I also did extensive research, and asked numerous people about water proofing showers.

Grout, tile, caulk, substrate - these are not part of the waterproofing system.

The pan liner, pan, waterproofing behind the membrane, or topical membrane are what makes the shower waterproof.

If you are building a pan, you can either do a mud pre-slope, liner, mud bed, then tile. In this case the liner is what provides the waterproofing. Or you can do a preslope / mud bed all in one and then use a paint on topical membrane (such as Redgard) or a membrane sheet (such as Schulter Kerdi). Wall either get a waterproofing layer behind the substrate (in which case the substrate needs to be water stable - cement board), such as tar paper or plastic, which then overlaps the pan membrane, providing a path to the drain, or a membrane can be applied over the substrate. Paint on membranes need to be over cement board, however the preferred substrate for Kerdi is drywall. Local codes may not permit it, but if they do, it is in fact the manufactures preferred substrate.

Changes of plane in the tile (corners, floor to wall, etc) should be caulked from the onset. Not for waterproofing reasons, because because grout will crack in these location due to expansion and contraction. A properly waterproofed shower should not leak, from anywhere (walls, floor, joints) even before any tile is placed.

-dave

Excellent post Dave

[Markus Keller]

Its not the pan liner that leaks for the most part. Unless the moron contractor didn't run the liner up the side walls or burn the corners then its pretty much always the liner to drain connection.
We see it all the time. If you see a round while Oatey drain in the floor just write it up as either leaking now or very soon.
Unless I see a Schluter or Noble drain assembly at a tile shower floor it gets written up as defective. A good check is to ask what membrane the guy used, when he answers with Ummm. Write it up as defective.
I hate tile floor showers in rehabs. The cost to do it right is substantially more so the idiots don't do it right. Its such a disgrace.

[Jerry Peck]

Its not the pan liner that leaks for the most part. Unless the moron contractor didn't run the liner up the side walls or burn the corners then its pretty much always the liner to drain connection.

Guess it is the areas because what I see the cause of the leaks (probably 99.94% of the time) is that: a) the sides are too short; b) the liner does not go up and over the threshold/curb; c) the plumber did not fold the corners properly; d) the tile contractor cut the sticking-out-corners out of the way.

90% of the time it is c) or d) or c) and d), the rest of the times it is b) with some a) mixed in.

And I'm talking about new construction!

[Ian Page]

It is and it isn't - the reason I posted that is previous posters stated the code inspection test had water in it for 24 hours and I pointed out that the time is 15 minutes (albeit the water is typically in there for much longer, but the required code test time is only 15 minutes).



See above.



It is equipped with a plugging mechanism - the hair strainer. There are also plugging devices on the market known as 5" flat tub stoppers.

Regardless of whether there is a built-in stopper like a tub, ANY drain is susceptible to stopping up or becoming clogged, the basin which is connected to that drain is expected hold water and not leak until the basin is overflowed.



More than you think, but not for 10 minutes ... ANY good inspector SHOULD use the hand shower and spray it around the seam of an enclosure and check for leaks ... you do not do that?

Jerry,
Shower pain strainers are not plugging devices, by any stretch of the imagination. Typical pan floor drains with strainers can not be effectively stopped with a 5" flat tub stopper, assuming you are referring to the neoprene, rubber or silicon variety. The strainer would have to be recessed below the finished pan surface in order to create a pressure seal between the stopper flange and pan. If the pan is tiled, grout-lines may prevent such a seal. As far as I have researched on line, no one makes a stopper specifically for a shower pan, which begs the question, "why?". Simply because typical shower pans are not supposed to be filled with water. If one does fill, there is a drainage issue which must be attended to. I have seen many slow running shower drains but never have I seen one remain filled with water from drain waste blockage or defect - unless the shower pan drain stopper is used during an inspection.

The underlying issue is are we, as Inspectors, not performing a dis-service by filling the pan and expecting it to perform in a manner for which it was not intended? If that is the case then, IMO, Inspectors could be held liable for any resulting damage. Especially if there was no indication of leakage during normal use, as intended. Furthermore, many modern showers are equipped with drain 36" drain troughs which simply can not be plugged to test the efficacy of the pan.

I used a 10 minute time frame for spraying down the walls, doors, seams, protrusions, joints and connections because that's a reasonable and typical time for showering. If only a cursory spray down is performed we are being somewhat hypocritical - fill / flood the pan for which it was not intended but only spend a few moments spraying the walls etc, for which they were (intended). And yes, I do use the hand held spray head, if equipped to spray down walls etc. I do not use a drain stopper and disclaim the possibility of pan leakage but without any evidence of such (if none exists). If it does exist then flooding the pan serves no purpose whatsoever other than replication.

[Jerry Peck]

The underlying issue is are we, as Inspectors, not performing a dis-service by filling the pan and expecting it to perform in a manner for which it was not intended?

Ian,

Yes, home inspectors are preforming a disservice by not filling the pan. (I know, that is the opposite of what you implied.)

The shower pan IS intended to NOT leak - how do you presume to determine that it IS working as intended (not leaking) unless you fill the shower pan with water?

[Vern Heiler]

Ian,

Yes, home inspectors are preforming a disservice by not filling the pan. (I know, that is the opposite of what you implied.)

The shower pan IS intended to NOT leak - how do you presume to determine that it IS working as intended (not leaking) unless you fill the shower pan with water?

Should we be blocking the primary condensate line in the attic and shorting receptacles to check for working as intended?

[Jerry Peck]

Should we be blocking the primary condensate line in the attic and shorting receptacles to check for working as intended?

What??? You mean you have not been testing that the main breaker trips ... that the plumbing supply piping does not leak at 85 psi ... that the a/c does not properly cool at design summer temperature ... that the heat does not keep the interior at code minimum at design winter temperature ...

... what kind of inspector are you??? :confused::p

[Vern Heiler]

What??? You mean you have not been testing that the main breaker trips ... that the plumbing supply piping does not leak at 85 psi ... that the a/c does not properly cool at design summer temperature ... that the heat does not keep the interior at code minimum at design winter temperature ...

... what kind of inspector are you??? :confused::p
I did forget to turn the water pressure up:o.

[David Dolch]

Agreed on all points, however Grout, tile and caulk, are often waterproof; making our spray or flood test of questionable value. The tub surround I just removed in my home had nothing but tile, grout and one inch of mortar on steel lath. Fourty years and raised two children that used the shower, no leaks.

It is a matter of semantics. Tile, grout and mortar are not waterproof. In fact, one of the standards on tile is how much water a tile will absorb. You take a dry tile, weight it, put it in a bucket of water, and weigh it after a certan amount of time. Tiles that absorb too much water are not suitable for outdoor use in climates with freeze thaw cycles. Water will migrate through grout and mortar (caulk - good caulk - is a different story). Actualy, epoxy grout was waterproof as well.

Regular tile, grout, and mortar is higly water resistant. With your old bathroom, the walls would dry out before they became saturated enough to cause problems. Is that waterproof? Technicaly no, in all practicality, yes.

The bathroom I just redid was built with a pre-fab pan, durock, tile, mastic, tile and grout. It worked fine for the first year we lived here. After a year I noticed leaks on the ceiling below (a drop ceiling I had installed in the laundry room). The shower had no waterproofing behind the cement board. While there were only minor drips on the below ceiling, there was extensive mold in the wall cavity. Water had been migrating through the walls for a while, but not in the extent nexessary to cause a drip. Turns out the shower was a hack job. I was able to demo the tile with a screwdriver, just pop them off the wall. It's a full Kerdi shower now (and the floor is Ditra, technicaly you could flood test the entire bathroom - but it would leak around the toilet was line opening.


-dave

[Vern Heiler]

It is a matter of semantics. Tile, grout and mortar are not waterproof. In fact, one of the standards on tile is how much water a tile will absorb. You take a dry tile, weight it, put it in a bucket of water, and weigh it after a certan amount of time. Tiles that absorb too much water are not suitable for outdoor use in climates with freeze thaw cycles. Water will migrate through grout and mortar (caulk - good caulk - is a different story). Actualy, epoxy grout was waterproof as well.

Regular tile, grout, and mortar is higly water resistant. With your old bathroom, the walls would dry out before they became saturated enough to cause problems. Is that waterproof? Technicaly no, in all practicality, yes.

The bathroom I just redid was built with a pre-fab pan, durock, tile, mastic, tile and grout. It worked fine for the first year we lived here. After a year I noticed leaks on the ceiling below (a drop ceiling I had installed in the laundry room). The shower had no waterproofing behind the cement board. While there were only minor drips on the below ceiling, there was extensive mold in the wall cavity. Water had been migrating through the walls for a while, but not in the extent nexessary to cause a drip. Turns out the shower was a hack job. I was able to demo the tile with a screwdriver, just pop them off the wall. It's a full Kerdi shower now (and the floor is Ditra, technicaly you could flood test the entire bathroom - but it would leak around the toilet was line opening.


-dave
I agree with exception; the glazed surface of ceramic tile is water proof, dunking it in a bucket of water exposes the bisque surface which is not water proof.

The point of contention here is; how long would you have to flood a shower stall with glazed tile and sealed grout, all in good condition, before you could prove or disprove the condition of the shower pan liner?

[David Dolch]

I agree with exception; the glazed surface of ceramic tile is water proof, dunking it in a bucket of water exposes the bisque surface which is not water proof.

The point of contention here is; how long would you have to flood a shower stall with glazed tile and sealed grout, all in good condition, before you could prove or disprove the condition of the shower pan liner?

I'll give you that.

While tile, grout, mortar, and cement board is not warterproof, it is water resistant enough that if they are at least fairly intact, a leak (pan or otherwise - such as in my case, non-existant wall waterproofing) is going to take quite a while to manifest.

Sure, if you have cracked grout in a corner, and nobody siliconed the corner of the cement board behind it, a good spray with a spray head may start to show a leak downstairs. But solid grout in a mostly correct corner - it is going to take more than a 10 second spritz.



-dave

[Loren Sanders Sr.]

I am not a inspector, nor am I a professional tile installer. However, I have re-built a number of bathrooms / showers - especialy the two in this house that previously leaked. I also did extensive research, and asked numerous people about water proofing showers.


This is a good description for a shower pan install and will, if properly applied make the pan water leak proof. Years ago when installing the shower drain the plumber would test the cast iron or ABS to a plug in the drain to check for leaks from the waste system. But a shower pan contractor would come in and dismantle the 2 part shower drain so he could lay tar paper and build a slopped pan with sand and/or paper and tar. He would plug the drain so no sand or tar could enter the drain trap. After applying these layers, he would install the top portion of the drain which he would continue with tar and paper to build the layer that would be used to tile over. This layer is cut around the drain but covers the bolts that secure the top to the bottom portion of the shower drain. There are many layers and a lot of tar used to make sure that the pan doesn't leak and water is allowed to stand in the pan until the inspector approves the installation. Only after this is complete should the tile contractor begin his work. One point that has not been mentioned is that there are weep holes around the top portion of the shower drain and the shower pan contractor makes sure that he keeps these open while he is applying his tar, so any water that penetrates the tile will be allowed to drain into the drain via the weep holes. If the shower pan is not protected prior to the tile contractor doing his work, it is possible that damage to the pan could be done by construction workers. So after the shower pan contractor finishes his work the shower should be protected from entry to prevent damage.

- - - Updated - - -


I am not a inspector, nor am I a professional tile installer. However, I have re-built a number of bathrooms / showers - especialy the two in this house that previously leaked. I also did extensive research, and asked numerous people about water proofing showers.


This is a good description for a shower pan install and will, if properly applied make the pan water leak proof. Years ago when installing the shower drain the plumber would test the cast iron or ABS to a plug in the drain to check for leaks from the waste system. But a shower pan contractor would come in and dismantle the 2 part shower drain so he could lay tar paper and build a slopped pan with sand and/or paper and tar. He would plug the drain so no sand or tar could enter the drain trap. After applying these layers, he would install the top portion of the drain which he would continue with tar and paper to build the layer that would be used to tile over. This layer is cut around the drain but covers the bolts that secure the top to the bottom portion of the shower drain. There are many layers and a lot of tar used to make sure that the pan doesn't leak and water is allowed to stand in the pan until the inspector approves the installation. Only after this is complete should the tile contractor begin his work. One point that has not been mentioned is that there are weep holes around the top portion of the shower drain and the shower pan contractor makes sure that he keeps these open while he is applying his tar, so any water that penetrates the tile will be allowed to drain into the drain via the weep holes. If the shower pan is not protected prior to the tile contractor doing his work, it is possible that damage to the pan could be done by construction workers. So after the shower pan contractor finishes his work the shower should be protected from entry to prevent damage.

- - - Updated - - -


I am not a inspector, nor am I a professional tile installer. However, I have re-built a number of bathrooms / showers - especialy the two in this house that previously leaked. I also did extensive research, and asked numerous people about water proofing showers.


This is a good description for a shower pan install and will, if properly applied make the pan water leak proof. Years ago when installing the shower drain the plumber would test the cast iron or ABS to a plug in the drain to check for leaks from the waste system. But a shower pan contractor would come in and dismantle the 2 part shower drain so he could lay tar paper and build a slopped pan with sand and/or paper and tar. He would plug the drain so no sand or tar could enter the drain trap. After applying these layers, he would install the top portion of the drain which he would continue with tar and paper to build the layer that would be used to tile over. This layer is cut around the drain but covers the bolts that secure the top to the bottom portion of the shower drain. There are many layers and a lot of tar used to make sure that the pan doesn't leak and water is allowed to stand in the pan until the inspector approves the installation. Only after this is complete should the tile contractor begin his work. One point that has not been mentioned is that there are weep holes around the top portion of the shower drain and the shower pan contractor makes sure that he keeps these open while he is applying his tar, so any water that penetrates the tile will be allowed to drain into the drain via the weep holes. If the shower pan is not protected prior to the tile contractor doing his work, it is possible that damage to the pan could be done by construction workers. So after the shower pan contractor finishes his work the shower should be protected from entry to prevent damage.

- - - Updated - - -


I am not a inspector, nor am I a professional tile installer. However, I have re-built a number of bathrooms / showers - especialy the two in this house that previously leaked. I also did extensive research, and asked numerous people about water proofing showers.


This is a good description for a shower pan install and will, if properly applied make the pan water leak proof. Years ago when installing the shower drain the plumber would test the cast iron or ABS to a plug in the drain to check for leaks from the waste system. But a shower pan contractor would come in and dismantle the 2 part shower drain so he could lay tar paper and build a slopped pan with sand and/or paper and tar. He would plug the drain so no sand or tar could enter the drain trap. After applying these layers, he would install the top portion of the drain which he would continue with tar and paper to build the layer that would be used to tile over. This layer is cut around the drain but covers the bolts that secure the top to the bottom portion of the shower drain. There are many layers and a lot of tar used to make sure that the pan doesn't leak and water is allowed to stand in the pan until the inspector approves the installation. Only after this is complete should the tile contractor begin his work. One point that has not been mentioned is that there are weep holes around the top portion of the shower drain and the shower pan contractor makes sure that he keeps these open while he is applying his tar, so any water that penetrates the tile will be allowed to drain into the drain via the weep holes. If the shower pan is not protected prior to the tile contractor doing his work, it is possible that damage to the pan could be done by construction workers. So after the shower pan contractor finishes his work the shower should be protected from entry to prevent damage.

- - - Updated - - -


I am not a inspector, nor am I a professional tile installer. However, I have re-built a number of bathrooms / showers - especialy the two in this house that previously leaked. I also did extensive research, and asked numerous people about water proofing showers.


This is a good description for a shower pan install and will, if properly applied make the pan water leak proof. Years ago when installing the shower drain the plumber would test the cast iron or ABS to a plug in the drain to check for leaks from the waste system. But a shower pan contractor would come in and dismantle the 2 part shower drain so he could lay tar paper and build a slopped pan with sand and/or paper and tar. He would plug the drain so no sand or tar could enter the drain trap. After applying these layers, he would install the top portion of the drain which he would continue with tar and paper to build the layer that would be used to tile over. This layer is cut around the drain but covers the bolts that secure the top to the bottom portion of the shower drain. There are many layers and a lot of tar used to make sure that the pan doesn't leak and water is allowed to stand in the pan until the inspector approves the installation. Only after this is complete should the tile contractor begin his work. One point that has not been mentioned is that there are weep holes around the top portion of the shower drain and the shower pan contractor makes sure that he keeps these open while he is applying his tar, so any water that penetrates the tile will be allowed to drain into the drain via the weep holes. If the shower pan is not protected prior to the tile contractor doing his work, it is possible that damage to the pan could be done by construction workers. So after the shower pan contractor finishes his work the shower should be protected from entry to prevent damage.

[Ian Page]

Ian,

Yes, home inspectors are preforming a disservice by not filling the pan. (I know, that is the opposite of what you implied.)

The shower pan IS intended to NOT leak - how do you presume to determine that it IS working as intended (not leaking) unless you fill the shower pan with water?

The point being, Jerry, is that flooding the pan may or may not expose a leak. A small pinhole, on the sidewall, not even close to being problematic during normal use may require many hours or even days to expose itself while the pan remains flooded. Allowing the pan to flood for 15 minutes or an even longer timeframe during an inspection does not confirm the pan is watertight or that it does not leak. The same can be said without flooding the pan, if that is indeed the case. Flooding, which does result in new damage, though may confirm a leak, puts a huge liability question on the Inspectors actions - especially if some defect, no matter how small were observed inside the shower where flooding would penetrate. How many showers are there that couldn't use re-grouting or a little caulking, especially around the pan and sidewalls? I doubt there is any professional organization which requires flooding the pan to test it's integrity and code only requires flooding the liner during construction.

[Jerry Peck]

The point being, Jerry, is that flooding the pan may or may not expose a leak.

The point being that flood testing the shower pan MAY expose a leak, while ...

... NOT flood testing the shower pan CAN NOT expose a leak.

You either work for the benefit of your clients or you don't ... your choice ... it's your call.

[Ian Page]

The point being that flood testing the shower pan MAY expose a leak, while ...

... NOT flood testing the shower pan CAN NOT expose a leak.

You either work for the benefit of your clients or you don't ... your choice ... it's your call.

Just as a matter of interest...when was the last time you climbed on a roof with a running hose during a typical inspection, just to see if the roof leaked?

I work for the benefit of the client with the utmost consideration given to the property owner / occupant - my call, loud and clear.

[Jerry Peck]

Just as a matter of interest...when was the last time you climbed on a roof with a running hose during a typical inspection, just to see if the roof leaked?

If there were a practical way to flood the roof with a fire hose (would take the fire department's permission which makes it impractical, along with other reasons) ... why not?


I work for the benefit of the client with the utmost consideration given to the property owner / occupant - my call, loud and clear.

I became concerned because anytime someone spends so much time and effort to come up with ways and reasons NOT to test a shower pan ... and then thinks it is for the benefit of their client - that is typically an indication of an inspector who is more interested in their benefits (time versus money) than in their client's benefit of finding a leaking shower pan.

As many of us have said over the years about other testing procedures - Try it, you'll like it ... Mikey did (Special K I believe). Suddenly you will realize just how many leaking shower pans you have been missing and wonder why it took you so long to switch.

[Ian Page]

If there were a practical way to flood the roof with a fire hose (would take the fire department's permission which makes it impractical, along with other reasons) ... why not?



I became concerned because anytime someone spends so much time and effort to come up with ways and reasons NOT to test a shower pan ... and then thinks it is for the benefit of their client - that is typically an indication of an inspector who is more interested in their benefits (time versus money) than in their client's benefit of finding a leaking shower pan.

As many of us have said over the years about other testing procedures - Try it, you'll like it ... Mikey did (Special K I believe). Suddenly you will realize just how many leaking shower pans you have been missing and wonder why it took you so long to switch.

Again Jerry, doing what you do best misconstruing fact for fiction purely for the benefit of argument or debate.

There are many aspects of a home inspection which may be impractical to perform to a definitive degree and I think you know that. Watering down roofs, windows siding etc are extreme examples. We look for areas of concern, some visible indication of warranting repair, replacement or remediation and hopefully give appropriate advise. The reason why home inspections are non-invasive is primarily because of damage being caused in order to examine for a potential deficiency. With that in mind, and potential damage being mandated to avoid, should we not take steps to protect from damage versus causing it? Providing observed or non-observed conditions to a client, who expects both thoroughness and expediency is not doing a dis-service, complies with State law and SOPs. Furthermore, disclaiming a shower pan as a source for leaks yet none being observed is no different than making the same statement about 90% of a structure's components. It is not an issue of time vs money but one of not opening the door to liability - a simple concept. There is also a balance of fairness which you seem to not understand or incorporate into your business practice or ethic. I do not consider an inspection to be an ' Us vs Them' scenario, as I read into your posts. I have, perhaps, a higher regard for the person whose home I am inspecting than yourself. Personally, I can not justify potentially causing damage, by questionable means, where none previously existed. But... Whatever floats your boat....must be an ego thing.

[Jerry Peck]

There are many aspects of a home inspection which may be impractical to perform to a definitive degree and I think you know that.

Ian,

You know I agree as I have said that.

However, NOT flood testing a shower pan is not one of those items.

Many inspectors do it all the time, and many (probably most) find shower stall (i.e., 'pan') leaks.

It is a simple test, easy to do, not real time consuming, and the results it gives when it finds a leak is of great benefit to your clients.

It is like many tests done in many things, from mechanical things to construction to the human body - the test may not provide a factual negative result ("false negative" is the term I am sure that you have heard in the past for test results like that), however, the test DOES provide a factual positive result.

A "false negative" result simply means that additional tests are required to confirm that a "false negative" is in fact an accurate negative - that is not what the home inspector is looking for.

An accurate positive result requires no further testing - that is what the home inspector is looking for.

Has nothing to do with ego or lack of ego - it only has to do with looking for things that are wrong, being able to find them in a practical manner, and reporting those items to the client.

[Ian Page]

Ian,

You know I agree as I have said that.

However, NOT flood testing a shower pan is not one of those items.

Many inspectors do it all the time, and many (probably most) find shower stall (i.e., 'pan') leaks.

It is a simple test, easy to do, not real time consuming, and the results it gives when it finds a leak is of great benefit to your clients.

It is like many tests done in many things, from mechanical things to construction to the human body - the test may not provide a factual negative result ("false negative" is the term I am sure that you have heard in the past for test results like that), however, the test DOES provide

A "false negative" result simply means that additional tests are required to confirm that a "false negative" is in fact an accurate negative - that is not what the home inspector is looking for.

An accurate positive result requires no further testing - that is what the home inspector is looking for.

Has nothing to do with ego or lack of ego - it only has to do with looking for things that are wrong, being able to find them in a practical manner, and reporting those items to the client.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree - on the merits of pan flooding, that is. I understand your rationalization and your justification for 2nd story showers as potential leaks may be revealed in the ceiling beneath. But what of shower pans on a ground floor slab where leaking may not be evident (absent the use of I.R. Camera), perhaps for days, if ever? Water depletion in the flooded pan may simply mean an incomplete seal. How would you address those pans? "Tested - no leaks observed" , "Not tested - no evidence of prior leaks" , "Tested - further monitoring indicated due to water depletion" or ???

[Jerry Peck]

But what of shower pans on a ground floor slab ...

Depends on the installation of the shower.

For slabs on grade, if the shower is recessed down into the slab and cast in place in the concrete, no pan is required as it is presumed that any leakage will seep into the concrete and down to the moisture barrier (if it goes that far) and there will not be any damage done.

For slabs on grade, with the shower floor not recessed down into the slab, a pan is still required.

You will still see leakage around the walls enclosing the shower, and, frequently (as has been shown in various photos posted here over the years) you will see the evidence of the leakage at the edge of the slab. This is evident even with recessed showers which were not case in place correctly.

[Loren Sanders Sr.]

Vern,

I come across tile surrounds that I know leak. If it has damage that would leak into the ceiling below I do not test it I just write it up it needs repair. In most cases you can see the water stains on the ceiling below. I also have a thermal camera and a moisture meter.

Bottom line I don't have to prove it leaks. If you cause a leak be ready for a claim that you caused a problem in the owners house. Years back I tested a fiberglass shower stall that had a leak I ran it under normal conditions, no leaks present when I left. However, when I came back 48 hours later to pick up my radon monitor the ceiling had fallen down. As you can expect the owner tried to get me to fix it. I did not. Sine then I picked up a thermal camera.

FYI, "all" tile surrounds eventually leak due to the grout being porous. In most cases it will break down and leak within 10 years.

Keep it simple.

Steve

The Thermal Camera seems like a tool I would want if I were an inspector. You could merely take the picture prior to going upstairs and determine if there was water in the drywall to eliminate the potential for liability for something you did not cause.

Another point not mentioned in this series of replies and questions is on a slab, prior to rat proofing being part of the code, there was an opening for water to drain into if a shower pan leaked. These leaks would be from tile shower pans because the requirement to rat proof probably predated newer fabricated shower pans. You could have a leak and never know about it. Just a thought...

[tom daley]

An interested friend has sent me the following bit of info. supplied to him from a kind California Licensed "Termite Operaror":



Structural Pest Control Act, 1991. Report Requirements Under Section 8516(b)10.
(12) Repair a stall shower if it is found to leak when water tested for a minimum of fifteen (15) minutes after the shower drain has been plugged and the base filled to within one (1) inch of the top of the shower dam. Stall showers with no dam or less than two (2) inches to the top of the dam are to be water tested by running water on the unplugged shower base for a minimum of five (5) minutes. Showers over finished ceilings must be inspected but need not be water tested. If water stains are evident on the ceiling, recommendations shall be made for further inspection and testing.

This is absolutely a California requirement.
Testing of shower pans is not required and is not within the scope of a home inspector’s responsibilities. This falls under the requirements of a Branch 3 Pest Control (termite inspector) licensed as an operator or field rep.
Hope this helps.

[Jerry Peck]

Testing of shower pans is not required and is not within the scope of a home inspector’s responsibilities.

Not a correct statement.

It is a requirement for the pest control operator/inspector.

It is not prohibited of the home inspector.

Neither puts it in, or "not within" the home inspector's responsibilities ... other than doing what needs to be done to meet what the home inspector presents as what they do (which, at a minimum, would meet the SoP plus whatever else the standard of care is for the area for home inspectors).

[Michael Thomas]

http://paragoninspects.com/articles/pdfs/plumbing/fixtuers/showers/shower-pan-leak-faq.pdf

[Jerry Peck]

Testing of shower pans is not required and is not within the scope of a home inspector’s responsibilities.

The above is evidence that Jim does not read what he responds to.


Jerry - Do you have any references or documentation to back up your claim ?

Additional evidence that Jim does not read what he responds to.

[Ian Page]

The above is evidence that Jim does not read what he responds to.



Additional evidence that Jim does not read what he responds to.

Huh...?
Would much prefer reference to official documentation, as requested.

[Jerry Peck]

Ian and Jim seem to have a problem understanding the following:


It is a requirement for the pest control operator/inspector.
- That section was quoted by others.


It is not prohibited of the home inspector.
- There is nothing to quote as nothing prohibits it.


Neither puts it in, or "not within" the home inspector's responsibilities ...
- Not sure what is difficult to understand about that part???? Should be pretty much self-explanatory.


... other than doing what needs to be done to meet what the home inspector presents as what they do (which, at a minimum, would meet the SoP plus whatever else the standard of care is for the area for home inspectors).
- No SoP that I have ever read PROHIBITS the inspector from testing the shower pan.
- THE INSPECTOR'S advertising material and past practices AND other inspectors' advertising material and past practices could very will include that the inspector should be testing the shower pan.
- Not sure what was difficult to understand there either.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry - Here we go again with everybody else is wrong.
I am beginning to understand you now that you claim that federal and state court judges and case law are wrong.

What you said is -


"Testing of shower pans is not required and is not within the scope of a home inspector’s responsibilities.


http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/misc/quote_icon.png Posted by Jerry Peck - That is not a correct statement.



T

Jim,

The above is a great example of why your posts make little sense, thank you for that example.



What you said is -


"Testing of shower pans is not required and is not within the scope of a home inspector’s responsibilities.


That is not what *I* said.

Further down you put what I said in quotes except that you did not post it as I said it, your posted it as you quoting me:


Posted by Jerry Peck - That is not a correct statement.


Not only did *I* not say "Posted by Jerry Peck" (your quote symbol is in front of that part), but *I* did also not post that in bold or italics. So you really are not "quoting me", you are trying to make it fit the way you think, and, trust me, based on your posts, you and I do NOT think alike ... thankfully for me as I would be embarrassed if I did think and post like you do. :p

However, in the interests of not bugging everyone else with my responses to your belches ... you can carry on by yourself.

[Jeff Zehnder]

Jerry & Jim,

Many of us read and participate in this forum to learn and share, when you (Jerry and Jim) run on and on about what each other stated or did not state in multiple topics over lines and lines of posts it is not constructive. There are many times when your insights are constructive but lately this has not been the case. You should exchange each other phone numbers and argue on the phone or if ten paces works try that but please remember that his forum is for the many!

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry & Jim,

Many of us read and participate in this forum to learn and share, when you (Jerry and Jim) run on and on about what each other stated or did not state in multiple topics over lines and lines of posts it is not constructive. There are many times when your insights are constructive but lately this has not been the case. You should exchange each other phone numbers and argue on the phone or if ten paces works try that but please remember that his forum is for the many!

Jeff,

Precisely why I posted this earlier in this thread:

However, in the interests of not bugging everyone else with my responses to your belches ... you can carry on by yourself.

I fully agree with you.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jeff - I do not know who made you the decision maker on what is constructive or not. There is an ongoing discussion and if you would like to contribute please do so. Your interruption is rude at best and does nothing to contribute to the community.

Jerry has been caught, yet again, making things up. Until Jerry has been properly trained he will continue to do so. I know that it is painful but, it is the price we pay to improve this site.

Jim
The discussion between you and Jerry is no longer constructive.
This has become an argument instead of a debate.
It is unlikely that either of you are likely to alter the other persons opinion.
It would be better if both of you to drop it and move on.

[Jerry Peck]

Rick,

... mum's the word when it comes to Jim's continued posts and rants ...

[Ian Page]

Rick,

... mum's the word when it comes to Jim's continued posts and rants ...

Jerry
There are many other on this site and particular thread whose opinions are just as valid, if not more so, than yours. Myself included. You are not omnipotent, can be wrong and a little humble pie now and again would go a long way toward credibility.

Now going back to the OP and with regard to flooding shower pans or not, please refer to an earlier post and thread by Michael Thomas, (paragoninspects) wherein the issues and disadvantages of pan flooding is clearly explained. And again, shower pans are basins without stoppers , not designed to hold water to any depth and purely facilitate drainage. Sure, inspectors can flood pans all they want, if in accordance with State or organizational sop but must always be mindful of potential liability in doing so.

[Jerry Peck]

Sure, inspectors can flood pans all they want, if in accordance with State or organizational sop but must always be mindful of potential liability in doing so.

Ian,

You are almost there.

The home inspector is permitted to flood test shower pans if they so choose, they do not require "f in accordance with State or organizational sop".

"but must always be mindful of potential liability in doing so"

And that liability can be managed and shifted to the seller with by doing the right things.

The discussion by some was that home inspectors were not allowed to flood test shower pans - they can, nothing prohibits the home inspector from doing so.

In fact, for home inspectors who are also pest inspectors ... they are "required" to test shower pans - not because they are home inspectors, because they are pest inspectors. I was both when I did home inspections (but pest inspectors in Florida were not required to test shower pans, nor were they prohibited from it either).

[Ian Page]

Ian,

You are almost there.

The home inspector is permitted to flood test shower pans if they so choose, they do not require "f in accordance with State or organizational sop".

"but must always be mindful of potential liability in doing so"

And that liability can be managed and shifted to the seller with by doing the right things.

The discussion by some was that home inspectors were not allowed to flood test shower pans - they can, nothing prohibits the home inspector from doing so.

In fact, for home inspectors who are also pest inspectors ... they are "required" to test shower pans - not because they are home inspectors, because they are pest inspectors. I was both when I did home inspections (but pest inspectors in Florida were not required to test shower pans, nor were they prohibited from it either).

The 'if' was meant as non-preclusive.

Perhaps some States require that finished pans should not be flooded during a home inspection...and, I sense, you are almost there also. However, I don't know how the liability could be shifted but it could be shared, thus lessening the Inspector's culpability to some degree (apportioned liability). Why go to those lengths, when aware of the inherent dangers - why not simply defer with a good explanation? We do the same with not running the A/C cooling at cool temps. for example? No harm, no foul.

[Rick Cantrell]

Ian
I understand your concerns about liability from testing shower pans. But you concerns are based in fear, not in fact. Many inspectors on this forum regularly test pans, without incident.
You might be more comfortable doing this. In the report recommend the shower pan be tested, provide a form the HO consents to stating the HO warrants the shower pan is without defects, or the HO consents to testing. This way if the HO object to the inspection it's on them, if they allow testing they have given you informed consent.

[Jerry Peck]

However, I don't know how the liability could be shifted but it could be shared, thus lessening the Inspector's culpability to some degree (apportioned liability). Why go to those lengths, when aware of the inherent dangers - why not simply defer with a good explanation? We do the same with not running the A/C cooling at cool temps. for example? No harm, no foul.

The liability can be shifted to the owner quite easily, has has been explained previously.

Why would one not go with testing the shower pan when testing the shower pan is so easy and not testing the shower pan could be quite harmful to your client?

Harm equals foul equals liability for NOT testing the shower pans when they are so easy to test.

There is a greater level of liability for not testing shower pans than for testing shower pans - unless one just says 'Oh, by the way, I don't test shower pans for leaks even though I am aware that a high percentage of them leak.'

Why not just follow that with 'Oh, yeah, and I don't remove electrical panel covers either even though I know that there are problems in a high percentage of electrical panels.'

And, 'Oh, I don't run a/c systems either even though I know that there are problems in a high percentage of a/c systems.'

In fact, why not just say you don't inspect or test anything, no matter how easy it is to test, even though you know that a high percentage of those items have problems, here is my bill, make the check out to ... Ian, we can both go to extremes on this, but testing a shower pans is not extreme, it is easy, and it exposed many which leak, and the liability of testing them is almost nil versus the liability of not testing them.

As I have said before, though, it is your business and your call, I just keep explaining it for everyone else who has not made their mind up not to do something easy which products useful results so often and has very low liability for doing it.

[Ian Page]

The liability can be shifted to the owner quite easily, has has been explained previously.

Why would one not go with testing the shower pan when testing the shower pan is so easy and not testing the shower pan could be quite harmful to your client?

Harm equals foul equals liability for NOT testing the shower pans when they are so easy to test.

There is a greater level of liability for not testing shower pans than for testing shower pans - unless one just says 'Oh, by the way, I don't test shower pans for leaks even though I am aware that a high percentage of them leak.'

Why not just follow that with 'Oh, yeah, and I don't remove electrical panel covers either even though I know that there are problems in a high percentage of electrical panels.'


And, 'Oh, I don't run a/c systems either even though I know that there are problems in a high percentage of a/c systems.'

In fact, why not just say you don't inspect or test anything, no matter how easy it is to test, even though you know that a high percentage of those items have problems, here is my bill, make the check out to ... Ian, we can both go to extremes on this, but testing a shower pans is not extreme, it is easy, and it exposed many which leak, and the liability of testing them is almost nil versus the liability of not testing them.

As I have said before, though, it is your business and your call, I just keep explaining it for everyone else who has not made their mind up not to do something easy which products useful results so often and has very low liability for doing it.

Here's the rub Jerry. I have no way of knowing how that pan was constructed, other than by what can be seen as a finished product (which may or may not be in need of some visual repair). By flooding it for a suitable amount of time to provoke a defect to surface, you are expecting the pan to perform for something for which it was neither constructed for or it's intended use. Shower pans are NOT tubs. Furthermore, flooding the dam to 'recommended' level (because there is no way to establish how high the dam is beneath the tile, will result in leaking but not because the actual pan leaks but because of overfilling, yet still within the drain-stoppers limit.

[Jerry Peck]

Here's the rub Jerry. I have no way of knowing how that pan was constructed, ...

Here's the rub Ian. You don't need to know how the pan was constructed or how high the pan goes up - if the pan was constructed properly then you should be able to flood test it to within about 1" of the top of the threshold/curb (the 1" allows for 1/2" mud or cement board on top of the pan going over the curb/threshold, plus another 1/4" for thinset, plus another 1/4" for tile thickness - if the tile thickness is stone and is thicker then you could allow for that difference, some may have one piece marble caps over the curbs, you can see that thickness and allow for it - or, you could flood test to within 2" of the top of the curb/threshold).

The pan is required to hold water to the top of the threshold/curb as the intent is that water will not leak into the walls where it is not seen, that the water will overflow the shower opening (at the curb/threshold) where the water will be visible).

You are not trying to determine if the pan was constructed with the liner having been installed to the minimum required height or higher, only if the shower receptor (the shower pan) leaks, and if the shower pan leaks the the liner is not as high as it should be or someone cut it or damaged it, either of which makes the height of the liner only as high as the lowest cut or hole through the liner.

[Ian Page]

Jerry, though I accept your point of view, I still can not accept that the pan is ever constructed to hold water. Though on extremely rare occasion, a blockage in the drain could result in the pan holding water to some degree. I can't imagine any circumstance - other than sheer stupidity, where a person taking a shower would continue to let the shower run, knowing the water isn't draining away in the manner it is supposed to, paddling in the standing water to a depth of a couple of inches. And if they are that stupid...

With that in mind I called three plumbing companies today (actually one was a rooter service) with a total of over 50 years experience in the trade and 20 plus employees, (it was a slow day) just to get their perspective. None recommended flooding without there being some prior evidence of a leak and only then as a process of elimination and as a last resort - checking supply and drain first. Even then, each recommended filling the pan with an alternative water source and not the shower supply. Only one said they had once responded to a call of a completely blocked pan with standing water. I asked what their protocol was for testing a shower pan for leaks and the consistent reply was basically...Why would you? If it ain't broke...etc. Though they each understood and accepted flooding as a reputable method but not necessarily reliable they were each as concerned about causing damage and resulting liability as myself. I dare say there are a good percentage of plumbers who routinely flood pans, without issue. Though testing pans seems to be left to the Inspection industry and not necessarily plumbing.

So, with that, I will continue to disclaim flooding as a general rule but offer the 'service' only on the buyer's insistence and with the independent approval of the homeowner. I will also add to my disclaimer that the flooding test can also be performed during the Pest Inspection (in CA anyway).

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, though I accept your point of view, I still can not accept that the pan is ever constructed to hold water.

You keep going on that constructed to hold water thing while I keep trying to direct you over to that it is not supposed to leak thing.

There is a difference - a bathtub is constructed to hold water, a boat is not constructed to hold water but is not supposed to leak - I'm not talking about holding water, I'm talking about it leaking.

So fill the shower pan up and see if it leaks.

I'm not saying to take a bath in after you've fill it up.

Now back to the original post - if you had even seen one of the shower pan testers that Marc was asking about you would know that it does not "hold water" as there is a hole in the center of it ... those only raise the water level approximately 2 inches then the rest of the water flows down the drain. From your point of view, you could say that those "hold" 2" of water, so be it if you need to think of it that way ... but they only "hold" that 2" of water if you keep the water running, turn the water off and the water will leak into the drain underneath the flange as they are not drain stoppers.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
You have 22500 post. I'll bet almost half of them are on testing shower pans.
You must like bashing your head on the wall.

Try this:
Breath in deeply, now exhale slowly.
Now repeat after me, "I will not bash my head against the wall, because it will damage the wall".

[Raymond Wand]

Okay I am coming out of the shower stall... I do not test shower pans by filling them. I haven't ever done so and don't plan on doing so.

It would be interesting to conduct a poll to see how many inspectors fill the pan and the number that don't.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry
You have 22500 post. I'll bet almost half of them are on testing shower pans.
You must like bashing your head on the wall.

Try this:
Breath in deeply, now exhale slowly.
Now repeat after me, "I will not bash my head against the wall, because it will damage the wall".

Rick,

Too late ... the tile wall just caved in - the soaked and falling apart green board let loose of the tiles and now the entire shower pan is leaking.

[Ian Page]

Jerry
You have 22500 post. I'll bet almost half of them are on testing shower pans.
You must like bashing your head on the wall.

Try this:
Breath in deeply, now exhale slowly.
Now repeat after me, "I will not bash my head against the wall, because it will damage the wall".

Rick
The very fact that there are sooooo many posts about shower pan flooding is because there are a good number of inspectors who do not agree with Jerry's point of view and his posts are attempts to validate his argument. His post would be minimized if he presented his argument, which, initially, he does fairly well and then said, "...but is your business, your business practice, do what you think is best for you..." Instead of trying to persuade otherwise with monotonous repetition. His posts invariably demand debate because of misinformation, failure to recognize validity in other opinions and a frequent lack of response when cornered. But, having said that he is a wealth of information and provides invaluable resource material, just not always right.

[Ian Page]

You keep going on that constructed to hold water thing while I keep trying to direct you over to that it is not supposed to leak thing.

There is a difference - a bathtub is constructed to hold water, a boat is not constructed to hold water but is not supposed to leak - I'm not talking about holding water, I'm talking about it leaking.

So fill the shower pan up and see if it leaks.

I'm not saying to take a bath in after you've fill it up.

Now back to the original post - if you had even seen one of the shower pan testers that Marc was asking about you would know that it does not "hold water" as there is a hole in the center of it ... those only raise the water level approximately 2 inches then the rest of the water flows down the drain. From your point of view, you could say that those "hold" 2" of water, so be it if you need to think of it that way ... but they only "hold" that 2" of water if you keep the water running, turn the water off and the water will leak into the drain underneath the flange as they are not drain stoppers.

Jerry
Yes, I will continue to maintain the pan is not designed to hold water. I will also accept that it should not leak and that flooding may expose a leak.

However, as inspectors we examine, inspect and test things within a home using normal and usual methods for testing...We use on/off switches for lighting etc, thermostats to call for heat or cool, operate a variety of components using the normal method for activation. In my view, flooding the pan is above and beyond its normal and typical use. We do not, for example, run the dishwasher and then completely remove it to see if there is some small leak, previously unseen. We do not hose down roofs and then check inside the attic. We do not purposefully overload circuits to see if a breaker trips, except for GFCIs .We do not light a fire under smoke or C.O. Alarms to make sure it actually does work under actual conditions. Etc etc. The inspection is visual, with some degree of physical testing but only utilizing normal and typical operating conditions and methods. Pan flooding is A-typical for normal, everyday use.
I wonder how many inspectors actually fill every bath tub to capacity to see if the overflow leaks or not, which is a real possibility?


I have a drain-stopper, probably dried out by now from lack of use.

[Rick Cantrell]

Rick
The very fact that there are sooooo many posts about shower pan flooding is because there are a good number of inspectors who do not agree with Jerry's point of view and his posts are attempts to validate his argument. His post would be minimized if he presented his argument, which, initially, he does fairly well and then said, "...but is your business, your business practice, do what you think is best for you..." Instead of trying to persuade otherwise with monotonous repetition. His posts invariably demand debate because of misinformation, failure to recognize validity in other opinions and a frequent lack of response when cornered. But, having said that he is a wealth of information and provides invaluable resource material, just not always right.
Ian
I agree with Jerry that shower pans should be tested.
Jerry is just trying to explain why it should be tested ( even if it is "monotonous repetition").
And no, I have not seen where he has posted misinformation.
If you choose not to test them that's your choice, but don't try to tell us (inspectors that do test) it's not needed.

[Rick Cantrell]

In another thread an inspector did not report that an expansion tank was not installed at the WH. A plumber came out for a different problem and said an expansion tank needs to be installed. The HI said in that area expansions tanks are not required. (In this post I'll not debate if it is required or not.)
Anyhow, sometimes, even if something is not required (such as an expansion tank or shower pan test) it can still be needed.

[Rick Cantrell]

Well said but, you missed one important point . Jerry is always right,just ask him.

Jerry's position just does not hold water. Testing a shower pan short term does not ascertain that the pan will not leak in the future , that the shower stall will not leak when used in a normal manner,that the water supply and valves are not leaking and that the drain is not leaking. From this point of view testing a pan short term determines very little other than there were no visible leaks due to flooding during a short term test. This is a dog and pony show.

The same could be said about inspecting a roof.
Just because an HI inspects a roof and finds no leaks does not mean it will not at some time in the future develop a leak. It does not even mean that a small leak is not present. So should we not inspect roofs?
Now if you choose not to inspect shower pan, that's is your choice. But to insist that a more compression inspection is of no value is, without logic.

[Rick Cantrell]

Well said but, you missed one important point . Jerry is always right,just ask him.

Yes, Jerry thinks he is right, and so do you., me and most people.
There is debate only when we disagree.
Sometimes it's just a minor point, sometimes not.

I forget if it was Dale or Zig that said (taught).
It's almost impossible to convince someone they are wrong ,
however, they may make a different decision based on new information.

[Rick Cantrell]

Rick - Your logic escapes me. Are you saying that we should flood roofs?
If you have any desire to be respected here (or anywhere), it would do you good not to be obtuse and so absurd.
I'm willing to explain my opinions, when I feel it can help someone understand, but I don't feel as though you want to understand.

[Rick Cantrell]

Rick - Your point is that you flood shower pans to properly inspect them .
My question is do you propose flooding roofs to inspect them also. That is not an absurd question. I have flooded roofs in the past, ( with the written permission of the property owner), when there was a question about potential leakage.
No, I do not flood a roof

[Rick Cantrell]

I trust you now understand that it is not an absurd question.My mistake.
Someone once made the ridiculous comparison of building a dam on the roof to flood test it.




In some circumstances , I have tested a roof with pressurized water to determine that it did not leak.
I have not done that, but I do understand how it may be informative.
Although, using your words about inspecting a shower.
The roof could still have an undetected leak
The roof could still leak at a later date.
So using your logic, why did you bother doing it?

[Rick Cantrell]

A flat roof with a roof drain is similar in configuration to a shower pan and the process is similar.

A criteria was established for testing the roof using ANSI standards and manufacturers specifications. The roof was tested to that criteria.Yes it could leak in the future but anything is possible. The test was to certify correct installation.

So you see the benefit of flooding a roof (at least once), but you see no benefit whatsoever in doing similar on a shower. OK, your choice.

[Joan Calder]

I am the home owner of a leaking problem. We tore out the entire bathroom and took a video of all.

Water proofing failed because the installer failed.

To help you understand the problem I have a short Youtube video. Each step of the demo was recorded. https://youtu.be/GyVWWLTx9aI

- - - Updated - - -

I am the home owner of a leaking problem. We tore out the entire bathroom and took a video of all.

Water proofing failed because the installer failed.

To help you understand the problem I have a short Youtube video. Each step of the demo was recorded. https://youtu.be/GyVWWLTx9aI

[Jerry Peck]

oops, replied to an old message in the thread - I may edit this again with another post.

Okay, I will use this post to reply to the latest post with the video:

There is basically one correct statement in that video - and that is that most/many codes state that the shower pan liner extend a minimum of 3" beyond the shower curb/threshold, which in this no-curb/threshold shower would be where the "shower" wall ends.

The shower pan liner, as was pointed out in the video, did not extend out that 3".

There is no requirement for, and no reason for, the bottom of the shower pan liner extension (beyond that 3") to extend up the wall - if that is "a cause" of this particular shower leaking, then the shower pan liner was not installed properly to start with ... the shower pan liner is supposed to slope toward the drain a minimum of 1/4" per foot (the shower pan liner is not supposed to be, or intended to be, installed on a flat/level floor surface).

Additionally, installing a zero-threshold shower (no curb) if fraught with potential issues because water DOES splash outside the shower (unless there is a shower enclosure to serve as a perimeter to catch the shower ... shower curtains simply cannot be relied upon to catch and stop the shower water within the shower (unless the shower curtain is placed sufficiently far enough inside the perimeter of the shower to serve that purpose ... in which case the interior dimensions of that shower would be reduced to the point of not meeting minimum size requirements).

Yes, there are apparently installation issues with that shower pan liner - just not as described (except for the 3" extension issue mentioned), and the other installation issues not addressed (such as likely not sloping the shower pan liner) likely put all other issues in the 'minor' column because that is such an important requirement.

The above is, obviously, only based on the information provided in that post and the video - but when one does such a video ... at least get it right.