Thread: Disclosure of Local Codes/Ordinances

I have a question for the members.

I am not a home inspector. I work as a Building Inspector for near 29 years.

Since this forum appears to be utilized by the private sector I thought you would be the correct people to ask.

I found over the years that most of the Home Inspectors in my area tend to be thorough and thoughful in the field. I do however have reservations about a few (same can be said for for people in my position ).

Question 1 two parts)
I have (in my opinion) a couple of elderly couples taken advantage of in my area. Both had Home Inspection reports stating code violations. One was dealing with incorrect venting of the DWV system. This particular incident was addressed by reporting the business to the Illinois Department of Public Health for violation of the Ilinois Plumbing code, in that to Inspect plumbing in the state of Illinois (not counting Chicago) you must first hold and Illinois Plumbing License, which this Home Inspector did not. This business was sent a certified letter to cease and d[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']esist by I.D.P.H.[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Beyond this I find that a violation under a current code would not be addressed, since the home was built in the 1950's. Of course it would not comply with current codes and would not need to in my jurusdiction unless it resulted in a health or safety issue.[/FONT]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I would like some input on these two points.[/FONT]

Question 2)
In both cases the elderly couple paid to have corections made which would not have been addressed by my department or in one case by the Illinois Department of Public Health. My response to the owner was that (in my opinion) the Home Inspector should have noted in their report that although a code violation was observed (what code,,, the 2006 what??) it might not be required by the Local Govermental unit to correct the issue since the violation was noted under a current code, but was not a violation when the home was constructed.
Had the Home Inspector made a note of this on his report the Elderly Couple could have made a more informed decision as to whether or not to have corrections made. Instead without this type of information the two couples spent a combined amount of app. $6,000 to make corrections that were not really needed.

How would you have handled this if you were the Home Inspector?

Thank You

Similar Threads:

• Realtor gets much-needed lesson in disclosure - Upstate House
• Codes and Home Inspections.....
• Building Codes & Regulations Not Inspected
• Local Houston Radio Guy Calls HIs "Idiots"
• Report details problems; seller's disclosure contradicts findings - Troy Record

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

I have a question for the members.

I am not a home inspector. I work as a Building Inspector for near 29 years.

Since this forum appears to be utilized by the private sector I thought you would be the correct people to ask.

I found over the years that most of the Home Inspectors in my area tend to be thorough and thoughful in the field. I do however have reservations about a few (same can be said for for people in my position ).

Question 1 two parts)
I have (in my opinion) a couple of elderly couples taken advantage of in my area. Both had Home Inspection reports stating code violations. One was dealing with incorrect venting of the DWV system. This particular incident was addressed by reporting the business to the Illinois Department of Public Health for violation of the Ilinois Plumbing code, in that to Inspect plumbing in the state of Illinois (not counting Chicago) you must first hold and Illinois Plumbing License, which this Home Inspector did not. This business was sent a certified letter to cease and desist by I.D.P.H.

Beyond this I find that a violation under a current code would not be addressed, since the home was built in the 1950's. Of course it would not comply with current codes and would not need to in my jurusdiction unless it resulted in a health or safety issue.
I would like some input on these two points.

OK, I'm a little confused. So did the home inspector do an inspection of the home (including the plumbing) and then backed up his findings by citing the appropriate code or he/she just said it did not meet code?

Next, are you saying that a home inspector who is licensed by the state of IL can not inspect the plumbing that the state requires him/her to do so under the home inspection license requirements, unless they are also a licensed plumber?

Question 2)
In both cases the elderly couple paid to have corections made which would not have been addressed by my department or in one case by the Illinois Department of Public Health. My response to the owner was that (in my opinion) the Home Inspector should have noted in their report that although a code violation was observed (what code,,, the 2006 what??) it might not be required by the Local Govermental unit to correct the issue since the violation was noted under a current code, but was not a violation when the home was constructed.
Had the Home Inspector made a note of this on his report the Elderly Couple could have made a more informed decision as to whether or not to have corrections made. Instead without this type of information the two couples spent a combined amount of app. $6,000 to make corrections that were not really needed.

How would you have handled this if you were the Home Inspector?

Thank You

Again, I'm confused...... I know this is not a surprise to folks that know me!

OK, was the inspector working for the elderly couples of somebody who was buying their homes?

It sounds like the inspector was working for a buyer and the inspector noted in the report that ____ did not meet whatever code or whatever they said...

The use of Code in the report is a Red Hearing from what I can tell. If the report was for a buyer then the owners did not have to make any repairs that they did not want to have done. Who cares if an item was not covered under a 1975 Code but it is now covered under a 2006 code. All an inspector can do is to report to current standards, not old standards. When it comes to safety you really do not have a "Grandfather" clause. Safety could care less if the 1975 code doe not meet the current code. A good example are GFCI outlets and breakers, I tell all of my clients that the home should have them regardless of the age of the home.

If there was no problem then why didn't the contractor hired to do the repairs tell the elderly couples this?

The way you've worded this it sounds as if the home inspector did his job, reported what he saw and the buyers insisted the elderly couples bring these items up to current standards. If the repairs were part of the buyers and sellers negotiations after the home inspection the inspector generally has nothing to do with that.

The home inspector was, most likely, paid a flat fee by the buyers. I don't see how he may have taken advantage of these elderly couples unless he had some type of monetary incentive. Was he also the contractor paid to do the repairs?

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

I have a question for the members.

I am not a home inspector. I work as a Building Inspector for near 29 years.

Since this forum appears to be utilized by the private sector I thought you would be the correct people to ask.

I found over the years that most of the Home Inspectors in my area tend to be thorough and thoughful in the field. I do however have reservations about a few (same can be said for for people in my position ).

Question 1 two parts)
I have (in my opinion) a couple of elderly couples taken advantage of in my area. Both had Home Inspection reports stating code violations. One was dealing with incorrect venting of the DWV system. This particular incident was addressed by reporting the business to the Illinois Department of Public Health for violation of the Ilinois Plumbing code, in that to Inspect plumbing in the state of Illinois (not counting Chicago) you must first hold and Illinois Plumbing License, which this Home Inspector did not. This business was sent a certified letter to cease and d[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']esist by I.D.P.H.[/font]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Beyond this I find that a violation under a current code would not be addressed, since the home was built in the 1950's. Of course it would not comply with current codes and would not need to in my jurusdiction unless it resulted in a health or safety issue.[/font]
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']I would like some input on these two points.[/font]

Question 2)
In both cases the elderly couple paid to have corections made which would not have been addressed by my department or in one case by the Illinois Department of Public Health. My response to the owner was that (in my opinion) the Home Inspector should have noted in their report that although a code violation was observed (what code,,, the 2006 what??) it might not be required by the Local Govermental unit to correct the issue since the violation was noted under a current code, but was not a violation when the home was constructed.
Had the Home Inspector made a note of this on his report the Elderly Couple could have made a more informed decision as to whether or not to have corrections made. Instead without this type of information the two couples spent a combined amount of app. $6,000 to make corrections that were not really needed.

How would you have handled this if you were the Home Inspector?

Thank You

I write things up all the time that may not be required but should have been done anyway just to help prevent the concern from happening in the first place. No one has to do it or do anything at all about any concern I write up.

No one has to add Arc fault breakers (in older homes) but it is a good idea to have them even in older homes so if they do upgrades in the future they should incorporate them into these upgrades. We also have to mark them as deficient by the State SOPs even if it is an older home. Smoke detectors get written up all the time as well as GFCIs. They were not code when the homes were built but are now and they are an excellent safety item.

Point is, we are not limited to when the home was built. We are there to help/guide/inform our clients about items in the home they are thinking of purchasing. They pay us for our knowledge and experiences in the trades and inspection. We are not robots that walk in and just click away on hand helds and then throw a couple pictures in. (Well, some actually do that) We are professionals and give our clients the best advise we can on the concerns in their home and how they could make the home better.

Insulation, ventilation, framing, HVAC, plumbing, electrical etc etc etc. Who cares when the home was built. If it is wrong or not safe or extremely inefficient or on its last leg then we write it up. It is up to the buyer/seller/buyers agent/listing agent what they do with what we pass on to them. If one party agrees to put 6,000 into a home for themselves or buyers of their home.......oh well.

I think everyone missed the part in the original post where he said the home inspector actually cited code violations with wording that requires another license.

One thing to note that the general public may not be aware of is that a home inspection for a real estate transaction is NOT a code inspection and home inspectors have no enforcement authority.
By the same token, we are not limited to the code like the municipal code inspectors.
We make RECOMMENDATIONS to protect our clients safety and investment.
So if the code was changed on the items you cite sometime over the past 60 years since the house was built it stands to reason that someone died or was injured to provide the impetus to change to the modern standard.

In my state we are REQUIRED to report many things that are perfectly acceptable code wise due to the construction date as deficient. Since I inspect in way over 50 different municipalities (32 just in my home county) and areas outside the municipal jurisdiction there is no way to keep up with what CURRENT code (if any) the house is subject to nor what exclusions or amendments the AHJ make have allowed. Then there is absolutely no way to follow the history back 50-60 years on all those different municipalities, some of which were not even in existence when the house was built in the middle of a prairie.

Current, safest practice is about all that is practical when performing a home inspection.

The OP seems to be making some awkward assumptions about what the HI did or did not do properly. It's interesting that he is accusing the HI of being part of some sort of enforcement scenario, when the OP is the only one with any enforcement power. As an HI, 'you write what you see", that's it. What the clients do with the info is entirely up to them. Maybe it's just the wording of the post, maybe there is no ill intent but something smells fishy about it. My suspicion is that the HI did his report, the realtors scammed the old folks into doing the repairs, the old folks know the OP and complained to him, the OP is looking at the HI because no one else has anything in writing.
You reported an HI to the IDPH because he wrote up non-vented plumbing fixtures? Really? Is that the type of standard you want to apply to inspections?
I write up non-vented plumbing fixtures pretty much every 'flipper' house I go to. I reference the Code all the time. I don't put violation #'s or Code sections in the report. That is a separate service that I do provide but not part of an HI.
" Item X does not appear to be compliant under the current Code. This condition may not / is unlikely to pass a municipal code inspection. Costs to comply with a municipal code violation case for this condition can be substantial." Abbreviated version of a common note I have in reports when dealing with flips, illegal conversions.
Under the OP's theory, I wouldn't be telling the client that the 5 bedroom house they are looking to buy is only a legal 3 bedroom house. That's great I might as well go work at McDonald's now.
There are 2 costs to purchasing a house, 1- the purchase itself, 2- the post purchase costs
Post purchase costs involve all those things that need to be fixed or replaced, either right now, soon or later. PP conditions and costs can be substantial. Not informing clients about such matters is too high of a liability for an HI.
I'm not buying the OP, something is off.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

I think everyone missed the part in the original post where he said the home inspector actually cited code violations with wording that requires another license.

Correct Bruce on this point. The Home Inspector violated State law. I in no case support this. In Illinois you amy be a Licenesed Home Inspector but unless you hold an Illinois Plumbing License it is Illegal to Inspect Plumbing.

The code meeting question. There is no structure standing built before the 90's that would meet a current code. If this is followed through (in this case) there should have been many more violations if the Inspector was using current codes to judge any home.

Another point was about "Grandfathering" In no case can an older structure be expected to meet any current standard. If this was the case you could pick every home apart. IE: windows, doors, insulation, wiring, lead paint, shingles,etc.
this would be like taking your car in and replacing every part since it not new.

The home inspector was working for the buyer, I tend to find that Home Inspectors (nothing personel here folks) do not educate the sellers on the issue that they do not have to make changes. These bad impressions told to me by these past tow incidents tell a story that the sellers believe they must make changes to sell their home.
When I am asked by a home owner I state that unless it is a health or safety issue our department would not require corrections to be made if we were involved in an ispection (which we do not do) unless a home owner asked us directly to look a particular issue.

KEN ROWE: although it appears as though the Inspector did what he was asked by the buyer, I think it prudent to advise people of options. To me that is part of a full disclosure.

Ted Menelly
As I stated above, would you change everything in the home since it is not up to current standards, 2 wire electrical system, lead paint, old windows that do not meet the current 2009 I.E.C.C. whic is also now Law in Illinois?

Jim Luttrall
I generally agree with you well stated.

Markus Keller
Read the Illinos Plumging License Law. I knew this post could be felt as hostal this is why I was hesitant to post. When I have a consumer come to me with a feelingn that they were forced to pay for something they did not have to do, I must assist them with answering questions.
I hve no intention of misleading anyone herer. But am trying to find out how the industry in a whole handles these types of issues. If it is an industry standard or a case of a home Inspector attempting to not provide information to a Home Owner that other Inspectors woudl voluntarilly supply.
A good point you brough up about bedrooms. Would you tell a buyer that a bedroom does not have the required Escape window if located in a basement and being sold as a bedroom? what about older homes that do not have any first floor bedroom window that is compliant?

Again
Trying to keep things short, I do apologize if I have offended anyone. I am trying to understand how this industry handles issues such as I have experienced form my end. We appear to handle things differenty.
Nothing "fishy" was intended here.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

Correct Bruce on this point. The Home Inspector violated State law. I in no case support this. In Illinois you amy be a Licenesed Home Inspector but unless you hold an Illinois Plumbing License it is Illegal to Inspect Plumbing.

So then the state has conflicting laws. One law (the home inspectors license law) requires the inspector to inspect the plumbing. Then you have what I'm guessing is the License law for Plumbers that does not allow it. My guess is that if this was take to task in a court of law that the Home Inspectors law would prevail.

The code meeting question. There is no structure standing built before the 90's that would meet a current code. If this is followed through (in this case) there should have been many more violations if the Inspector was using current codes to judge any home.

Another point was about "Grandfathering" In no case can an older structure be expected to meet any current standard. If this was the case you could pick every home apart. IE: windows, doors, insulation, wiring, lead paint, shingles,etc.
this would be like taking your car in and replacing every part since it not new.

The home inspector was working for the buyer, I tend to find that Home Inspectors (nothing personel here folks) do not educate the sellers on the issue that they do not have to make changes. These bad impressions told to me by these past tow incidents tell a story that the sellers believe they must make changes to sell their home.

It is not the inspectors job to educate the owners. In most states like in IL the inspector can not even tell the owners anything about the inspection under state law.

When I am asked by a home owner I state that unless it is a health or safety issue our department would not require corrections to be made if we were involved in an ispection (which we do not do) unless a home owner asked us directly to look a particular issue.

KEN ROWE: although it appears as though the Inspector did what he was asked by the buyer, I think it prudent to advise people of options. To me that is part of a full disclosure.

Ted Menelly
As I stated above, would you change everything in the home since it is not up to current standards, 2 wire electrical system, lead paint, old windows that do not meet the current 2009 I.E.C.C. whic is also now Law in Illinois?

Jim Luttrall
I generally agree with you well stated.

Markus Keller
Read the Illinos Plumging License Law. I knew this post could be felt as hostal this is why I was hesitant to post. When I have a consumer come to me with a feelingn that they were forced to pay for something they did not have to do, I must assist them with answering questions.
I hve no intention of misleading anyone herer. But am trying to find out how the industry in a whole handles these types of issues. If it is an industry standard or a case of a home Inspector attempting to not provide information to a Home Owner that other Inspectors woudl voluntarilly supply.
A good point you brough up about bedrooms. Would you tell a buyer that a bedroom does not have the required Escape window if located in a basement and being sold as a bedroom? what about older homes that do not have any first floor bedroom window that is compliant?

Again
Trying to keep things short, I do apologize if I have offended anyone. I am trying to understand how this industry handles issues such as I have experienced form my end. We appear to handle things differenty.
Nothing "fishy" was intended here.

I don't think that anyone is taking this post as being hostile. I think that most of us who have posted just do not agree that an inspector can not inspect the plumbing in a home when they are required to do so under their license. Sounds like the older union controlled plumbing law has not been updated to reflect the newer home inspector license law.

Yes, your profession and our profession handle things differently. If you screwup you might get reprimanded or at worst fired. If we screwup we get sued. Worst case scenario for both of our professions is that somebody dies as a result of a screwup. Another issue to think about is that codes cover the bare minimum requirement, and at times that is just not enough in the real world.

Keep posting on IN, over the years we have had several code Bubbas and Bubbaets post and help to shed some light on the profession.

Glen, you seem all too happy to read IL law. I suggest you read the HI SOP that governs our licensing. HI in IL are required to assess the plumbing system among other things.
Since I am not in policy or a lawyer, I don't know and don't care if the wording between the two laws contradict or negate each other somehow. I'll leave that to the politicians and you of course.
Your lack of understanding about how HI and business in general works is immense. You want HI to educate the Sellers? Really? How about this Mr. Government paycheck every two weeks man, forget your weekends, forget your holidays, anytime you are not collecting that paycheck, go out and educate homeowners you don't know, work for and aren't paying you. Let's see how long that lasts. No offense here, honestly. I have friends who work for Gov entities. I deal with this nonsense regularly. They are able to do things that no one running a business can do. For them how much time something takes is irrelevant, that paycheck is still coming. As smart as some of my friends are, they would fall hard and fast in the real world. Their habits and expectations would not work in business.
As HI we don't work for the Seller's. In the last 5 years, I could probably count on one hand how many Seller's I have actually met. They aren't even at the inspection. Furthermore, if during an HI we educate the Seller, we would likely breach our fiduciary obligation to our client, the Buyer. IL SOP forbids HI from discussing the inspection with anyone else without the client's permission. 'Hello Mr. Buyer, now that you have paid me to inspect this house, do I have your permission to educate the Seller about their POS?" I'm sure that would go over really well.
When I have a consumer come to me with a feelingn that they were forced to pay for something they did not have to do, I must assist them with answering questions Really? I thought you said you were a BI? Do you double dip working for consumer affairs? So now you are accusing the HI of 'forcing' the seller to make repairs? I am more than happy to bash dumb, incompetent, checkbox HI. In this case however unless you can provide evidence of collusion you should be directing your assault at the realtors and BAR association. It sounds like the Seller was not protected against agents who wanted to close the deal no matter what.
We don't have the escape window rule around here, thankfully. I write up bedrooms non-comp regularly due to insufficient light & vent and ceiling height too low. Other issues are usually egress, water intrusion and joist load.
I write what I see and I write hard and heavy. As an HI, it is my job to protect my client. I've told clients that the attic is an illegal conversion and they have bought the house anyway.
We do not enforce, you do. We only provide information that people can use as they please.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

Ted Menelly
As I stated above, would you change everything in the home since it is not up to current standards, 2 wire electrical system, lead paint, old windows that do not meet the current 2009 I.E.C.C. which is also now Law in Illinois?

I would not change everything because I am a home inspector. I have no authority to demand or command anything.

Do I write up everything you listed. Why would I not

2 wire electric....outdated and in some case dangerous but I write it up as deficient and advise my clients as such. Do I just tell them that they should just upgrade certain receptacles, sure but they should really get rid of the antiquated 2 wire system.

Lead Paint....no I do not. I do not do lead paint testing. If the home falls in the time frame of lead paint and I am asked about it at the inspection and see a lot of older painted trim or panel of any kind I tell them that the likelihood is great as in any home before a particular time frame.

Old, drafty inefficient, half not operating windows.....why would I not write them up. A thousand, 2 thousand in energy loss, 3 inches of insulation, poor ventilation, undersized sagging framing????? Why would I not write all that up....That is a Home Inspection.

I am curious as to what you think we do for a living. We are bringing our vast experience in the construction realm and inspection field to bare on the home they are thinking of buying. We are the line between the clients knowing and not knowing what is going on in the home and even though we don't bring it into the mix, the money that is going to drain these folks to death.

I could go down the list of the TEXAS SOPs and just stick to them (which are pretty extensive in themselves) and some inspectors do just stick to it and never bring anything else up but I bring it all up.......that is what they are paying me for. That is what a home inspection is all about. Anyone who thinks different is worried more about getting their next referral from a Realtor than looking out for the folks that are paying them to find out what is going on in the home.

Don't get me wrong....I am also all about the buck. The difference with me and others is I do think about if I were buying the home. I write it on my website, any fliers I send out and tell the clients directly that I inspect every home as if I were buying it.

The Home Inspector violated State law. I in no case support this. In Illinois you amy be a Licenesed Home Inspector but unless you hold an Illinois Plumbing License it is Illegal to Inspect Plumbing.

Then must all code enforcement officials also be licensed plumbers or is that another law?

As I said earlier, it appears you're laying blame to the wrong person. The home inspector has no authority to mandate repairs. In fact, I doubt if the HI in this case even met the sellers or provided a report to the seller. He didn't force them to do anything. Even if the buyers or the buyers agent told the seller something needed to be fixed, the sellers still have the option of refusing the request. The sellers can always choose to sell their house to someone else.

Glen,

Under Illinois law Home Inspectors are required to:

"Describe in detail the interior water supply and distribution including all fixtures and faucets, drains , waste and vent systems including all fixtures, the water heating equipment, the vent systems, flues, and chimneys, the fuel storage and fuel distribution systems, the drainage sumps, sump pumps, and related piping, and the location of main water and main fuel shut-off valves."

- PART 1410 HOME INSPECTOR LICENSE ACT : Sections Listing

As you can see, this places HIs in a rather difficult situation as sellers will certainly feel justified in suing us if we fail to report plumbing defects we observe which are code violations (as most will be).

Further, as practical matter, our clients are in a LOT more peril of financial loss as a result of our failure to report defects than from our "over reporting"defects.

Further, when I "observe" something I believe to BR a plumbing defect which requires correct by an Illinois licensed plumber, I recommend "repair or replacement as required by a state licensed and insured plumber".

Licensed plumbers are the licensed experts, and if a licensed plumber performs "thousands of dollars in unnecessary work" it would appear to me that your you should be writing letters of complaint to the people who licensed the plumber, not with the HI if they 1) recommend repair or replacement, 2) by a licensed plumber 3) as required.

(And... could it be - given human nature, and that every municipal plumbing inspector I've met is also a licensed plumber - that the real goal of at least some such complaints is to use the requirements you cite as an "Illinois Plumbers Full Employment Entitlement Act"?)

As for "citing code", that's a tough issue, with no entirely satisfactory solution.

HIs could only "observe" and report "functional" plumbing issues, ignoring code violations per se.

For example I just observed a tub in a basement bathroom discharging into a sump (de-watering) pump.

It was "functioning" (draining) fine, should I just shake my head and move on?

If not, what is my objective standard for my concern if I do not reference plumbing code?

If I do if I do reference it, am now illegally "inspecting" it?

The assertion that Illinois licensed HIs who are inspecting residential real estate, and at least ONE OTHER qualifying system at the time of the inspection, cannot inspect and examine the plumbing system in Illinois, is pure BUNK.

The idea that the IDPH would or could issue a cease and desist order is also PURE BUNK. First of all, IDPH issues letters/rule to show cause, a JUDGE has to issue a restraining order (to wit the IDPH or AG can petition for, but a court of competant jurisdiction is who issues ORDERS).

Next, here we have a supposed Illinois county or municipal inspector (from Missouri?) crying foul over a licensed Illinois HI inspecting residential real estate, in Illinois, i.e. some aspect of the Plumbing System, examining and issuing a report, performing is legally, lawfully, licensed practice.

Perhaps this supposed "inspector" has his feathers ruffled, not being a licensed plumber, or Environmental Health Licensee, nor an engineer, nor working under same, having performed some sort of plumbing, sanitary system, or well and pump system inspection himself and getting "called" on it.

IDPH does not cross/claim in areas permitted specifically allowed to be performed, esp. inspections in other licensed areas specifically authorized by Illinois statute and Administrative Rule and under the Illinois division of Professional Regulation.

This is a myth.

It is reminiciant as to internet myths and municipal, county inspectors "claims" that licensed Absolutely not buying the OP.Have seen this twisted version substituting a HI before.

The earlier misconception which IS actually topical to the OP has to do with whether or not one licensed to perform Private Sewage Disposal (225 ILCS 223) system installation contractors and private sewage disposal system pumping contractors and the Water Well and Pump Installation contractor's License Act (225 ILCS 345) are authorized licensees to inspect the systems they maintain, and/or if one is required under the Illinois Division of Professional Regulation as meeting the licensure requirements of the Enviornmental Health Practitioner Licensing Act (225 ILCS 37) to do so. Both the Board for Environmental Health (Professional Regulation) and IDPH have consistantly agreed that county and municipal health inspectors ARE required/subject to the requirements of the Environmental Health Practioner Licensing Act to INSPECT those systems for "HEALTH INSPECTIONS", and must be licensed under the Act, or under the direct supervision of either an individual licensed under the Act or a Licensed Engineer to "inspect" or "examine" THOSE systems. Between 2003 and 2007 there were 106 complaints in this area. A significant number had to do with investigations of municipal and county "inspections".

IDPH General Counsel provided a written opinion to IDPR that interprets the Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act and the Water Well and Pump Installation Contractor's License Act which AUTHORIZES LICENSEES TO INSPECT THE SYSTEMS THEY MAINTAIN.

This has NOTHING to do with "Home Inspectors". It has to do with Private Sewage System and Private Well and pump System Inspections, and municipal and county "Inspections". Employees and Licensees in those diciplines are NOT authorized to inspect systems they DO NOT maintain or are NOT PROPOSING TO MAINTAIN for the INSTANT (not future) PROPERTY OWNER. For an independant inspection one must be licensed or working under the license of one with an Envronmental Health License (IDPR) or a Licensed Engineer. This INCLUDES Municipal and County Inspections (outside city of Chicago).

The OP's premis is old twisted internet myth or the OPs misapplication of the Statutes and Administrative Code relative to the practice of plumbing, regulated by the Illinois Department of Public Health, from a 2007 issue regarding municipal/county inspectors and their illegal unlicensed practice of Environmental Health (licensed and regulated via the Division of Professional Regulation (Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation), being further twisted to incorporate licensed Home Inspectors legally performing their profession (yet another IDFPR/IdPR regulated profession) on at least two covered systems/aspects of residential real estate inspection and IDPH Plumbing Licensing.

Am NOT picking up what the OP is putting down, not one bit. Bunk and Nuts. Same claims made by a regular on another site, and occasionally here regarding HIs and Plumbing in either Indiana or Ohio, pure bunk, and similar "claims" regarding electrical system being inspected or examined in the course of a legally, lawfully contracted home inspection by a licensed HI. Bunk.

Throwing around claims of "code" references (ambigously un-named but a reference to 2006... ); doesn't make the OP's claim any more worthy or believable. Especially, as the Illinois Plumbing Code is cited 2004, there is no 2006 edition of same. Claiming two elderly or senior couples and how they were supposedly hood-winked or expended unnecessary thousands of dollars seems to be just more emotional ambiguous non-facts, so as to somehow make the "story" more believable or credable. It does not.

As far as anything being as original not ever being required, even by the Illinois Plumbing Code, not ever being required to be corrected, re-worked, etc. under the Illinois Plumbing Code, is also an utter falsehood. Deteriorating systems, overloaded systems, and those that present a potential or actual threat or nusiance to PUBLIC HEALTH are indeed covered under the Acts and Administrative Codes and enforcable, there is no "grandfather" exception to public health and safety.

Cite the specific examples of this supposed unnecessary work or repair, or repairs or corrections which required this supposed unnecessary work. Provide details and citations for this supposed injunction/Cease and Desist Order, prove it with facts. If you're employed west of the Mississippi It is irrelevant your opinion or intrepretations of the Illinois Plumbing Code or the Licensure Act for Plumbers in Illinois.

Finally, regards to a Home Inspector, contracted by potential purchasers of a particular residential real estate being in any way obligated to assist the property occupants or owners with information or findings from the home inspection - nope, again not buying it. If there is a emergent danger, hazard, etc, in the opinion of the HI. then and only then, is there only a limited and specific responsibility to inform the owner/occupant (if not the party contracting the "inspection") of ones observations, findings from one's examination/inspection RELATIVE TO THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION/HAZARD/DANGER - and only to the extent of notification of the specific concern. The balance is confidential and by law may only be disclosed upon the consent of the party who has contracted the inspection. Read away, check minutes of the various BOARDS, contact the various administrative branches, make your FOIA requrests, inform yourself as to how wild and "off" your claims and conclusions are, and just "who" or "whom" the "customer" IS.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Your lack of understanding about how HI and business in general works is immense. You want HI to educate the Sellers? Really? How about this Mr. Government paycheck every two weeks man, forget your weekends, forget your holidays, anytime you are not collecting that paycheck, go out and educate homeowners you don't know, work for and aren't paying you. Let's see how long that lasts. No offense here, honestly.

Markus, Markus, Markus a little over the top don't you think?
After all, Glen did come here asking to understand, not throwing stones. Come on now guys, keep it civil.

Glen,
We may need to get Pres Clinton to determine what the definition of a plumbing inspection "is". Your post realty needed to be more specific as to exactly how the HI stated his observations regarding the plumbing in both cases.

If the HI passed him self off as a Certified/Licensed Plumbing Inspector by the state of IL and HI was not, then its fraud and misrepresentation and should be slammed big by the state.

If the HI was the sellers client and the HI stated that specific items were required to be repaired/corrected prior to selling the property. Then its fraud and misrepresentation and should be slammed big by the state and a civil suite filed by seller. Same is true for HI as buyer's client.

HIs look at many things in their inspection. Plumbing is only a part of an inspection, and those states that require the HI to be licensed require the plumbing to be "inspected/reviewed/observed/evaluated/tested" or something to that effect. Depending on the state, such as IL, the HI should choose the wording in the report carefully. In fact all wording in the report should be chosen carefully. Not withstanding the HI must use some standard for evaluation else the inspection is worthless. Buillding codes offer a starting point for a common standard to speak to. Stairs, railings, joice, beams, columns, electrical, foundations and the list goes on. All of which rely on a basis in code to determine if the item is need of evaluation by a person Licensed in that field with the experience to proffer a detailed evaluation regarding any repair/alteration. That evaluation then is used to determine what may be required to meet the the expectations of the Client in conjunction with State Building Codes.

HIs have alot of latitude when it comes to performing to Standard Of Practice as specific to the licensing state. Some HIs work to the minimum SOP others with experience and professional background rise to their level of professional experience. That level will vary greatly from one HI to another. But, at any level of inspection the buildings codes are the basis of all inspections.

The house built in 1890 is nothing like a house built in 2000. The client deserves/required to be told where there is health, safety and structural concerns with a property. After being told of the condition of items in the report it is up to the client how they want to utilize the report.

The inspector should do their best to explain the report to the client. The key to this is who contracted for the report and what that contract entails.

All parties involved in an inspection (seller or buyer) have the responsibility to obtain professional counsel in any area that they deem necessary.

Glen, in your cited cases the $6,000 is a lot of plumbing. Expensive dish washer vent if that is correct for DWV . Your use of the term "violations" leaves a lot to speculation without exact wordage. I see people taken to the cleaners for over priced work. Contractors (plumbing,elect,carpentry) as well as Home Inspectors have in the past and will in the future take advantage of people, young and old. Was this the case?

Your inquiry as to the education of the seller goes to the responsibility of the seller for obtaining their own counsel to evaluate the validity of any requests made by any other party in the sale. Furthermore, the seller has to find counsel that has no conflicts of interest in the transaction. If the HI's clients are the Buyer, then by common convention and contract between the parties, the HI can not discuss the report with any other person without express written direction by the client. Many HIs will only discuss the report with the client and will refuse to discuss it with anyone else. They might provide a copy of the report. We all want to limit our liability and limiting who the HI speaks with is one method.

Like stated the HI will be held to a high standard for what they include in a report or do not include. The HI will be sued in civil court. The HI walks the door every day with liability their minds. Saying to them selves I can not afford to miss anything today.

People tend to want to protect their field of interest and resent any intrusion. The areas of Permit/Inspection by government and Home inspections will overlap. The IL restriction can offer protection to the public in many cases. Restricting the discussion of code to a Lic Plumber will not stop the customer from being gouged by that plumber. As a building contractor I often recite codes that must be followed during construction to my customer. I also will explain that if certain things are done it will require that more extensive costs will be incurred due to prior building methods have to be brought up to present code requirements. They may not want to do that. Their choice. But the speech of Code still goes on.

Who was the no-conflicted counsel advising the older sellers. The agents?
How fast will you go out to look at a plumbing issue if called by the home owner? Will you only go as required by your job description and will only strive to fulfill the minimum required as may be directed by your supervisor. Not to cast dispersion on you personally, from experience I have found (sad to say) that most civil servants strive to protect their turf and their job via bureaucracy. Work to the rule is what I hear and see

In IL we may be dealing with semantics. Explain the difference between a plumbing inspection and inspecting the plumbing. Which is it that Illinois Department of Public Health found as a violation of the Ilinois Plumbing code. Would you care to offer the correct verbiage to use that would delineate the difference and make it the legal method for preforming and referencing plumbing in a IL Home Inspection? This is not toung in cheek, but a real request. 29 years puts you in a position of experience knowledge. This forumat times may seem to gets a little testy. But, there is a real and genuine interest to increase our knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the HI field.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Markus, Markus, Markus a little over the top don't you think?
After all, Glen did come here asking to understand, not throwing stones. Come on now guys, keep it civil.

Exactly why I was hesitant in coming to the forum in the first palce.
I have had assistance with our Local IDPH department in sending letters out for Inspecting Plumbing Systems without a plumbing license. Observations and written comments are two different things.

It seems like to many of this board are getting defensive and making accusations raher than responding to a question, calling things "is pure BUNK", getting hostile, attempting to read something into a request & attacking.

I am only stating things that have happened that "I have been personally involved with"[/font] I did not us the example of the 2006 code (and state it was an Illinois Plumbing code), Sir as an example of the Illinois Plumbing code which is currently standing at the 2004 and long overdue by JACAR to get updated. I am attempting to keep things as brief and simple as I can since I am not retiered with extra free time on my hand.

To be treated this hostially on my first question to this board is a sad affair.
Walk a while in a persons shoes before throwing out allegations.

I have learned that I am a better observer of this board than a poster.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

Exactly why I was hesitant in coming to the forum in the first palce.
I have had assistance with our Local IDPH department in sending letters out for Inspecting Plumbing Systems without a plumbing license. Observations and written comments are two different things.

It seems like to many of this board are getting defensive and making accusations raher than responding to a question, calling things "is pure BUNK", getting hostile, attempting to read something into a request & attacking.

I am only stating things that have happened that "I have been personally involved with"[/font] I did not us the example of the 2006 code (and state it was an Illinois Plumbing code), Sir as an example of the Illinois Plumbing code which is currently standing at the 2004 and long overdue by JACAR to get updated. I am attempting to keep things as brief and simple as I can since I am not retiered with extra free time on my hand.

To be treated this hostially on my first question to this board is a sad affair.
Walk a while in a persons shoes before throwing out allegations.

I have learned that I am a better observer of this board than a poster.

Glen....Relax

You are an inspector. I am absolutely positive you get grief every day of the week from someone out there in the field. This board is no different. As you see folks like a healthy discussion even though they do not always agree. I do believe you have gained a serious amount of information as to what a home inspection is and is not. This is why you came here after all.

Momma never promised a rose garden. Keep asking and inquiring away. At the very least you chimed in as a municipal inspector. Most of the time we do not hear from them. There are way to may folks out there that have no clue as to what a home inspection is and should be.

One of the biggest offenders are the Realtors that refer us. They believe we should be one liner men/woman and stick to the book and mention nothing else. Don't make waves. Don't make my job more difficult. Keep it simple with out explanation or pictures.

I can guaranty you that no matter how much any Realtor cares for their client (their bread and butter) the wish we would all fall of the edge of the flat planet we live on. They would be in heaven. Their sales would go up t. The amount of homes they showed would go down. You just cannot get any better than that. What a happy life it would be. Then they could live fat and happy believing how wondeful they are at sales and marketing in their (after we disappear) upper six figure income. They would have a following of blind folk that bought anything they showed them.

Glen, you've made serious accusations not only against the HI in question but about our profession. You have tried to state things as fact that just aren't so or are highly unlikely to be fact. You may think you only 'asked' questions but, and you may see this only as semantics, you posed those questions in an accusatory format.
I take defrauding old folks very seriously. I've called the City's consumer affairs dept on many a scumbag contractor. Like the heating guy who charged an old man $500 for changing out a thermocouple. Through my actions and recommendations a City Dept. changed the way it dealt with old folks in a particular set of circumstances.
You want answers, no problem, we'll give you answers and I at least will try to keep my verbiage in check. You might want to consider asking an HI in your area if you can do a ride along.
Remember Glen, "The Code is not a ceiling to reach but a floor to work up from". Some of us try to work for our clients based on higher standards.
Markus

I went back and read the OP several times trying to figure out what the point/question was. Well, the question was: "How would you have handled THIS if you were the Home Inspector?".

Not sure what the OP meant as THIS.
1. The inspection?
2. Reporting on something?
3. Dealing with some idiot that thinks home inspectors can't inspect plumbing, electrical, mechanical????

As far as making elderly people do anything, we as home inspectors can't make anyone do anything - we just write our reports.

I once had a builder come storming up to me telling me he was going to report me for taking the cover off an electrical panel. He said that only a licensed electrician can take the cover off. I told him to go piss up a rope and go ahead and call, because I was going to be there a couple hours more anyway, so they had plenty of time to get there.

If you have been looking at this board for any amount of time, I think you would know that calling out "Codes" is something that most of us try not to do. Of course, there is always someone out there that does things their own way.

Usually when someone posts a questions on here about "what would you say/do/write", is to compare notes and see if we were on the right track. I have to wonder what your plan was when you posted your question, since you are not a home inspector, nor party to any of these transactions.

Maybe you just wanted to have a throw down and decided to use the "elderly" card.

Anyway, my answer is: I would write down what I saw and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Jack Feldmann

I went back and read the OP several times trying to figure out what the point/question was. Well, the question was: "How would you have handled THIS if you were the Home Inspector?".

Not sure what the OP meant as THIS.
1. The inspection?
2. Reporting on something?
3. Dealing with some idiot that thinks home inspectors can't inspect plumbing, electrical, mechanical????

As far as making elderly people do anything, we as home inspectors can't make anyone do anything - we just write our reports.

I once had a builder come storming up to me telling me he was going to report me for taking the cover off an electrical panel. He said that only a licensed electrician can take the cover off. I told him to go piss up a rope and go ahead and call, because I was going to be there a couple hours more anyway, so they had plenty of time to get there.

If you have been looking at this board for any amount of time, I think you would know that calling out "Codes" is something that most of us try not to do. Of course, there is always someone out there that does things their own way.

Usually when someone posts a questions on here about "what would you say/do/write", is to compare notes and see if we were on the right track. I have to wonder what your plan was when you posted your question, since you are not a home inspector, nor party to any of these transactions.

Maybe you just wanted to have a throw down and decided to use the "elderly" card.

Anyway, my answer is: I would write down what I saw and leave it at that.

Here is a good point. this is where I have a hard time understanding. Earlier in this paragraph you mentioned that calling out codes is something that you feel you would not do. Am I misinformed that inspection reports from your industry call out violations or problems. Is this not related to codes?or calling out a code issue? as in your statement above>>Anyway, my answer is: I would write down what I saw and leave it at that.
This is why I am attempting to understand where the differences come into play. My department would not address issues that are not directly health or safety related. Imminent safety concerns would be addressed if observed.

You are correct that I am not in your sector of the industry. That is why I clearly stated in my opening three sentences who I was and why I thought this would be the place to ask.

As far as the "Elderly" card. These are complaints from residents asking this department who happened to be elderly. Not knowing how your industry handled these types of issues again is why I asked. whether it is from the Elderly or not I agree would not be the issue and was poorly stated on my end.

I know that when I see a violation, I have to be ready to quote a code and section number to require a change be made, or show that in our adopted ordinaces we have exempted something like NMS cable in any commercially zoned parcel.

To clarify: when a report is written and someone states something is not right (or code compliant) would you offer the party the code violation section and what code it was based on. If there is something wrong there has to be source of information used to base the decision on?
I guess this is where a difference lies,I would not address existing items unless as I stated above they were health & safety issues, Whereas in your industry you can use this to make observations and suggestion for your clients.
I think in my case the owners were left with the impression that they must make corrections to sell their homes instead of being offerred the information, that although things were found they might not be required to make changes to sell their home.

Of course I am sure that you experiance the same thing as I while out in the field no one gives you any credit when you do a good job, but make a mistake and the critics never stop.

I apologize if I have offended anyone, not my intention. Like Ted Menelly stated you do not see many people in my position willing to post on boards such as this. I am at least trying to understand and offer a postion and seek clarification without going over the top.

Glen,

1) When an AJH sees a bathtub draining into a sump pump, it can say "It's wrong, fix it.".

The current property owner has no choice about whether or not they will correct the code violation, by purchasing the property they have accepted the obligation to do so.

My client is in a very different position because they do not yet own the property.

So the client:

1) Needs to understand that there is a problem.

2) Needs to understand that it must be corrected.

3) Needs to know if this will likely be a significant or major expense to correct - because they are often trying to decide if they should accept the legal responsibility to correct the code violation it by buying the property.

See the difference?

Similarly, an AHJ may accept the presence of ungrounded receptacle outlets if they were installed prior to a differing requirement.

That some future owner may wish to install home office equipment requiring grounded outlets is not the AHJs concern.

My client is likely concerned with discovering potential future expenses of ownership, so I will note both that :

1) The outlets may have met code at the time of installation, and thus may currently be code compliant

2) That If the client wishes to install electronic devices (such as computers, printers, home entertainment devices) common to modern lifestyles, the manufacturers of such equipment often require that it be connected to grounded outlets, and that depending on present conditions installing grounded outlets could be a significant or major expense.

See the difference?

Note also that I cannot compel anyone involved in the purchase take notice of my observations - let alone act on them.

Perhaps the client will replace the outlets after the purchase. Or negotiate with the seller to have them do so. Or get a credit at closing to do so. Or do nothing at all about my observations.

What the client does based on my observations is not my concern, my job is to tell the client what they are buying, not to tell them whether or not to buy it, what to pay for it, etc.. in fact, I am prohibited by Illinois law from commenting on such aspects of the transaction.

And if its not my job (and in fact, illegal) for me to make these decisions for my client, or even to advise them about their decision, its certainly not my job to advise the seller what to do about my clients request that (for example) they install grounded outlets.

See the difference?

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

Here is a good point. this is where I have a hard time understanding. Earlier in this paragraph you mentioned that calling out codes is something that you feel you would not do. Am I misinformed that inspection reports from your industry call out violations or problems. Is this not related to codes?or calling out a code issue?

Here are the standard of practice many of us use: http://www.homeinspector.org/docs/standards.pdf

Many of the items we call out are based on codes; national building codes, NEC, property maintenance codes, and local codes. Some of the items we call out are based on product recalls or past litigation or references from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Take for example the Federal Pacific Stab Loc electrical panels and breakers. While these may be "code compliant" and you'd never call them out, we call them out regularly. Another item would be CSST gas lines. While currently acceptable there is current litigation and home inspectors are letting their clients know.

However, we have no legal authority to force anyone to change anything. The inspector you're referring to did not force anyone to fix anything. He didn't fine the elderly couple, nor force them to pay $6,000 in repairs. The inspector simply pointed out a deficient system to his clients...that's what he's paid to do.

Part One:


Plumbing & Environmental Health Acts:

Exemptions:

This Act does not prohibit or restrict any of the following:

A person licensed in this State under any other Act from engaging in the practice for which he or she is licensed.

Part Two:

The Department (Ill. Dept. of Public Health) may issue a "Rule to Show Cause" letter why an "Order to Cease and Desist" should not be entered against him or her.

The department cannot issue a "cease and desist order", they can issue a letter, Rule to show cause, as to why they should NOT petition a judge for a cease and desist order. Orders are not issued by the Department.

IDPH keeps "investigation processes" confidential. They would NOT report to YOU as the complaintant that they had ISSUED a rule to show cause letter, not until it hits a court room or administrative law judge does the "matter" become subject to public/non-confidential information. IDPH has no jurisdiction over the licensed and legal practice of Home Inspection.

Part Three:

Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Regulation, is the authoritative and licening body for Home Inspectors, further OBRE defines a Home Inspection as:



A Home Inspection is an examination of the exterior and interior components of residential real property. This includes the examination of at least 2 of the following:

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system;

Plumbing system;

Electrical system;

Structural composition;

Foundation;

Roof;

Masonry structure; or

Any other residential real property component as established by rule.

Part Four:

Selected citations from:

Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Administrative Code
Title 68: Professions and Occupations
chapter VIII: Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
Part 1410 Home Inspector License Act
Section 1410.200 Standards of Practice




(a) The following are terms commonly used in the writing of home inspection reports:

(28) Unsafe: A condition in a system or component that poses a significant risk of personal injury or property damage during normal, day-to-day use. The risk may be due to damage, deterioration, improper installation or a change in accepted residential construction standards.

(e) At the conclusion of the home inspection, a home inspector shall submit a written report, which can be in electronic format (including electronic signature), to the client or duly authorized representative within 2 business days (Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays) that includes the home inspector's signature and license number and license expiration date and shall:

1) Describe the systems and components that were inspected;

2) Report on those systems and components inspected that, in the opinion of the inspector, are significantly deficient including:

A) A reason why, if not self evident, the system or component is significantly deficient.

B) Whether the reported deficiency should be corrected or monitored.

C) Disclosure of any systems or components designated for inspection that were present at the time of the home inspection but were not inspected with a reason why they were not inspected.

(f) These Standards are not intended to limit home inspectors from:

1) Including other inspection services, systems or components in addition to those defined in these Standards;

2) Specifying repairs, provided the inspector is appropriately qualified and willing to do so; and

3) Excluding systems and components from the inspection if the exclusion is specified in the written agreement.

(j) When, pursuant to the written agreement with a client, the plumbing system is observed, the home inspector shall describe in detail the interior water supply and distribution systems, including fixtures and faucets, drains, waste and vent systems; water heating equipment and vent systems; flues and chimneys; fuel storage and fuel distribution systems; drainage sumps, sump pumps and related piping; and location of main water and main fuel shut-off valves.


Part Five:
Selected citations from:

225 ILCS 441/Home Inspector License Act

Section 1-10:

"Home inspection" means the examination and evaluation of the exterior and interior components of residential real property, which includes the inspection of any 2 or more of the following components of residential real property in connection with or to facilitate the sale, lease, or other conveyance of, or the proposed sale, lease or other conveyance of, residential real property:

1) heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system;

(2) plumbing system;

(3) electrical system;

(4) structural compositiion;

(5) foundation;

(6) roofs;

(7) masonry structure; or

(8) any other residential real property component as established by rule.

Section 5-5:

(c) the licensing requirements of this Article do not apply to:

(1) any person who is employed as a code enforcement official by the State of Illinois or any unit of local government, while acting within the scope of that government employment;

(2) any person licensed by the State of Illinois while acting within the scope of his or her license; or

(3) any person engaged by the owner or lessor of residential real property for the purpose of preparing a bid or estimate as to the work necessary or the costs associated with performing home construction, home remodeling, or home repair work on the resiential real property, provided such person does not hold himself or herself out, or advertise himself or herself, as being engaged in business as a home inspector.

Section 10-5:

Standards of practice. All persons licensed under this Act must comply with standards of professional home inspection adopted by OBRE and established by rule. OBRE shall consider nationally recognized standards and codes prior to adopting the rules for the standards of practice.


Section 15-10:

Grounds for disciplinary action.

(19) Performing a home inspection in a manner that damages or alters the residential real property that is the subject of the home inspection without the consent of the owner.

(20) Performing a home inspection when the home inspector is providing or may also provide other services in connection with the residential real property or transaction, or has an interest in the residential real property, without providing prior written notice of the potential or actual conflict and obtaining the prior consent of the client as provided by rule.

Part Six:

If you've got an issue with a Home Inspector, the appropriate entity/agency is the OBRE of the Division of Professional Regulation, of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

Yep, I call the "story" as related on the OP, as well as the latest ammendments to the story, claiming a local office of IDPH is "sending out letters" to HIs in Illinois for Home Inspections that include the plumbing systems, pure bunk, that's MY Opinion.
Further, I charge you with the responsibility to back up your story with credible facts, because as presented (especially the "latest embelishments) it is pure FICTION.

This is one of the better threads guys.
Please keep it civil.
Thanks for posting Glen.
We use codes as a basis ,or we would have none.
We go by national codes.
Everything we write should be in a recommendation tense.
The Plumber portion of our Illinois SOP proves how political things are in our state.
Even the smoke detector laws are political, only requiring placement within 15 feet of bedrooms rather than inside them.

If there is a mini breaker (against city code) I simply refer to an electrician to look it over rather than directly call it out.
(at least that is my work around)

The realtors for the elderly couples should have advised them that they did not have to make the changes if they did not want to. Yes, it may mean the deal would fall through, depending on the buyers and what their intentions were. My report would probably be pretty similar, although there is a statement at the beginning that neither party is required to make any changes based on my report.

If their realtor didn't mention this, then that's something to address with the realtor. Also, as Ted pointed out earlier, the HI had nothing financial to gain by the elderly couples doing the work, so I'm not sure how the HI took advantage of either couple.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

The inspector you're referring to did not force anyone to fix anything. He didn't fine the elderly couple, nor force them to pay $6,000 in repairs. The inspector simply pointed out a deficient system to his clients...that's what he's paid to do.

Right, as pointed out several times, your beef should be with the plumbers, and if the upgrades were unnecessary, then shame on them.

Glen,
Please post exactly what the HI stated in the report that lead you to believe that the HI was in violation of IL law. Or, a representation of the wording that was in the report There are to many possibilities.

You might be surprised how HIs would line up behind you with support for your actions.

Glen,
Please post exactly what the HI stated in the report that lead you to believe that the HI was in violation of IL law. Or, a representation of the wording that was in the report There are to many possibilities.

You might be surprised how HIs would line up behind you with support for your actions.

Ken covered what I was going to say pretty well.
"Many of the items we call out are based on codes; national building codes, NEC, property maintenance codes, and local codes. Some of the items we call out are based on product recalls or past litigation or references from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Take for example the Federal Pacific Stab Loc electrical panels and breakers. While these may be "code compliant" and you'd never call them out, we call them out regularly. Another item would be CSST gas lines. While currently acceptable there is current litigation and home inspectors are letting their clients know.

However, we have no legal authority to force anyone to change anything. The inspector you're referring to did not force anyone to fix anything. He didn't fine the elderly couple, nor force them to pay $6,000 in repairs. The inspector simply pointed out a deficient system to his clients...that's what he's paid to do."

Jim and John also brought up great points. How is the inspector at fault for those people being out the money? Unless he did the repairs himself, or held a gun to their heads, I'm just not seeing the connection.

I would also like to see the reports that somehow swindled these people.

Mr. Watson

Below is some information regarding the Plumbing License Law. this includes an application to be a certified plumbing inspector, purpose and authority, planning, design & inspection.
I hope you will find thisn helpful.

Plumbing Inspectors http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/plumbers%20pdf/Plumbing_Inspector_Exam_Form.pdf
Section 750.400 Licensing of Plumbers
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/068007500D04000R.html
Section 750.00 Purpose and Authority for certification of Plumbing Inspectors
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/068007500G07000R.htmlhttp://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/068007500G07100R.htmlhttp://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/068007500G07300R.htmlhttp://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/068007500G07200R.html

Illinois Compiled Statutes 225 ILCS 320 Illinois Plumbing License Law. Section 1
(225 ILCS 320/1) (from Ch. 111, par. 1101) Sec. 1. Purpose. It has been established by scientific evidence that improper plumbing can result in the introduction of pathogenic organisms into the potable water supply, result in the escape of toxic gases into the environment, and result in potentially lethal disease and epidemic. It is further found that minimum numbers of plumbing facilities and fixtures are necessary for the comfort and convenience of workers and persons in public places.
Consistent with its duty to safeguard the health of the people of this State, the General Assembly therefore declares that the regulation of plumbing and the plumbing trade is necessary for the protection of the public health, convenience, and welfare. The General Assembly therefore declares that individuals who plan, inspect, install, alter, extend, repair and maintain plumbing systems shall be individuals of proven skill. Further, the General Assembly declares that a guide for the minimum control and number of plumbing materials and fixtures, the design of plumbing systems, and the construction and installation methods of plumbing systems is essential for the protection of public health and convenience. In order to insure plumbing skill and to authoritatively establish what shall be good plumbing practice, this Act provides for the licensing of plumbers and registration of plumbing contractors and for the promulgation of a Minimum Plumbing Code of standards by the Department. This Act is therefore declared to be essential to the public interest.


Illinois Compiled Statutes 225 ILCS 320 Illinois Plumbing License Law. Section 3
Excerpts: 225 ILCS 320/3) (from Ch. 111, par. 1103)
Sec. 3. (1) All planning and designing of plumbing systems and all plumbing shall be performed only by plumbers licensed under the provisions of this Act hereinafter called "licensed plumbers" and "licensed apprentice plumbers". The inspection of plumbing and plumbing systems shall be done only by the sponsor or his or her agent who shall be an Illinois licensed plumber. Nothing herein contained shall prohibit licensed plumbers or licensed apprentice plumbers under supervision from planning, designing, inspecting, installing, repairing, maintaining, altering or extending building sewers in accordance with this Act. No person who holds a license or certificate of registration under the Illinois Architecture Practice Act of 1989, or the Structural Engineering Practice Act of 1989, or the Professional Engineering Practice Act of 1989 shall be prevented from planning and designing plumbing systems.


(3) The employees of a firm, association, partnership or corporation who engage in plumbing shall be licensed plumbers or licensed apprentice plumbers. At least one member of every firm, association or partnership engaged in plumbing work, and at least one corporate officer of every corporation engaged in plumbing work, as the case may be, shall be a licensed plumber. A retired plumber cannot fulfill the requirements of this subsection (3). Plumbing contractors are also required to be registered pursuant to the provisions of this Act.


225 ILCS 320/18) (from Ch. 111, par. 1117)
Sec. 18. Local regulation; Department standards

Excerpts: (2) of Section 3 of this Act. No person shall be appointed as a Plumbing Inspector who is not a licensed plumber under this Act, including persons employed as Plumbing Inspectors in home rule units.
(2) The Department of Public Health shall conduct inquiry in any city, town, village, township, or county or at any other place in the State when reasonably necessary in the judgment of the Director of the Department of Public Health to safeguard the health of any person or persons in this State, on account of piping or appurtenant appliances within any building, or outside, when such piping and appliances are for the use of plumbing as defined in this Act and for the use of carrying sewage or waste within or from any building.
The Department of Public Health may conduct such inquiries in any city, town, village, township or county in this State by directing the Plumbing Inspector thereof to aid in or conduct such inquiry or investigation in behalf of the Department of Public Health or the Department of Public Health may designate some other person or persons to conduct such investigation.

(225 ILCS 320/29.5)
Sec. 29.5. Unlicensed and unregistered practice; violation; civil penalties. (Refer back up to excerpt of Sec. 3.(1) requirements to inspect plumbing.)
(a) A person who practices, offers to practice, attempts to practice, or holds himself or herself out to practice as a plumber or plumbing contractor without being licensed or registered under this Act, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, pay a civil penalty to the Department in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each offense as determined by the Department. The civil penalty shall be assessed by the Department after a hearing is held in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Act regarding the provision of a hearing for the discipline of a licensee or registrant.

Illinois Compiled Statutes 225 ILCS 320 Illinois Plumbing License Law. Section 5 (225 ILCS 320/5) (from Ch. 111, par. 1104)

Sec. 5. Advertising.
(a) Persons who advertise plumbing services shall, at their place of business, display the licensed plumber's license of at least one member of the firm, partnership or officer of the corporation and shall maintain a register listing the names and license numbers of all licensed plumbers and all licensed apprentice plumbers currently employed by them. The number of the license so displayed shall also be included with the plumbing identification on vehicles.


To respond to your last post.
Part 1
"For which he or she are licensed" My point not licensed to inspect plumbing

Part 2
See my exceprt below about enlisting the aid of the local AHJ

Part 3
Not familiar with your quoted agency. Plumbing is controlled by I.D.P.H. See excerpts below.

Part 4
Again the overall "home inspection" would not include plumbing inspection just observation.
Your response ( in section J) does not use the word "Inspect" just observed.
I think this a point of contention. The instance I was involved with the HI had written on a report that there was a violation/deficiency, which would have (in my opinion) crossed a line from observation to inspection.

Area for contention in one of your paragraphs: which includes the inspection of any 2 or more of the following components of residential real property. After which you list "plumbing". Again your wording does not use the term "inspection" only examination and evaluation. This could be the gray area.
5-5 Again nothing here about inspecting, only to prepare a bid or estimate. Unless I am missing something "home inspections" are not for the purpose of bidding or estimating.
10-5 nothing to do with the requirements set forth to be qualified to "inspect plumbing" set forth by I.D.P.H. and the plumbing license law.
15-10 nothing to do with plumbing inspections, [/font]

Part 6
This is why I had asked in my first post the question of how would other handle this situation. Either the realtor or the HI hed led the owner to believe by words or actions that correction were required. Not that the report was guide to concerns. I still do believe that somewhere within a report (unless I am wrong) there should be ( in my opinion)a disclaimer that these are observations that might or not be a health & safety issue which might or might not be required by the AHJ to be corrected. Whether it be wiring, plumbing, roofing, concrete or HVAC system.

My focus is regarding requirements that must be in place to allow anyone within the State of Illinois who engages in inspections of a plumbing system (not observation. The few reports I have seen are very careful not to use the word inspection in the plumbing section. I could be incorrect here as I have not seen that many reports.) to first be a "Licensed Plumber".

Secondly I have worked with my regional I.D.P.H. office with the Regional Engineer Mike Hungerford (recently retired) to send out letters. Whether through his department or the Illinois Attorney Generals office I do not have the details. I submitted a report that a "plumbing inspection" was performed at X location by a person not licensed to do so. Whether you belive this or not is not my concern.

To close with you sir.
I have not made accusations toward or about your character or your posts.
I have tried to keep the information simple without to much detail.
I will not address any posts in the future that contain verbage from you or anyone else that is accusational, insulting or otherwise makes an attempt to attack me, my character or posts directly.
If I have made a post that directly attacked, accused or insulted any particular individual I apologize for my actions.

Respectfully G.N.
Wow I had to come back in and clean all the text up. Cut and pasting interfered with font sizes.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Glen,
Please post exactly what the HI stated in the report that lead you to believe that the HI was in violation of IL law. Or, a representation of the wording that was in the report There are to many possibilities.

You might be surprised how HIs would line up behind you with support for your actions.

See post below. I believe the line was crossed when he used a section of the report to "write in a incorrect or non vented fixture".

The realtor or HI (not sure ehich) led the owner to believe the corrections would be required to sell the home. I could never establish who was the party that suggested this as the corrections were made, home sold and old owners moved away.

These instances happened over three years ago everyone. I had just ran accross this forum recently looking up a roofing question. this led me to ask about this past incident since I could not find a place to query the subject with. I did not realize I would open up a potential fire storm.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Right, as pointed out several times, your beef should be with the plumbers, and if the upgrades were unnecessary, then shame on them.

See post below.
Plumbers like you would not turn down work. My contention is:

1) Inspecting plumbing without a license as outlined in my post above.

2) Whomever suggested that the corrections were mandated to sell the home. Some specuation as to who.

Glen,

Specifically, how would you suggest I report a bathtub discharging to a sump (dewatering pump) so as to adequately inform my clients:

1) of the technical reasons whey this is incorrect and

2) Of it's possible financial implications

without reference to the fact that it is possible code violation?

Or, more to the point Glen, how do you suggest the home inspector should have reported the deficient plumbing system you've been referring to?

As asked previously, please provide us with exactly what the home inspector said on the report. I can only presume you have it as it would be unprofessional of you to report somebody without first hand knowledge of what the report stated.

Originally Posted by Michael Thomas

Glen,

Specifically, how would you suggest I report a bathtub discharging to a sump (dewatering pump) so as to adequately inform my clients:

1) of the technical reasons whey this is incorrect and

2) Of it's possible financial implications

without reference to the fact that it is possible code violation?

We had a similar scenario in my jurisdiction. We had a sewer expansion project which funding prohibits the introduction of surface water into the sanitary system.
Our public works departments while out on location did not observe a sump discharge protruding out from the home. They noted it then called my department to go out and verify that the surface water was not discharging into the sanitary system. They handed down the line to a department that has a licensed plumber to make those decisions.

Even though this varies in that a tub is discharging into a sump crock not a sealed and properly vented pit that discharges into the sanitary, If you observed this contact a licensed plumber or possibly a local plumbing inspector to verify your observations and write up a report covering just this single issue.

I believe in Mr. Watsons post providing a cost factor is not what the proccess is about or am I incorrect?

Hi Glen

They have something extremely similar to that in Texas. If you are not in an incorporated area or out of city limits in a particular county then Home Inspectors technically are not suppose to inspect the plumbing end of things. Theyt all do...every day.

In all due respect I think it is a crock. Your Home Inspector acquaintance may have written something up that he was wrong about. He may have noted the item as a concern because it did not follow the standards or codes of the day.

I am just curious why you would make such a fuss about it. Sending letters to....whom ever.... that someone inspected plumbing that was not a plumber. You cannot be serious.

You may not agree with the inspectors decision to call it out and the folks put out 6,000 but i am still not sure why it is coming back on the inspector. In essence it sounds like (have not seen his report yet) he did his job and noted something as not being up to the days standards. The Realtor or whomever did not address it properly to the sellers or older folks. They put out the money, their choice, and now we are here with the home inspector being a lecherous sort that takes advantage of old folks.

You have to admit it Glen. Something is wrong here. What you need to do is have all the Home inspectors in your state arrested because I can assure you that every single one of them...hundreds...inspect plumbing every inspection they do.

It sounds to me like the plumbers have great lobbyists and want everyone out of there business so they can make a couple hundred on every home inspection and in doing so is raising the cost to every single home buyer and seller.

Home inspectors lower the costs involved in buying or selling a home by not having every single trade show up for a home inspection. HVAC, Framers, foundation, Plumbing, Electrical, engineers, etc etc etc etc. If every trade was brought in for a home inspection you can easily see that the minimum home inspection would be well over a thousand dollars at the minimum..


What sense does that make. I am sure you are seeing the point.

Like I said. Get the copier ready for the hundreds of letters that have to go out to the courts to arrest everyone with a Home inspection business. They all inspect plumbing.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

We had a similar scenario in my jurisdiction. We had a sewer expansion project which funding prohibits the introduction of surface water into the sanitary system.
Our public works departments while out on location did not observe a sump discharge protruding out from the home. They noted it then called my department to go out and verify that the surface water was not discharging into the sanitary system. They handed down the line to a department that has a licensed plumber to make those decisions.

Even though this varies in that a tub is discharging into a sump crock not a sealed and properly vented pit that discharges into the sanitary, If you observed this contact a licensed plumber or possibly a local plumbing inspector to verify your observations and write up a report covering just this single issue.

I believe in Mr. Watsons post providing a cost factor is not what the proccess is about or am I incorrect?

*My red bold above in your post*

Now you are starting to understand what a home inspection is all about. Everything we find needs follow up in some way. If it is plumbing then the concerned parties should bring a plumber in. If the Plumber goes along with what the home inspector found and does repairs.....oh well. I guess the plumber thought it needed correction as well or it could have been as simple as the seller agreeing to a request from a buyer to repair/upgrade/update some particular items and the sale went on. Still no fowl.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Or, more to the point Glen, how do you suggest the home inspector should have reported the deficient plumbing system you've been referring to?

As asked previously, please provide us with exactly what the home inspector said on the report. I can only presume you have it as it would be unprofessional of you to report somebody without first hand knowledge of what the report stated.

part 1)
Note deficiencies, contact licensed people to create a report to be included in your overall report.

part 2)
As I thought I had posted earlier, possibly not clear enough. Both of these incidents occurred near 3 years ago. (If you can remember verbatum exact wording of incidents that long ago you are a much better person than I am.)
First. Copies of the written HI report were given to I.D.P.H. for their review, since they are the ones that can take action. The HI inspector made a comment about an existing tub that was not vented correctly. (Note I said written not a check put in a box.) In this case the DWV system was cast iron and lead. The tub was tied into a lead ferrel below the water closet with a drum trap, which in 1940's was a common practice. Yes this would not be code compliant in any current plumbing code, but was an acceptible practice when originally installed. I would not address this issue nor would any other plumbing inspector I know of since it is original plumbing and did not pose in imminent hazrd.
After providing I.D.P.H regional with my report showing that an inspection by QYZ HI on a plumbing system was performed at XYZ location,
I was informed by my regional I.D.P.H. office that a certified letter was sent to the HI that required a signature. I do not have a copy of I.D.P.H. letter, the jist was (as told by regional office) By signing the letter it was not an admission of guilt, copies of the license law were included in the letter. Which outlines the requirements for engaging in the business of plumbing.
Secondly I was a contact by a seller asking about the requirements to make corrections to the home, they were led to believe they must make to sell their home. This incident was taken care with a phone conversation by me informing them the only entity that could require them to make changes would be our department if an imminent health and safety issues was found by an inspection from our department. We would not perform any inspection unless it was requested by the owner.


I hope this sheds enough light on the situation I had.
My primary concerns are licensing for the service provided, possible misrepresentation to consumer.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Hi Glen

They have something extremely similar to that in Texas. If you are not in an incorporated area or out of city limits in a particular county then Home Inspectors technically are not suppose to inspect the plumbing end of things. Theyt all do...every day.

In all due respect I think it is a crock. Your Home Inspector acquaintance may have written something up that he was wrong about. He may have noted the item as a concern because it did not follow the standards or codes of the day.

I am just curious why you would make such a fuss about it. Sending letters to....whom ever.... that someone inspected plumbing that was not a plumber. You cannot be serious.

You may not agree with the inspectors decision to call it out and the folks put out 6,000 but i am still not sure why it is coming back on the inspector. In essence it sounds like (have not seen his report yet) he did his job and noted something as not being up to the days standards. The Realtor or whomever did not address it properly to the sellers or older folks. They put out the money, their choice, and now we are here with the home inspector being a lecherous sort that takes advantage of old folks.

You have to admit it Glen. Something is wrong here. What you need to do is have all the Home inspectors in your state arrested because I can assure you that every single one of them...hundreds...inspect plumbing every inspection they do.

It sounds to me like the plumbers have great lobbyists and want everyone out of there business so they can make a couple hundred on every home inspection and in doing so is raising the cost to every single home buyer and seller.

Home inspectors lower the costs involved in buying or selling a home by not having every single trade show up for a home inspection. HVAC, Framers, foundation, Plumbing, Electrical, engineers, etc etc etc etc. If every trade was brought in for a home inspection you can easily see that the minimum home inspection would be well over a thousand dollars at the minimum..


What sense does that make. I am sure you are seeing the point.

Like I said. Get the copier ready for the hundreds of letters that have to go out to the courts to arrest everyone with a Home inspection business. They all inspect plumbing.

I do not get involved in these types of issues unless I receive a complaint or question from homeowners.

Yes I do see your point. What some of you do not realize is where exactly do things such as this possibly cross a line and if the line is crossed where do you stand in dueing your due dilligence. This is an issue I face all to often.

What should I do if I observe a roof being installed in my jurisdiction by a company that does not have an Illinois License to do so? OR should I not report if I find out that someone is performing home inspections without the correct credentials to do so?

I do agree that some points are not worth the hassel nor do I agree with all points of the current plumbing code or license law., but where do you make the break? Is one violation OK. If so how about two or three or four. Where do you make the break?

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

*My red bold above in your post*

Now you are starting to understand what a home inspection is all about. Everything we find needs follow up in some way. If it is plumbing then the concerned parties should bring a plumber in. If the Plumber goes along with what the home inspector found and does repairs.....oh well. I guess the plumber thought it needed correction as well or it could have been as simple as the seller agreeing to a request from a buyer to repair/upgrade/update some particular items and the sale went on. Still no fowl.

Sorry this should have went to Michael Thomas post.

The single issue would be just the line item regarding the tub problem at this location with HI addressing every other issue directly.

Yes I agree you guys have a hard time, I would not want to try to keep up with you.

With every post Glen you sound more and more like a hack. You admit not knowing 'who' led the owner to believe corrections had to be made. So based on poor, wording, verbiage, the use of the word inspection, you decided to jam a guy up and put a ding on his license. That's really great. How proud you must be. Kind of like someone yelling fire in a theater because they smelled a cigarette by the front door.
Did you also file a complaint against the realtor and the attorneys? NO? Too much of a wuss for that fight? Knew they'd slam you back into your cubicle?
Your recommendations on how to report/handle Michael's question are grossly unrealistic. Someone following your guidelines would be out of business fairly quick.
I'm done, just such nonsense.

What's the point of having a home inspector inspect a home if he is not going to inspect anything?

I know more about the codes than many of the tradespeople building in my area. I report that the house does "not meet commonly accepted building practices". Don't ever use the word CODE in my reports. I have had licensed tradespeople call and tell me I am wrong. I ask them to put their response in writing, sign it and put their license number on it saying it is code compliant. Guess what? They never do. I have the state inspectors phone numbers on speed dial so can always go to the source if need backup when dealing with tradespeople.

Yes, home inspectors read, study and know code. Yes, we use code as a point of reference when inspecting homes. Yes, we apply current code to older homes. Your gonna get hurt if you fall from a flight of stairs without railings regardless of when the code was adopted.

My licensing board says I will inspect the home and encourages home inspectors to learn code. If we want to specifcially reference code, we must quote the code in the report as well as document what code was enforce at the time the house or compontent was installed. Silly nonsense put in the law by real estate lobbist. No need to because the current law on the books says if we reference "state building code". Hah, I always refer to IRC instead of state code. Easy work around.

Yes, I write up drum traps everytime I see one. They are obsolete and require maintenance. Neither the buyer or seller is required to repair or replace anything in a home inspectors report. The report is simply doucmenting the state of the property at the time of the inspection. It is up to the buyer to decide if they want to encouage the seller to fix, reduce the selling price, return money at closing, or ignore the problem.

If plumbers knew how to do their job, then there would not be a need for home inspectors to follow along behind them and document their mistakes. Yes, I inspect plumbing and dont have a plumbers license.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

Note deficiencies, contact licensed people to create a report to be included in your overall report.

Glen,

Absent a knowledge of local, state and national codes, and a willingness to apply these standards at a home inspection, what would be my basis for assuming that the bathroom fixtures draining into the sump pump are 'deficient" in the first place?

Seriously... I would appreciate a specific example, in the form of suggested wording, as to how I should report such a plumbing "deficiency" under your interpretation of the relevant Illinois licensing laws for plumbers and home inspectors.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

part 1)
Note deficiencies, contact licensed people to create a report to be included in your overall report.

This is where you need to understand the home inspectors position. We are hired consultants. The information we give our clients is private. We cannot contact licensed people. We can't divulge any information on our report to anyone without express approval from our clients. Therefore we leave the contacting of the licensed people up to the clients. This appears to be exactly what happened in this case. Somebody, not the home inspector, contacted the licensed plumber who in turn agreed with the inspector and charged the elderly couple $6,000 to update their plumbing. I don't see how you can blame the home inspector for this.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

part 2)
As I thought I had posted earlier, possibly not clear enough. Both of these incidents occurred near 3 years ago. (If you can remember verbatum exact wording of incidents that long ago you are a much better person than I am.)
First. Copies of the written HI report were given to I.D.P.H. for their review, since they are the ones that can take action. The HI inspector made a comment about an existing tub that was not vented correctly. (Note I said written not a check put in a box.) In this case the DWV system was cast iron and lead. The tub was tied into a lead ferrel below the water closet with a drum trap, which in 1940's was a common practice. Yes this would not be code compliant in any current plumbing code, but was an acceptible practice when originally installed. I would not address this issue nor would any other plumbing inspector I know of since it is original plumbing and did not pose in imminent hazrd.
After providing I.D.P.H regional with my report showing that an inspection by QYZ HI on a plumbing system was performed at XYZ location,
I was informed by my regional I.D.P.H. office that a certified letter was sent to the HI that required a signature. I do not have a copy of I.D.P.H. letter, the jist was (as told by regional office) By signing the letter it was not an admission of guilt, copies of the license law were included in the letter. Which outlines the requirements for engaging in the business of plumbing.
Secondly I was a contact by a seller asking about the requirements to make corrections to the home, they were led to believe they must make to sell their home. This incident was taken care with a phone conversation by me informing them the only entity that could require them to make changes would be our department if an imminent health and safety issues was found by an inspection from our department. We would not perform any inspection unless it was requested by the owner.


I hope this sheds enough light on the situation I had.
My primary concerns are licensing for the service provided, possible misrepresentation to consumer.

The comment I highlighted in bold indicates that the home inspector did not "cite code". How exactly is a home inspector supposed to report a bathtub that isn't vented correctly and not say "the bathtub is not vented correctly"? I also note that you did not include what the inspector suggested that his client do about the improper vent. You do, however, go on with a lengthy, in depth account of how you turned the home inspector in for inspecting the plumbing system.

I really don't get it. The home inspector called out the improper vent, according to you, not citing code. A licensed plumber came in, agreed that it was improper and did the repairs. The local code enforcement official (you) agree that the vent is improper, but then turn around and make a complaint against the home inspector and blame him for taking advantage of elderly couples?

Now its coming out, as I suspected, and vaguely remember (at this age and stage in life the rusty file cab called a brain isn't as cracker jack as it once was).THREE YEARS AGO (or so!) JUST AS I SUSPECTED...the same BUNK spread or repeated AGAIN.1. Note the IDPH considers you and your status "unemployed" visa vie your license.2. Madison County?Yep, three - 1/2 years ago some dolt got some branch office to carry on with some bogus letters with a less than effective assistant to the GC of the IDPH because some inspector got his shorts twisted. Not one held up. Envir health and IDPH took a shake. It was fought, thrown out, private lawyers were reimbursed, "heads rolled".Its ALL BOGUS, that is to say BUNK. You are obviously are, were, am, out of the loop, or missed the memos Nov 2007 and April 2008. Your "theory" is out of gas. Burnt. All droped or reversed. The errant misguided long since gone by means of transfer, departure and attrition.No such prohibition, the Plumbers Licensing Act does not prohibit INSPECTION by others licensed to do so, SUCH as HOME INSPECTORS fuctioning in the capacity of HOME INSPECTION of residential real estate. The act YOU rely on for your arguments relates to those engaged in the PRACTICE of PLUMBING. Neither the Rules or the ACT relegate the INSPECTION of plumbing solely to PLUMBERS. PERIOD.Same yahoo-"AHJ inspector" got burned the other way around for not having LEHP status and "inspecting" as a plumbing "inspector" a Private Sanitary disposal or private well water system.You are absolutely out of gas and pitching bull chips. Your three-plus-year-old theory is wrong and out of gas. Ken Runkle and Frank Shimkus will tell you the same thing. Either you failed to read your "memos" or rather letters from the IDPH in late 2007/early 2008 or were already "out of the loop" by then.IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL to "inspect" plumbing system as a home inspector in illinois of a residential property as long as you are "inspecting" at least a second "qualifying" system or componant of the residential real estate.So can "plumbers" inspect the plumbing on behalf of the owner, so can a LEHP (licensed environmental health practitioner), so MAY an engineer, architect, etc. or anyone LICENSED to practice that includes a plumbing system.Inpection of "plumbing" is not limited to "plumbers" in Illinois. Despite the egomanical theories of a licensed plumber employed past or present as a "plumbing inspector".This one obviously has no idea how laws are passed or the Illinois Consitution. The Legislature has passed numerous ACTS which provide for the practice of architecture, Engineering, Enviromental Health Practitioners, and oops, HOME INSPECTORS to do so (amongst others).Oddly enough Licensed Environmental Health Practioners are not regulated by the divison of Environmental Health of the Department of Public Health. Imagine that!Two branches of Executive government have already had this **ssing match, and it was and has been resolved long ago, by both the legislature and the judiciary.The entire "story" from the first to his last post is PURE BUNK.Illinois Licensed Home Inspectors, inspecting RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY, rest easy, you are just FINE.

three or even six THOUSAND dollars to route an auxiliary vent and retrofit a p-trap for a tub previously fitted with a drum trap, GET REAL.

Glen,
In first 2 cases you sited were Home Inspections preformed for the seller/owner as the contracted client ?

Was the Home Inspection done at the suggestion/direction of the owner/seller's real estate agent?

Did the HI's report refer to the plumbing being "Inspected" or "inspected" ?

Did the HI's report state:
1) The inspected plumbing could be corrected.
2) The inspected plumbing needs to be corrected.
3) The inspected plumbing must be corrected.

Was it the real estate agent that used the HI report to say that the plumbing must be corrected to sell the property?

Did the HI in the written (not checked box) state that anything in the report must be altered/corrected/replaced to sell the property ?

Did the HI present himself as Lic. Plumbing Inspector ?

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Glen,
In first 2 cases you sited were Home Inspections preformed for the seller/owner as the contracted client ?

Was the Home Inspection done at the suggestion/direction of the owner/seller's real estate agent?

Did the HI's report refer to the plumbing being "Inspected" or "inspected" ?

Did the HI's report state:
1) The inspected plumbing could be corrected.
2) The inspected plumbing needs to be corrected.
3) The inspected plumbing must be corrected.

Was it the real estate agent that used the HI report to say that the plumbing must be corrected to sell the property?

Did the HI in the written (not checked box) state that anything in the report must be altered/corrected/replaced to sell the property ?

Did the HI present himself as Lic. Plumbing Inspector ?

Gary
Let me start off by thanking you for being direct and bearing with me as I try to explain details of soemthing that happened a while back.
If any other actions by IDPH, or conflict between different branches of Illinois Government occured regarding these incidents no one from either department contacted me to inform me an outcome, or an incorrect call from my end.
I will make some calls on my end to see if I am incorrect in the way I have been informed "Inspections" on plumbing systems for any case may be handled.

To answer your question:

I believe the inspection was performed for buyer. I do not know if the buyers real estate agent or the buyer requested it.

In a blank area of the HI form there was a paragraph written about incorrect venting of a tub. (This to my understanding is where a problem occured, in that a judgement about the plumbing system was made by an unlicensed (not a plumber) person was made.

I believe it was the real estate agent who presented the report to the owner.

I do not believe that anywhere in the HI report did the HI state that any correction must be made to sell the home.

I do not believe that at any time did the HI attempt to represent himself as a licensed plumber.

Now I ask readers to go back up to my first post and check it out.
1) I asked how others would have handled what I described, beliveing that people had been taking advantage of.
I believe that by posting on the board how I handled it either right or wrong set things off on the wrong foot. This is evident by the many hostile replies, name calling and aqusations seen in follow up posts. If I am incorrect then so be it I will accept that (after calling the State directly) and will post so on this board.

The person who can not admit that they make mistakes is not much of a person at all. After reporting this to IDPH no one has ever contacted me informing me of an outcome.

2) I still am under the opinion that when an HI makes a call on an inspection if they cite problems they should have a disclaimer on their forms that would let all the parties involved know that current codes or standards have been applied their report and that when a home was built the current codes/standards they are using to formulate their report may not require quoted deficiencies to be addressed.

I do hope for the ones that have shown hostility on this board, used name calling and accused this of being a story will take a moment to look at how they acted and asked themselves if it was necessary to do so. I do not believe it helped. Things can be resolved without such actions.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

2) I still am under the opinion that when an HI makes a call on an inspection IF they cite problems they should have a disclaimer on their forms that would let all the parties involved know that current codes or standards have been applied their report and that when a home was built the current codes/standards they are using to formulate their report may not require quoted deficiencies to be addressed.

You might be confused about the job of a home inspector. Home inspectors make a primarily visual inspection of a property. We document as many problems as we can find. We "cite problems" for a living. That is basically all we do and why we were hired in the first place. To find as many problems as possible with the property. They is no IF, only how many.

My state declares that a home inspector is checking for Safety and Habitability. How do we define Safe and Habitable? By how closely it meets building codes and manufacturer installation instructions. The codes are updated because people have died and we figured out if we build homes in a different way, less people will be injured or killed. Safety and Habitability. Older codes are generally less safe and make a home less habitable. There is no need to disclaim current code application because officially I am not performing a code inspection, I am conducting a safety inspection.

Nothing in a home inspectors report is required to be addressed. Absolutely nothing, ever is REQUIRED. Home inspectors have no legal ability to require any changes to any property ever. Home inspectors simply document the current condition of the property and report any potential safety issues. It is up the buyers to determine what issues are important and encourage the sellers to correct them or make price concessions.

Certainly many inspectors help their clients to prioritize the list of defects. Fix the large hole in the furnace flue before worrying about the asbestos in the popcorn ceiling texture.

Since you are a code enforcement official, it would follow that you think that the code is good and the more people who are encouraging home owners to improve their homes to meet current code, the better. Your job is not in jeopardy from private home inspectors. Most of us do not want your job. Some of us have been or are code enforcement officials. Many of us regularly interact with local code enforcement officials to encourage officials to actually enforce code instead of giving a pass to every builder.

You might just rummage around a few of the other posts and see that most discussions eventually lead to a posting of a segment of code that pertains to the original photo and question. Most of the posters are very code knowledgeable and pride themselves on their depth of knowledge while trying to every expand that knowledge. We not only have to know the plumbing code but also building, mechanical and electrical. And the manufactures installation instructions for absolutely every single part, component, fixture, appliance, and system in a home. ONLY knowing the plumbing code seems kinda easy comparatively.

Some of the posts back at you have been hostile. You stance has been that only code enfocements officals can enforce code and that noone else is able to determine if an installation is not code complaint. I will agree that only a code enforcment offical can "Offically Declare" an installation is out of compliance and require a property owner to change or upgrade. The problem from our viewpoint is that any mildly educated person should be able to read the code and look at installation and determine if meets the code requirements and state it does not meet the what is written in the code book. It is up to the buyer or seller to use that information and hire a LICENSED PROFESSIONAL to confirm that is a faulty installation and repair or replace.

Now I ask readers to go back up to my first post and check it out.
1) I asked how others would have handled what I described, beliveing that people had been taking advantage of.
I believe that by posting on the board how I handled it either right or wrong set things off on the wrong foot. This is evident by the many hostile replies, name calling and aqusations seen in follow up posts. If I am incorrect then so be it I will accept that (after calling the State directly) and will post so on this board.

Depends on what point of view your looking for. If I were the home inspector I would have handled it exactly how you described the home inspector handled it. That's my job.
If I were you, I wouldn't have turned the home inspector in to IDPH.

2) I still am under the opinion that when an HI makes a call on an inspection if they cite problems they should have a disclaimer on their forms that would let all the parties involved know that current codes or standards have been applied their report and that when a home was built the current codes/standards they are using to formulate their report may not require quoted deficiencies to be addressed.

Unless your area is different than mine, home inspectors are not code inspectors. You've already stated that the home inspector did not "cite code" but simply made a statement regarding incorrect venting. As I've previously stated, home inspectors are private contractors. We cannot disclose information regarding the inspection to anyone, other than our clients, without express consent of those clients. Legally we can't speak with the sellers regarding anything in our report. Secondly, every home inspection report I've ever seen says exactly what standards of practice are applied during the inspection. Unless you read every word in the entire report you probably won't see it.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

Gary
Let me start off by thanking you for being direct and bearing with me as I try to explain details of soemthing that happened a while back.
If any other actions by IDPH, or conflict between different branches of Illinois Government occured regarding these incidents no one from either department contacted me to inform me an outcome, or an incorrect call from my end.
I will make some calls on my end to see if I am incorrect in the way I have been informed "Inspections" on plumbing systems for any case may be handled.

To answer your question:

I believe the inspection was performed for buyer. I do not know if the buyers real estate agent or the buyer requested it.

In a blank area of the HI form there was a paragraph written about incorrect venting of a tub. (This to my understanding is where a problem occured, in that a judgement about the plumbing system was made by an unlicensed (not a plumber) person was made.

I believe it was the real estate agent who presented the report to the owner.

I do not believe that anywhere in the HI report did the HI state that any correction must be made to sell the home.

I do not believe that at any time did the HI attempt to represent himself as a licensed plumber.

Now I ask readers to go back up to my first post and check it out.
1) I asked how others would have handled what I described, beliveing that people had been taking advantage of.
I believe that by posting on the board how I handled it either right or wrong set things off on the wrong foot. This is evident by the many hostile replies, name calling and aqusations seen in follow up posts. If I am incorrect then so be it I will accept that (after calling the State directly) and will post so on this board.

The person who can not admit that they make mistakes is not much of a person at all. After reporting this to IDPH no one has ever contacted me informing me of an outcome.

2) I still am under the opinion that when an HI makes a call on an inspection if they cite problems they should have a disclaimer on their forms that would let all the parties involved know that current codes or standards have been applied their report and that when a home was built the current codes/standards they are using to formulate their report may not require quoted deficiencies to be addressed.

I do hope for the ones that have shown hostility on this board, used name calling and accused this of being a story will take a moment to look at how they acted and asked themselves if it was necessary to do so. I do not believe it helped. Things can be resolved without such actions.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X
Glen,
I had a reason for asking those questions. Thank you for answering them in such detail.

I think I have it now.

You heard that a Realtor in conjunction with a Licensed Plumber used a Home Inspection report to victimize a seller. You were upset about this older couple. So you reacted and looked for a method to take some kind of action. Which is commendable.

It appears that you then made a false conclusion and proceed to take action. The conclusion being the Inspection Report was the cause for the Realtor and Plumber to act against the interests of the seller and therefore it must have been the Home Inspector himself that was the cause of others acting in an illegal/deceptive/fraudulent manor in having the seller believe that repairs were required for the sale of the property to proceed.

Without getting into what logical argument methodology is and what a false argument is and what constitutes illogical argument. You were/are wrong in your thinking.

You took the course of least resistance to make yourself feel that you had actually done something. You tried to seize on a gray area and expand it into something.

By your own admonition the HI had no contact with seller, did not misrepresent himself, did not mandate anything be corrected, did not propose what correction method was needed/required and that your entire point of conflict with IL statutes rests on a comment about plumbing within the HI report. Your position and argument is fallacious.

The fact that the report did not have a disclaimer that met with your approval dealing in the area of Plumbing Code and violation, I would think from experience of seeing many reports prepared by HIs in many differing states that there must have been some wording that, if read, would preclude or instruct that references to anything were observations and licensed professionals should be contacted for further evaluation.

The Home Inspector in the cases you present would possibly end up in court to testify on the behalf of the seller against the Realtor and Licensed Plumber. Who were the ones making fraudulent misrepresentations of the inspection report for their own benefit.

Your actions though possibly with good intentions were most likely wrong.

I would like to know.

Why did you not (since you did not say that you did) file complaints against the Realtor and Plumber for the complicity in the falsifying Code requirements as it was represented to the seller.

If the Realtor said anything to seller about the plumbing, anything about alteration/correction, then the Realtor is in violation of you understanding of the plumbing law in addition to other criminal, ethical, license violations.

If the Plumber came to bid on the job the Plumber hearing that it was in reference to correcting a code violation as part of the sale of the property, the Plumber would be in violation of the their license if they told the seller that the plumbing was in violation of code (fraud) and needed to be corrected.

Are you also zealous when it comes to monitoring the plumbing trade in your jurisdiction?

At times, I and others may come off as hostile when what we are really trying to accomplish is a clearer understand. Most questions and comments can be taken many ways. Please try to take our comments and question in a positive light as we strive to gather greater understanding and expand our knowledge.

I told you how to educate yourself. I gave you the name of the "go to" guy regards the plumbing section of Environmental Health (Fred S.) and the head of the Environmental Health Divison at Illinois Department of Health in Springfield.

When you're next employed as a plumbing inspector for a muni or county, perhaps then you'll read the memos addressed to all plublic health departments.

As far as how YOU should handle the hearsay or get involved in a real estate transaction, three years after the fact - it isn't your job.

A buyer can ask a seller to construct a mamoth concrete elephant in the center of a bathroom or a pink pig on the roof before they'll buy at a price all-inclusive offered, they can ask for the man on the moon with their contingent offer, subject to the buyer's acceptance of a home inspection report. The HI and his/her report is NOT a code inspection, it is an examination on behalf of the buyer to point out what the buyer may or may not have SEEN, and may or may not have been AWARE OF when he submitted his CONTINGNT OFFER! The Buyer gets to reconsider his cont. offer based upon what he considers after having received his/her home inspection report, and either completely rejects the report and cancels the sale with full refund and walks away, or counter offers based on whatever he/she gleans from the inspection report. The buyer is in no way obligated to share any part of the inspection report, whether he walks or counteroffers. He may request further specialized inspections of limited areas by OTHER SPECIFIC or more SPECIALIZED professionals, acquire bids, plans, etc. to do whatever . and THEN reconsider his/her offer, or may chose to continue on with the original offer unammended.

Its an offer to a contract with or without performance clauses for real estate purchase - it is not your business as an AHJ or a plumber or "plumbing inspector" to be involved in the negotiations or transaction. If the buyer wants a change they'll ask for it - the seller can accept and perform, or REFUSE and risk losing the sale, period.

The Buyer's can ask that a now illegal drum trap, some forty or fifty years plus old and likely corroded, not functioning, clogged, unserviced, whatever, BE REPLACED and updated prior to sale, they can ask an old tub with a spout and valves without an airgap (below the flood rim of the fixture, in this case bath tub) be updated with currently compliant, health-consious, non-system contaminating supply plumbing (kits are sold every day for far less than 3,000 dollars, in fact you can get some for as little as three hundred! The sellers can ALWAYS turn DOWN the offer, decline and release the earnest money, or counter-offer, and risk rejection and loss of earnest money and sale, and live on to sell another day. They can ask a home theater system be left behind, or be installed! They can ask for something to be removed, updated, improved, or remediated. They can ask for white walls to be painted purple, or vice versa. They can ask for a new carpeting allowance because they don't like the color the seller's chose, WHATEVER.

Three years ago it was a seller's market, not the case today.

The stories and the "cases" are bunk. The OP is full of it.If you want to know what a home inspector does, visit the division of professional regulation, OBRE's page on Home Inspection, there you'll be linked to the Act, the Rules (ad code) and all sorts of interesting state produced pages on what the Licensed Home Inspector IS and does. Don't come here and tell TALES and besmirch the profession and claim those licensed to perform HI in Illinois break the law in your jurisdiction because they INSPECT a residence's PLUMBING SYSTEM(S) during a home inspection.

I've read every one of your posts, including the one with big type and formatting and insertion issues that have stretched the margins of the thread and make it almost unreadable now! In fact, I've read every word posted on this entire topic discussion. Obviously you haven't done the same.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I told you how to educate yourself. I gave you the name of the "go to" guy regards the plumbing section of Environmental Health (Fred S.) and the head of the Environmental Health Divison at Illinois Department of Health in Springfield.

When you're next employed as a plumbing inspector for a muni or county, perhaps then you'll read the memos addressed to all plublic health departments.

1)As far as how YOU should handle the hearsay or get involved in a real estate transaction, three years after the fact - it isn't your job.

inspections of limited areas by OTHER SPECIFIC or more SPECIALIZED professionals, acquire bids, plans, etc. to do whatever . and THEN reconsider his/her offer, or may chose to continue on with the original offer unammended.

2) it is not your business as an AHJ or a plumber or "plumbing inspector" to be involved in the negotiations or transaction.

3)The Buyer's can ask that a now illegal drum trap, some forty or fifty years plus old and likely corroded, not functioning, clogged, unserviced, whatever, BE REPLACED and updated prior to sale, day.


4)Don't come here and tell TALES and besmirch the profession and claim those licensed to perform HI in Illinois break the law in your jurisdiction because they INSPECT a residence's PLUMBING SYSTEM(S) during a home inspection.

5)I've read every one of your posts, including the one with big type and formatting and insertion issues that have stretched the margins of the thread and make it almost unreadable now! In fact, I've read every word posted on this entire topic discussion. Obviously you haven't done the same.

Now that you seem to be a more civil I will respond to you.

Did I miss something in a previous post? I do not see the "go to guy" listed in an above post. I am in the process of contacting the Director and have a call out for a DPR investigator I deal with. Waiting to hear form them.


1) & 2) As I posted multiple times> the home owner contacted me to inquire about corrections they were informed by either the real estate agent or HI that led them to believe they must make corrections. I answered their questions, in that they would not be required to make corrections had they asked me to look at a problem asking for advice as a licensed plumber.
This after they invested money into making corrections.
This in no way puts in to a transaction.

3) Absolutely agreed. This as explained to me was not clear. Also posted above, in response to the comment by Gary Sorrells.

4) There is a difference between a tale and actual events. This is the latter of the two.

5) See my post dated 11/10/2010 and edited at 1:23 pm. You would see the last line commenting on how I had to come back in and attempt to clean up the text since copying and pasting from word is not friendly on this board. Has to with something in the way word formats the text that when copied to this board causes conflict. If I do so in the future I will remove all formatting from word prior to posting. This board does not appear to regocnize highlighting.
Not a lot of difference than your post above on 11/09/2010

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Now its coming out, as I suspected, and vaguely remember (at this age and stage in life the rusty file cab called a brain isn't as cracker jack as it once was).THREE YEARS AGO (or so!) JUST AS I SUSPECTED...the same BUNK spread or repeated AGAIN.

1. Note the IDPH considers you and your status "unemployed" visa vie your license.

2. Madison County?Yep, three - 1/2 years ago some dolt got some branch office to carry on with some bogus letters with a less than effective assistant to the GC of the IDPH because some inspector got his shorts twisted. Not one held up. Envir health and IDPH took a shake. It was fought, thrown out, private lawyers were reimbursed, "heads rolled".

Its ALL BOGUS, that is to say BUNK.

You are obviously are, were, am, out of the loop, or missed the memos Nov 2007 and April 2008. Your "theory" is out of gas. Burnt. All droped or reversed. The errant misguided long since gone by means of transfer, departure and attrition.No such prohibition, the Plumbers Licensing Act does not prohibit INSPECTION by others licensed to do so, SUCH as HOME INSPECTORS fuctioning in the capacity of HOME INSPECTION of residential real estate. The act YOU rely on for your arguments relates to those engaged in the PRACTICE of PLUMBING. Neither the Rules or the ACT relegate the INSPECTION of plumbing solely to PLUMBERS. PERIOD.

Same yahoo-"AHJ inspector" got burned the other way around for not having LEHP status and "inspecting" as a plumbing "inspector" a Private Sanitary disposal or private well water system.

You are absolutely out of gas and pitching bull chips. Your three-plus-year-old theory is wrong and out of gas. Ken Runkle and Frank Shimkus will tell you the same thing. Either you failed to read your "memos" or rather letters from the IDPH in late 2007/early 2008 or were already "out of the loop" by then.

IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL to "inspect" plumbing system as a home inspector in illinois of a residential property as long as you are "inspecting" at least a second "qualifying" system or componant of the residential real estate.So can "plumbers" inspect the plumbing on behalf of the owner, so can a LEHP (licensed environmental health practitioner), so MAY an engineer, architect, etc. or anyone LICENSED to practice that includes a plumbing system.

Inpection of "plumbing" is not limited to "plumbers" in Illinois. Despite the egomanical theories of a licensed plumber employed past or present as a "plumbing inspector".

This one obviously has no idea how laws are passed or the Illinois Consitution. The Legislature has passed numerous ACTS which provide for the practice of architecture, Engineering, Enviromental Health Practitioners, and oops, HOME INSPECTORS to do so (amongst others).

Oddly enough Licensed Environmental Health Practioners are not regulated by the divison of Environmental Health of the Department of Public Health. Imagine that!

Two branches of Executive government have already had this **ssing match, and it was and has been resolved long ago, by both the legislature and the judiciary.

The entire "story" from the first to his last post is PURE BUNK.Illinois Licensed Home Inspectors, inspecting RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY, rest easy, you are just FINE.

three or even six THOUSAND dollars to route an auxiliary vent and retrofit a p-trap for a tub previously fitted with a drum trap, GET REAL.

It is not MY post which has caused the distortion upon viewing, but yours.

The "GO TO GUYS" named earlier, were mentioned, were provided, and in the very post you referenced. Fred is in the plumbing program, and Ken is the head of "environmental health" for the Departement of Public Health.

Your story, your "mission" and your three-year-old "stories" are out of gas!

Not only have you not informed the department or the plumbing program of your employment, you have also not submitted to the certification program for "plumbing inspectors". You might want to follow along and FOLLOW-UP on some of your own links!

Skipping over all the irrelevant details, the home inspector made the error of reporting something as not meeting code. We know there are a lot of inspectors who never had any HI training and do not know what continuing education is that spit out "not up to code" all the time. Could it be an effort to impress the client and help cover other weaknesses in their inspection and reporting process? Perhaps it's just the way they think an inspection is supposed to be done? Did they come from the construction field where "Inspection" means code inspections and they think that's what supposed to be done?

I never use the "CODE" word unless in some rare instance when explaining something to the client that it just happens to make things a little easier for them to understand. I use terms like "electrical shock hazard", "carbon monoxide poisoning hazard", "fire hazard", "trip and fall safety hazard". I, like Ted, don't care if something wasn't required when the house was built. If it is something that can adversely affect my client's safety or pocket book I report it. I also tell them verbally as well as in the inspection report that I make recommendations for repairs but it is not a "do it or else" statement. What they do, who does it, or when it's done, if they do anything at all, is entirely their decision.

After checking with a J. Darnell investigator for the D.P.R. he sent the question along to Debbie Niemann at Illinois.gov.


I have not heard back from the I.D.P.H. director yet. I will follow up with a phone call. I will try David Culp Deputy Director

The response is posted below. It appears as though there are points on both sides of this.


"
Good Day Joe

I am trying to clarify some questions about Home Inspection relating to the Illinois Plumbing Code. I am the plumbing inspector for the Village of Glen Carbon Illinois. I am under the impression that to perform plumbing inspection in the State of Illinois you must first be a licensed plumber.

I am running into Home Inspectors that during the course of their home inspection are using blank areas of their forms to comment on plumbing systems, making judgment calls on code violations. Example stating that a tub is not vented correctly. I am under the impression that when a written comment is made about a plumbing system it must be done by a certified plumbing inspector, a licensed plumber or local plumbing inspector. In the past I have had resident complaints in that they say they were led to believe that correction must be made to sell their home after receiving the home inspectors report. My stance on this when I have received a call from a resident is that:
1) The home inspector does not have the authority to make plumbing inspections unless he or she is a licensed plumber.
2) Just because a deficiency is noted, it might not be addressed by a plumbing inspector since the home was built at an earlier date and would not be held to a current standard


Recently I am hearing the through Home Inspectors quoting the Department of Professional Regulation here in the State of Illinois who licenses Home Inspectors I am not correct. I am told that a Home Inspector may comment on, write notes or state that a plumbing code violation exists at a residence in the process of a home inspection.

Am I incorrect? Are home inspectors allowed to write comments about plumbing system problems?

Joe
I am copying you on this since I do not have another E-mail address of someone at DPR. All other contact info require a phone call. I am attempting to document if I correct or incorrect.

Respectfully


Debbie,

Glen Neal, building inspector , posed this question to me. Can you answer it for us?


Mr. Darnell, below I have pulled sections of the Administrative Code that relate to the topic of Plumbing for Home Inspectors. I can only relay to you what the Act/Code states. I can tell you that "code violations" are not incorporated within the Act or the Administrative Code.


Section 1410.200 Standards of Practice

12) Inspect: To visually examine readily accessible systems and components of a building in accordance with this Subpart, using normal operating controls and opening readily accessible access panels.

Section 1410.20 Applicability of this Part

Nothing in this Part shall supersede the Illinois Plumbing Law [225 ILCS 320] administered through the Plumbers Licensing Code (68 Ill. Adm. Code 750) and the Illinois Plumbing Code (77 Ill. Adm. Code 890).

For a complete copy of the Home Inspector License Act and Administrative Code please vistit: www.idfpr.gov



Mr. Brookes
This I believe is an example of where the difference could be, all in the wording. Thanks for skipping the irrelevant details. Things gets easier.



Mr. Watson.
No where did I say that anyone "must" be a certified plumbing inspector. evidentally you know this. This is of course an "option" if a plumber wants to kick it up a notch.
This is requirement for State Plumbing Inspectors, which of course takes what 12 hours instead of the 4 required by Licensed Plumbers.
As for "my employment", none of your business and not needed in my position. you must not be as deep as you think you are.

How about letting us know of your business and position Sir since you seen to be in everyboby elses?
Or shall I look into how you attempted to find out private information not to be accessed by non-department individuals,,,,,, hum interesting.

Or did you used to work for the department? Either way still private info rascally rabbit. Is it Harold??

But at least you seem to be attempting to tone things down a bit, must be hard for you to focus on things, keep them civil and not play investigator, or is this what you do?

Oh I use diesel not gas.

Message board is still not spell check or format freindly,,,,rats.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

Mr. Watson.
No where did I say that anyone "must" be a certified plumbing inspector. evidentally you know this. This is of course an "option" if a plumber wants to kick it up a notch.
This is requirement for State Plumbing Inspectors, which of course takes what 12 hours instead of the 4 required by Licensed Plumbers.
As for "my employment", none of your business and not needed in my position. you must not be as deep as you think you are.

How about letting us know of your business and position Sir since you seen to be in everyboby elses?
Or shall I look into how you attempted to find out private information not to be accessed by non-department individuals,,,,,, hum interesting.

Or did you used to work for the department? Either way still private info rascally rabbit. Is it Harold??

But at least you seem to be attempting to tone things down a bit, must be hard for you to focus on things, keep them civil and not play investigator, or is this what you do?

Mr. Neal,

You are still "out of gas" with your latest fantasies.

IDPH maintains a PUBLIC data base with regards to the license status and current employment of ALL Plumbers outside of the city limits of Chicago, including their employment status and by whom or what entity; and YES that includes those employed, even part-time, as "inspectors" by municipalies, townships or counties. BTW, this includes those maintained in a "retirement" status of their license. I made reference to that PUBLIC DATA BASE earlier.

Note you are still "barking up the wrong tree" within IDPH, you were already supplied with the names of both of the parties to which such a question is properly posed via the "chain of command" and for which a CORRECT reply will be acquired, the Division of Environmental Heath, and the Plumbing Program.Granted, the Department's web site is less than ideal in its "user friendy"-ness, but it is all there.As mentioned previously, this was ALREADY addressed some three (plus) years ago following two previous "stirrings of the pot" following the legislature having CREATED legislation regarding "Home Inspection",by the IDPH AND the former Department of Professional Regulation (now a division within IDFPR), pertaining to HIs inspecting a residential plumbing system; AND "Plumbing Inspectors" NOT being authorized or qualified merely by virtue of their plumbing license to "inspect" private sewage disposal systems. Explored by the various boards & staff attorneys have already addressed in authoritative letters. Same fracas was attempted to "stir the pot" from your same county, more than three years ago - and it was ALL SHOT DOWN, everything! Your "re-inventing" the same old, tired argument, with your ever-changing "story". Its old, tired, and meanlingless.

Memos were issued to all Health Departments (municipal, county, etc.) by IDPH, div. of E.H., dates of which were already shared -- have a read.

Engineers trump even a Master Plumber when it comes to evaluation, design, and testing, even a residential plumbing system.

As far as the "none of your business" comment, "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" .

Since you are unable to read a profile, but wish to engage in fantasy, imagination, and fiction, there is no need to address your latest commentary further.

The Illinois Constitution, the Legislature, the Department(s) AND the Judiciary has spoken on the subject.

There is no restriction of the licensed Home Inspector to "inspect" and "report" upon a residential plumbing system as long as he is engaged to "inspect" and "report" on at least ONE OTHER qualified system of the residence at the time of the "inspection", in fact they (H.I.s) are required to do so. Illinois Home Inspectors do NOT engage in the PRACTICE OF PLUMBING, and their inspection of plumbing system(s) of a residence does not cause them to do so, it is not an activity which is either covered by or regulated by the Plumbing Act (just as engineers are not).

Wrong Again

Listed Illinois Licensed plumbers> http://www.siue.edu/ertc/pdf/ListofPlumbersreport.pdf
Wouldn't surprise me if Springfiled has a listing problem.

Which by the way shows "Place of Employment"
What about you, who and what license?

Still working on the assistant director

Still running on Diesel, keep your gas to yourself. you can have it.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

Wrong Again

Listed Illinois Licensed plumbers> http://www.siue.edu/ertc/pdf/ListofPlumbersreport.pdf
Wouldn't surprise me if Springfiled has a listing problem.

Which by the way shows "Place of Employment"
What about you, who and what license?

Still working on the assistant director

Still running on Diesel, keep your gas to yourself. you can have it.

siue.edu? WTF?!?

The Illinois Department of Public Health's website is Illinois Department of Public Health Home Page

The Plumbing Program (under division of Environmental Health) is HERE (clickable link): Plumbing Program

Dead center, centered is a link : "Online Plumber License Verification" it takes you HERE (clickable link): Plumber License Verification

You'll note the web address includes plumb lic v5 pub DPH.Illinois.gov/....and includes subaddresses including "Public/Verification/Plumber_License_Verification"!!!

It is a PUBLIC ACCESS vehicle, and is UP TO DATE regarding PLUMBING LICENSES.

You have again gone over the top, and proven yourself to be as Markus said..."a hack". You have claimed private records were accessed (a lie) and a number of other things (also lies).

You Sir (and I use the term loosely) are beyond redemption!!!

Even your supposed quoted self-authored communications to parties unknown, claim FACTS which are NOT what you proposed in this string, and contradict, YET AGAIN, your "ever-changing story" saga.

Home Inspectors do not use FORMS or rather are not required to use any sort of FORM to inspect homes.

I have no interest in loading a virus embeded file hosted on a mirror of a university site of a supposed list of "approved" cross-connection plumbers (XC) back on July 10th! I care about CURRENT information, and the IDPH is listing you as UNEMPLOYED regards your plumbing license - ON THE PUBLIC DATA BASE, you also have NOT subjected yourself to testing as a "certified" plumbing "inspector". The program is a volunatry one, although many muni's REQUIRE it, and the certification program is NOT limited to State employees. Guess you can't pass the test. Here is "yours": Plumber License Details


The Illinois Department of Public Health hosts a legitimate web site and data base, thank you very much indeed. Anyone with University at Edwardsville can dump a doc, pdf file or otherwise on the universtiy site -- YOUR (watch out for the trojan/s) compiled reference is meaningless.

Goggled: " plumbing inspector for the Village of Glen Carbon Illinois" and found : Glen Neal - LinkedIn.

Also found at that link:
Current

• Building Committee Chair at Renaissance St. Louis
• Building Inspector at Village of Glen Carbon

Past

• ex/ Vice President-Project Manager at O'Fallon Plumbing

Building Inspector

Village of Glen Carbon

(Government Administration industry)
June 1986 — Present (24 years 6 months)
Starting position of Plumbing Inspector. My duties and training have grown to a point where I now perform footing, foundation, plumbing, framing, electrical, accessibility and final inspections. enforce multiple Village Ordinances, assist in Village Museum projects, research, provide resources for residents with code and construction related questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting to look into what the back ground as he must have listed it for publication.



Glen Carbon, IL has less than 12,000 residents. Makes it a small town. Small towns seem to foster government that will go after those persons who threaten the governments absolute control over the manipulation of the people that they are supposed to serve. Personal first hand experience with a small town permit inspector where action is taken as retribution for challenging his position or for no participating in his side business.

Glen Neal has the intelligence, by his own self description, to determine what the IL. Law and Codes actual are or to obtain a legal interpretation from the state before instituting a complaint against someone and actually go after the real party at fault.

If he really wanted to help the people that had been taken advantage of, he had the ability to do so.

Seems like just another small town government person looking to maintain their control over their town residents and businesses.

Sorry that we have given him so much traffic.

You know what


Who gives a sweet **** about what a plumber says anyway. No offense to all the wonderful plumbers and plumbing inspectors.

We are hired by folks to put a report together about the conditions in a home that are found at the time of our inspection. Does it really freaking matter that in some, who cares what, rule it states a home inspector shall not do this or not do that. I am hired to find as many a concern as possible for my clients in a limited amount of time that the clients are ultimately paying me for the report I put togegther for that property to reduce their financial risk in the home buying process. If I do not look at anything to do with the plumbing that does on occasion, and some times way more often than not, have a huge amount of concerns that will affect my clients pockets, as in emptying them....what the hell am I doing there.

This is one more point of control that the does not have to be there. When I was in Florida I was told that I had to be a licensed plumber to do any sprinkler work.....seriously......all the specs you could possibly need or sprinkler design or valves to keep cross contamination can be found by an 8 year old on the internet. Well head heights and pressures and sprinkler head size etc etc etc etc etc. Just one more dam control. I gave my list to an 8 year old...my nephew......With out looking at it I brought it to the down town office to the plumbing inspector. I asked him to look it over and I would be back the next day.

This kid had the design done, all the proper valves and pipe size, pump size, well head height, back flow valves etc etc etc etc correct.....from the internet. So much for the plumber being the only ones to have the needed knowledge for the system.

Anyways this is getting to long. In short...who gives a damn. I am looking out for my client which the vast majority of inspectors out there are doing. There are a few strays just like in any other profession or trade that don't care about anyone or anything but they are the minority.

I suggest you put it to the state that enough is enough. It is time to back off.

I just got my Supra key updated so I no longer have to rely on a Realtor to find the CBS code or wait for them to return my call. Set up the appointment, do the inspection. This was another point of a group of folks having control over another profession. It was far to long in the doing to get it canceled. It should have happened years ago. One more piece of control that the Realtors have over the Inspectors.......We are still licensed under the Texas Real Estate Commission Go figure

Here Ya go Watson.
Since I am sure you have no need of any redemption, as you are an expert on every subject.

Again you seem to dodge the question of identifying who you are and what licenses you hold,
by attempting to belittle others (not just on this thread)
But at least I have verified who I am and what.
I have looked at your profile no verification there except what you claim to be.

You seem to have went from accusations and denying there was any validity
to what I posted to magically remembering something about this in the past, Hmm.

And now you attempt to spin accusations of spreading viruses/ trogans,
circumventing the challenge to indentify who you are.

Now after all the accusation, I will post items sent to me regarding this question.

There is a line that can be crossed by Home Inspectors. It appears to be in the way a report is worded.

In appears by using the wording "code violations" the line may have been crossed.
I assume if observations were made, like "no trap, no vent, leak,etc." this stays within the HI licensing act,
which I am incorrect on.
Told you I would admit somtething if I am at fault.
How about you Watson?, or are you redeemed.

Now on the other hand, If an HI would write a report stating that a tub was not plumbing code compliant
or state that it was a code violation since it did not have or was incorrectly vented,
I believe this would cross the line.

I will also post why the IDPH license lookup shows what it does, again if you had contacted the department
you would know why status shows the way it does.
Southern Illinois University who conducts training and CEU classes has the capability of corretly
showing status when they gather their information.

I have copied, removed formatting, then pasted E-mail responses from the DPR & IDPH,
included telephone numbers and contact data. starting from initial to last contact below.

Where is yours. I assume you will attempt redirect or not provide your information. Thats Ok "measured -weighed- found wanting".

Mail transcripts start below

To: 'DPH.MAILUS@illinois.gov'
Cc: 'Darnell, Joe'
Subject: Home Inspection Proccess

Good Day

I am trying to clarify some questions about Home Inspection relating to the Illinois Plumbing Code.
I am the plumbing inspector for the Village of Glen Carbon Illinois. I am under the impression that to
perform plumbing inspection in the State of Illinois you must first be a licensed plumber.

I am running into Home Inspectors that during the course of their home inspection are using blank areas
of their forms to comment on plumbing systems, making judgment calls on code violations.
Example stating that a tub is not vented correctly. I am under the impression that when a written comment
is made about a plumbing system it must be done by a certified plumbing inspector, a licensed plumber or
local plumbing inspector. In the past I have had resident complaints in that they say they were led to believe
that correction must be made to sell their home after receiving the home inspectors report. My stance on this
when I have received a call from a resident is that:
The home inspector does not have the authority to make plumbing inspections unless he or she is a licensed plumber.
Just because a deficiency is noted, it might not be addressed by a plumbing inspector since the home
was built at an earlier date and would not be held to a current standard


Recently I am hearing the through Home Inspectors quoting the Department of Professional Regulation
here in the State of Illinois who licenses Home Inspectors I am not correct.
I am told that a Home Inspector may comment on, write notes or state that a
plumbing code violation exists at a residence in the process of a home inspection.

Am I incorrect? Are home inspectors allowed to write comments about plumbing system problems?

Joe
I am copying you on this since I do not have another E-mail address of someone at DPR.
All other contact info requires a phone call. I am attempting to document if I am correct or incorrect.

Respectfully

Glen Neal
Building Inspector
Village of Glen Carbon
151 N. Main
Glen Carbon, Il. 62034
618-288-2616 direct dial

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:23 PM
To: DPH, Mailus
Subject: Home Inspection Proccess

Debbie,

Glen Neal, building inspector for the village of Glen Carbon, posed this question to me. Can you answer it for us?

Joe W. Darnell
Illinois Division of Professional Regulation
320 West Washington Street
Springfield, Illinois 62786
217-785-5089 office
217-557-1202 fax


Niemann, Debbie [Debbie.Niemann@illinois.gov]
Under the Home Inspectors Licensing Act
Mr. Darnell, below I have pulled sections of the Administrative Code that
relate to the topic of Plumbing for Home Inspectors.
I can only relay to you what the Act/Code states.
I can tell you that "code violations" are not incorporated within the Act or the Administrative Code.

Section 1410.200 Standards of Practice

12) Inspect: To visually examine readily accessible systems and components of a building in accordance with this Subpart, using normal operating controls
and opening readily accessible access panels.
Section 1410.20 Applicability of this Part
Nothing in this Part shall supersede the Illinois Plumbing Law [225 ILCS 320] administered
through the Plumbers Licensing Code (68 Ill. Adm. Code 750) and the Illinois Plumbing Code (77 Ill. Adm. Code 890).

Frank

I am hearing that this issue has been addressed in the past by both DPR & IDPH.

What are the limitations of a Home Inspector regarding plumbing inspections,
code deficiencies and written comments on plumbing systems that are not in compliance with the plumbing code.

Thank You
Glen Neal
Building Inspector
Village of Glen Carbon
151 N. Main
Glen Carbon, Il. 62034
618-288-2616 direct dial


Shimkus, Frank W. [Frank.W.Shimkus@Illinois.gov]
Good afternoon Mr. Neal,
I believe 225ILCS 320/3 Section 3 of the Illinois Plumbing License Law requires inspection of plumbing and plumbing systems
to be done by Illinois licensed plumbers who may or may not be certified by the Department.
Although a home inspector may cite deficiencies of a plumbing system, it would be improper,
actually illegal to state code violations without possessing an active Illinois plumbing license.

Respectfully,

Frank W. Shimkus
Program Manager
IDPH Plumbing Program
535 W Jefferson, Gnd Flr
Springfield, IL 62761
ph # 217-524-0791


Now Watson here is why employment status does not show up.
Since in your attempt to discredit my post you are grabbing at straws by attacking the poster in any way you can.
While still not providing the same information regarding who you are and your licensing "Quid Pro Quo".

Mr. Neal – your record online indicates that you are Unemployed because our current system only keeps track of plumbers
who are current employees of active plumbing contractors. Since the Village of Glen Carbon is not a plumbing contractor,
we have no current employment association in the system for you.
This is one of a couple of glitches we have found with the Plumber License Search website that we are planning to address
and correct in the next iteration of the site when/if funds become available.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and are hoping to make updates to the site that will eliminate this issue in the coming months.

Thanks
Ken


Ken McCann, MA
Special Projects Manager
Division of Environmental Health
Illinois Department of Public Health
525 West Jefferson Street
Springfield, IL 62761
phone: 217-785-2043

________________________________________________
For myself now.

Above is the contact info, people contacted, etc. Which is more than I can say some
people have done here.
In closing.
I see on a previous postings on this thread that a member s
tated they did not see municipal inspectors much on the message board. I can see why. Learned my lesson here.

_______________________End of Line________________

Small town yes.

Voted in the top 100 places to live by CNN money.
Given the Bill Gates top library award in the U.S.
Two time holder of highest per capita income in the Metro East.
Museum received awards for top museum.

Research it for yourseves


Had anyone asked I would have answered, and directed to our website. Don't want to post the link, since it might be a phishing website or trogan. So search for yourself if interested.

Again, my original question was "how would you have handled it"? Not to debate or argue the validity, prove who I am, etc. But that is what it turned into.

Again, responding to consumer complaints.
People seem to hate government unless they need or want it, or to complain about a neighbor.
Then if we don't respond we get accused from the other end.

Which one of you if you are aware that a company is performing HI without being licensed to do so would not report it?
Or should the State back off on this also?
Apply the same thinking to resident complaints.

Originally Posted by Glen Neal

part 1)
Note deficiencies, contact licensed people to create a report to be included in your overall report.

part 2)
As I thought I had posted earlier, possibly not clear enough. Both of these incidents occurred near 3 years ago. (If you can remember verbatum exact wording of incidents that long ago you are a much better person than I am.)
First. Copies of the written HI report were given to I.D.P.H. for their review, since they are the ones that can take action. The HI inspector made a comment about an existing tub that was not vented correctly. (Note I said written not a check put in a box.) In this case the DWV system was cast iron and lead. The tub was tied into a lead ferrel below the water closet with a drum trap, which in 1940's was a common practice. Yes this would not be code compliant in any current plumbing code, but was an acceptible practice when originally installed. I would not address this issue nor would any other plumbing inspector I know of since it is original plumbing and did not pose in imminent hazrd.
After providing I.D.P.H regional with my report showing that an inspection by QYZ HI on a plumbing system was performed at XYZ location,
I was informed by my regional I.D.P.H. office that a certified letter was sent to the HI that required a signature. I do not have a copy of I.D.P.H. letter, the jist was (as told by regional office) By signing the letter it was not an admission of guilt, copies of the license law were included in the letter. Which outlines the requirements for engaging in the business of plumbing.
Secondly I was a contact by a seller asking about the requirements to make corrections to the home, they were led to believe they must make to sell their home. This incident was taken care with a phone conversation by me informing them the only entity that could require them to make changes would be our department if an imminent health and safety issues was found by an inspection from our department. We would not perform any inspection unless it was requested by the owner.


I hope this sheds enough light on the situation I had.
My primary concerns are licensing for the service provided, possible misrepresentation to consumer.

Glen,
Always interesting how you memory has improved. Yet you never seem to remember what action you took regarding the licensed Real Estate Agent or licensed Plumbers for their part in any non code required work done to alter the plumbing to negotiate the sale of the property.

Where is your indignation over who actually pressured the owners to make alterations. I do not think that the Home Inspector was at the negotiating table.

All of your belly akin is over semantics of "Code Violation" or "code violation" and "Plumbing Inspection" or "plumbing inspection" or "inspecting plumbing" as used a report that you do not have and do not remember.

It all boils down to verbiage and interperation of statements. I guess the HI could have said that the tub vent is old and crappy and you may want to change it since it is not done that way now and the dish washer vent may cause you to die if the sink backs up.

All reports are for the client and in your cases they were for the benefit and use of the Buyer in those transactions. How a report is misrepresented by others is the bigger issue.

Your latest post confirms, you are just a guy with a bug up his ...
The responses you posted from State officials come down to wording. If the report is worded one way it's fine, if its worded another way it may cross the line. Reasonable enough. Clearly HI's are 'allowed' to inspect plumbing as most of us already knew.
So what have you accomplished? You've proven we have lawyers. Wow, big whoopy F'in doo.
You went after the HI because you thought he was infringing on your turf. When all he probably did was write his report poorly. It is highly doubtful that the HI was involved in any dubious actions that transpired in those deals you received complaints about. As I have already mentioned, you didn't have the guts to go after the real culprits who may have done things unethical, the realtors and/or lawyers.
I always flush the toilet on inspections, if a big air bubble blurps back up, I write 'the toilet may not be properly vented or the vent could be blocked'. When I can get to the attic, I rarely find a vent or if there is one, it has 8 90's in the run.
I'd rather get a letter from IDPR telling me I'm a bad boy and I need to learn how to write better; than a nasty letter from a client's attorney saying I missed the missing vent, 'we want $3000 please now'.
You think you are serving the public? BS. Your attitude and efforts could easily be negatively influencing decisions HI's make in your area. You want to be helpful? Put out a position paper and distribute it to ashi/nachi/nahi chapters in your area. That way HI's know what is acceptable and what isn't.
All this nonsense because you want to nit pick.
BTW you keep mentioning about things that got written up by an HI that your Dept would not address during a plumbing inspection because they may not have been required when the house was built; exactly when was it Ok to build houses in your area without venting the plumbing fixtures?