Thread: Weep Holes

...........

Similar Threads:

• Gap between stucco weep screed and concrete slab
• No Weeps Holes
• makes you weep
• Weep Screed
• Weep hole diameter

Jeff,

The exception of having the weeps at the top of the windows is where they are of the self-flashing type having a continuous lap of (at a minimum) 1-1/8 inches.

The blanket statement of the tops of all windows should have weep holes, is not accurate. It is a requirement of all that are not of the self-flashing type and do not meet the minimum of 1-1/8th conintuous lap over the sheathing and opening perimeter.

Richard

Can someone please provide the IRC code section where the weep holes above windows is discussed? I know it's not R703.7.6 or R703.8.

From the IRC.
- R703.7.6 Weepholes. Weepholes shall be provided in the outside wythe of masonry walls at a maximum spacing of 33 inches (838 mm) on center.Weepholes shall not be less than 3/16 inch (5 mm) in diameter. Weepholes shall be located immediately above the flashing.

R703.7.6 Weepholes. Weepholes shall be provided in the outside wythe of masonry walls at a maximum spacing of 33 inches (838 mm) on center. Weepholes shall not be less than 3/16 inch (4.8mm) in diameter.Weepholes shall be located immediately above the flashing.
R703.8 Flashing. Approved corrosion-resistive flashing shall be provided in the exterior wall envelope in such a manner as to prevent entry of water into the wall cavity or penetration of water to the building structural framing components. The flashing shall extend to the surface of the exterior wall finish and shall be installed to prevent water from reentering the exterior wall envelope. Approved corrosion-resistant flashings shall be installed at all of the following locations;1. At top of all exterior window and door openings in such a manner as to be leak proof, except that self-flashing windows having a continuous lap of not less than 1 1/8 inches (28mm) over the sheathing material around the perimeter of the opening, including corners, do not require additional flashing; jamb flashing may also be omitted when specifically approved by the building official.5. Where exterior porches, decks or stairs attach to a wallor floor assembly of wood-frame construction.6. At wall and roof intersections.


Richard

Richard,

Could you point out and direct me to where 703.8 Flashing, addresses anything about weepholes? Guess my eyes are going bad.

Thanks.

O.K. JP--

Lets start with this;
"Weepholes shall be located immediately above the flashing"
(Last sentenance--R703.7.6 Weepholes. Weepholes shall be provided in the outside wythe of masonry walls at a maximum spacing of 33 inches (838 mm) on center. Weepholes shall not be less than 3/16 inch (4.8mm) in diameter.Weepholes shall be located immediately above the flashing.)

Windows are flashed, except self-flashed windows...

You asked: "Richard,
Could you point out and direct me to where 703.8 Flashing, addresses anything about weepholes?

Guess my eyes are going bad."

Okey Dokey...
R703.8 Flashing.... (blah, blah...) Approved corrosion-resistant flashings shall be installed at all of the following locations;1. At top of all exterior window and door openings in such a manner as to be leak proof, except that self-flashing windows having a continuous lap of not less than 1 1/8 inches (28mm) over the sheathing material around the perimeter of the opening, including corners, do not require additional flashing;

No flashing required... no weep holes required.

Dokey-Okey??

Rich

Thom, We don't see many over windows and garage doors around here - you know that. I use to call it - got sick of wasting my time - city doesn't give a sh.. -- just like the 2 x 4 purlins with the 2 x 6 rafters - I keep calling those - damned near every house -- sometimes they get fixed - so I've heard.

Rich, Are you yelling or just writing big enough for Jerrys old tired eyes?

Richard
The way I read 703.8 is, NO ADDITIONAL flashing is needed, not that no weep holes are needed.
All windows need flashing, some come with the flashing built in so they do not need more flashing. But they do have flashing.
703.7.6 states all flashings need to have weep holes.

So unless the window has a 3/16 diameter weep hole in it from the factory, then weep holes need to be in the masonry.

Maybe I reading it wrong though.

Originally Posted by Richard Rushing

R703.7.6 Weepholes. Weepholes shall be provided in the outside wythe of masonry walls at a maximum spacing of 33 inches (838 mm) on center. Weepholes shall not be less than 3/16 inch (4.8mm) in diameter.Weepholes shall be located immediately above the flashing.
R703.8 Flashing. Approved corrosion-resistive flashing shall be provided in the exterior wall envelope in such a manner as to prevent entry of water into the wall cavity or penetration of water to the building structural framing components. The flashing shall extend to the surface of the exterior wall finish and shall be installed to prevent water from reentering the exterior wall envelope. Approved corrosion-resistant flashings shall be installed at all of the following locations;1. At top of all exterior window and door openings in such a manner as to be leak proof, except that self-flashing windows having a continuous lap of not less than 1 1/8 inches (28mm) over the sheathing material around the perimeter of the opening, including corners, do not require additional flashing; jamb flashing may also be omitted when specifically approved by the building official.5. Where exterior porches, decks or stairs attach to a wallor floor assembly of wood-frame construction.6. At wall and roof intersections.


Richard

So, for those of us who are sometimes code blind, 703.7.6 says, Weepholes shall be located immediately above the flashing. Going to 703.7.5 Flashing: ....including structural floors, shelf angles and lintels....then it follows that weep hoiles are needed over windows. Correct?

When reading this stuff, I noticed sustantial differences in R703.8 between the 2003 and 2006 publications. From 2006:

R703.8 Flashing. Approved corrosion-resistive flashing shall be provided in the exterior wall envelope in such a manner as to prevent entry of water into the wall cavity or penetration of water to the building structural framing components. The flashing shall extend to the surface of the exterior wall finish. Approved corrosion-resistant flashings shall be installed at all of the following locations;1. Exterior window and door openings. Flashing at exterior window and door openings shall extend to the surface of the exterior wall finish or to the water- resistive barrier for subsequent drainage.

Correct

Originally Posted by Richard Rushing

O.K. JP--

Lets start with this;
"Weepholes shall be located immediately above the flashing"

And aren't self-flashed windows, by definition, "flashed"?


Thus, the weep holes still go above the "flashing".

Even on self-flashed windows.

Thom,

Thanks, for posting the 2006 update. Big difference...

Rich

A post here for all the confusion some 4 years back.... WEEP HOLES ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS THE LACK OF THEM ARE CAUSING A PROBLEM !!
This is what happens when you only learn from a book, and that's all you know. Welcome to the new breed of inspector and a major upgrade from the "old inspectors with 20, 30 yrs experience of inspecting". I am an ex-framing contractor, with 30 years of real experience, not just book taught.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

WEEP HOLES ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS THE LACK OF THEM ARE CAUSING A PROBLEM !!

That is absurd. But let's go on that statement.

You are a builder, you install brick veneer without weep holes (contrary to the code and the BIA recommendations. You did this because you don't think a problem will occur.

Well, a problem does occur; I would assume, you, with your 30 years of experience would tell Mr. Homeowner 'it's OK, I'll just drill some holes and that will let the water out."

Humm... what about the flashing? What about the mold infested wood framing behind the brick.

Just because you've been doing it for 30 years doesn't mean it's right.
You've been doing it WRONG for 30 years.

The IRC no longer recognizes self flashed windows.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

A post here for all the confusion some 4 years back.... WEEP HOLES ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS THE LACK OF THEM ARE CAUSING A PROBLEM !!
This is what happens when you only learn from a book, and that's all you know.

All due respect - statements like this keep me in business, so thank you for not reading "a" book.

There are countless law suits brought by homeowners against contractors, many of which reach 6 digits, so I encourage you to read "a" book and learn more. Start with International Residential Code (IRC) section 703. IRC uses words and pictures to make it easy to learn. Pay attention to the part that says, "Flashing and weep holes shall be located in the masonry veneer wythe in accordance with figure R703.7.2.1"

I would first like to say, that I am not a builder, so please read more carefully as builders are like car salesman, they only act like they know what they are doing, and they just put on a good show to sell the house.

Q: Do the Standards of Practice require inspectors to report as deficient the absence of weep holes along the bottom course of brick and above steel lintels?

A: Lack of weep holes is only required to be reported as a deficiency when there is visible evidence of water penetration or a structural issue that may be related to the lack of weep holes.

This comes directly from the TREC site. Please learn to research fully before you tell someone wrong. As an ex-framing contractor, framing homes that cost between $1-5 million on a daily basis for over 15 yrs, I know the IRC codes long before I even went to Home Inspecting School. Even the instructors didn't have my knowledge. There is a huge difference between learning from a book and knowing it when you lived it every day, all day, for 30 yrs. I am the "new breed" of inspectors that will be coming into the business now. We are the upgrade, even to the inspectors who have been doing it for 30 yrs - you still will not have a framers knowledge - and you never will. Doesn't mean you are not good inspectors, but only to a certain point.

And just so you know, I also have 2 yrs of engineering, and the weep holes most important function is that of equalizing the pressure behind the brick.

If you personally saw the brickers doing the job all the time like I have, you would know that mortor gets dropped back behind the brick all the time, so even if you have weep holes (and yes I believe that they should be in the brick), that doesn't mean the water will get out from behind there anyway.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

This comes directly from the TREC site.

Then you might be wise to suggest that TREC do a little (more) research on the subject.

Originally Posted by Fred Comb

Then you might be wise to suggest that TREC do a little (more) research on the subject.

I personally disagree with a lot of things that are being taught. I also firmly believe that all inspectors should be required to work on a framing crew for a year in order for them to have the "common sense" that is required to be a good professional inspector.

Are those weep holes important? Yes, I know they are, but for a more important reason other than water buildup. Equalizing the pressure behind that brick is a very big deal when you apply the calculus based physics to that situation.

The tests that the other states take to be an inspector, is far too easy. I could pass the ASHI test after taking my online computer classes, and that was before even going to the instructor classes at UTA.

There is way too much information that is not taught from the schools and I have no idea how you guys will ever get this knowledge. That's why I believe in the 1 yr on a framing crew. You will learn how everything goes together, how the framer has to read between the lines and make sure and build it to codes and loads. Sometimes we get engineering plans, and sometimes we didn't, so you better know what your doing. While framing, you will see all the trades come in and do their thing. What you learn from this is remarkable, especially me, since I asked lots of questions all 30 yrs.

What they teach you is school about structure - about 80% of it wrong. I know that for a fact as I argued with both instructors every day about structure and in the field while training to inspect. What is taught at the school level (and this does include all the states), comes up very short in what you really need to know.

This is my selling point, and it does wonders.

God plays a major role in my life, and he does in my work as well. I'm not here to talk bad about anyone, or their shortcomings. Their is plenty of work out there, but know, the market is being flooded with
"bubba inspection service", and these are the ones I target the most about their huge lack of knowledge, and a severe lack of respect for the rest of us who take our job seriously.

I am here to help when I can. That's why I brought up the "weep holes" because of the huge controversy that it brings. It has killed sales before, and it will kill them again. I make a note of them "as missing, but no damage is visible at this time". Since all reports are of the personal experience and opinion of the inspector at the time of inspection, I also tell what purpose they serve and its up to the home owner if they want to have them put in later.

BUT, AND I CAN'T SAY THIS LOUD ENOUGH, weep holes over windows will cause more problems than they solve. How do I know this ?? Becasue of the "2-3 thousand" windows I have replaced because of weep holes above them and all the water damage they have caused inside the house!!!!! Water gets in those weep holes more than what comes out !!! If you personally see how the steel is installed, you would understand this as well!!

There is no code, what so ever about weep holes over windows. The individual city codes are left up to the $8.00 an hour inspectors to inforce, and in some cities they do inforce them - but they are wrong. This is a city by city decision, again, because I personally know.

I know what the code sais about above flashing. No part of a window at any time is called "flashing".

Another bit of information: An engineer's letter can overide a city inspector all day long, and I have seen them get them on the multi-million dollar homes because they are aware of the dangers.

This is but just one example of the huge advantage I have over "normal inspectors".... and like everyone else... I am human, and don't know everything and make mistakes just like everyone else.

But if my knowledge can help anyone, please ask and I will do my best to help.

Heavenly Home Inspection

SMILE, GOD LOVES YOU !!

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

And just so you know, I also have 2 yrs of engineering, and the weep holes most important function is that of equalizing the pressure behind the brick.

Another Home inspector 'Folk-lore'. The more you write, the worse you appear.

Originally Posted by Darren Miller

Another Home inspector 'Folk-lore'. The more you write, the worse you appear.

It's really true.

The truth always hurts the worst.

I'm simply telling you of my experience with weep holes and what multi- millionairs do to their homes. They do put the weep holes above the garage steel, because they huge area of brick doesn't make it to the slab, and we do special flashing becasue of it.

You can take my personal experience, with a grain of salt if you like.

I'm simple telling you the facts here in TEXAS.

SMILE, GOD LOVES YOU !!

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

There is no code, what so ever about weep holes over windows. The individual city codes are left up to the $8.00 an hour inspectors to inforce, and in some cities they do inforce them - but they are wrong. This is a city by city decision, again, because I personally know.

There is not a code about weep holes over windows. However there is a code for weep holes when install a lintel. And if you install a lintel over a window then it is required to be flashed. When you install masonry on the lintel then you must provide weep holes. Do you need code sections? If so I will provide them for you.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

Another bit of information: An engineer's letter can overide a city inspector all day long, and I have seen them get them on the multi-million dollar homes because they are aware of the danger

And NO an engineer cannot override a city inspector. IF the city inspector agrees with the engineer then he may ACCEPT the recomendation but he can NEVER be overridden. Do you need code sections for this? If you do I will provide them for you.

$8 an hour????? Where are they paying that good at? I need to go apply!

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

There is not a code about weep holes over windows. However there is a code for weep holes when install a lintel. And if you install a lintel over a window then it is required to be flashed. When you install masonry on the lintel then you must provide weep holes. Do you need code sections? If so I will provide them for you.

I'm curious, how many windows have you installed? Doesn't sound like very many, if any. When you install a window in brick, the first thing you do is fur it out with 1x4, then you install the window. When you install it, caulking is put behind the "fins", then a special tape goes around the fins. Now, starting from the ground up, you will then put "thermo-ply" at the base of the slab or pier & bm, and you go underneath the window, and around the window at least 6 inches on each side, then you go on top of the window, then you procede to the window directly above it if there is one and repeat all the way up, all the way under the eave. There is no need for "flashing" as the windows are now "caulked, taped, and wrapped", but no "flashing" is used. So how do you install your windows?

And by the way, it's obvious you have never framed a house, nor did the concrete on a house, because YES, an engineer's letter overides the city inspectors, every single time. So, I will ask you again, how many slabs have you poured, how many pier & bms have you poured, and how many houses have you framed, and how many windows have you set? I will repeat again. THERE IS NO FLASHING ABOVE WINDOWS IN A BRICK SIDING. FLASHING IS ABOVE WINDOWS IN WHAT WE REFER TO AS "SIDING", BUT NEVER, EVER, EVER IN BRICK.



And NO an engineer cannot override a city inspector. IF the city inspector agrees with the engineer then he may ACCEPT the recomendation but he can NEVER be overridden. Do you need code sections for this? If you do I will provide them for you.

I don't need a section for this, this is how it's done in the real world. Once again, it's easy to see you have not framed, nor built a house before, and if you are an ex-framer, then you were never in the "elite class" and if you were a builder, then I rest my case about builders not knowing how to build a house. Piers, slabs, pier & bm set up, gets engineering stamps all the time. The engineer comes out to see if his specifications have been followed. He then gives the engineering letter to the builder and one to the city. I have seen this hundreds of times, because the city inspectors are well, "not to bright" ... ok? They can do this for "ANYTHING" on the house, they cannot give a red tag for no weep holes above the windows, again, this one, I've seen a thousand times, and seen the arguements. Water goes in more than it comes out. Why do you think lintels "rust"? You show me a "rusty lintel" that started step cracks, and I'll show you one with "weep holes".

This is what I mean about "real world" application. Your from Texas, google "weep holes, TREC", then go and read under inspectors, and questions and answers, and you see what TREC even sais. That's where you code is.

$8 an hour????? Where are they paying that good at? I need to go apply!

These guys will come out, and try to shove their power around and it just makes me laugh. I read online, that soon, all city inspectors will be a thing of the past because you can't sue the city. This is the reason why in Frisco, any house over 4,000 sq ft, gets engineered, and inspected by engineers, the city inspectors hold no weight except for the other trades and closing, but not on structure. I read that the first city that will close the city inspectors completely will be Dallas because of the shortage of money and all the problems the city inspectors create for them. Very soon, us Professional Inspectors, will be covered up in work.

SMILE, GOD LOVES YOU !!

Richard, I don't want to get into a pizzin' contest here but I just can't let all that is being said here rest, lest the rest of the world think ill of all Texas home inspectors.

What you describe when installing a window IS flashing. Just because the product used is not sheet metal does not mean it is not flashing.

I'm sure you were a good framer but please do not put down everyone else while proclaiming your superior knowledge because you have swung a hammer.
There is value in experience but just because you have done something for 30 years does not mean you have done it right for 30 years.

TREC is not a code authority. TREC inspection standards of practice have no bearing whatsoever on construction practices but rather govern inspectors telling us what we MUST report on. It is the bare minimum of what is acceptable.

I take it you have built houses in Texas and I would guess than the lack damage from the lack of weepholes that you have observed is more of a function of a dry forgiving climate than weep holes and flashing or not.

I see where you write that you want to be of help to those hear on the board and I applaud you for that but sit back a bit and read and realize that you are coming off as an arrogant, uneducated, itinerant laborer, not a professional and many of the more reasonable folks are just sitting back shaking their heads wondering what turnip truck you fell from.

Personal experiences that cannot be backed up by evidence is just an opinion; nothing wrong with opinions but realize that opinions are easy to come by, just like azzholes, everybody has one. If you want to be taken as credible, take the time to document and provide proof to back up what you put forth.

Again, not trying to down you but it might be time to read a book or two and learn a bit more before trying to school others.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Richard, I don't want to get into a pizzin' contest here but I just can't let all that is being said here rest, lest the rest of the world think ill of all Texas home inspectors.

What you describe when installing a window IS flashing. Just because the product used is not sheet metal does not mean it is not flashing.

I'm sure you were a good framer but please do not put down everyone else while proclaiming your superior knowledge because you have swung a hammer.
There is value in experience but just because you have done something for 30 years does not mean you have done it right for 30 years.

TREC is not a code authority. TREC inspection standards of practice have no bearing whatsoever on construction practices but rather govern inspectors telling us what we MUST report on. It is the bare minimum of what is acceptable.

I take it you have built houses in Texas and I would guess than the lack damage from the lack of weepholes that you have observed is more of a function of a dry forgiving climate than weep holes and flashing or not.

I see where you write that you want to be of help to those hear on the board and I applaud you for that but sit back a bit and read and realize that you are coming off as an arrogant, uneducated, itinerant laborer, not a professional and many of the more reasonable folks are just sitting back shaking their heads wondering what turnip truck you fell from.

Personal experiences that cannot be backed up by evidence is just an opinion; nothing wrong with opinions but realize that opinions are easy to come by, just like azzholes, everybody has one. If you want to be taken as credible, take the time to document and provide proof to back up what you put forth.

Again, not trying to down you but it might be time to read a book or two and learn a bit more before trying to school others.

Thanks for the input. I know I am aggressive in my opinions and have been for a long time. You don't get to frame the structures I have, and frame them wrong or you never get to frame them again. Example: 15,000 sq ft private school in plano, 17 Kindercare Daycare units - all at 10,000 sq ft and up, Texoma Bank off 380, Firestation in Coppell, Ridgeview Ranch Gold Country Club Clubhouse - 15,000 sq ft. Homes constantly in the 1million - 5million range. For 30 yrs - I have done it right and would continue to be there except for the 08 meltdone created by greedy people. What everyone sees and hears as arrogant, others see as confidence. I take criticism very well, and have from several other Inspectors today as well. I like the discussions between us, it makes us all better. I'm always open to learning more, and I will learn more as I get all the other certifications.

Just as I am asked to stop and think, and read more books, which I will gladly do, let others stop and think as well. No one is perfect, only Christ was perfect. I come from a very poor family and used construction to climb out of the hole. If it was good enough for Christ, then it was sure good enough for me.

Are others upset because I challenge the old system? Just because that's what you've been doing for 20 or 30 yrs as an inspector, does that make it right? I hear complaints all the time from agents about what inspectors are righting up. These of course, come from all the Bubba's out there that have no business being an inspector.

Weep holes or no weep holes, varies from city to city. It depends on the inspectors mood that day. University Park uses all metal duct work on the HVAC. Does that make a code for the rest of the USA? They also use flex conduit. Is that a code for the rest of the USA?

My point is that weep holes over windows cause more damage than they prevent. This is documented proof with 30 yrs behind it. If you look at the homes in the area (you're in Allen), you will see that it's only a 50-50 split at best for those over windows.

I welcome all constructive criticism and will not ever be offended. I am here to learn as well. But it appears as though others are offended because I challenge the way they think. This is how progress is made, to challenge ordinary thinking.

What others may think, is up to them. When it comes to the IRC codes for houses, trust me when I tell you I know them. I know TREC is the bare minimum, and the degree of difficuly needs to be raised... a lot.

"My point is that weep holes over windows cause more damage than they prevent. This is documented proof with 30 yrs behind it."


Would you help to educate us by providing us with your documented proof?

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

A post here for all the confusion some 4 years back.... WEEP HOLES ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS THE LACK OF THEM ARE CAUSING A PROBLEM !!

As there others have implied, posting INCORRECT INFORMATION IS ABSURD, AND DOING SO IN ALL CAPS JUST BOGGLES THE MIND.

WHAT ON EARTH would cause you to think what you posted? From that thinking, if you find a house which is not grounded, then there is no need to ground it as the lack of grounding as not caused a problem ... YET!

The absurdness of your statement brings all else you have posted and will post in the future as suspect information.

Gawd! Are you on drugs, man?

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

"My point is that weep holes over windows cause more damage than they prevent. This is documented proof with 30 yrs behind it."


Would you help to educate us by providing us with your documented proof?

I looked in what remains of my photos of remodels, and couldn't find the ones of damaged due to weep holes or any others for that matter. I have noticed that everyone disagrees with me and most are out of state. I just spent the last two hours driving around in new and old neighborhoods here where I live, in TEXAS, and found no weep holes above windows. That includes 2 LA FITNESS, one hospital, 5 hotels of 4 stories or more, and at least 60 - 2 story homes.

This is how it is here, where I live. Your state(s) must be different.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

I looked in what remains of my photos of remodels, and couldn't find the ones of damaged due to weep holes or any others for that matter. I have noticed that everyone disagrees with me and most are out of state. I just spent the last two hours driving around in new and old neighborhoods here where I live, in TEXAS, and found no weep holes above windows. That includes 2 LA FITNESS, one hospital, 5 hotels of 4 stories or more, and at least 60 - 2 story homes.

This is how it is here, where I live. Your state(s) must be different.

Let me get this straight, I used to drive up and down the Florida Turnpike at 90 mph with other traffic going that fast, and because WE never had an accident IT WAS OKAY based on the fact that NOTHING HAPPENED?

Just because something is constructed incorretly and YOU MISSED the problems it caused, and missed those probems for 30 years ... doing it wrong was okay?

Rick Hurst is the only person who has ever made me literally laugh out loud in front of a computer until tonight..............

Richard, you are hilarious, completely FOS but very funny.

WELCOME TO THE BOARD!!!!

I'm assuming this is a joke but if you are truly serious about what you have posted then please accept my apology.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

As there others have implied, posting INCORRECT INFORMATION IS ABSURD, AND DOING SO IN ALL CAPS JUST BOGGLES THE MIND.

WHAT ON EARTH would cause you to think what you posted? From that thinking, if you find a house which is not grounded, then there is no need to ground it as the lack of grounding as not caused a problem ... YET!

The absurdness of your statement brings all else you have posted and will post in the future as suspect information.

Gawd! Are you on drugs, man?

First off, that statement came directly from the TREC website!!! And I have been trying to explain some of their reasoning behind that. You need to write the Texas Real Estate Commission and express your opinion to them on that, OK!

And like I just told Rick, I drove around here, where I live, and found no weep holes above windows, and I inspected a lot of commercial buildings, and no weep holes above the windows, even 6 stories tall. If commercial buildings, don't have them, where the codes are even more strict, then there is yet another bit of evidence to back up my "madness" . Maybe the rules are different here in TEXAS. I know we take a different test than the other 48 states for sure, and it is much more difficult than the other tests, at least according to the instructors, and they were from Chicago, so you can ask them that. I was instructed by AHIT. And yes, I had serious discussions with them as well.

You should never pass judgement on anyone, and you know that. I have learned over the past month, what a big deal this "weep hole" thing has been, and now I know why, after everyone's comments on the matter.

All I have done is pointed out the facts about weep holes where I live, and the simple fact that they are not required here, in Texas.

Ok, my engineer, Chris and the archetictural engineer, Steve, finally called me back. And I asked them about the lack of weep holes above windows and why, for the sake of all these discussions, including the homes and the commercial buildings and they said the same thing as I have been telling you guys, weep holes above windows cause leaks. The way we install windows, it is called a window wrap, not flashing.

And to confer, I called the super for Mycon ( a large commercial builder here locally, whom I did several jobs for), and got the same answer. Weep holes above windows can cause leaks, so the windows are installed in what is called a window wrap, not flashing.

These are the facts , here, as I know them, and they have been this way, here, for a while now. It's not my fault if you use the old method, or a different set of codes, which you do by the way, every state is different on it's stucture codes. At least, that is according to other framers I know who are from up north. Trying to cover all my p's & q's here to get everyone satisfied as to my "MADNESS"

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

I looked in what remains of my photos of remodels, and couldn't find the ones of damaged due to weep holes or any others for that matter. I have noticed that everyone disagrees with me and most are out of state. I just spent the last two hours driving around in new and old neighborhoods here where I live, in TEXAS, and found no weep holes above windows. That includes 2 LA FITNESS, one hospital, 5 hotels of 4 stories or more, and at least 60 - 2 story homes.

This is how it is here, where I live. Your state(s) must be different.

Richard, that is not documented evidence, that is anecdotal.

I rarely see damage in our area even when there are NO weep holes even at the foundation level in houses that are 30 - 50 years old with no visual indications of problems... of course in our climate problems rarely develop unless there is a confluence of issue to aggravate the problem.

On the other hand, I have NEVER seen or heard of water intrusion damage from a properly installed and flashed weep hole.

Just think about the purpose of the weep hole, which is, drainage and pressure equalization of the rain screen wall.
Weep holes are placed in masonry walls because we KNOW that masonry leaks.
It leaks by design and was never intended to be the water resistive boundary on a house.
So how does putting a hole in something intended to leak like a sieve cause water damage?
The only way water damage is created in a wall because a weep hole is there is because the framer screwed up the wall when installing the sheathing and flashing because he was under the mistake impression that brick is water proof in the first place.
If you took every piece of brick of a properly constructed house it will NOT leak unless you get enough wind to make water run up hill.
Brick veneer looks pretty and provides physical protection for the house, it does not stop water or air movement through the wall except for it's contribution to the rain screen effect by equalizing pressure.

This is not "book knowledge" made up by an inspector.
This method of construction and flashing as well as most construction knowledge in history came about by observations of what worked and what does not work by craftsmen back in the day when there were trades schools and apprenticeships.
I encourage anyone to find and read the Builder's Guide published by Building Science Corporation and written by Joseph Lstiburek for a greater understanding of the subject.

Originally Posted by chris mcintyre

Rick Hurst is the only person who has ever made me literally laugh out loud in front of a computer until tonight..............

Richard, you are hilarious, completely FOS but very funny.

WELCOME TO THE BOARD!!!!

I'm assuming this is a joke but if you are truly serious about what you have posted then please accept my apology.

I love getting on here and talking to you guys. I read your comments and just laughed. I know it seems like I'm crazy to you guys, but I'm just telling you all how it is here.

Thanks for the welcome.

FOS.. I loved that comment - that's pretty good.

I started this whole mess, because I was curious about this "weep hole" thing, but the truth is, it's not required here, above the windows. At the base, yea.

Glad to see somebody with a sense of humor on here as well

As you can tell, I love to have, lets call them "discussions" over controversial issues.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Richard, that is not documented evidence, that is anecdotal.

I rarely see damage in our area even when there are NO weep holes even at the foundation level in houses that are 30 - 50 years old with no visual indications of problems... of course in our climate problems rarely develop unless there is a confluence of issue to aggravate the problem.

On the other hand, I have NEVER seen or heard of water intrusion damage from a properly installed and flashed weep hole.

Just think about the purpose of the weep hole, which is, drainage and pressure equalization of the rain screen wall.
Weep holes are placed in masonry walls because we KNOW that masonry leaks.
It leaks by design and was never intended to be the water resistive boundary on a house.
So how does putting a hole in something intended to leak like a sieve cause water damage?
The only way water damage is created in a wall because a weep hole is there is because the framer screwed up the wall when installing the sheathing and flashing because he was under the mistake impression that brick is water proof in the first place.
If you took every piece of brick of a properly constructed house it will NOT leak unless you get enough wind to make water run up hill.
Brick veneer looks pretty and provides physical protection for the house, it does not stop water or air movement through the wall except for it's contribution to the rain screen effect by equalizing pressure.

This is not "book knowledge" made up by an inspector.
This method of construction and flashing as well as most construction knowledge in history came about by observations of what worked and what does not work by craftsmen back in the day when there were trades schools and apprenticeships.
I encourage anyone to find and read the Builder's Guide published by Building Science Corporation and written by Joseph Lstiburek for a greater understanding of the subject.

These are all new construction, as new as last year, I watched them go up. I understand everything you said completely, and agree with you as well. I am simply stating the facts of how new construction is built. This area is all built after 2000. And what you said is what is taught in school.

The reason for the water damage is not poor sheathing application, but a lack of a house wrap, like Tyvek. Like you said, water is going to get back there, because water finds a way, no matter what.

All I know, is that most construction simply does not have the weep holes above the windows, especially commercial where there are loads of windows. I just drove around my area, and went and looked at them personally, to double check, and they are not there.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

First off, that statement came directly from the TREC website!!! And I have been trying to explain some of their reasoning behind that. You need to write the Texas Real Estate Commission and express your opinion to them on that, OK!

Here is what TREC administrative code says:

(k) Exterior walls, doors, and windows. The inspector shall:
(2) report as Deficient:
(E) deficiencies in:
(i) claddings;
(iii) flashing details and terminations

It makes no mention of weep holes per se since weep holes are required. I don't find any other reference to weep holes except in practice test questions where it says they are required.

Please point to chapter and verse of anything to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

These are all new construction, as new as last year, I watched them go up. I understand everything you said completely, and agree with you as well. I am simply stating the facts of how new construction is built. This area is all built after 2000. And what you said is what is taught in school.

The reason for the water damage is not poor sheathing application, but a lack of a house wrap, like Tyvek. Like you said, water is going to get back there, because water finds a way, no matter what.

All I know, is that most construction simply does not have the weep holes above the windows, especially commercial where there are loads of windows. I just drove around my area, and went and looked at them personally, to double check, and they are not there.

Just because something is not caught does not mean it is not required. It just means the builder got away with doing something wrong. Ever see brick go up without properly sealing the torn sheathing? That does not mean it is right, just means the inspector who signed off was just as dumb or careless as the smuck who built it.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Let me get this straight, I used to drive up and down the Florida Turnpike at 90 mph with other traffic going that fast, and because WE never had an accident IT WAS OKAY based on the fact that NOTHING HAPPENED?

Just because something is constructed incorretly and YOU MISSED the problems it caused, and missed those probems for 30 years ... doing it wrong was okay?

Remember, I was just the framer, not a builder, not the inspector, I just know how its been done. I didn't do any of it, OK? I have been an inspector for a whole month now, and I see how easy it is to get you guys going. Glad to see you take your jobs as serious as I do.

Just like in the report:

At the time of this typing, I am telling everyone here (all of you guys now, spread out all across this wonderful country of ours), that I am not the one, who didn't do the weep holes. I am not a bricker, and have not been doing inspections for 30 yrs. I have been framing for 30 years, and I am like the news anchor, I am simply reporting the facts as I have seen them happen over the last 3 decades. At the time of this writing, I have never done a weep hole, never kissed a weep hole, nor have I ever taken a weep hole out to a dinner and movie. I am simply stating the facts, as I have seen them, and been told by others. I have not inspected a house yet, (all 22 inspections so far, not too bad for my first month) that has had weep holes above the windows, nor have I wrote the house up for it, especially after reading what the

TREC WEBSITE SAID :

Q: Do the Standards of Practice require inspectors to report as deficient the absence of weep holes along the bottom course of brick and above steel lintels?

A: Lack of weep holes is only required to be reported as a deficiency when there is visible evidence of water penetration or a structural issue that may be related to the lack of weep holes.

Now, does everyone understand where I'm coming from now?

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Just because something is not caught does not mean it is not required. It just means the builder got away with doing something wrong. Ever see brick go up without properly sealing the torn sheathing? That does not mean it is right, just means the inspector who signed off was just as dumb or careless as the smuck who built it.

I agree 100% with you. But, what about all the commercial buildings that are inspected by engineers? And what about what the TREC website said:

Q: Do the Standards of Practice require inspectors to report as deficient the absence of weep holes along the bottom course of brick and above steel lintels?

A: Lack of weep holes is only required to be reported as a deficiency when there is visible evidence of water penetration or a structural issue that may be related to the lack of weep holes

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Here is what TREC administrative code says:

(k) Exterior walls, doors, and windows. The inspector shall:
(2) report as Deficient:
(E) deficiencies in:
(i) claddings;
(iii) flashing details and terminations

It makes no mention of weep holes per se since weep holes are required. I don't find any other reference to weep holes except in practice test questions where it says they are required.

Please point to chapter and verse of anything to the contrary.

Q: Do the Standards of Practice require inspectors to report as deficient the absence of weep holes along the bottom course of brick and above steel lintels?

A: Lack of weep holes is only required to be reported as a deficiency when there is visible evidence of water penetration or a structural issue that may be related to the lack of weep holes.

TREC - Enforcement Questions & Answers

scroll down and read
Inspectors - SOP

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

"My point is that weep holes over windows cause more damage than they prevent. This is documented proof with 30 yrs behind it."


Would you help to educate us by providing us with your documented proof?

What planet are you from? That's a might fine head you have there. Do the Men in Black know where you are?

Just a point in fact: we don't use the TREC website as our SoP. The FAQ section where that question is found doesn't really answer the question...which is very common for TREC. I digress.

We inspect based on the TREC Standards and weep holes are not specifically mentioned. Here is the sum total standard on exterior walls, doors and windows.

The inspector shall:
(1) report evidence of water penetration; and
(2) report as Deficient:
(A) the lack of functional emergency escape and rescue openings in all sleeping rooms;
(B) the lack of a solid wood door not less than 1-3/8 inches in thickness, a solid or honeycomb core steel
door not less than 1-3/8 inches thick, or a 20-minute fire-rated door between the residence and an
attached garage;
(C) missing or damaged screens;
(D) deficiencies related to structural performance or water penetration; and
(E) deficiencies in:
(i) claddings;
(ii) water resistant materials and coatings;
(iii) flashing details and terminations;
(iv) the condition and operation of exterior doors, garage doors, and hardware; and
(v) window operation and components.

I won't repeat what Jim said, but he's right. It's not the weep hole that causes the problem, it's the improper flashing. However, you're most likely correct in that we never it see done around here. Heck, I very rarely find any weep holes even at the base of wall here in east Texas.

When I was building my house, my brick man started while I was away and when I returned, he had nearly finished. I asked him where the weep holes were and he said, "I don't put weep holes in." like it was some sort of religion that he didn't believe in.

Mr. Doty is a brand spanking newly licensed TREC HI. # 20118 with an expiration date of 03/31/2013.

Ink is barely dry on your new license.

Welcome to our world.

You have a lot to learn. I would suggest zipping your comments for a tad and do some learning.

What you have presented so far is pretty sad and I would be very afraid to be your inspection client.

Originally Posted by Nolan Kienitz

Mr. Doty is a brand spanking newly licensed TREC HI. # 20118 with an expiration date of 03/31/2013.

Ink is barely dry on your new license.

Welcome to our world.

You have a lot to learn. I would suggest zipping your comments for a tad and do some learning.

What you have presented so far is pretty sad and I would be very afraid to be your inspection client.

You know, it's amazing to me, how everyone thinks I'm the one who has left out the weep holes. I merely state the facts of construction practices and everyone thinks it's me that wrote this rule of no weep holes. I would suggest that you learn more about me and pay closer attention to what I have said, exactly.

Yes, I'm new and I pointed that out. If anyone has bothered to actually read what I've said. You guys make my point for me. You think because you have been inspecting longer, that you know more than I do? I don't think so. All everyone keeps telling me is information that I've known for the last 30 years.

I bring up a "messy issue" that all the agents are crying about, and now I see why. Inspectors like you, telling me to "zip it" and think I'm a stupid idiot. You make me laugh, and greatly underestimate me.

I guess you think that framers are idiots, especially those whose responsible for mult-million dollar projects, and there is no hiding behind a lawyer, or contract agreements. You have to be damn good to have been where I was before the 08 collapse.

I may have some learning left to do, but not much, and I don't need to read the structure codes, I know everyone by heart and much better I'm sure than you know them.

If you wish to challenge me on my structure knowledge, you know where to find me. And let's be sure and do it in front of at least 1000 other inspectors. There's no way you know structure like I do.

We can go a set of plans for, let's say a 20,000 sq ft , 3 story, pier & bm, with no engineering specs and let's see what you know. Everything from psi of the various pours, to form set up, structure of the first floor pier & bm, girder sizes, load points, everything, all the way up the structure. You spec all bm sizes, header sizes, I-specs, hanger specs, oh, and lets make it a slate roof, to increase rafter difficulty, now, don't forget what to do about HVAC, Electrical, & Plumbing, not to mention alarms, sprinklers, fire blocking, exterior stone loads, etc.

I'm game, are you?

Try me, and see how little you really know.

Originally Posted by JB Thompson

Just a point in fact: we don't use the TREC website as our SoP. The FAQ section where that question is found doesn't really answer the question...which is very common for TREC. I digress.

We inspect based on the TREC Standards and weep holes are not specifically mentioned. Here is the sum total standard on exterior walls, doors and windows.

The inspector shall:
(1) report evidence of water penetration; and
(2) report as Deficient:
(A) the lack of functional emergency escape and rescue openings in all sleeping rooms;
(B) the lack of a solid wood door not less than 1-3/8 inches in thickness, a solid or honeycomb core steel
door not less than 1-3/8 inches thick, or a 20-minute fire-rated door between the residence and an
attached garage;
(C) missing or damaged screens;
(D) deficiencies related to structural performance or water penetration; and
(E) deficiencies in:
(i) claddings;
(ii) water resistant materials and coatings;
(iii) flashing details and terminations;
(iv) the condition and operation of exterior doors, garage doors, and hardware; and
(v) window operation and components.

I won't repeat what Jim said, but he's right. It's not the weep hole that causes the problem, it's the improper flashing. However, you're most likely correct in that we never it see done around here. Heck, I very rarely find any weep holes even at the base of wall here in east Texas.

When I was building my house, my brick man started while I was away and when I returned, he had nearly finished. I asked him where the weep holes were and he said, "I don't put weep holes in." like it was some sort of religion that he didn't believe in.

I have known all you have listed for some time. You have to know these codes in order to frame the house, but as a framer, I know these in much more detail. This list is merely basics.

But you did make my point about the practice of weep holes, the bricker didn't put them in, and the inspector said nothing. This is my whole point. I merely state the construction practice, not stating whether it's wrong or not, just merely stating the facts, and most everyone here, thinks I'm the one going around telling everyone not to put them in.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

A post here for all the confusion some 4 years back.... WEEP HOLES ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS THE LACK OF THEM ARE CAUSING A PROBLEM !!
This is what happens when you only learn from a book, and that's all you know. Welcome to the new breed of inspector and a major upgrade from the "old inspectors with 20, 30 yrs experience of inspecting". I am an ex-framing contractor, with 30 years of real experience, not just book taught.

Richard, you are getting all bent out of shape because you think we blame you for not putting weep holes in but that is not the issue, never has been. You've denied it several times but I must have missed where anyone accused you of being responsible for no weep holes in the whole state.
What everyone is calling you on is your vehement statement that "weep holes are not required..."
Your words, not ours.

But the last few posts you seem to be backtracking a bit on your position while all the while getting defensive about your background and denigrating other inspectors who don't bow at your experience.
Arrogance is never becoming, even less for the naive.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Richard, you are getting all bent out of shape because you think we blame you for not putting weep holes in but that is not the issue, never has been. You've denied it several times but I must have missed where anyone accused you of being responsible for no weep holes in the whole state.
What everyone is calling you on is your vehement statement that "weep holes are not required..."
Your words, not ours.

But the last few posts you seem to be backtracking a bit on your position while all the while getting defensive about your background and denigrating other inspectors who don't bow at your experience.
Arrogance is never becoming, even less for the naive.

Jim, I arrived at that statement from what the TREC website said, and was shocked to see it there. You know the whole, if there is no problems, then don't write it up, even if the brickledge weep holes are missing. I've always seen those go in.

Not backtracking, it's just some of the posts have taken my knowledge in question. My areas of "still learning" fall in the other areas, but not in the structure area. I love framing homes, and losing that work, was devastating for me, all because of a bunch of suits got greedy.

I'm not asking for anyone to bow at my experience, and I've been told many times of my arrogance when it comes to my work, because I take my work very seriously, with a great deal of pride, and while others see arrogance, I see confidence. When it comes to dealing with agents, GP, and others where we get our work, I'm always on my best behavior, and extremely professional.

But some one comments about zipping it... and learn some more about structure, then I will take offense to that. There's nothing wrong with my structure knowledge.

I also pointed out the "weep holes not required" because I can't tell you how many times I haven't seen them at all, including new construction. I discussed this with my instructors as well. Both very good inspectors at AHIT, and I confronted them with this very same subject. They said the same as the TREC website and what you learn in school, every 33 in.
If they are not there, do you write it up and was told again the same as TREC website... for that and others, but also told, you make the call... in your field report, write everything you see, and when finished, if it is not causing a problem at the time... then ???

I know they really need to be there at the brick ledge, for more than just water drainage.... but ???

Do you write it up as a deficiency if none are above the windows? And kill the sell ??

Do you know how easy it is to drill the mortar and make weep holes?

Have you read other sites and read about all the homeowners caulking up the weep holes?? I've done a lot of research on this touchy subject, and there really is no good answer other than they are required to be there, yet if you write up every time, I firmly believe that you would go out of business here for doing so.

Ok guys, now that everyone knows who I am, and realizes how much I love to start controversy.

Oh, you guys killed me with "weep holes not required"

I stirred up a bloody hornets nest with that one !!

How do you start a new thread, so we can talk about "roof bracing"
and let's see how much trouble I can stir up again. I know from the books, and what I have read so far, there's a lot wrong on that subject.

Yes, smiles are fair game now.

Originally Posted by Richard Doty

First off, that statement came directly from the TREC website!!! And I have been trying to explain some of their reasoning behind that.

As I (and others) read your post and statement YOU were trying to back up ("explain" was the term you used) that off the wall statement by stating that in your 30 years of working on problems like that you have not found any problems - it seemed to me (and apparently others too) that YOU think the same thing.

You need to write the Texas Real Estate Commission and express your opinion to them on that, OK!

No need for me to do that, I don't live in Texas.

You should never pass judgement on anyone, and you know that. I have learned over the past month, what a big deal this "weep hole" thing has been, and now I know why, after everyone's comments on the matter.

Then that is what you should have said the first time - that you were just repeating TREC gossip and that it was no longer your opinion ... instead of trying to support that gossip by stating that your 30 years ... blah-blah-blah should there were no problems with not having weep holes.

All I have done is pointed out the facts about weep holes where I live, and the simple fact that they are not required here, in Texas.

First, you did not point out "fact", you repeated gossip, there is a big difference.

Second, please provide documentation that weep holes are not required in Texas. Based on what the other Texas inspectors have been stating over the last many years here weep ARE *required*, just not *enforced*, there is a big difference there too.

Ok, my engineer, Chris and the archetictural engineer, Steve, finally called me back. And I asked them about the lack of weep holes above windows and why, for the sake of all these discussions, including the homes and the commercial buildings and they said the same thing as I have been telling you guys, weep holes above windows cause leaks. The way we install windows, it is called a window wrap, not flashing.

Installing weep holes as the wall is laid up with proper through the wall flashings, lintels and/or shelf angles ... weep hole DO NOT "cause leaks", the weep holes could actually help PREVENT leaks.

That said, if the weep holes are installed AFTER the wall is laid up, and the weep holes are drilled out, yeah, not only will that cause leaks, drilling in weep holes is more than dumb, it i beyond words (but I can usually find words to say ).

And to confer, I called the super for Mycon ( a large commercial builder here locally, whom I did several jobs for), and got the same answer. Weep holes above windows can cause leaks, so the windows are installed in what is called a window wrap, not flashing.

(sigh) Calling someone who obviously installs brick veneer incorrectly and asking for correct information is, well, like asking a blind man to look outside and tell you if it is day time or night time.

These are the facts ...

Inaccurate gossip is not "facts", yet you used that term for that twice.

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

How about rephrasing "weep holes cause more problems, ...," to "improperly installed weep holes and weep flashing cause more problems, ...,"

The thing I find humorous about statements like, "I've been doing it this way for some umpteen years and have never had a problem with it" is that since when did any of these guys ever go back to see what happened over the years?

Framing for a year isn't going to teach very much unless you work with an older and experienced group or someone who actually cares how they do a job. Too much construction is strictly piece work thrown up as fast as possible with fingers crossed that the AHJ will pass it whether they see it or not. Whack it and bang it, go on to the next job. It's called doing business based on the probability of getting called on bad work. Happens with a lot of businesses of all types including home inspectors. If someone doesn't complain then it's good!.

In order to understand weep holes and TREC you need to consider a bit more.



The TREC Standards, like ASHI, CREIA, InterNACHI, every regulated State, ect, require inspection of visible conditions only. All specifically disclaim code inspection.

The history of home inspection essentially has required reporting material, visible, performance related defects. Of course one can expand the Standard to include code or what might exist in inaccessible areas, but that exceeds the Standards.

When weep holes and code are discussed keep in mind the Scope of the Standards. If you believe the Standards are wrong work to change them.


In closing, I have written up absence of weep holes for 25 years; have never seen a failure I would consider material; have never seen a buyer pay to repair them; have never had a complaint on the subject; have never heard of a specific person harmed.

Originally Posted by John Cahill

Of course one can expand the Standard to include code or what might exist in inaccessible areas, but that exceeds the Standards.

And there is no reason not to exceed the standards.

There is every reason to exceed the standards as the standards are like code ... the minimum crappiest one is legally allowed to ... (in this case) ... do a home inspection.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And there is no reason not to exceed the standards.

There is every reason to exceed the standards as the standards are like code ... the minimum crappiest one is legally allowed to ... (in this case) ... do a home inspection.

Ahhhh, I cannot really buy into the "every reason to exceed them" argument. Heck its why I cannot afford health care today. Go to the Doc for a script and he wants to run 100 tests. I hear what your saying but in the end it is not reasonable. Just my opinion.

Actually the Standards are not like code, other than they are both statutory in some areas. Inspection standards address visible material performance related defects on homes usually involved in a real estate transaction. Code addresses assembly methods on remodels and new construction. Inspection relies on judgement and code relies on compliance. That is a huge distinction.

Code legally allows copius grandfathering. When I see code based home inspectors ignore that and compare homes to new code I do not mind . . until they turn their argument against other law abiding inspectors.

I cringe a bit when compliant persons are attacked over accepted laws; I do not mind attacking the law itself however. It seems to me the most honorable form of public protection would be for those who demand more to work to change the Standard. I cannot stand it when experts profit from aggressive expert work using fist pumping "public protection" and "standard of care arguments". I wish they would put their efforts into changing the laws. I have found there to 4 basic inspectors.

1) Those who do not meet the Standard due to qualification or fraud
2) Those who meet the Standard and comply with law
3) Those who exceed the Standard as a business choice and work to improve the rules without personality judgements.
4) Those who exceed the law and profit from those who do not. When met in debate they always turn to 1) justification with public protection arguments and little quantifiable data 2) disparaging remarks about people 3) legal threats.

If the Standards are wrong change them (I cannot; I am retired from politics). Off to fill my "weep hole" with dinner.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

There is every reason to exceed the standards as the standards are like code ... the minimum crappiest one is legally allowed to ... (in this case) ... do a home inspection.

Mr. Peck,

The Texas SoP reads:

The inspectors shall: (2) Report as deficient: (E) Deficiencies in: (i) claddings.

Yeah, it is poor English, but how could one exceed that standard? I submit there is nothing minimum about it.

Russell in BubbaLand

Originally Posted by John Cahill

Ahhhh, I cannot really buy into the "every reason to exceed them" argument. Heck its why I cannot afford health care today. Go to the Doc for a script and he wants to run 100 tests. I hear what your saying but in the end it is not reasonable. Just my opinion.

It is quite reasonable to always exceed the minimum standards for both the code and home inspections ... not sure where your off-base analogy for the doctor came from, but it does not matter as it is so far off base from the discussion.

Actually the Standards are not like code, other than they are both statutory in some areas. Inspection standards address visible material performance related defects on homes usually involved in a real estate transaction. Code addresses assembly methods on remodels and new construction. Inspection relies on judgement and code relies on compliance. That is a huge distinction.

Actually, codes and standards ARE EXACTLY ALIKE in that they both address MINIMUM requirements which must be met, and NEITHER excludes one from doing more than the MINIMUM requirements.

I cringe a bit when compliant persons are attacked over accepted laws;

I guess you have not been paying attention to the laws (where licensing is in effect) regarding MINIMUM standards of practice for home inspectors - yes, that is correct, the standards are MINIMUM levels which must be met.

I do not mind attacking the law itself however. It seems to me the most honorable form of public protection would be for those who demand more to work to change the Standard. I cannot stand it when experts profit from aggressive expert work using fist pumping "public protection" and "standard of care arguments". I wish they would put their efforts into changing the laws.

Why would an advanced inspector change the laws? They do as much as they want and that is what helps set them apart from the everyday inspector. Kind like going back to you off base doctor analogy and saying why have specialists when all you have to do is be a "doctor". Like the old saying goes: What do you call a doctor who finished at the bottom of their class? DOCTOR.

I have found there to 4 basic inspectors.

1) Those who do not meet the Standard due to qualification or fraud
2) Those who meet the Standard and comply with law
3) Those who exceed the Standard as a business choice and work to improve the rules without personality judgements.
4) Those who exceed the law and profit from those who do not. When met in debate they always turn to 1) justification with public protection arguments and little quantifiable data 2) disparaging remarks about people 3) legal threats.

Your shortsightedness is clearly visible in your obscured vision:
3)a) Those who exceed the Standard as a business choice and use that to set themselves apart from the crowd.
4)a) Those who exceed the law and profit from those who do not when those who do not have greatly erred and are being sued by their client.

Seems to me that you want your own little world of make believe where there are only your 4 choices.

You need to get real and join real life.

Originally Posted by russell strahan

Mr. Peck,

The Texas SoP reads:

The inspectors shall: (2) Report as deficient: (E) Deficiencies in: (i) claddings.

Yeah, it is poor English, but how could one exceed that standard? I submit there is nothing minimum about it.

Russell in BubbaLand

Russell in BubbaLand,

(bold red text is mine)
TREC - Inspector Main Page
"Governing Rules - TREC has adopted rules governing inspectors, including the minimum standards under which inspections of residential property must be conducted."

Starts right there "minimum standards" ...

: Texas Administrative Code
"
§535.227 Standards of Practice: General Provisions
§535.228 Standards of Practice: Minimum Inspection Requirements for Structural Systems
§535.229 Standards of Practice: Minimum Inspection Requirements for Electrical Systems
§535.230 Standards of Practice: Minimum Inspection Requirements for Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Systems
§535.231 Standards of Practice: Minimum Inspection Requirements for Plumbing Systems
§535.232 Standards of Practice: Minimum Inspection Requirements for Appliances
§535.233 Standards of Practice: Minimum Inspection Requirements for Optional Systems
"

Maybe you did not read that part before? "Minimum Inspection Requirements" and then the different systems.

Mr. Peck,

Thank you for the list of subsection titles.

Would you be so kind as to answer my question?

The Texas SoP reads:

The inspectors shall: (2) Report as deficient: (E) Deficiencies in: (i) claddings.

How could one exceed that (specific) requirement?

Thank you,

Russell

Looks like you fit description 4.2 perfectly Mr. Peck.

Everyone else, study the Scope / Limitations of your chosen or required Standards and apply them in a manner that meets the expectations of the client and your agreement with them. If you desire to inspect to code, predict life span, provide cost estimates, use infrared, report cosmetic conditions, warn of consequence, etc, then do so. That is what free enterprise is about. Do discuss inspection methods with your peers but do not pass judgement on them or try to force them to comply your perception of a superior service. Such behavior is unprofessional and a sign of insecurity. Good inspecting.

Not sure how I missed this entire conversation but this may be where the problem lay with writing something up that should be written up.

"When it comes to dealing with agents, GP, and others where we get our work, I'm always on my best behavior, and extremely professional."

Also

"yet if you write up every time, I firmly believe that you would go out of business here for doing so."

Along with 22 inspections the first month ?????????????????????? This would come from AHIT and their Realtor marketing class. I actually took that to see what it was all about and have commented on it before about how one discusses the findings in a report. Where one starts an inspection. Where one winds up in the middle of the inspection. Where one should end an inspection. How there is no real concern about anything. How one must smile, smile, smile when commenting that the home is falling down (a bit of exaggeration). The reasons one ends an inspection in a certain location at the end of the inspection should finish everything up on the bright side and you did the concern areas of the major bucks first so it is out of the way. Out of site, out of mind. What to wear. The look to have. How to talk to Realtors etc etc etc. This course is from a long term 30 plus year Broker/over time inspector. If this does not tell you how much Realtors sit around discussing particular inspectors. What those inspectors write up. How they do their inspection. Which inspector to chose for the inspection referral and last but certainly not least. How much influence the Realtors have over the inspection process. Yes I am looking at the multi part multi hour certificates right now

Yep. I have that wonderful group of certificates. And some on here wonder why I bring such madness about marketing and appeasing Realtors up.

In a down market where a multitude of inspectors down sized in homes. Some out of business altogether. Most thankful for the busy spring time and summer that supports them the rest of the year and the brand new inspector fresh out the door does 22 inspections his first month. "Not bad HUH :-)" * I wonder how he got all those inspections*

Does anyone really wonder what may be going on here.

Also the thousands of windows he has replaced due to leaking or should I say, just weep holes being present and causing concerns but he drove around for 2 hours and did not find a weep hole over a window in any residential or commercial application

Richard thinks he can stir up controversy. He has not read on here much.

Anyways I think Wayne may have put it like it is about weep holes. Weep holes are required in certain situations and those situations are almost always present.

For those of you that wish to carry on this discussion, it is not a discussion. I am just quoting facts about the why and the why nots some inspectors do or do not write things up and one of the reasons is.

Don't want their bread and butter Realtors aggravated in anyway. You may be out of work in no time. I think Nolan said it right about thinking before you write. Statements like that will not only put you out of business but may just take everything you have along with it. Let's not put the clients interests first. Lets put the Realtors interests first.

Thank you Richard. Another very, very very fine example why I am such a pain in the ars.

Sorry but this was about weep holes and it was about the why one would not write weep holes up so I hope I did not sway too far from topic.

Originally Posted by russell strahan

Mr. Peck,

Thank you for the list of subsection titles.

Would you be so kind as to answer my question?

The Texas SoP reads:

The inspectors shall: (2) Report as deficient: (E) Deficiencies in: (i) claddings.

How could one exceed that (specific) requirement?

Thank you,

Russell

Russell,

You said "I submit there is nothing minimum about it."

I pointed out that the standards themselves admit/specify/state that they are MINIMUM requirements, and that in and of itself states that everything listed which you are "required" to do is the "minimum" you are legally obligated to do - therefore the standards, as I pointed out - MINIMUM standards.

The answer was so obvious I thought I did not need to point it out, but I guess I do, so here it is:

- The inspectors shall: (2) Report as deficient: (E) Deficiencies in: (i) claddings.
- - Stucco is cracked, correct as needed.
- - - That is plain and simple, and meets MINIMUM requirements. It also does not really help the client much either.

- The inspectors shall: (2) Report as deficient: (E) Deficiencies in: (i) claddings.
- - The stucco is (now read the posts above and you should easily be able to figure the rest out).
- - - That explains what the inspector observed, explains what the inspectors opinion is, and explains what needs to be done, and this EXCEEDS the minimum requirements of the minimum standards. You can EXCEED the minimum requirements by going to extra lengths to explain and educate your client. This information will help the client in determining what their options are and helps them in negotiations with the seller if so needed. An educated client can make the decisions on what they will accept (such as replacing GFCI where needed) and what they want to negotiate or have the seller pay for (such as removing all of the stucco around the house, repairing any and all damaged framing, then installing new sheathing and stucco, etc.)

Sometime the obvious is, well, like the old saying goes: Hide in plain sight. That works fairly often too.

There is no reason NOT to exceed the minimum.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

There is no reason NOT to exceed the minimum.

Mr. Peck,

If the client does not want to pay for subjective opinions from a non-specialist that might be one reason. If the non-specialist expresses himself in double negatives, that might be two.

Thank you for your response,

Russell

Originally Posted by russell strahan

If the client does not want to pay for subjective opinions from a non-specialist that might be one reason. If the non-specialist expresses himself in double negatives, that might be two.

It does not take a specialist to know more than "minimum" requirements.

No matter how you may try to twist or turn it, there is no reason not to exceed minimum standards (and that is not a double negative - read it again).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No matter how you may try to twist or turn it, there is no reason not to exceed minimum standards.

Sure there is. If the client is not willing to pay you to exceed it. On the other hand if you want to do code inspection, manufacturer installation inspection, reserve study; thermal imaging; use moisture meters for the price of a minimum SoP go for it. That is the intent of free enterprise.

http://www.olympiancares.com/mason%2...k%20veneer.pdf

happy hunting...