Thread: GFCI realtor fun and games

The following is the Email a realtor sent my customer
Gotta love the quote I highly reccomend you go to the link and see what makes this guy such a professionel ps the information she was complaining about was GFCI's in the kitchen

"I researched the 3 areas the inspector was educating us on: GFCI's,
smoke detectors, and carbon monoxide detectors, and what I found is as
follows:

1. GFCI: (copied and pasted from
http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/home-electronics/gfci-codes-homes-392347.html



"First of all GFCI protection is only required when the code calls for
it at the time of the original home construction permit. If the home
was built many years ago GFCI protection may not be required at all. A
home needs only meet the code that was in place at the time of its
original construction OR when a update or remodel has been made to a
specific area.

Now with that being said therre is nothing wrong with GFCI protection
and I can understand that some non-licensed state home inspector might
recommend them to be installed for safety purposes but if the above
rule is followed they cannot demand they be installed if the code did
not require it durning the initial construction or remodel.

BTW the NEC has for sometime requires two separate kitchen circuits so
he might be looking at it from that perspective. The codes are always
evolving and the NEC changes every three years so this leads to some
confusion especially
among home inspectors who just a short time ago might have been a
automobile mechanic and all they know about construction and electric
is what they read out of a book or heard from one of there other home
inspection buddys. I have been called into court on a few occassions
to clairfy exactly what the rules are regarding the codes and exactly
when the codes apply. My code compliance manuals go back to 1934 so
the old codes can be recited in court to settle the arguement.

Home inspectors have caused millions of dollars to be spent each year
by home owners to upgrade there homes for the next buyer when in all
actuality they did not need to do the repairs to start with. Most
cases are are judged for the original home owner and the home
inspector is forced to pay for all sales delays and cost associated
with there shenanigan.

Home inspectors have there place but they need to stay in there place
and not wonder about giving false
information."

I dont know about you but i think going on this link and having 20 or 30 of us correcting this stupid post would help us as a group

Similar Threads:

• Realtor gets much-needed lesson in disclosure - Upstate House
• Sewage ejection pump-GFCI?
• AFCI and GFCI Question
• Testing GFCI Outlets
• Kitchen area GFCI

The link references a topic that was last updated Aug 2009. Not particularly current or active. The techincal information presented does answer the question. The comments regarding bad home inspectors are not the far off.

Remind your client that a home inspectors task is to cite SAFETY and Habitability issues. Lack of GFCI is generally considered a safety issue regardless of the age of the home. Home inspectors can not Require any repairs or upgrades. They simply report the condition of the home. Recommending installation of GFCIs in kitchens, baths, exteriors, garages, and crawlspaces is well within the role of a home inspector.

Obviously its a very anti-HI biased answer. Nonetheless the overall answer isn't bad. The real problem lies with the last two paragraphs. Those two paragraphs really take legitimacy away from the responder as a 3rd party.
The response also falls short and sounds a bit fishy in regards to court testimony, homeowners being compelled to spend tons of money and HI's mandating things.
Not sure if he understands that adults can make their own decisions within a deal or that they can hire an attorney to advise them. His basic idea that his testimony has won money for a Seller who was compelled to fix something that they didn't have to doesn't sound legit.
I don't compel or mandate anything. I write what I see. What people do with that info is entirely up to them.
Where in IL are you Mike?

The poster in the link might want to revise their thinking somewhat. The NEC requires receptacle replacements in areas that require GFI protection to have it added when the devices are replaced. This will also apply to AFCIs and tamper-resistant devices.

I have to agree that at times HI's confuse repairs with upgrades. The problem is that once it is in a report and the buyer wants it done... and will not buy the house if the seller does not do it... the HI is causing the seller to spend money.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

The poster in the link might want to revise their thinking somewhat. The NEC requires receptacle replacements in areas that require GFI protection to have it added when the devices are replaced. This will also apply to AFCIs and tamper-resistant devices.

That is close to my wording. It is strongly advisable to mention upgrades in these kinds of cases and it is recommended. If the buyer wants to ask the seller for an upgrade then so be it. That is not my business. It is my business to look out for the concerns in the home they are buying. I mention that all homes should have gutters to prevent washout next to the home, splashback to the home and keep pockets from forming next to the home for good foundation health. Some clients ask for them. Some clients don't. All the seller can say is yes or no b8ut my buyers also know gutters are not even put on homes by builders unless there is an extra charge in most case.

I also tell everyone of my clients that just because I find concerns in the home or mention helpful or safety upgrades it does not mean the seller or even them have to do any repairs if the choose not to. There are ways of informing a client and then, there are ways of informing a client.

As far as Mr HVAC pro in the link. Maybe, just maybe he should leave the inspecting and reporting to the home inspector. As far as an inspector needs to be kept in his place? What place might that be? Getting things right for sure but also the Realtor doing a study on home inspection???? acting and advising as a home inspector???? most licensed states that is not allowed in the slightest. You cannot advise as a home inspector unless you are one. I think Washington state is one of those states as well.

Originally Posted by James Duffin

the buyer wants it done... and will not buy the house if the seller does not do it... the HI is causing the seller to spend money.

The HI is not causing the seller to spend money ... that kind of thinking comes from a real estate agent's friend ... THE CLIENT is causing the seller to spend money (or the client is going to spend their own money - depending on how much the client wants/does not want to buy the house, and THAT is a result of a failure on the sellers' part and/or the agents' part).

ALL the HI did was point out what was not safe ... and the HI is correct.

If the seller has the house priced right, and the agent had done THEIR job of "selling" the house, then the buyer will gladly pay for the GFCI themselves.

If the client thinks the house is overpriced, or maybe/maybe not still wants the house (seller's and/or agent's failure again), the the client wants to make the house "worth it".

Do you blame the buyer (the client) from trying to make the house "worth it" if they decide they are over paying?

If you do ... I have some high and dry land in the Everglades to sell you ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The HI is not causing the seller to spend money ... that kind of thinking comes from a real estate agent's friend ... THE CLIENT is causing the seller to spend money (or the client is going to spend their own money - depending on how much the client wants/does not want to buy the house, and THAT is a result of a failure on the sellers' part and/or the agents' part).

ALL the HI did was point out what was not safe ... and the HI is correct.

If the seller has the house priced right, and the agent had done THEIR job of "selling" the house, then the buyer will gladly pay for the GFCI themselves.

If the client thinks the house is overpriced, or maybe/maybe not still wants the house (seller's and/or agent's failure again), the the client wants to make the house "worth it".

Do you blame the buyer (the client) from trying to make the house "worth it" if they decide they are over paying?

If you do ... I have some high and dry land in the Everglades to sell you ...

I heard the water level is going down but then again they now have those dog and child swallowing snakes.

the following is from the 2009 IPMC and it does require GFCI in all locations this means it is a code requirement. Please read the following

SECTION 601
GENERAL

601.1 Scope.

The provisions of this chapter shall govern the
minimum mechanical and electrical facilities and equipment to
be provided.

Minimum performance guidelines for mechanical and
electrical facilities and equipment are established in
this chapter. Installations that do not conform to these
minimum criteria are unacceptable.

601.2 Responsibility.

The owner of the structure shall provide
and maintain mechanical and electrical facilities and equipment
in compliance with these requirements. A person shall
not occupy as owner-occupant or permit another person to
occupy any premises which does not comply with the requirements
of this chapter.

It is the responsibility of the owner of the structure to
provide and maintain the required electrical and mechanical
facilities. An owner must not occupy or allow
any other person to occupy a structure that is not in
compliance with this chapter; thus, the requirements of
this chapter are the minimum necessary to make a

structure occupiable.



and

604.3 Electrical system hazards. Where it is found that the
electrical system in a structure constitutes a hazard to the occupants
or the structure by reason of inadequate service,
improper fusing, insufficient receptacle and lighting outlets,
improper wiring or installation, deterioration or damage, or for
similar reasons, the code official shall require the defects to be
corrected to eliminate the hazard.
Any electrical system deficiency or condition that is
deemed hazardous to the occupants or to the structure
must be abated to eliminate the hazard. Electrical
system hazards include, but are not limited to, the
following:
 Inadequate (undersized) service;
 Improper fusing and overcurrent protection;
 Insufficient receptacle distribution;
 Lack of sufficient lighting fixtures;
 Deteriorated, damaged, worn or otherwise defective
wiring, equipment and appliances;
 Improperly installed or protected wiring methods;
 Lack of proper service or equipment grounding;
 Open splices in wiring;
 Inadequately supported devices, wiring or
equipment;
 Any exposed conductors or components constituting
a shock hazard;
 Missing or damaged device cover plates;
 Excessive use of extension cords;
 Overloaded receptacles or circuitry; and
 Lack of ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI)
protection.
The most commonly encountered hazard is improper
overcurrent protection of conductors. Fuses
and circuit breakers are devices designed to limit current
flow to the maximum safe current-carrying capacity
(ampacity) of a conductor. With rare exception, the
conductor’s current-carrying capacity (ampacity)
must be greater than or at least equal to the ampere
rating of the overcurrent device that supplies it. If a
fuse or circuit breaker has a larger ampere-rating capacity
than the conductors it is intended to protect, the
device will permit the conductors to carry currents in
excess of the conductors’ capacity. The resultant
overload will cause conductor heating, insulation deterioration
and, possibly, a fire. The typical scenario is
the occupant who thinks he or she has “cured” a fuseblowing
problem by substituting fuses that are larger
in size. This appears to alleviate the problem for the
occupant but, in actuality, an extreme fire hazard has
been created by eliminating the circuit conductor
overcurrent protection.

This is considered a minimum standard for occupancy