This was easily the worst collective group of decks I have ever seen, all in a row right next to one another. The first two pics are of the deck on the house I inspected. The rest are decks at neighboring houses in the row.

Attached Images

	deck1.jpg (52.3 KB, 293 views)
	deck1a.jpg (74.5 KB, 331 views)
	deck2.jpg (70.6 KB, 309 views)
	deck3and4.jpg (69.7 KB, 334 views)
	deck5.jpg (69.2 KB, 266 views)

Are inspection referrals from past clients important to you? If so, click here to get even more referrals!

I've got a sinking feeling ...


That Sinking Feeling! - Video

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

But, Nick, "They're all that way", so they must be ok!

__________________
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. -Robert Orben, magician and author (b. 1927) / www.ArnoldHomeInspections.com

Looks like the posts are notched and through bolted to the beam, so the junction won't "hinge" at that point (at least until something rots out), and with those wide deck boards running parallel to the main structure they're going to provide considerable resistance to the deck going trapezoid (at least until their fasteners start failing), so depending on the attachment of the beam to the joists that arrangement may not be quite as insane as it looks at first glance.

It's still not remotely right of course, but in terms of things that appear doomed to imminent collapse I've seen much worse... though it's going to be a looooooog ride down when something does fail.

--------------

(BTW, how are the roofing nails they used to attach the ledger holding up?)

__________________
Michael Thomas
Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
http://paragoninspects.com

I think those pictures really show the clear lack of craftsmanship these days. It's terrible that they couldn't get all the stain colors to match from deck to deck. I especially appreciate the subtle tilt on the decks for proper water run-off. We all know how important that is. Thank God they didn't elevate those pretty posts up off the dirt with those ugly concrete footings things.

__________________
Accurate Inspections & Consulting, Inc.
773/844-4AIC
Markus Keller

ugh, will some (builders) ever learn? do they care? how do they sleep at night?

__________________
Bruce Thompson, Lic. #9199
www.TylerHomeInspector.com
Home Inspections in the Tyler and East Texas area

So you are all ready to condemn these decks but almost no mention is made of what is wrong them them.

It might be more helpful to call out the problems you actually see in these photos as an aide to other inspectors.

I see the lack of K or X bracing and the posts in contact with the ground.

Any one else?

And how about the lack of stoops in front of the doors and the excessive step to grade?

Michael: It would take up a lot less bandwith to just list what is right with them. The only thing in that department that comes to mind is that none of them is attached to MY house.

__________________
"What the plainspoken man lacks in subtlety he makes up in clarity." - A.D. Miller
www.texasinspector.com

If bandwidth is the only consideration have at at.

If you have any interest in helping others on this"everything an inspector needs to know" message board you will much less concerned with bandwidth.

I only commented because some HIs were in the ha.. ha..ha..ha. of look at that piece of crap deck mode.

I guess you all assume that everyone is perfectly clear what's going on with those decks.

Michael,

The posts being "in contact with the ground" is not necessarily a bad thing, not if the posts are treated for in ground use and are anchored to concrete footings below frost depth, as the footings should be.

ALL have stoops by the front doors, SOME even look like pavers. Some look like grass, but ALL have stoops" there (otherwise, you would step out and step into a black hole, coming out on the other side of the earth or just disappearing).



How about if YOU list what you see is wrong and give supporting documentation? You know, for the benefit and education of all ... as you were saying.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

Understood but I don't see a means of moving water away from the base of the posts.

Agreed, but it looks to be nearly a 10" drop on SOME of them.


You next. I took my shot albeit without posted documentary support though DCA6 is a great document.

The poster said it was the "worst set of decks he had seen" and then others chimed in with things like "sinking feeling", "worst collective group of decks I have ever seen", "ugh, will some (builders) ever learn" and "It would take up a lot less bandwith to just list what is right with them" without ever teaching anything.

It came across like chest pounding more than anything else.

Would be okay if treated properly.

Then it is not a 'missing stoop' problem, it is a 'height of stoop' problem?

There is nothing good to say about them.

Besides, I already took my shot ... put it out there about 60 feet, no record, but good enough for me .

I believe it was meant as stated, worst decks they've seen, etc., are saying they are otherwise, i.e., 'good'?

Of course, though, we have all seen "worse" decks, but as a collection, that is the worst collection of decks ...

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

I didn't ask what was good about them only what others saw was wrong with them.

Thorn stuck in your paw Michael?

Just a little

When I saw thought you had posted I thought you might enlighten us.

Won't you consider that chest pounding? I don't want to come across as a know-it-all.

IMHO you didn't start the chest pounding.

You posted some pics and and your opinion but as the investigator on the scene I still think it would be helpful for you to expand upon our comments.

The support posts on all the decks were bowing to some degree. This played a part in it but what seemed to be a less obvious cause was the grading of the lots. The house I inspected was on a lot with a pretty steep grade along the right-hand side of the house where the deck is located. Attached are some pics of other things I saw which appear to indicated shifting and sliding grades and possibly inadequate compaction of the ground.

Pic #1 - electric meter box on front wall pulled loose on wall (this was mounted in an area where the grade began to slope on the right-hand side of the house)
Pic #2 - two underground drain lines along the right-hand side of the house were pulled down and away from the downspouts
Pic #3 - sealant line on the AC lines where they passed through the foundation wall indicates the condenser moved a couple inches down and away from the orginal mounting location
Pic #4 - deck support post on the inspected deck was not only bowed but also out of plumb and in a position that appears to be consistent with my thoughts of unstable and shifting ground

All the decks in the pictures appear to have varying lengths on the support posts but I think what is actually happening is the posts are sinking/moving as the grades shift and move.

Attached Images

	shift1.jpg (46.5 KB, 97 views)
	shift2.jpg (62.1 KB, 82 views)
	shift3.jpg (68.2 KB, 92 views)
	shift4.jpg (31.6 KB, 99 views)

Photo 1 - ground rod not driven completely.
Photo 3 - A/C disconnect panel insufficient access clearance.

__________________
"What the plainspoken man lacks in subtlety he makes up in clarity." - A.D. Miller
www.texasinspector.com

Photo 1 - not applicable (ground rod in pic is for attached house, not the house I inspected - it just ended up in the pic)
Photo 3 - let the AC condenser keep moving and you'll have all the clearance you need

It will be in the street but accessible.

Thanks for posting the side shots of the deck.

I hope no one gets hurt before they are properly supported(or torn down).

At least the a/c condenser unit is tethered in place by it wiring and refrigerant lines.

Question about the meters:

Are the meter located such that one meter is on one building and the other meter is on the adjacent building ("building" meaning separated by fire rated walls into "separate" "buildings")?

On one service is allowed to serve one building, and the service for one building is not allowed to go through another building.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

The box had two meters attached (one for the inspected unit and one for the adjacent property). From my recollection, the box was mounted on the wall roughly at the property line of each unit. Where they service cables passed through the walls I do not know.

Gotta do that for drainage.

Nick,

With no service disconnect at the meters, the service equipment would then (SHOULD then) be located immediately inside that wall, were they?

If not, then that is a problem and a code violation as the service entrance conductors are not even allowed to be run into or through the structure the service serves, except to the point closest to the entrance of the service entrance conductors (unless the service entrance conductors are in a metal raceway and encased in 2" of concrete).

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

Having just spent the weekend repairing my own deck with similar issues here is what I found. The vertical support posts were notched to go around the double 2x 10 to prevent rolling, but improperly fastened with short nails (added lag screws)
The posts appeared to have concrete footings but with some excavation it turned out the 4x6 pressure treated post was 10 inches in the ground with some concrete poured around it, nothing underneath. The deck was supported by fill dirt and I was having that sinking feeling. The deck post was also the fastening point of the start of the kids zip line.
The deck itself was not fastened to the double 2x10 just placed on top (added straps)
It did have some 2x4's in a V underneath the joists to prevent racking.

Comment on the AC photo, the efficiency is cut way down when the unit runs out of level, the fan is balanced from the factory and then has to operate 5-10 degrees off level. Also way off topic, why is it that so much care is taken to insulate the refrigerant lines up to the compressor yet most units have bare uninsulated pipes inside?
It should become part of the code for lines exposed to sunlight to be white or covered.
Just a greenish thought for the day.

__________________
Randy Aldering, RHI CHI
Housesmithe Inspection
www.housesmithe.com

Jerry, the service panel was on the other side of the wall in the basement.

Jerry,

In the photo with the meter cans, is the conduit not connected to the cans with an adjustable slip fitting slightly noticeable at the bottom of the pic? So ,if this accurate, would not the fitting simply expand instead of pulling on the can when settlement does, and it will, occur?

I believe that the meter cans are mounted to a an addition piece of OSB on top of the original sheathing (most likely with drywall screws). Water the can become trapped between the two sections rot can accelerate. I would also venture to speculate that the cans are simply screwed to the sheathing with simple screws and not bolted in place to the framing.

The settlement to the condenser, and down spouts is fairly typical for newer construction. The meter can may be suffering from piss poor installation.And I believe the decks are a matter that can stand on their own merit.

"Some people can't help but major in minor things", so give him a little slack.

Home Rite Home Inspector, York, Pa - Real Estate Inspection in PA and Maryland

That is good.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

Claification:

The major/minor comment was not directed at Jerry.

Richard,

That does not look long enough to be an expansion fitting for that size PVC conduit.

That sort of looks like one of those fittings I saw advertised someplace which allows for making up a small difference in riser length for when the riser and its elbow are installed but not cut to an exact length, then the fitting (shown in the advertisements as being at the meter housing, not down like that one in the photo) allows for something like up to 6" of difference to be made up in the fitting, allowing 'sloppy quickie work' to become 'finished work' - whatever happened to tape measures and cutting things to length?

I believe you are quite right on that, now that I look at it carefully. Looks like they may have screwed that installation up by doing as they did.

Does not have to be mounted to 'framing', just to the 'structure' and the sheathing is 'part of' the 'structure'.

Yep, I think you are right.

Nick,

By the way, that ground rod is for the service supplied to that double meter setup, and thus IS a ground for BOTH services, which separate at the meters. Looks like one lateral run to the two gang meter housing, goes to both meters where it splits into the two services, one for each structure.

The two ground rods would need to be *at least* 6 feet apart from each other.

Nick, that trim to the right of the meters looks to be like trim on a fire wall demarcation, you sure that each meter is on each structure, i.e., centered on that dividing wall?

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

The mounting location was roughly on the property line Jerry. The way interior walls were set up, I don't know definitively if the box was more on the side of one property than the other.

Jerry Peck, old post dated: 04/26/09

"One service is to service one building and the service for one building is not allowed to go through another building".

Question, if each meter had a service disconnect below it, how do you feel about a SE-R feeder cable running throug another building to it electrical panel? Thanks for any feed back.

/s/ Robert

First you would need to start at the service equipment (out at the meter) and recognize what was where and it it was on, in, or through "one building" or on, in or through "one building to another building".

Being as the service equipment in what you are asking about is "outside the first building", then the service entrance conductors and the service equipment is not running through any building - only feeder conductors are, and feeder conductors are protected on their line side instead of their load side as service entrance conductors are.

If you are talking about "one building" with the meter outside at one location and the disconnects there for each unit (which are not "service disconnects" as the service would have its own service disconnect (unless there were 5 or fewer units, then the service could supply 5 units and the house panel for 6 maximum.

Regardless, though, you are now talking about feeders passing through "one building" through common areas, from unit to unit. That would not be a problem.

I did inspect some buildings in which the feeders ran through "unit walls" vertically above one another, with the bottom unit (on the second floor, first floor was garages, electrical rooms, etc.) fed up to the units above, and the third floor unit fed up to the units above, etc., up to the top floor.

It was not a plan *I* liked at all. I can just see *SOMETHING* ... *ANYTHING* ... happening in which the unit owner break through into that wall and cut into the feeders feeding all units above. Those should have been, in my opinion, run through a common chase, not though unit walls into which people drive nails to hang photos, etc.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

Jerry; Thanks for your reply.

Now take a Town House. What are your thought were the sewer line from
one Town House is run thru the basement/crawl space of the other
Town House out to the sewage system or street line. Thanks for any
feed back.

/S/ Robert

Robert,

With townhouses ... that is COMPLETELY different.

In my post above, we were discussing a single structure, under one ownership, with individual units contained within the single structure, as evidenced by the meter and service all being at one location.

With townhouses in the above electrical scenario - NO WAY.

With townhouses in this plumbing scenario - NO WAY.

The difference is townhouses are fee simple owned from the ground to the sky above, and down into the ground beneath. They are separate structures with "attached" (shared) common walls separating them from each other and the property line runs down the center of that wall.

With townhouses, NO WAY should ANYTHING run from one townhouse to the next. The best way to imagine the townhouse is to take two separate structures on two separate pieces of land and move them closer and closer together until they touch, and then those walls which touch are joined into one wall. NOTHING goes through that wall, and that property line goes down into the ground to the middle of the earth and up into the sky above (no, you cannot control fly over rights, and no, in most cases you do not have mineral rights either ).

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

Jerry, thank for your most recent reply.

Welcome the my world, the Great State of Vermont.

I couldn't agree with you more.

HAPPY FORTH OF JULY

/S/ ROBERT