Thread: Bathroom exhaust fan location

I got into an argument today with a realtor, i stated that the master bathroom needs additional ventilation since the only source of venting (other than opening a door, no windows, no fans) was located in the toilet room next to the shower. Does anybody know a code for this or am i wrong.
vbfd.jpg

This is from the 2009 IRC - I know that Oregon used to basically amend the entire book, not sure if they still do (but this is still a good starting place for a minimum requirement):
- R303.3 Bathrooms. (bold and underlining are mine)
- - Bathrooms, water closet compartments and other similar rooms shall be provided with aggregate glazing area in windows of not less than 3 square feet (0.3 m2), one-half of which must be openable.
- - - Exception: The glazed areas shall not be required where artificial light and a local exhaust system are provided. The minimum local exhaust rates shall be determined in accordance with Section M1507. Exhaust air from the space shall be exhausted directly to the outdoors.

Originally Posted by cory nystul

I got into an argument today with a realtor, i stated that the master bathroom needs additional ventilation since the only source of venting (other than opening a door, no windows, no fans) was located in the toilet room next to the shower. Does anybody know a code for this or am i wrong.
vbfd.jpg

Sure you can recommend additional ventilation, but that one fan meets the requirement unless as Jerry noted it has been changed in your area. A word of advice....... Never argue with anyone at an inspection, you will always look unprofessional and it's just not worth it.. If somebody does not agree, simply say that you will need to research it more when you get back to your office. This should end the discussion.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Sure you can recommend additional ventilation, but that one fan meets the requirement ...

The reason I highlighted the "and" was to point out that the one fan in the toilet room DOES NOT meet the requirements ... unless Oregon made changes.

If it is a separate room, it requires a fan. The fan in the other room won't do. Even the exemption if there was an operable window present has been removed.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The reason I highlighted the "and" was to point out that the one fan in the toilet room DOES NOT meet the requirements ... unless Oregon made changes.

Oh, I miss read it. I thought the fan was in the same room as the toilet and the shower. Nope, its a two fanner...

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Oh, I miss read it. I thought the fan was in the same room as the toilet and the shower. Nope, its a two fanner...

Scott,

I was getting concerned there ... that maybe *I* had missed something ...

I agree, never argue with anyone. Just note in your report that since there is no window or exhaust vent, state as so and then state "Recommend that some form of ventilation be provided". It is not your job to argue or convince, it is but to state what you detect and recommend if necessary. Sometimes, you can't or should not recommend, just simply state that this condition is observed. Then you have done your due diligence and your client will be informed of this condition and then the client with their agent can do the arguing or should I say, negotiating.

I love know-it-all Realtors, they make us inspectors look professional!

Originally Posted by David Caldwell

... it is but to state what you detect and recommend if necessary. Sometimes, you can't or should not recommend, just simply state that this condition is observed.

"Sometimes, you can't or should not recommend, just simply state that this condition is observed."

Why?

If you observe a condition which merits mentioning in the report, you should recommend doing something about it. Whether anything gets down about it, or whether you know that nothing will be done about it, if it is worth mentioning in the report (other than being okay) then you should recommend what to do (just not a specific repair method).

What association do you belong to?

Are you state licensed?

Most associations' SoP, and most state SoP, call for a recommendation on what needs to be done.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

If you observe a condition which merits mentioning in the report, you should recommend doing something about it. Whether anything gets down about it, or whether you know that nothing will be done about it, if it is worth mentioning in the report (other than being okay) then you should recommend what to do (just not a specific repair method).

Because as an inspector, it's implicit that all deficiencies noted should be repaired, whether they do or not is not my concern.

If you single out items to be repaired then you're implying that not everything on your report is considered a deficiency worth fixing (other than notes obviously), and I don't think the IRC has a clause for 'not big deal deficiencies'.

The most I do (other than the required written opinion of the performance of the foundation,) is on immediately life threatening deficiencies will write 'this is a known and recognized hazard' on that specific item and make both agents aware of it.

By the way, the Texas SOP explicitly notes that inspectors are not required to: (O) provide repair cost estimates, recommendations, or re-inspection services.

Most state laws 'require' you to

"provide recommendations where material defects were found to repair, replace or monitor a system or component"

(bold is mine)

Originally Posted by Will McCrory

By the way, the Texas SOP explicitly notes that inspectors are not required to: (O) provide repair cost estimates, recommendations, or re-inspection services.

But not in any way prohibited from doing so.

Depends on if the inspectors is a minimalist doing the minimum required, or helping create a higher standards of care for the profession.

Like a builder who says "I build to code" and thinking that is something to be proud of ...

Uh ... Mr. Builder ... you are REQUIRED to AT LEAST "build to code" .. what pride is there in doing the minimum required?

Sorry, I don't understand the resistance in simply telling your clients what they should do...

"Have a qualified HVAC contractor make the needed repairs to the system is in proper operating condition"
"Have a qualified plumber correct the improper trap under the kitchen sink"
"You should have a proper handrail installed on the stairs by a qualified contractor as the current handrail does not provide a safe graspable hold as required"

And on and on and on.........

It took me all of 90 seconds to type the above three statements. Sure you can put in a blanket statement that says all defects or finding s should be properly corrected by a professions, heck I have it in my report but I also tell my clients the action they need to take.

This is akin to reporting that you could not inspect an particular area because of something kept you from doing do. You would be amazed at how many simply do not say they did not inspect X, and it comes back to haunt them down the road when the client discovers a problem...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

(bold is mine)


But not in any way prohibited from doing so.

Depends on if the inspectors is a minimalist doing the minimum required, or helping create a higher standards of care for the profession.

I'm well aware the SOP are the minimum requirements, I was just highlighting the fact that "Most associations' SoP, and most state SoP, call for a recommendation on what needs to be done." is not true in Texas.

You're also explicitly not required to run a camera through the drain lines, would you say an inspector who doesn't do that is just a minimalist doing the minimum required?

Can I ask you how you write up holes drilled into window frames? I put in my report "Holes in window frames were observed at [location]".

Do you:

A) Write the same thing and imply through omission in your legal document that it's not a problem because you didn't highlight that they should be repaired when you are recommending repairs in other areas of your report?

B) Recommend replacement of every window in the house that has a security sensor? This can be quite expensive, and I would worry that a client just tallying up the breathtaking cost of all the recommendations you make would unfortunately dismiss the entire report as bullsh*t quite quickly, leading them to not address important issues were you to do this.

C) Recommend caulking of the security sensors and monitoring? This is not the proper repair and were I a client using your report as a negotiation tool I would be pissed that you recommended an improper repair in a legal document because it was cheaper and more 'common sense'.

D) Include some boiler plate 'recommend further investigation/evaluation/repair' response which just clutters up the facts and findings in your report?

I feel personally that "Holes in window frames were observed at [location]" is sufficient. The problem is communicated, and the solution is self-evident. Don't have holes in the window frames!

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Sorry, I don't understand the resistance in simply telling your clients what they should do...

"Have a qualified HVAC contractor make the needed repairs to the system is in proper operating condition"
"Have a qualified plumber correct the improper trap under the kitchen sink"
"You should have a proper handrail installed on the stairs by a qualified contractor as the current handrail does not provide a safe graspable hold as required"

And on and on and on.........

It took me all of 90 seconds to type the above three statements. Sure you can put in a blanket statement that says all defects or finding s should be properly corrected by a professions, heck I have it in my report but I also tell my clients the action they need to take.

This is akin to reporting that you could not inspect an particular area because of something kept you from doing do. You would be amazed at how many simply do not say they did not inspect X, and it comes back to haunt them down the road when the client discovers a problem...

Because the purpose of my report is not to tell the clients what to do. The purpose of it is to relay facts and findings in an easy to read legal document. The reason I don't make recommendations is not out of laziness or a desire to just do the bare minimum, I have a few reasons.

A) I'm not a fan of superfluous language when conveying large amounts of information. I know of inspectors that use recommendations, repair methods, or even post the SOP verbatim in their report, and all of a sudden 10 pages of facts balloon up to 40 or 50 pages. Usually it's not out of any noble goal of thoroughness but to obfuscate their findings and CYA (CTA?).

I guess I could say I look at it like traffic signs. Why put 'Stop; this is an intersection and other cars could be driving on the perpendicular street, if you do not pay attention you could be involved in an automobile accident' on a stop sign when a simple 'STOP' communicates all that already?

B) A lot of times, while it might not be proper and I would write it up if I saw it like that, either no action is needed, or the proper way to repair it is cost/labor prohibitive. However, I inspect to the guidelines set forth by TREC and the IRC, not to my personal bias.

C) I don't feel that the report is the appropriate area to go over that kind of stuff. I personally go over everything in my reports with my clients 80-90% of the time, that's where I'll talk about the implications, repairs, etc. I always let the client know that if they want to know what I would personally do in my home to feel free to call me at any time (I've gotten calls 2-3 years down the line) and I'd be more than happy to discuss at length with them anything on the report, or anything else really. I also try and put what I feel is the most important stuff at the beginning of each section so that the more serious issues pop up right at them when they look at it later. It's just my opinion that to include boiler plate recommendations only confuses my clients when it's implicit that a deficiency should be fixed, otherwise why would I write it in my report as a deficiency?

D) My report is not a repair checklist. As I was posting above, putting individual recommendations is problematic to me, one reason being that I don't want to get into a p*ssing match with a realtor or an electrician over, say, tamper-resistant plug receptacles. It's in my report, it's considered a deficiency, where you take it from there is your business. I try to avoid a 'Well, an electrician came out and he said it's not a problem, why are you recommending it?' sh*tshow when I can help it.

I stress that these are my personal views. I know good inspectors that do put repair recommendations in, but this is what I have found works best for me and what I feel provides the client with the best inspection. If you find it works better any other way, or you're required to do it another way, then more power to you.

EDIT: I forgot the last part..

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

This is akin to reporting that you could not inspect an particular area because of something kept you from doing do. You would be amazed at how many simply do not say they did not inspect X, and it comes back to haunt them down the road when the client discovers a problem...

This is different. If something that should be is inaccessible for whatever reason, that in and of itself is a deficiency and I will definitely report it, as well as the cause because the cause is the deficiency. Also it helps me remember exactly why I couldn't get that damned dead front off when I look at the report 3 weeks later .

I would just recommend that anyone who is doing home inspections should also be giving their client advice on the direction they need to go when it comes to repairing a deficient item. I'm not saying that we need to design (although many do) the repair but rather to point the consumer which way to go and who needs to correct the problem. This recommendation comes after working in the home inspector litigation arena for over 15 years.... I promise you will not get into trouble for telling you client to hire a qualified plumber to repair a leaking faucet.

I agree with that sentiment. I think we just differ on our methods for relaying that information to our clients.

Originally Posted by Will McCrory

I agree with that sentiment. I think we just differ on our methods for relaying that information to our clients.

Will,

Huh?

From your post you are not relaying that information.

All you are doing is telling your clients that there are holes drilled into the window frame, you are not (based on your examples) telling them that is not a good thing.

You might as well be telling them that there is glass in the largest hole in the window frame - there is glass in the largest hole, and that is not a bad thing either as that is what allows them to see out through the window.

Using your example of street signs: a) we are saying "Next exit - 2 miles, gas, lodging and food are available"; b) you are saying "Next exit"

"Next exit" what?

If it's in my report and it doesn't have the word NOTE: in front of it then it is a deficiency. There is no need to specify on every line item that it should be corrected. I don't put 'good things' in my report.

Nowhere in the IRC or the Texas SOP does it make exceptions for deficiencies that don't need to be corrected. Adding a 'this should be addressed' generalization next to every line item is not only superfluous but impedes the flow of the report for anyone reading it. As an inspector I'm saying everything should be addressed. It's not my job and I have no right to determine for my client what 'real deficiencies' are important to them (with the exception of immediately life-threatening ones, which as I said earlier I will specially call out).

Do I think holes drilled in the bottom of window frames are a big deal? No, not in Texas and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. However for all I know their last house had major structure damage from moisture penetration through the security sensors, and I think it is disingenuous to belittle potentially legitimate concerns they have in a written legal document by saying it's OK through omission. Especially when that legal document is used a negotiation tool in a transaction. What's the buyers response when the seller's agent comes back with "Well the inspector didn't care about it because he didn't recommend replacing it!"

As far as the clueless client that would think I'm talking about the glass pane in the window frame, that's what pictures are for. Which is why I include a separate annotated picture document with my report.

I also want to clarify that I do go into further detail with my clients verbally or over the phone, as I go over everything I ran across in the course of the inspection so that they are clear on the general conditions of the home. This is where I explain to the client the potential implications of deficiencies, ramifications, repair practices etc., but the report is a separate document and only one aspect of my inspection.

One last time, I'm licensed to inspect for what the state and the IRC say is important, not my personal bias. I've heard of inspectors here who have had their hands slapped by TREC by deferring to the almighty 'recommend further evaluation' on every item in their report.

My personal opinion on those inspectors is what value and use are you to your client when at the end of the day you're telling them they need to get a structural engineer, electrician, HVAC technician, plumber, irrigation technician, general contractor, etc. out there to look at stuff you've already looked at? Is caulking over holes drilled into a window frame for security sensors an acceptable fix according to the window manufacturer? No, which is why I don't make a written recommendation for "improper" fixes. Do you really need a licensed or certified professional to spread caulk on a security sensor? No, which is why I don't make a written recommendation for a specialist. Does every single person in the entire world have the capability of spreading caulk on a security sensor or sense not to seal the window shut by caulking it? No, which is why I don't make a written recommendation that the homeowner does it.

My place is to simply relay the general conditions of the home and observed deficiencies that I've ran across, what you do with that information is entirely up to you. If a client wants my opinion on repairs, or what I would personally consider important I will be more than happy to tell them, but to enshrine those opinions into a written document steps outside of the bounds of my client's needs and my role in the real estate transaction.

Originally Posted by Will McCrory

Nowhere in the IRC or the Texas SOP does it make exceptions for deficiencies that don't need to be corrected.

Apparently, I am not speaking the same language you are - the IRC does not address "deficiencies".

The IRC address minimum REQUIREMENTS.

The IRC does not say anything about "If you do not do this then you can do this or should do this." ... the IRC simply says "This is the minimum you are REQUIRED to do."

This is spiraling downhill fast ... like a snowball https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2qPbSal3fI , that's not my car which is going to be caught up the snowball.

I think there's been a communication breakdown and the disagreement is only in how repair recommendations are relayed not whether or not that information should be relayed. I just take offence to the attack on the quality of my inspections because I write my report differently than you.

BTW, I was randomly reading through a 4 year old thread about toilet clearances last night and this quote really cracked me up, this should be at the top of every thread you get into

"Jerry - using your words -- you are full of she##at. The only reason I pay any attention to you is because your ignorance could be a virus infecting all the healthy people on this forum and in this world. You are like Al'qaeda as far as I am concerned. You are too radical... You defy every thing I stand for. I did not fight overseas for your vision of America. Get a life."

Originally Posted by Will McCrory

"Jerry - using your words -- you are full of she##at. The only reason I pay any attention to you is because your ignorance could be a virus infecting all the healthy people on this forum and in this world. You are like Al'qaeda as far as I am concerned. You are too radical... You defy every thing I stand for. I did not fight overseas for your vision of America. Get a life."

The thing about that quote and how unrealistic it is - if that person really did fight overseas ... he actually was fighting FOR MY RIGHT TO SAY precisely what I have been saying ... either that or he is under the influence of something not legal ... ... I should add 'not legal at the time' as it may now be legal where he is.

Originally Posted by Will McCrory

Do I think holes drilled in the bottom of window frames are a big deal? No, not in Texas and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. However for all I know their last house had major structure damage from moisture penetration through the security sensors, and I think it is disingenuous to belittle potentially legitimate concerns they have in a written legal document by saying it's OK through omission. Especially when that legal document is used a negotiation tool in a transaction. What's the buyers response when the seller's agent comes back with "Well the inspector didn't care about it because he didn't recommend replacing it!"

Okay, I'm lost with this statement. What does being in TX have to do with a window that has basically been destroyed by an alarm contractor drilling through it. I've seen it done many times and every single time I recommend replacement of the windows simply because experience has shown me that they will leak like the Titanic!

One last time, I'm licensed to inspect for what the state and the IRC say is important, not my personal bias. I've heard of inspectors here who have had their hands slapped by TREC by deferring to the almighty 'recommend further evaluation' on every item in their report.

And rightly so! Any home inspector what constantly defers to others for further evaluation needs more than a hand slap!

My personal opinion on those inspectors is what value and use are you to your client when at the end of the day you're telling them they need to get a structural engineer, electrician, HVAC technician, plumber, irrigation technician, general contractor, etc. out there to look at stuff you've already looked at? Is caulking over holes drilled into a window frame for security sensors an acceptable fix according to the window manufacturer? No, which is why I don't make a written recommendation for "improper" fixes. Do you really need a licensed or certified professional to spread caulk on a security sensor? No, which is why I don't make a written recommendation for a specialist. Does every single person in the entire world have the capability of spreading caulk on a security sensor or sense not to seal the window shut by caulking it? No, which is why I don't make a written recommendation that the homeowner does it.

Will, I don't think you are grasping what we are trying to convey. Telling your client to use a qualified professional is not the same as deferring. You have hopefully already told them what is wrong and now you are telling them who needs to correct it.

fghjk