Are these illegal traps

[Aaron Scheuerer]

Are these traps illegal? They don't look like the normal P trap style

Similar Threads:

• Chicago two-flat with illegal (?) finished basement suite?
• illegal basement conversion
• S Traps
• How many Illegal Aliens can you count?
• P-traps

[Jerry Peck]

I wouldn't use the term "illegal", instead I would say they are not permitted by codes as they are effectively 'S' traps and 'S' traps are not an approved trap as they are subject to self-siphoning and could lose their required trap seal (which could lead to sewer gas entering the home).

[Aaron Scheuerer]

I wouldn't use the term "illegal", instead I would say they are not permitted by codes as they are effectively 'S' traps and 'S' traps are not an approved trap as they are subject to self-siphoning and could lose their required trap seal (which could lead to sewer gas entering the home).

awesome thank you!!!!

[Jerry Peck]

The trap in the first photo could easily be corrected by installing a tailpiece down from the fixture (sink) outlet to a trap down where the trap is supposed to be, then have the trap connect to the trap arm (the piece which runs back to the vent stack) ... of course, who knows if it is connected into the vent stack correctly - difficult to tell if that is a sanitary tee or what where it goes into the stack - but that becomes the plumbers issue to see and correct if it is not correct when the plumber corrects the trap.

The trap in the second photo needs a sanitary tee installed with an AAV (Air Admittance Valve) installed into the top of the tee, with the AAV at least 4 inches above the weir of the trap.

So neither one is a difficult fix.

See that piece coming down from the sink in the second photo - that's a tailpiece and a tailpiece extension, that is what is needed at the trap in the first photo. Too bad they didn't do that to the trap in the first photo, at least that would would be ... er ... might be ... right (if they did it right) ... if they had installed the tailpiece and (if needed) a tail piece extension to get the drop needed to match the trap to the trap arm and go straight into the trap arm end.

[Aaron Scheuerer]

The trap in the first photo could easily be corrected by installing a tailpiece down from the fixture (sink) outlet to a trap down where the trap is supposed to be, then have the trap connect to the trap arm (the piece which runs back to the vent stack) ... of course, who knows if it is connected into the vent stack correctly - difficult to tell if that is a sanitary tee or what where it goes into the stack - but that becomes the plumbers issue to see and correct if it is not correct when the plumber corrects the trap.

The trap in the second photo needs a sanitary tee installed with an AAV (Air Admittance Valve) installed into the top of the tee, with the AAV at least 4 inches above the weir of the trap.

So neither one is a difficult fix.

See that piece coming down from the sink in the second photo - that's a tailpiece and a tailpiece extension, that is what is needed at the trap in the first photo. Too bad they didn't do that to the trap in the first photo, at least that would would be ... er ... might be ... right (if they did it right) ... if they had installed the tailpiece and (if needed) a tail piece extension to get the drop needed to match the trap to the trap arm and go straight into the trap arm end.

WOW! Awesome thanks man that is a hell of a helping reply!!!!

[Jerry Peck]

The reason for not using the term "illegal":
- In Florida, the building code is adopted statewide by Florida Statute, so in Florida (and other states which have the building code adopted by statute) the term "illegal" could be used ... because it would be against state law.

- But, it is also against the building codes and is therefore non-compliant with the code, not in compliance with the code, not permitted by the code, etc.

- In states which have not adopted the building code by state statute, it may be a stretch to call it "illegal" ... besides, it is more professional to simply state that it is not in permitted by the code, i.e., it is not in compliance with the code.

[Doug Cossar]

Are these traps illegal? They don't look like the normal P trap style

Aaron:

Not a good idea to say "illegal" or use the word "code".
I always stated traps such as this were improper and subject to siphoning, allowing sewer gas into the area. I would suggest having a plumber repair as required.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Jerry Peck]

Not a good idea to say "illegal" or use the word "code".

What is the reasoning behind not using the word "cord"?

The home inspector is, like it or not, basing their finding on their knowledge of 'how things are supposed to be' (there are other ways to say that same thing, but it all washes out to mean the same in the end) - and, being that homes are, or are supposed to be, 'built to code' as a minimum, the home inspector is using "code" as their basis for their opinions on what they find.

There is nothing wrong with a home inspector using the word code. Not even in North Carolina as I recall - they are prohibited from stating it does not meet a particular code, but they can define "code" in their reports by including their own definition:
- The following words have the following meanings as used in this report:
- - "code" "Code" means nationally recognized building codes and standards, not any specific edition of any specific code, and specifically does not indicate or mean the North Carolina Building Code.

(Yeah, there are ways to get around basically every silly rule and law. Unless, of course, the North Carolina Home Inspector License Law defines the word "code", then come up with some other 'code word' or "code".)

[Doug Cossar]

What is the reasoning behind not using the word "cord"?

The home inspector is, like it or not, basing their finding on their knowledge of 'how things are supposed to be' (there are other ways to say that same thing, but it all washes out to mean the same in the end) - and, being that homes are, or are supposed to be, 'built to code' as a minimum, the home inspector is using "code" as their basis for their opinions on what they find.

There is nothing wrong with a home inspector using the word code. Not even in North Carolina as I recall - they are prohibited from stating it does not meet a particular code, but they can define "code" in their reports by including their own definition:
- The following words have the following meanings as used in this report:
- - "code" "Code" means nationally recognized building codes and standards, not any specific edition of any specific code, and specifically does not indicate or mean the North Carolina Building Code.

(Yeah, there are ways to get around basically every silly rule and law. Unless, of course, the North Carolina Home Inspector License Law defines the word "code", then come up with some other 'code word' or "code".)

Mr. Peck:
The reasoning behind not using the word "code" is as follows:

Any home built in 1970,or any other year, in compliance with the codes applicable at the time of construction, that has not been significantly upgraded, still complies with "code".

The SOP that I practiced under and provisions of my PIA stated my inspection was not a "code compliance" inspection. Therefore, using the word "code in any recommendation would be (IMHO) confusing to the client.

I offered my opinion in the hope that the OP would consider the advise and make his own decision on how he would word his reports. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinion. Neither yours or mine can be considered wrong.

Bare in mind that I am in Canada, what takes place in the US, can be significantly different.

Cheers

[Jerry Peck]

Doug,

The reasoning behind not using the word "code" is as follows:

That reasoning is flawed, here is why:

Any home built in 1970,or any other year, in compliance with the codes applicable at the time of construction, that has not been significantly upgraded, still complies with "code".

Only if ... and that is a big IF ... it was code compliant at the time.

And only if no changes, alterations, or repairs have been made, otherwise the code at the time of the changes, alterations, or repairs were done would be the applicable code, not the original code.

Do you do new construction inspections? Do you find anything which does not meet code? If so, why would you presume that an older house met its code at the time of its construction - that new construction you are looking at will be an 'older home' one day, will you presume it meets code then? You already know it doesn't meet code now.

The SOP that I practiced under and provisions of my PIA stated my inspection was not a "code compliance" inspection. Therefore, using the word "code in any recommendation would be (IMHO) confusing to the client.

Ahh ... then what do you use as your guide to 'right' and 'not right' (i.e., 'wrong')?

Do you just pull something out of the air, or are you looking for, lets say ... GFCIs because they are required (they are required by code, if you are checking for GFCIs to be where they should be and to be working, you are, in fact doing a non-AHJ "code compliance" inspection.

What do you use to base your findings on? Code. That is what all findings go back to - what 'should' have been done ... and that 'should' is based on code.

I offered my opinion in the hope that the OP would consider the advise and make his own decision on how he would word his reports. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinion. Neither yours or mine can be considered wrong.

Bare in mind that I am in Canada, what takes place in the US, can be significantly different.

Canada has codes, does it not?

Please advise us what you uses to determine what is 'right'/'good' and what is not. Surely you must have some supporting documentation for your decisions.

That supporting documentation will, undoubtedly, code back to code at its origination point.

Just doing the same thing as you, offering the information up in the hope the OP would consider the advise and make his own decision ... put I try to offer supporting documents for advise, and for buildings, that supporting documents is known as 'the code'.

Why are guard rail spaces and openings limited to the size they are? Code.

Why are roofs put on the way they are supposed to be put on? Code.

Why is drainage supposed to be away from the foundation? Code.

It all goes back to 'code' as the reason things are as they are supposed to be.

Just food for thought, use it or not, everyone is free to do as they want, I'm just pointing out the reality of things, one can call a white piece of paper 'black', but it is still 'white' to all others who see a white piece of paper.

Happy Holidays.

[Doug Cossar]

Doug,



That reasoning is flawed, here is why:



Only if ... and that is a big IF ... it was code compliant at the time.

And only if no changes, alterations, or repairs have been made, otherwise the code at the time of the changes, alterations, or repairs were done would be the applicable code, not the original code.

Do you do new construction inspections? Do you find anything which does not meet code? If so, why would you presume that an older house met its code at the time of its construction - that new construction you are looking at will be an 'older home' one day, will you presume it meets code then? You already know it doesn't meet code now.



Ahh ... then what do you use as your guide to 'right' and 'not right' (i.e., 'wrong')?

Do you just pull something out of the air, or are you looking for, lets say ... GFCIs because they are required (they are required by code, if you are checking for GFCIs to be where they should be and to be working, you are, in fact doing a non-AHJ "code compliance" inspection.

What do you use to base your findings on? Code. That is what all findings go back to - what 'should' have been done ... and that 'should' is based on code.



Canada has codes, does it not?

Please advise us what you uses to determine what is 'right'/'good' and what is not. Surely you must have some supporting documentation for your decisions.

That supporting documentation will, undoubtedly, code back to code at its origination point.

Just doing the same thing as you, offering the information up in the hope the OP would consider the advise and make his own decision ... put I try to offer supporting documents for advise, and for buildings, that supporting documents is known as 'the code'.

Why are guard rail spaces and openings limited to the size they are? Code.

Why are roofs put on the way they are supposed to be put on? Code.

Why is drainage supposed to be away from the foundation? Code.

It all goes back to 'code' as the reason things are as they are supposed to be.

Just food for thought, use it or not, everyone is free to do as they want, I'm just pointing out the reality of things, one can call a white piece of paper 'black', but it is still 'white' to all others who see a white piece of paper.

Happy Holidays.

Thanks for your input. We are both entitled to our views
Merry Christmas

[Raymond Wand]

Aaron and Doug

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...inspector.html

Doug I do not reference code for home inspections.

[Doug Cossar]

Aaron and Doug

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...inspector.html

Doug I do not reference code for home inspections.

I never did, as well.

Note to Arron:
Mr Peck is not a home inspector he is, according to his signature line, a "construction litigator".

I might pay attention to fellow inspectors. Rather than reference "code",note "safety issues" or "not within current standards" in your inspection reports. Remember "code" is a minimum, doing anything to "code" is not bragging!


Hope this helps

Cheers

[Raymond Wand]

Doug

I would advise those who do code inspection to check with their insurers to see if they are covered.

Best

[Doug Cossar]

Doug

I would advise those who do code inspection to check with their insurers to see if they are covered.

Best

Yup I would agree
Cheers🍻

[Jerry Peck]

Note to Arron:
Mr Peck is not a home inspector he is, according to his signature line, a "construction litigator".

I might pay attention to fellow inspectors. Rather than reference "code",note "safety issues" or "not within current standards" in your inspection reports. Remember "code" is a minimum, doing anything to "code" is not bragging!


Hope this helps

Note to Arron:

I was a home inspector for 20 years, and did reference code in my reports.

Not only did I reference code in my reports, I included the code sections.

After retiring from home inspections, I did code inspections for 10 years.

Now, as Doug pointed out, I do construction consulting and litigation consulting ... you know ... when someone is injured because something did not meet "code" ... or when some contractor did something that did/does not meet "code". Those things Doug is trying to get you to not call out ... yeah ... those things.

Doug is correct saying "Remember "code" is a minimum, doing anything to "code" is not bragging!" - keep in mind that not only is code "minimum", code is what is "required", and code is not 'good', 'better', or 'best' practices, code is simply "the worst someone is legally allowed to do something" ... but that does not make it "safe" ... meeting code only makes it "meet the code".

Pay attention to whomever you choose ... I am just offering up information ... some choose not to absorb that information ... their choice.

Added with edit:

Just thought I would add this: You will see many posts with questions and replies which are about what is required and what is allowed - those are addressing the codes and standards (which code refer to) on what is required and allowed. Those (codes and standards) are the basis for building construction and what goes in those buildings.

[Doug Cossar]

[QUOTE=Jerry Peck;270732]Note to Arron:



Now, as Doug pointed out, I do construction consulting and litigation consulting ... you know ... when someone is injured because something did not meet "code" ... or when some contractor did something that did/does not meet "code". Those things Doug is trying to get you to not call out ... yeah ... those things.


Never said don't call it out. Just said I don't recommend using the word "Code". I can be confusing for uninformed clients.

Cheers

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Jerry Peck;270732]Note to Arron:



Now, as Doug pointed out, I do construction consulting and litigation consulting ... you know ... when someone is injured because something did not meet "code" ... or when some contractor did something that did/does not meet "code". Those things Doug is trying to get you to not call out ... yeah ... those things.


Never said don't call it out. Just said I don't recommend using the word "Code". It can be confusing for uninformed clients.

Cheers

[Jerry Peck]

Never said don't call it out. Just said I don't recommend using the word "Code". I can be confusing for uninformed clients.

That is understood - no one is saying not to call it out, but someone is saying to call it out without support as to why it is being called out ... is the reason "Because the inspector said so."?

That's not a defensible reason.

Code is a defensible reason.

One must know their limitations and go with those limitations ... or expand their limitations by expanding their knowledge and understanding of things.

[Raymond Wand]

Building Codes | The ASHI Reporter | Inspection News & Views from the American Society of Home Inspectors

[Doug Cossar]

Building Codes | The ASHI Reporter | Inspection News & Views from the American Society of Home Inspectors

Thanks for the info Ray.

Seems to support my position.

Cheers

[Raymond Wand]

Yes; I like to make sure alternative views/info are made available.

Best,

[Jerry Peck]

How many home inspectors have the Code Check booklets?

A great many as it is considered an excellent reference by most home inspectors.

But ... if code is not relative to what a home inspector does (home inspections) ... why do so many (most?) home inspectors not only have them, and not only have them but keep them in the home inspector's vehicle at inspections, and why do so many home inspectors carry those reference booklets in their tool bag (or digitally in devices)?

If you 'aren't doing code' then you don't need the Code Check booklets.

Okay, someone explain why so many home inspectors have and refer to their Code Checksnippets ...

[Gunnar Alquist]

Jerry,

I use Code Check, codes, some installation instructions, the internet and this message board to research, learn and provide information for inspections and clients.

If asked, I explain to clients (or agents) that this is a home inspection, not a "code" inspection for a few reasons.

First - code is specific to when something is installed, constructed, modified, etc. Since I am inspecting an existing house, I rarely have the history/dates of when work was done. It is unreasonable to state something that was done in the '50s or '60s does not meet code, when I cannot say for sure which code would have been enforced when the work was done. I feel it is reasonable to recommend safety upgrades or provide warnings if I see something that has seen significant changes in code cycles.

Next - a home inspection addresses conditions that are not necessarily "code". For instance, when I look at a roof, I am paying attention to visible installation details, but also wear & tear. If I feel the roof is aged, I report on it. This is not a building code item, it has to do with condition and remaining life.

Also, I am going to comment on conditions that are potentially unsafe or problematic, even if they are not specifically addressed by code. I might talk about a roof that is readily accessible from the ground or a deck, or I might find inadequate ventilation in a foundation crawlspace even though the correct amount of vents have been installed.

Finally - Codes change regularly and I use a lot of standardized comments in order to use my time more efficiently. I am unwilling to cite code in these comments because they would have to be date specific (the house was constructed in 1986, therefore the code that was being enforced in this area was... ummmm... 1981, so I will use the comment that refers to the 1981 code, but mention that codes have changed since this home was constructed and recommend upgrades). If someone wants a specific code section, I am willing to provide it, assuming I have the code for that particular year.

Code Check, codes, installation instructions, message boards, diagrams, etc. are all tools to use in order to provide a reasonably good inspection on a property. No inspection is going to be perfect, partially because we are fallible and partly because different interpretations of code exist (i.e. which should I use? Current code or built-to code).

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

I use Code Check, codes, some installation instructions, the internet and this message board to research, learn and provide information for inspections and clients.

If asked, I explain to clients (or agents) that this is a home inspection, not a "code" inspection for a few reasons.

First - code is specific to when something is installed, constructed, modified, etc. Since I am inspecting an existing house, I rarely have the history/dates of when work was done. It is unreasonable to state something that was done in the '50s or '60s does not meet code, when I cannot say for sure which code would have been enforced when the work was done. I feel it is reasonable to recommend safety upgrades or provide warnings if I see something that has seen significant changes in code cycles.

Next - a home inspection addresses conditions that are not necessarily "code". For instance, when I look at a roof, I am paying attention to visible installation details, but also wear & tear. If I feel the roof is aged, I report on it. This is not a building code item, it has to do with condition and remaining life.

Also, I am going to comment on conditions that are potentially unsafe or problematic, even if they are not specifically addressed by code. I might talk about a roof that is readily accessible from the ground or a deck, or I might find inadequate ventilation in a foundation crawlspace even though the correct amount of vents have been installed.

Finally - Codes change regularly and I use a lot of standardized comments in order to use my time more efficiently. I am unwilling to cite code in these comments because they would have to be date specific (the house was constructed in 1986, therefore the code that was being enforced in this area was... ummmm... 1981, so I will use the comment that refers to the 1981 code, but mention that codes have changed since this home was constructed and recommend upgrades). If someone wants a specific code section, I am willing to provide it, assuming I have the code for that particular year.

Code Check, codes, installation instructions, message boards, diagrams, etc. are all tools to use in order to provide a reasonably good inspection on a property. No inspection is going to be perfect, partially because we are fallible and partly because different interpretations of code exist (i.e. which should I use? Current code or built-to code).

Gunnar,

Excellent explanation as to the use of "code" by home inspectors.

Just a finer point on wording, because you are, to a large extent basing your findings on your knowledge of the codes - I would add one word to this (the added word is underlined): 'If asked, I explain to clients (or agents) that this is a home inspection, not a "code compliance" inspection for a few reasons.'

You are basing much of your inspection on 'code and codes', you are just not doing a "code compliance" inspection. Which, as I recall, was the difference I have been pointing out since the beginning.

Thank you

[Jerry Peck]

I also want to point out another difference between a home inspection and a "code compliance" inspection, a difference which some may not have considered:
- a home inspection is also checking that 'things work' properly
- a code compliance inspection is only checking that 'things are installed' properly

Whether 'things work' during a code compliance inspection is not part of the inspection, in fact, most code compliance inspections are made "in-progress" and there is 'nothing to work'. Regarding strapping, bolting, and other code compliance items, the code compliance inspector it not there to 'see if they work', that is the responsibility of the architect, engineer, designer, and contractor, the code compliance inspector is just checking whether 'they are installed/connected' properly.

A common aspect between home inspections and code compliance inspections is that both are 'sampling' inspections - no inspector check 'everything related to everything', simply sampling of various items.

I.e.: Just because a house was inspected and passed, and given a certificate of occupancy (CO or C/O) ... DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE HOUSE IS CODE COMPLIANT ... thinking that seems to be the basis of many who refuse to acknowledge 'code' relates to 'home inspections'. All the CO indicates is that the house was permitted and inspections were made, and that what was inspected was not too bad ... that is all a certificate of occupancy indicates.

[Gunnar Alquist]

Thanks Jerry,

I had not thought of the code "compliant" aspect and will try to use that in the future.

I.e.: Just because a house was inspected and passed, and given a certificate of occupancy (CO or C/O) ... DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE HOUSE IS CODE COMPLIANT ...

How many times have I heard various renditions of "the inspector passed it"? How many more times will I get to hear it?

[Marc M]

Thanks Jerry,

I had not thought of the code "compliant" aspect and will try to use that in the future.



How many times have I heard various renditions of "the inspector passed it"? How many more times will I get to hear it?

Its a realtor thing...

BTW here's a pic I whipped up that you can use for your next blog.. free

[Raymond Wand]

Are you implying the Realtors are into S&M?

[Marc M]

Are you implying the Realtors are into S&M?

Lol... yea if S & M stand for stupid and moronic

- - - Updated - - -

Are you implying the Realtors are into S&M?

Lol... yea if S & M stand for stupid and moronic

[Jeff Zehnder]

One of thee things i love about this forum is that little gems sometimes appear. I have to give Jerry credit but i will plagiarize his statement!

"a home inspection is also checking that 'things work' properly
- a code compliance inspection is only checking that 'things are installed' properly" (i would say installed to code properly, some manufacturers would likely not agree with just code)

Here in NC (license state) we can always state things are or are not code compliant but only if we include the appropriate section of the code in the statement. This can make it more time consuming to write the report so we more often than not refer to the offending item as not working as intended, posing a safety issue or some other clod and more generic statement. The more brave will use "not to industry standards or not installed to manufacturers specifications but i think the NC may decide we will need to include the manufacturers specs soon if we do the latter (i usually include the PDF from the maker anyway)

Happy and prosperous new year wishes a little early to all.