Thread: Missed Plumbing Leak in Old Home

We just purchased an 110 year old row home that had second floor laundry added upstairs. As a result, the ceiling of the pantry in the downstairs kitchen was left open to access the plumbing.

The back wall of the pantry was covered in what I thought was wallpaper but it turns out, was just thick wrapping paper held up by scotch tape. Underneath this was a huge rust stain. Long story short, the main cast-iron waste pipe from the bathroom upstairs has apparently been leaking for a long time. (and is still leaking! we found some rusty water on some baking dishes in the pantry). We had a plumber come in that said a past attempt was made to patch the leak but the elbow will need to be cut out and replaced.

The previous owner definitely hid quit a few things from us but this was the final straw. She was also fond of using tape and paper to cover up a multitude of sins such has holes in the walls, peeling wall paper, etc. She is insisting that she knew nothing about this.

My question for you is: Had this paper not been over that rust stain, is it safe to assume that the inspector would have caught this? He did look up there into the ceiling but I'm not sure of how much time he spent looking around with a flashlight. There was absolutely no mention of this in his report.

We are not looking to go after the inspector in any way but we are very frustrated with the seller.

Thanks for any help you might be able to give me!

Similar Threads:

• Condensate leak at furnace exhaust
• Plumbing vent termination
• Plumbing configuration
• Plumbing Addition gone bad!!
• Reverse plumbing to water heater

A home inspection in NC is a visual, non-destructive inspection. This means if you can't see it you can't inspect it. Could your inspector see what you are talking about without tearing something up?

Originally Posted by a alclyp

My question for you is: Had this paper not been over that rust stain, is it safe to assume that the inspector would have caught this? He did look up there into the ceiling but I'm not sure of how much time he spent looking around with a flashlight. There was absolutely no mention of this in his report.

We are not looking to go after the inspector in any way but we are very frustrated with the seller.

Being as no inspector I am aware of does a "visual inspection' (all home inspectors I am aware of uses various tools to assist them in their inspection), I would state it this way: It would be safe to assume that the inspector probably would not see it hidden behind paper or anything else which sellers use to hid things.

I also suspect that had it not been covered up, your inspector would have questioned the rust stain and would likely have used their moisture meter (thus the inspection is not a "visual inspection") to check the rust stain to determine if something was leaking. At the very least I would suspect that the inspector would feel that area with their hand (also no longer a "visual inspection") to see if it felt moist or wet.

When sellers go out of their way to hide things, either intentionally to hid things from the inspector, or unintentionally by covering 'that ugly stain up so they don't keep seeing it', and then the problem is never corrected and is not to be seen again until the area is uncovered, when sellers do that, home inspectors are left pondering over what evidence is left for them to pick up on (whether that evidence is visual, an odor, a sound, or something to the touch which is unusual or out-of-place).

You have discovered what happens when sellers hide things, then do not admit to hiding those things.

That is one of the challenges of the profession of home inspection - keeping all senses alert and open to receive input from things which are out of the ordinary.

If the seller hid enough things, you may want to consider hiring an attorney to go after the seller.

Are there some things the home inspector found and reported on which indicated that the seller had tried to hide other things too? Those could be used in your favor when going after the seller.

You might also want to contact the two agents who handled the sale and question them on a full and properly filled out seller disclosure. While some agents are on the ball to help the buyer, others just let things slide hoping the sale will go through without a hitch. Do you have a copy of the seller's disclosure and what does it say?

James, we were able to see all of this plumbing without tearing down or moving anything. We didn't have reason to look up until we pulled down the paper and saw the rust stain.

We have been in contact with both our agent and the listing agent and our agent has really been pushing for a resolution. Naturally, the listing agent wants nothing to do with this and both he and the seller are claiming this must have been something new and she had no idea this was occurring.

The seller is basically bankrupt so I guess we will probably end up just dealing with it at this point.

Probably should have been noted from the info you have provided, in my opinion, but I wasn't there. Doesn't look like a big deal to repair. Judging by the age of the house, get used to it.

"The seller is basically bankrupt so I guess we will probably end up just dealing with it at this point."
Wow, really? You are going to accept that you bought an old home and are going to pay for a repair? Surely SOMEBODY else should pay for it.

The inspection is visual and non destructive. Without the inspector being able to remove the ceiling finish, the leak could be deemed to be latent.

…patent defects are those readily discoverable by ordinary inspection. Vendor is under no duty to draw attention to patent defects which can readily be observed by the purchaser if he pays ordinary attention during inspection. If the purchaser fails to observe patent defects on inspection he cannot be heard to complain about such defects later and the rule of caveat emptor applies. On the other hand, latent defects are those not readily apparent to the purchaser during ordinary inspection of the property he proposes to buy. If latent defects are actively concealed by the vendor, the rule of caveat emptor does not apply and the purchaser can, at his option, ask for rescission of contract and/or compensation for damages resulting therefrom…

Every home inspection is an act of triage: the inspector decides how to employ his or her time depending on what they find; because in the time available for a home inspection you just can't "do it all".

When the seller is hiding things, or the house has a lot of deferred maintenance, the job becomes harder.

When there is a lot of deferred maintenance and the seller is hiding things, the job becomes exponentially harder - the seller has had years to hide problems, but the inspector has only a few minutes in each room, attic and basement to find them!

____________

Every time I do a house with a lot of deferred maintenance, I tell the client:

"I have done my very best to discover every significant problem at this property, and we have a pretty long lost of things that need to be fixed".

"But when you have lived here for six months, and the painter and the electrician and the plumber have dug into the problems, I can almost guarantee that that will find more: this house has had 90 years to accumulate defects, and I have only had four hours to find them".

"I don't like this: I would have like to have discovered and reported *every* defect at this property."

"But experience has taught me that while that should be my goal, it's just not humanly possible to reach it every at every inspection in the time available."

________________

So, my question is: "Did the inspector do all they reasonably could?"

Do you feel that your inspector cared about their work?

Do you feel that they were diligently attempting to find all significant defects they could?

Did they provide a report that documented all but one or two of many significant defects present at the property?

Did their report save you a significant amount of money in negotiations with the seller, or at least provide substantial assistance in informing your purchase decision and budgeting for future expenses?

If so, your inspector they did about all that can be done at a real-world home inspection and you got your money's worth and likely more - the inspector's "failure" was a failure to achieve perfection... which is worthy target, but not one that 99.99% of humans hit regularly in any profession.

Not knowing much about the home or the inspection that was conducted, I can only tell you what I do on similar homes.

It has been my experience that many inspectors do not know how to inspect older homes, like you have. It is not that they are difficult, it is just that they have their own issues that relate to their age. Experience is the best teacher when it comes to inspecting older homes.

Should the inspector have seen the problems? I have no idea, but if I found rust stains down a wall or in a cabinet or wherever, I would be looking for the source.

If the owner filled out a disclosure statement and it was incomplete or had false facts on it then I would be looking at the agents who sold the home. They have a responsibility to insure that they are filled out correctly. They might not think they do, but they do.

Could the inspector have screwed up? This is a good question that is difficult to answer, but it is very possible.

According to the OP, the stains were hidden behind "what I thought was wallpaper but it turns out, was just thick wrapping paper held up by scotch tape. Underneath this was a huge rust stain".

So there was no rust stain for the inspector to observe.

The question then becomes (as best I can judge) "should the inspector have detected the leak?"

Judging from the pictures it appears that there had been leakage at some time in the past subsequent to the attempted repair, but it's unclear from the OP if there was an active leak (dripping, standing water, wet material, similar) at the time of inspection.

If so, and if this evidence was readily accessible, the inspector should probably have been able to find it, though I can't tell from the picture how accessible this area was at the time of inspection (ex: were there personal possessions below the opening that prevented placing a ladder there to access the area for a closer look?).

If these was no readily observable evidence of an active leak at the time of inspection, then the question becomes: "should the inspector have reported the evidence of a leak subsequent to the repair, perhaps along with the suspicion that an active leak could reoccur (as I know from experience , a leak in a CI drain plumbing can self-heal via corrosion and then later reopen, especially in the case of a horizontal runs or at a junction).

In a perfect world, yes.

And had I seen that, I might have inserted boiler-plate I have available to that effect, along with a link to:

Cast Iron Waste Pipes

But, IMO if there was no readily observable evidence of an active leak, reporting this sort of suspicion is something I do or not on a case by case basis, because otherwise my reports on this sort of house would be 200 pages long, and more pressing concerns would likely be obscured (for the client anyway) in a miasma of "suspicions" and "speculations".

YMMV.

"Did the inspector do all they reasonably could?" We can't answer that but maybe the OP can. Good question.
I have in my plumbing section of the report a description of the drain system, cast iron, ABS, copper, etc, Main cleanout? accessible? Answering these questions forces me to look for the main stack and that can often lead to discovery.

What Micheal and Scott said, the old house has typical problems, and we as inspectors need to devote our time according to those older conditions. I will spend a shorter time in the living spaces in that case, and pick those easy areas up later.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

I have in my plumbing section of the report a description of the drain system, cast iron, ABS, copper, etc, Main cleanout? accessible? Answering these questions forces me to look for the main stack and that can often lead to discovery...]

Good point. My "description" section does not currently include the main stack / clean out, but I'm adding them based on your comment.

A good home inspector is curious! For many hidden areas we can look for external signs, but when seller's deliberately deceives it is sometime difficult to find the 110 years of issues. It's difficult enough to find the issues without having to go on an Easter egg hunt. Perhaps the rust stain on the wall wouldn't have even been there at the time of the inspection if the paper had even been been removed then.

As others have pointed out, buying a century old house is not for the weak hearted. Often, we(inspectors as well as buyers) have to feel that issues that are unacceptable in newer houses, are tolerated in older houses. A 6-foot ceiling in a bathroom today often has to be viewed in the context of the standard of comfort when this house built 110 years when there might have been an outdoor outhouse. I often use "test of time" thinking when working with a buyer at an inspection. Our building codes are 'best practices' today that meet todays safety and comfort standards, knowledge, and building materials.

Other's are right. We strive to find every defect, but are mere mortals with finite amounts of time, patience, and abilities. But, '99%' is better than many other people and professions achieve!

Originally Posted by Benjamin Thompson

Probably should have been noted from the info you have provided, in my opinion, but I wasn't there. Doesn't look like a big deal to repair. Judging by the age of the house, get used to it.

"The seller is basically bankrupt so I guess we will probably end up just dealing with it at this point."
Wow, really? You are going to accept that you bought an old home and are going to pay for a repair? Surely SOMEBODY else should pay for it.

I have lived in old houses for basically all of my adult life (by my choice) so I am not stunned or shocked by much of anything anymore and I am not trying to get out of the inevitable downfalls of home ownership. However, I am not pleased when the seller did not disclose something that he or she most likely knew about and attempted to cover it up. The real issue is that while this house was mostly well cared for (new furnace, updated copper piping, new air conditioning, newer roof) there were many little and some not-so little things that this seller hid from the inspector that I do not wish to get into right now.

Thank you to everyone for your opinions and help!

Originally Posted by Benjamin Thompson

Probably should have been noted from the info you have provided, in my opinion, but I wasn't there. Doesn't look like a big deal to repair. Judging by the age of the house, get used to it.

"The seller is basically bankrupt so I guess we will probably end up just dealing with it at this point."
Wow, really? You are going to accept that you bought an old home and are going to pay for a repair? Surely SOMEBODY else should pay for it.

I don't unserstand why you are coming off so strong to the current homowner. I would also be pissed off if someone deceitfully covered something. It is dishonest and shameful.

Yes, they will probably end up paying for the repair. I don't know if their Home Inspector should have seen it, I wasn't there, but if simply shining a flashlight into an open ceiling was possible, I would suspect that the elbow looks bad enough to take a closer look (or at least mention); especially with the bogus repair and rust.

Did he do enough? Did he? It's very possible to miss something(s)... for a number of reasons. Athough anything missed matters, did he not miss enough to make his inspection worthy?

Bottom line is the bottom line. Do the math. If he charged you $500. and alerted you to $10,000 (or more) worth of conditions; which assisted you through your negotiations, but missed something that may cost you a few hundred dollars, did he do enough?

How about if he missed a few thousand dollars worth? Or more?

Bear in mind, that if it is an old house, things are going to go. There has to be a point in time when he is no longer married to what it is.

Originally Posted by Don Burbach

I often use "test of time" ...

The "test of time" if usually not a "test" which gets a passing mark, but one which does not get a failing mark, as in 'it has not failed ... yet'.

Unless you know that the structure/whatever you are looking at as passing the "test of time" has survived intact after going through design events (events we now have 'designs' to withstand those events), then the "test of time" may simply mean that 'nothing has happened to it yet to test it' - and that is certainly not a passing grade, just an not failed yet grade.

Our building codes are 'best practices' today that meet todays safety and comfort standards, knowledge, and building materials.

That is quite incorrect: building codes are "minimum requirements", they are not 'good', 'better', or 'best' practices in any way, shape or form.

And building codes do not even attempt to make anyone believe they are there for "comfort", building codes are simply there for what they say they are there for:
- R101.3 Purpose. The purpose of this code is to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment.
- 90.1 Purpose.
- - (A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.
- - (B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

That means you could build and wire a house and that brand spanking new house may be "not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service", but it should at least meet the "minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare".

Just for an example of what you can find in a 1007 year old home that has not had things done right for a long long time

The picture below is in an open, large, pantry area off of the kitchen that use to be a porch (the kitchen that is) etc etc. There is a water heater, dryer vent pipe you see in the picture (which tells you there is a dryer next to it) , flue into an old chimney, supply air vent, return air vent with a whole bunch of etc'ssssssss.

What can one find in a 1007 year old home ??????????? Where does one start to explain.

The half of the room that all this is in is only a small 5 foot by 8 foot area in a 3000 square foot home. Now lets do the rest of the home. I told my client (which Realtors love) that the definition of a historic home of this vintage is ...... repair, repair, repair and when you think you are done, repair, repair, repair when you are done start correcting everything that everyone else did wrong for the past 107 years.

The report took foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Did I find everything? No! I also told my clients that I did not find everything, flat out, then added "I did not find everything" in and throughout the report. And added, but I almost never do, a whole host of disclaimers in the preamble to my report that they witnessed and they understood 100 percent and did not hesitate to sign anything at all I handed them.

Jerry, you are taking my remarks too literally. They are in the the context of inspecting a 110 year old house. You've taken a bunch of words that sound more like disclaimers in contracts, but the LIKELY result of building code compliance is better construction that is safer and more comfortable.

Of course, I understand the concept of 'it hasn't failed yet'. I also understand that you can build a house to code and have an uncomfortable, useless, and inefficient home if you want.

But, the LIKELY result is that you will HAVE a MORE comfortable, useful, and efficient house when todays 'newer' building codes are used.

OK, I didn't mean that the current building code is the 'BEST PRACTICE!', but it will likely produce a comfortable and adequate house, especially when compared to the subject 110 year house..... which of course has its own place in our community...... it has stood the test of time! Some people feel a kinship to older homes, just like some boaters like wooden boats. Mine is fiberglass!

I think the OP said the plumbing was all visible. I think I see duct tape on the cast iron drain pipe. Visible duct tape is always a red flag to me, and it is usually very hard to miss.

Older homes are always challenging. Based on all of the posts and the original message some caution should have been reported, the duct tape around the pipe is suspicious. The seller likely knew about all of the issues given that there was an apparent cover up, however the fact that the ceiling was down means they blew it and for you it is a plus. Without this exposure things could have gone on much longer and cost significantly more $$.
With respects to the new homeowner, once you saw the old plumbing you should have budgeted for replacement. Hopefully your inspector gave some indication in the report that there would likely be some changes needed to make the home more functional and prevent likely failure of the items that are past their useful life. The entire old cast stack should be removed and while it will cost a few $$ it will be s worthwhile investment in your future.
If you can get a bankrupt seller to help defer some cost that would be great but I would not hold my breath.

a alclyp,
I would like to say that your HI more than likely did all that was required by PA law. Many on this board exceed their State or organizations Standards Of Practice, but do so at their own direction. What your HI saw or should have seen is up to conjecture. I would hope that you had taken extensive pictures of all aspects of the house when you viewed it. I would think that the HI took pictures of the ceiling and walls that were covered with paper. If only to demonstrate what was visible during the inspection. You may want to go after the seller for your pound of flesh for the perceived deceptions and failures in disclosure. PA has a lawful definition of deception in the disclosure process. The seller may not be in bankruptcy and you may or may not be able to recover damages. Any attempt to recover (in court) will be costly. Which is why I tell buyers to take pictures of everything as they go through a property that they are making an offer on. Pass it on to you friends. Digital is so cheap.

Personally as a home buyer I push, pull, open, test and operate just about anything I can get my hands on. When inspecting a property a little more subdued approach may be taken as to not break or harm anything. Though I would probably pick or pull at at taped up paper walls or ceilings and suffer any consequences for my actions.

I would have to agree with others that a 100 yr old house will have many unseen issues that will cost you a lot of money. But, that comes from age and should be expected. You may have been swayed by emotion on the purchase rather than a cold hard analytical approach (less used).

Jerry, (not a jab at you)
You need to get out more. "...Being as no inspector I am aware of does a "visual inspection' (all home inspectors I am aware of uses various tools to assist them in their inspection), ..." That's some of the problem in state regulations, in that they revolve around organizations SOP.

For the general folk on PA HI Law,
The practice of Home Inspection is varied from state to state. I have copied some of the pertinent PA licensing law regarding Home Home Inspections. States have made Home Inspection requirements that of a visual inspection with very limited actual hands on inspection items.

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploa...ection-Law.pdf

".....8 "Home inspection." A noninvasive, visual examination of some
9 combination of the mechanical, electrical or plumbing systems or
10 the structural and essential components of a residential
11 dwelling designed to identify material defects in those systems
12 and components, ......"

".... 28 § 7504. Duty of care of home inspectors.
29 (a) General rule.--It is the duty of a home inspector to
30 conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a
19990S1032B2140 - 15 -
1 reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise.
2 (b) Standard.--In ascertaining the degree of care that would
3 be exercised by a reasonably prudent home inspector, the court
4 shall consider the standards of practice and codes of ethics of
5 national home inspector associations.

19990S1032B2140 - 18 -
".....
14 (3) The following statements, set forth conspicuously:
15 "A home inspection is intended to assist in
16 evaluation of the overall condition of the dwelling. The
17 inspection is based on observation of the visible and
18 apparent condition of the structure and its components on
19 the date of inspection." ..."

The best way to tell if the inspector should have seen something is to be there when they are doing the inspection. Otherwise, it's just a guess as to what they might have been able to see at the time of the inspection.

Originally Posted by Jeff Zehnder

Older homes are always challenging. Based on all of the posts and the original message some caution should have been reported, the duct tape around the pipe is suspicious...

When I first looked, I though that looked like an attempted epoxy repair, on a closer look that might indeed be deteriorated duct tape... if it was tape, the it certainly should have been reported as such.