To bring a smile at the end of the day

[Jack Feldmann]

Hope this brings a chuckle or two

Similar Threads:

• Another one Jus' Fer Da Fun O' It and to make you smile
• Just to lighten your day and get a smile or two ...
• just for a smile or two
• just for a smile or two

[Ted Menelly]

Cool. Just stick the 4x4 in a bag of concrete and instanst base.


The one beam in the third pick. What is that a 2x16?

[Jack Feldmann]

NO it's a 2x10 joist that was over notched and they put another 2x10 UNDER it and tried to tie it all together.
Darrell and his brother Darrell at work.

[Rick Hurst]

You have to admit, the label does say High Strength Concrete.

Maybe they are still in line at the Home Depot getting more materials.

rick

[Tony Mount]

So Jack how did you write it on the report? Is it defective? Need further evaluation? Or is it satisfactory with uncommon building practices?

[Jack Feldmann]

What do you think?

[Jerry Peck]

So Jack how did you write it on the report? Is it defective? Need further evaluation? Or is it satisfactory with uncommon building practices?

What do you think?

Jack,

I think Tony would have called it the latter.

Would you have, Tony?

[Tony Mount]

I asked the question. I'm here to learn. you two are avoiding the question.

[Jerry Peck]

I asked the question.

Yes you did. You asked Jack.

You also mentioned a possible answer (asking Jack to pick one of the three).

Thus, I asked you. And specifically asked about the one you mentioned as a possible answer.

you two are avoiding the question.

*You* are avoiding *my* question.

*I* cannot answer for Jack, but *you* can answer for *you*.

So, how about *you* not, as you said, 'avoid the question'.

Looking forward to your answer, also trying to learn here.

[Jack Feldmann]

Tony,
The reason I asked what you think, is so you can learn.

Do you think it's defective?

Do you think it needs further evaluation?

Would you call it "satisfactory with uncommon building practices"? By the way, I can't say I have ever used that phrase before. Do you use it often?

I think you should be able to figure out how I reported this observation by the way I posted it here. It should be quite obvious that I didn't think it was "satisfactory with uncommon building practices". I don't think there is much at all about this repair that is "satisfactory".
JF

[Brian Thomas]

Why waste time mixing the concrete with water when you can just open the bag and let the natural moist air in the crawl do the work for you slowly? The slower time to cure, the stronger the concrete will be. And like rick said, it is high strength concrete. I see no problems with this installation

[Tony Mount]

OK, I don't see a problem except for the one support brace that is touching the ground. I would note it in my report as "satisfactory with uncommon building practices"? It looks like it is supporting the structure and I don't think that it is in need of repair. Anyone can suggest that it might be a problem and have someone else come out and look at it for a fee, but that is what your there for. If it is performing its function and is stable why bring up concern for the buyer and seller. We are not paid to design structure components to our liking if Darrell builds it and it performs it function and is not prone to move it is satisfactory. Why make the buyer pay a structural engineer $300 to come out and say it is supported.

[Dom D'Agostino]

OK, I don't see a problem ...I would note it in my report as "satisfactory with uncommon building practices"

Tony, now that's funny. Come on, you've got to be kidding!!

Have another look at the photos, and take a mulligan.

Dom.

[Jack Feldmann]

Dom,
I'm sure the idiot that installed this mess thought it was OK too. How anyone could think this was OK is beyond me. I really hope he was joking. IN fact I hope his entire participation on this thread was meant as a lame attempt at humor.


Maybe not?

I might add that the notches for the pipes were in the middle third of the span, by the way.
Another thing that may not be clear, one of the bags of concrete is sitting on an orange carpet that was spread over the crawlspace.

[Rick Hurst]

Tony does not understand we're not fluent in "idiot".

There is code and then there is Oklahoma code.

RICK

[Jack Feldmann]

Rick,
Thank you for the clarification.
Jack

It just came to me: Clarification for Clarabelle. Sorry, just showed my age.

[John Goad]

If there was a structural engineer that would say that was supported, I'd find another structural engineer.

[Rick Hurst]

Jack,

You can lead a human to reason but you can’t make him think.

rick

[Nick Ostrowski]

OK, I don't see a problem except for the one support brace that is touching the ground. I would note it in my report as "satisfactory with uncommon building practices"? It looks like it is supporting the structure and I don't think that it is in need of repair. Anyone can suggest that it might be a problem and have someone else come out and look at it for a fee, but that is what your there for. If it is performing its function and is stable why bring up concern for the buyer and seller. We are not paid to design structure components to our liking if Darrell builds it and it performs it function and is not prone to move it is satisfactory. Why make the buyer pay a structural engineer $300 to come out and say it is supported.

There you have it. Why make problems for the seller? As long as that sale goes through. "Satisfactory with uncommon building practices" huh? You're a lawyers dream.

Tony, go straight to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

[Jerry Peck]

I'm here to learn.

Okay, guys, enough already ... Tony said he is here to learn, so let's stop the bashing and explain why that is not something you leave unsaid, why you call for the structural engineer.

Tony, I know I've asked this before (and Nick did again), but ...

"If it is performing its function and is stable why bring up concern for the buyer and seller."

1) It is not performing its function as no one knows what function that contraption is supposed to perform.

2) What makes you think it is stable? And, if stable, that it will remain stable?

3) And why on earth are you even concerned about bringing up a concern for the buyer and seller? *YOU* *were hired* by *the buyer* for that exact purpose - *to bring up as many concerns as you can find*, that is information the buyer needs, and wants, and is paying you to find.

4) It then is up to the buyer to addresses who they want to address those concerns. Without you writing them up, the buyer cannot address them, meaning that you have short changed your buyer, that you are not working for your buyer, that you are more concerned about the seller (whom you should not be concerned about at all - the buyer is your client, not the seller).

[William Slade]

Hope this brings a chuckle or two

Spread footers by the bag....cool B

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
Giving good advice is why you are so respected on this forum, and that was good advice. Criticism, but not becoming personal.

[Brandon Chew]

"Why make the buyer pay a structural engineer $300 to come out and say it is supported."

"...why you call for the structural engineer."

IMHO, you don't need to be a structural engineer to figure out the beam, posts, and footings are wrong and you probably don't need a structural engineer to figure out how to fix it. The HI could and should do the evaluation and call it out. All you need to fix it is have a competent contractor, one who can read and understand a code book, tear that mess out and do it right.

I can think of two instances where an engineer might be needed for this situation. The first is that a licensed professional engineer (or an architect) is the only person legally qualified to look at that mess and say that it is ok "as is" (..... and good luck with that!). The second one is that a "code book" fix is not possible or desired.

$300....

[Corn Walker]

I don't know what you guys are getting all worked up about.

First, that's high early strength concrete - 5000 psi test. Because it was not mixed properly let's derate it to 2000 psi - that still 12 tons of support for each post. Given the quality of workmanship I can only assume a soils engineer approved the at-grade installation of the footings.

Second, my span tables don't list it but I can only imagine what the Fb and E values are for a 2x19. That's gotta be one heck of a stiff floor there. The builder obviously overbuilt this structure with longevity in mind. It was prescient of him to not include those pesky toenails in his support posts that might rust out and compromise the joint.

And the foil tape on the eps pipe insulation - no expense spared and no detail overlooked.

This builder gives new meaning to the term "competent contractor." I commend him.

[Mike Schulz]

Brandon or anyone else wouldn't you also mention the short pier with the built up blocking under that girder/beam? What is the compression of multiple side laid wood..........

The footer in a bag is quite common install as well as carpet barriers.

[Jerry Peck]

This builder gives new meaning to the term "competent contractor." I commend him.

I trust you forgot to put the "sarcastic" emoticon at the end ... ... right?

[Tom Maides]

Hey Jack,

You have to smile to keep from feeling sad. Unfortunately, this looks all too common. It is easy to look good as an inspector when the houses have only minor problems. When you see problems like this on a near daily basis, you become known a "deal killer". (I'll bet this house is in an area with no code enforcement, or, no enforcement at the time the house was built.) Stating that this is "uncommon but satisfactory" puts the inspector in the role of engineer or building inspector. Unless you have no doubt that this is no big deal, you should state the obvious and recommend a repair. Better to err on the side of disclosure. See you at the next ETASHI meeting.

Tom Maides

[Jack Feldmann]

Hey Tom,
This house was in the City of Maryville.
Why anyone would use a phrase like "uncommon but satisfactory" is beyond me.
See you at the next meeting.
Jack

[Wayne Carlisle]

OK, here's my take on it! The framer knew there needed to be a plumbing chase but got it just a weee bit off.

The plumber did the repair. The floor joist was in the way so out comes the sawz-all. While under the house he notices that he may have just screwed things up.

He figures that there was one 2X10 there the first time so if I just add another 2X10 to the bottom...then that's the same thing! He sends his helper down to the local Home Depot to pick up 2 bags of super duper concrete and an 8' 4X4 and a 8' 2X10.

Installs the 2X10 and thinks....hmmmm I better brace this thing directly under where I cut out the floor joist. I'll nail a 2X4 on the side of both of them to keep them from twisting.

The untreated 2X4 brace is just there until the concrete sets up.

Also looks like it was a girder at one time to support the wall in the bathroom. He cut through that so that is why the repair.

If you vary from what is in the code (uncommon building practices) then an engineer needs to called in to recommend a fix!

I would note that load bearing joists have been cut and an unconventional repair has been performed and needs to be evaluated by a licensed professional.

In my opinion this does not meet any code I have ever seen!

[Jack Feldmann]

"In my opinion this does not meet any code I have ever seen!"

Wayne, Wayne, Wayne....
Obviously you have not been around long enough, AND you haven't spent a lot of time in East Tennessee.

If you had, you would have known that this repair clearly meets the "Code of That'll Do", the "Code of That's Good Enuff", and the highest code of all, "The Code of That's The Way My Daddy Always Did It!".

Please don't confuse this with the "Code of Good Enuff for Who It's For". This code is only reserved for when these guys build houses for Yankees.

I do think you have an excellent handle on how it went down. I think this is a prime example of someone that knew there was something wrong, and maybe had seen a similar repair somewhere (but didn't remember the details) and really didn't have the mental capacity to fully understand what should be done.

Got to love this stuff.

[Brandon Chew]

Brandon or anyone else wouldn't you also mention the short pier with the built up blocking under that girder/beam? What is the compression of multiple side laid wood..........

Good eye Mike! I was hoping someone would catch and comment about that pier. I can't tell exactly what they did there without getting a closer view and looking from a couple of different angles, but it doesn't look right. Right above the pier and below the splice there is a shadow that looks like the bottom of the girder. I shouldn't be able to see that...

[Jerry Peck]

Brandon or anyone else wouldn't you also mention the short pier with the built up blocking under that girder/beam? What is the compression of multiple side laid wood..........

Good eye Mike! I was hoping someone would catch and comment about that pier.

Because that multiple laid up lumber is not supporting anything?

Right above the pier and below the splice there is a shadow that looks like the bottom of the girder. I shouldn't be able to see that...

Which confirmed, to me anyway, that the load was being carried on the two end 2x supports.

*I* suspect that the multiple "laid up lumber" is simply there to keep those two end supports vertical. See those nails in the end of the left end support? They go into those multiple laid up lumber members.

If you look at it closely, you will see two left-right 2x4 laying on top of the pier separated by a space (those 2x4 pieces are aligned with the sides of the pier), on top of those 2x4 pieces are the 2x cross pieces which support the girder. Those other pieces are 'just blocking' to hold those two supports vertically.

CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?

(Okay, I cheated, I zoomed in 200x, then 400x, to make sure of what I was seeing.)

Nonetheless, though, nothing *else* (hint, hint) was right in that photo, so leaving that unquestioned/unmentioned was simply addressing *it all* as not being right and needing a structural engineer to "design appropriate repairs".

[Tony Mount]

Enough, already, someone have a structural engineer look at the pic and see if he thinks it is stable, regardless how it looks and how long will it last? We all got opinions.

[Jerry Peck]

Enough, already, someone have a structural engineer look at the pic and see if he thinks it is stable, regardless how it looks and how long will it last? We all got opinions.

Tony,

Already have ... Brandon Chew IS a structural engineer.

[Tony Mount]

Ok, I rest my case, Brandon has not said that the support is not sufficient for the purpose in which it is intended or that it is dangerous or in need of repair. Could it be improved? Yes. Should it be removed and installed in a more conventional way? We are not code inspectors and Brandon himself said,"The first is that a licensed professional engineer (or an architect) is the only person legally qualified to look at that mess and say that it is ok "as is" So, when you all call it out for repair who are you going to send the buyers to for repairs?

[Jerry Peck]

Ok, I rest my case, Brandon has not said that the support is not sufficient for the purpose in which it is intended or that it is dangerous or in need of repair.

Tony,

Didn't you read what Brandon said?

IMHO, you don't need to be a structural engineer to figure out the beam, posts, and footings are wrong

Brandon also said

All you need to fix it is have a competent contractor, one who can read and understand a code book, tear that mess out and do it right.

Brandon is saying 'That is sooooo bad that you do not even have to be a structural engineer to figure out that is bad, anyone should be able to do that, especially a home inspector' ... who should have knowledge above and beyond that of John Q Public.

By the way, Tony, I was waiting when you would drop that other shoe, as they say, I did not really think you were "here to learn" as you stated, you were here to try to make you usual "minimum inspection point". Your post confirms that, including the below:

Could it be improved? Yes. Should it be removed and installed in a more conventional way? We are not code inspectors and Brandon himself said,"The first is that a licensed professional engineer (or an architect) is the only person legally qualified to look at that mess and say that it is ok "as is" So, when you all call it out for repair who are you going to send the buyers to for repairs?

"Why make the buyer pay a structural engineer $300 to come out and say it is supported."

"...why you call for the structural engineer."

IMHO, you don't need to be a structural engineer to figure out the beam, posts, and footings are wrong and you probably don't need a structural engineer to figure out how to fix it. The HI could and should do the evaluation and call it out. All you need to fix it is have a competent contractor, one who can read and understand a code book, tear that mess out and do it right.

I can think of two instances where an engineer might be needed for this situation. The first is that a licensed professional engineer (or an architect) is the only person legally qualified to look at that mess and say that it is ok "as is" (..... and good luck with that!). The second one is that a "code book" fix is not possible or desired.

$300....

Tony,

You REALLY NEED to start reading the posts.

And you REALLY NEED to open your mind and start learning.

How can you read what Brandon wrote and end up at 'so, he says it is okay' is beyond my understanding.

[Brandon Chew]

LOL. I feel like a tennis ball ... or maybe the football in tonight's Eagles/Cowboys game.

Brandon Chew IS a structural engineer.

That is not correct. I am licensed by New York State as a Professional Engineer. NY does not license and restrict engineers by specialty. I am free to practice in any branch of engineering as long as I am not:

practicing or offering to practice beyond the scope permitted by law, or accepting and performing professional responsibilities which the licensee knows or has reason to know that he or she is not competent to perform, or performing without adequate supervision professional services which the licensee is authorized to perform only under the supervision of a licensed professional, except in an emergency situation where a person's life or health is in danger.

I've mentioned that I'm a PE but I think this is the first time that the type of engineer I am has been a topic of discussion on this board. So, for the record:

Bachelor of Science from Cornell University, January 1984. Dual degree from College of Engineering and College of Agriculture; major - agricultural engineering.

21 years experience in the public sector as an environmental engineer. Work included design and inspections during the construction and operation of sewage and industrial wastewater treatment plants and collection systems.

Left public service to spend more time with my kids and to be in control of my work schedule. During the last few years I've been slowly developing a specialty in building inspection engineering with an emphasis on residential.

I do not specialize in structural engineering. I do some light structural work but anything outside my comfort zone I hand off to a structural engineer.

FYI - I grew up in lower Bucks County, a suburb of Philadelphia, and I am a life-long Eagles fan. I can remember as far back as some foggy boyhood memories of Norm Snead at QB and games at Franklin field. To this day, when asked which NFL team is my favorite, my reply is "I have two -- the Eagles and whoever is playing against the Cowboys!"

Dang. Dallas 41, Phila 37. How 'bout them Cowboys Exciting game to watch though.

[Jerry Peck]

Brandon,

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, you only said "PE", from your knowledge and comments on "structure" in the past *I ASSUMED* that was 'as in structural engineer'.

Me bad.

Nonetheless, though, your comments are still valid from "an engineer's point of view".

My point to Tony was: How on earth he could read what you said, then say you said it was okay, that was beyond my understanding and comprehension.

[Tony Mount]

Ok Jerry, so we all may know exactly how this should be written on a report. Show us how you would write it up and tell me as a buyer how bad it is and as a seller who I call to fix it.

[Rick Hurst]

Tony awaits in great anticipation for new boiler plate comments for his reports.

[Nick Ostrowski]

Ok Jerry, so we all may know exactly how this should be written on a report. Show us how you would write it up and tell me as a buyer how bad it is and as a seller who I call to fix it.

I'm not Jerry but......"Multiple improper and unprofessional installations/repairs/modifications noted on support piers and ceiling structure in crawlspace - have entire ceiling structure and ceiling support system in crawlspace serviced by a professional carpenter and all repairs made as needed"

If you are a buyer, my word to you is that whoever did the work used whatever scrap materials they had on hand and the work is not acceptable. True professionals do not produce that type of work. If this is the work you can see, what did they do in areas you cannot see? And as a buyer, I have no idea how long you plan on living here but any issues/defects you accept and live with and do not correct will likely become your responsibility when you decide to sell the house (aka - repair costs on you).

[Tony Mount]

Hello To all inspectors, My name is Gladis O'Toole and I'm 83 years old. I own the house that your talking about on this post. 5 years ago I bought this property and had it inspected and the inspector said the floor joist in question was cut to deep for the plumbing and needed to be supported even though there was no signs of movement in the floor. The seller had it braced by a carpenter before the close of escrow. Now all you inspectors say that it is not safe and needs to be repaired except for Mr. Mount ( whom I love because he has Balls enough to state that it is satisfactory) I believe the rest of you inspectors just want to cover your asses because you don't like the way it was supported and are afraid the next inspector might not like it either. Hi, my name is Busty Loosey and I 'am the buyer if the property in question. The house is a Fanny Mae and it is sold as is. There is no repairs budgeted in the sale of this house. I love the location and the price, but all you inspectors say that the house is not safe and needs the support braces replaced. Who do I believe? Who do I contact that know's the truth? Tony says its safe and performing its function supporting the cut joist. I don't have the money to hire structural engineer, that's why I hired you guys. O what's a pretty girl to do? If only inspectors would tell the truth, and not cover there asses by putting it off on someone else to decide at our expence.

[Nick Ostrowski]

How does that saying go again..............better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a moron than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt? Yeah, that's about right.

[Mike Schulz]

Tony,
It's beyond me that you would think that is a OK repair. Did you comment on that short pier that I pointed out that is not related to the other repair? Is that ok too?

When you start telling people it's a adequate repair or structural sound you better have a PE license. I hope you have good Insurance because you will need it one day when stuff like this catches up to you.

Tony did you happen to add to your clients comments. I can't see either one of them making statements like this (O what's a pretty girl to do? If only inspectors would tell the truth, and not cover there asses by putting it off on someone else to decide at our expense.)

Cover our assess, Thats not why we are there. If you haven't noticed everyones comments on this subject is the same. FIX IT RIGHT! Thats not covering anything..........

Tony it's people like you that give our profession a black eye!

[Corn Walker]

You know what Tony, that's too effing bad for Gladis and Busty (btw, it's usually spelled Gladys). Gladis is going to have to take a hit in her selling price to escrow any amounts necessary for evaluation and repair.

In the other scenario, if Busty can't afford to have the structure evaluated, let alone remedy any deficiencies, then Busty can't afford the house. Sucks for Busty but it looks like she'll be renting for a bit longer.

I bought a house that had structural problems. Main beam had powder post beetle infestation, ell was framed with 2x6 floor joists spanning 16 feet, porch was home to a thriving colony of carpenter ants, main house was racked 7 inches off plumb in 15 feet wall height. It was thanks to the diligence and documentation of my building inspector that I was able to knock an additional $25,000 off my already discounted offer (based on visible condition). Yes, that put my offer several thousand dollars under the outstanding note on the property. The seller accepted it because she really had no choice... it was the third time the house was back on the market and fortunately for the potential buyers before me each of the previous inspectors had done their jobs and leveled with them about the extensive repairs needed. Lord forbid one of the previous buyers had you as the HI telling them everything was "satisfactory" and they ended up paying the asking price for the house and not having $50,000 reserved to fix the mess. Eventually the seller had to work out a deal with her bank and I was happy to provide the bank a copy of my inspection report to substantiate the discounted valuation of the property.

I don't have the money to hire structural engineer, that's why I hired you guys.

Are you not making it clear that your services are not engineering services"? Oh boy I wish I was a lawyer in your state.

[Jerry Peck]

Not much I can add to the previous comments, Tony, other than ...

Now all you inspectors say that it is not safe and needs to be repaired except for Mr. Mount ( whom I love because he has Balls enough to state that it is satisfactory)

Tony, *if only* ...

... *if only you had the "Balls enough to state" * to your client that it was not safe instead of trying to placate the seller and real estate agent with 'looks okay to me'.

If I had the extra money in the bank I would go buy a home where Tony lives, hire him to inspect it, then sue him into poverty to keep him from doing his thing on unsuspecting buyers. I'd even take is stolen diamond ring from him too. He would end up being a slave to me making, and paying for, all the repairs for things he said were okay and were not needed.

What a disgrace to the Home Inspection community.

Not picking on you Tony, you exposed yourself all by yourself.

[Wayne Carlisle]

One thing that needs to be said about HI's. They can not require any repairs to be made! They can only write up what they see is questionable or a specific violation!

With that being said I think it is the obligation of the HI to make note of all items that "in their opinion" needs attention. It is not the responsibility of the HI to determine how to "fix" these areas of concern. I do think that the HI needs to know what the current codes are and notify the client of violations that are within the perscriptive of the code!

I also think that the HI needs to know that just because certain conditions do not meet "current code" that that does not mean that they are a violation if it was built to code at the time the structure was built!

Newer construction or repairs must meet current code no matter what year the structure was built!

There is no way that I would say that the repairs performed in the pictures at the beginning of this thread that those repairs were within the requirements of the code. No where in the code does it say a sack of dry high strength concrete will support a specific load.

Work performed must meet with specific sections of the code! Any deviations from the code require a design professional to put their seal of approval on it! It doesn't have anything to do with balls!! Everything is based off of the code at the time the structure was built OR at the time the alterations or repairs were performed!

(Stepping off my soapbox now!)

Wayne

[Tony Mount]

So far none of you code inspectors have had the balls to state what you would have written in your report! Or who you would have recommended to do the repairs or evaluation to do the repairs. Corn boasted how he screwed the seller out of $25,000 dollars for repairs but did not say if he had the property demolished and rebuilt to current codes. I bet he rigged the repairs himself and made a profit. He also states "Are you not making it clear that your services are not engineering services"? Oh boy I wish I was a lawyer in your state'. He implied he was when he screwed the seller with his report to the bank. Oblivious damage to a structure is a lot different to repairs made to a structure after the fact. A home owner can do anything he wants to his house to correct a problem. If the problem is corrected and in working order at the time of inspection, we can only comment on that correction and go on with our business. The problems in the picture appear to be performing there function from what I can see. Because I 'am not a structural engineer nor can I predict the future I can say without any malice that it looks like it is supporting the cut joist. I would comment that it is not a common practice to use unopened bag of cement for such a repair and that the buyer MAY WANT IT TO BE EVAUWAITED BY SOMEONE ELSE but, to look at it and say that's NOT RIGHT leads people to believe that I' am a structural engineer and I know without a doubt that this repair is NOT PERFORMING IT'S INTENDED FUCTION. Let's not speculate on other repairs but this one. Mike I would not have commented on the short pier because I' am not a structural engineer and in my opinion the joist is being supported by the blocks and wood on top even with the gaps the end boards are in line with the solid ends of the blocks. I do not know how much weight that pier can support but I do know that it was supported at the time of inspection. I don't have to refer every home owner repair to a professional just to cover my ass on a inspection. I' am a generalist and if it is performing its function at the time of inspection I' am not worried about it. I might comment on it but I' am not going to call it out for repair every single time. Hell, I bet just because this home owner repaired this joist you all are so scared that he touched something else that you would recommend that all systems be evaluated by a licensed professional just to cover your asses. I bet you all have a professional on retainers and get kick backs on all your referrals which apparently is on every single report. I know there is a difference between good, better, best but it don't have to all be the best.

[Mike Schulz]

I would of wrote something in the affect that the cut joist was repaired by someone without the knowledge or understanding of carpentry. (then explained why by photos) Because of the sub standard repair I recommend a qualified contractor repair as needed.

The pier I would of also wrote up with similar to above as well as anything under that home that look like that.

If I took my car to a shop with a hole in the muffler and it came back with that exhaust duct tape on it. The shop guy says man it's fixed no more hole........Se where I am going with this..........no more exhaust leak, how long will it last, Is this the correct way to repair a hole........

You got to admit that the footer in a bag alone would justify a write up.

[Mike Schulz]

Tony,

The inspection this morning there was a conductor ran through the soffit to the exterior through a hole that was shared by a dryer duct (another story). The conductor was draped across the back of the home and the outlet/fixture box which shared the receptalce (mounted on the side) and the light fixture was suspened along the wall. There was a another conductor with a lamp cord plug ran to two spot lights.

Breaker did not trip, you can plug the cord in the open receptacle an the lights would come on. It was functioning so why would I write that up.........?

[Jerry Peck]

Tony,

Keeping for posterity in case you realize what you wrote and delete your post.

Apparently, you do not read posts any better than you work for your client, therefore, your posts have now become, AGAIN, *not worth responding to*.

To answer your question, and it has already been answered above:

The slip-shod "work" (and I hate referring to what was found as "work") is not of any reasonable accepted construction practice, is certainly not in accordance with code, good engineering practice, nor even good construction practice, and, AT BEST can only be described as WTF DID THEY THINK THEY WERE DOING?

Have structural engineer design appropriate repairs, have appropriately licensed and competent contractor perform those repairs, having the structural engineer inspect the repairs and issue an engineer's letter stating that all repairs were made in accordance with the engineering design.

Like it or not, Tony, THAT IS WHAT *YOU* SHOULD BE SAYING ... or something to that effect.

YOU were hired by YOUR client to protect YOUR clients BEST INTERESTS, and YOU can only do that by telling your client THE TRUTH, not some freekin lie to 'save the deal' - THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB, YOUR JOB IS TO REPORT THE FACTS TO YOUR CLIENT so THEY can decide, not have you decide for them that ... oh, no problem ... it should stay up a bit longer ... I'll be gone ... yada-yada-yada.

However, I digress, so I will simply repeat what I stated above:
" Apparently, you do not read posts any better than you work for your client, therefore, your posts have now become, AGAIN, *not worth responding to*. "

So far none of you code inspectors have had the balls to state what you would have written in your report! Or who you would have recommended to do the repairs or evaluation to do the repairs. Corn boasted how he screwed the seller out of $25,000 dollars for repairs but did not say if he had the property demolished and rebuilt to current codes. I bet he rigged the repairs himself and made a profit. He also states "Are you not making it clear that your services are not engineering services"? Oh boy I wish I was a lawyer in your state'. He implied he was when he screwed the seller with his report to the bank. Oblivious damage to a structure is a lot different to repairs made to a structure after the fact. A home owner can do anything he wants to his house to correct a problem. If the problem is corrected and in working order at the time of inspection, we can only comment on that correction and go on with our business. The problems in the picture appear to be performing there function from what I can see. Because I 'am not a structural engineer nor can I predict the future I can say without any malice that it looks like it is supporting the cut joist. I would comment that it is not a common practice to use unopened bag of cement for such a repair and that the buyer MAY WANT IT TO BE EVAUWAITED BY SOMEONE ELSE but, to look at it and say that's NOT RIGHT leads people to believe that I' am a structural engineer and I know without a doubt that this repair is NOT PERFORMING IT'S INTENDED FUCTION. Let's not speculate on other repairs but this one. Mike I would not have commented on the short pier because I' am not a structural engineer and in my opinion the joist is being supported by the blocks and wood on top even with the gaps the end boards are in line with the solid ends of the blocks. I do not know how much weight that pier can support but I do know that it was supported at the time of inspection. I don't have to refer every home owner repair to a professional just to cover my ass on a inspection. I' am a generalist and if it is performing its function at the time of inspection I' am not worried about it. I might comment on it but I' am not going to call it out for repair every single time. Hell, I bet just because this home owner repaired this joist you all are so scared that he touched something else that you would recommend that all systems be evaluated by a licensed professional just to cover your asses. I bet you all have a professional on retainers and get kick backs on all your referrals which apparently is on every single report. I know there is a difference between good, better, best but it don't have to all be the best.

Tony,

At the end of the day ... you just don't matter, and you have proven it to us again, and again, and again, and, now ... yet again.

As Nick said:

How does that saying go again..............better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a moron than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt? Yeah, that's about right.

Tony, you have removed ALL doubt.

[Tony Mount]

So how much money do you all make from passing the buck to professionals on retainers?

[Scott Patterson]

So how much money do you all make from passing the buck to professionals on retainers?

That would not be ethical, but whats the going rate for a diamond ring?

[Tony Mount]

I challenge anyone to post a code that says this is not an acceptable repair

[MaMa Mount]

The boy is challenged.

[Billy Stephens]

I challenge anyone to post a code that says this is not an acceptable repair

.
Here you Go.
.

[Jerry Peck]

That would not be ethical, but whats the going rate for a diamond ring?

What about all that money he would have taken during the bathroom remodel fiasco which was discussed here last year? Tony saw nothing wrong with taking *someone else's* money if it fell out of a wall into his hands and the owner of the house was not aware it was there.

[Jerry Peck]

Billy,

Good one!

There is nothing in THAT CODE which would allow what is shown in that photo.

[Rick Hurst]

So how much money do you all make from passing the buck to professionals on retainers?

Where did that comment come from? Is he serious?

YouTube - Dramatic Chipmunk

[Tony Mount]

Turns out Jerry is a construction hit man. If you don't like something call Jerry and for a price he will go to court for you or against you. No wonder he goes BEYOND the scope of a NORMAL home inspection. I think my lawyer could discredit him in a home inspection case.Jerry Peck
Construction Consultant

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


Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC
Construction and Litigation Consultants
Serving Florida and the Southeast

[Ted Menelly]

Turns out Jerry is a construction hit man. If you don't like something call Jerry and for a price he will go to court for you or against you. No wonder he goes BEYOND the scope of a NORMAL home inspection. I think my lawyer could discredit him in a home inspection case.Jerry Peck
Construction Consultant

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


Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC
Construction and Litigation Consultants
Serving Florida and the Southeast

Tony

The fact of the matter is. I would have taken a bunch of pictures of everything going on in that crawl, explained what I saw wrong (most everything), recommended an engineer to evaluate. The pictures to the client with a brief written explanation and an animated face to face explanation to the client when they came at the end of the inspection and would have been done with it. You are not hurting your client in the slightest. As everyone mentioned above, that is why you are there. In cases like what is going on in the crawl (most of the time) the seller goes and gets the evaluation to find a price factor and either credits the buyer with a discount or has it fixed.

You have to understand. Once the home is in process of sale all findings have to be disclosed to the buyer. If you find concerns like that or serious slab concerns it has to be disclosed. You are only helping your buyer.

If they cannot afford to have it checked out and the seller doesn't want to put the money out for it they move on appreciatively to the next home.

By the way. It is not called passing the buck. It is called doing what you were hired to do as so many have said. You can tell them what you see wrong, maybe, and I mean maybe tell them roughly what it would take for corrections, but in know way do you spell things out for them as to the exact particulars about the repair. You will wind up paying for it. You are a generalist as a home inspector. You find the concerns and suggest that they have the appropriate tradesman/engineer/electrician/roofer etc evaluate for repairs and price for repairs.

I don't know how many times you used the term passing the buck. Stop thinking that way. That is your job to suggest that they have the appropriate professional evaluate.

The cost of what that might take to have a concern evaluated is absolutely, as a home inspector, none of your concern. Your concern is to find the concerns for your client. As everyone said. That is your job.

[Jerry Peck]

Turns out Jerry is a construction hit man. If you don't like something call Jerry and for a price he will go to court for you or against you.

Tony,

As usual, you don't read things.

Such as my website.

If you had, you would have noticed that I will work with builders/owners/developers in protecting themselves from future litigation ... all they have to do is correct what I point out (document), then I can document its correction, and, if all documented items have been corrected, I can document "substantial compliance with" the plans, drawings, codes, and manufacturers' installation instructions ... as long as that "if" is done - items are corrected.

In reviewing my website you will find (provided you can read) that I have one ultimate goal, whether working for a buyer 'during or after the fact' or whether working for a builder/developer 'during or before the fact' ... that is: to get it done correctly.

When working for the client(buyer), the ultimate affect is to get the party who created the item to pay for correcting it, and that would be the builder/developer.

When working for the builder/developer, the ultimate affect is to get the party who created the item to pay for correcting it, and that would be the sub contractor or material vendor.

You will notice that I am not "against" builders/developers, I am "against" those who screw it up, and I am "for" those who paid for it to be done correctly.

[Corn Walker]

Corn boasted how he screwed the seller out of $25,000 dollars for repairs but did not say if he had the property demolished and rebuilt to current codes. I bet he rigged the repairs himself and made a profit.

Well, since I'm still living in the house I haven't made a "profit" at all, even counting sweat equity. And yes, I should have demolished the house but instead I choose to rebuild it to the current code. (The electrical code did change after I pulled the permit but I anticipated that.) The reason the seller made out so poorly is because of 20 years of deferred maintenance. Someone has to pay for that maintenance and it wasn't going to be me.

As for some of the specific repairs... New footers, beams, and posts in the basement, all new electrical, plumbing and gas, I demolished the porch, re-sheathed and re-sided the house, installed all new windows (not replacements) and new doors, and cut the span of the ell floor joists in half by installing a new girder (and my footings were poured, not "set in the bag." Just today I was reframing the gable wall on the ell which is now load bearing because of the new cathedral ceiling (old roof was built incorrectly - non-standard construction methods and insufficient since it failed). I installed a proper header to distribute the point load from the center post (post would otherwise land over the crawl space door) and installed a header behind the rim joist. I replaced the non-treated stud that was in contact with the ground with 4x4 posts that didn't miss the foundation wall (unsatisfactory but all too common). On the roof I used hurricane ties on all of the rafter tails, sloping joist hangers to prevent uplift, collar ties also for uplift and strength, 5/8 decking, h clips, 10d nails, WSU over the entire roof, 8" drip edges... basically a structure that I intend to last for quite some time.

He also states "Are you not making it clear that your services are not engineering services"? Oh boy I wish I was a lawyer in your state'. He implied he was when he screwed the seller with his report to the bank.

The bank requested a copy of the report (that I paid for and own, thank you very much) to determine whether or not they would cut a deal with the seller. I didn't force the seller to accept my offer, nor did I force the bank to negotiate with the seller about the note. I simply used my home inspection report in conjunction with the fair market analysis performed by my realtor to determine what the price should be for the property. I still paid too much.

A home owner can do anything he wants to his house to correct a problem. If the problem is corrected and in working order at the time of inspection, we can only comment on that correction and go on with our business.

Actually in my town a homeowner can not legally do anything he wants to correct a problem. A permit must be pulled and any non-standard construction methods must be accompanied by drawings sealed by an architect or SE. Failure to do so can result in a fine and being forced to do it over.

I would comment that it is not a common practice to use unopened bag of cement for such a repair and that the buyer MAY WANT IT TO BE EVAUWAITED BY SOMEONE ELSE

May? May?!? It's a bag of cement. Do you think it was mixed properly and then poured back into the bag? Was the ground compacted properly under the bag? What's the load on that column? What's the load rating on an unmixed bag of cement setup with an unknown quantity of water and cured at an unknown temperature?

but, to look at it and say that's NOT RIGHT leads people to believe that I' am a structural engineer and I know without a doubt that this repair is NOT PERFORMING IT'S INTENDED FUCTION.

If it's not conforming to the code in force at the time the repair was made (and I know of no code that would permit what was in those pictures) and it doesn't have a stamp of approval from an architect or SE then it is not right.

I know there is a difference between good, better, best but it don't have to all be the best.

Yeah, but the stuff in that picture wasn't even good. The more you write, the more scared I get that there are more inspectors with the same cavalier attitude as you.

[Brandon Chew]

To bring a smile at the end of the day

Hope this brings a chuckle or two

That it did, Jack. That it did...

[Tony Mount]

Ladies and gentlemen, men and women, inspectors all hear my cry. JERRY PECK IS NOT A HOME INSPECTOR that's right JERRY PECK IS NOT A HOME INSPECTOR. Jerry is a Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( Construction and Litigation Consultants )
EastWestData (EastWest Data ) I could not for the life of me figure out why he was so damn good at all the stuff he writes on the posts. He is a licensed professional consultant. That is why he has to be so perfect in all he writes, because he is bound by all his knowledge, he cannot relax and do just a home inspection because he can be sued because of his knowledge. Nothing that Jerry writes in these post relates to home inspections because we ( Home Inspectors) are generalist. He could not even testify in court in a home inspection case because he is bound by his knowledge and has to go beyond what a normal home inspector does. Jerry DOES NOT DO NORMAL HOME INSPECTIONS. As generalist no wonder 300 people can read a post by Jerry and feel inadequate and not post a responce. That is why he spends so much time on a inspection and prices his so high because he is bound by his superior knowledge. Inspectors please don't sit back any more reading post by Jerry thinking you not doing your job because he does NOT DO HOME INSPECTIONS. We have a swan in our mists, although he is pretty he is not a duck.