To bring a smile at the end of the day

[Jim Zborowski]

Here's the thing..........just because an individual continues their learning and preferes to go into a specialty does not mean they are incapable of performing on another level for which they are still qualified. In fact, if you were to perform an inspection and did not call out something you knew was improper as a result of ongoing training, you would be found negligent in your duties ifit were discovered you in fact held such knowledge.
In the case of the work in question, there is no way you could call what is shown in the photos as correct or sufficient. Failure to call this work out as a defect , especially in veiw of all that has been said in this post, would be construed as gross negligence by not making your client aware the condition existed while having knowledge of what numerous other inspectors in the profession have vehemantly stated to be improper.

[Billy Stephens]

In fact, if you were to perform an inspection and did not call out something you knew
.
you in fact held such knowledge.
.
.

.
No Problems Here for Tony.
.

[Mike Schulz]

Jerry is a retired home inspector and now does consulting. He is one of the elite home inspectors we all strive to be. For the sake of the public I hope you grasp something from him some day.

[Jerry Peck]

he is bound by all his knowledge,

Tony,

Are you saying you are ... bound by your lack of knowledge?

Jerry is a retired home inspector

Mike is correct, I am a retired "Home Inspector", like you ... okay, strike that last part ... I'm not "like you".

[Kevin Barre]

So far none of you code inspectors have had the balls to state what you would have written in your report! ... 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.

Unbelievable.
Until now, I have resisted commenting on the patently absurd position held by Mr. Mount. Ultimately, even though the responses have upheld a higher standard for home inspectors, (good job, guys) I still feel compelled to add a comment. Not that it's likely to change Tony's mind, but I have to try.

Let's imagine a scenario: You are standing on a street corner. You observe a car pull out of a tire shop just up the street from you...and you immediately notice an extremely wobbly wheel. You look at it a a few seconds longer. As it passes closer to you, you notice that it only has ONE lug nut on that wheel. Let's say that you have changed a flat tire once or twice yourself and realize that the one lug nut in place probably is most likely not even properly tightened. In other words, you have at least a little knowledge that the average observer might not have. Let's also assume that you are not a mechanical engineer. Would you feel a duty to warn people that a potential danger existed? After all, the car is currently "performing its intended purpose" in the sense that it is still conveying its occupants from point A to point B during the very few seconds that you observe it. Why rock the boat and scare people if you aren't sure that something bad is likely to happen? Remember, you are not a mechanical engineer. And the fact that you have some experience changing tires doesn't give you any knowledge applicable to the situation at hand, right?

True, there may be no immediate failure at the exact moment you see that car with a loose wheel. But you -- and anyone else with more than two functioning brain cells to rub together -- should recognize the potential disaster in the making.
Tony, you state: "nor can I predict the future." Agreed. Neither can I. However, I would humbly say that you don't need a crystal ball to predict the likely outcome here. A bowling ball would suffice. This joist "repair" has so many things wrong that there should be no discussion about it whether it is appropriate or not.

The fact is that as home inspectors we are charged with a duty. We have a duty to inform our clients based on our knowledge. We are protecting their interests by proxy. That's as it should be since that's what we are paid for. Opinions obviously enter into things at the appropriate times, but they had better be well backed up. Wild speculation should never be a part of our job. But if we ignore potential failures simply because things aren't at their worst at the exact brief moment we see them, we are not performing to the standard we should. There's simply too much at stake to ignore obvious shortcuts or horrible techniques.

Tony -- I almost forgot...you posed a question (challenge?) to to other inspectors about what they would write. Speaking only for me, my report would be stated along these lines: The original floor joists were notched too deeply to provide proper support. Repairs were attempted, but they are substandard, do not follow recognized practices, and they are subject to failure even if that failure is not evident now. Additionally, there are improper details in the supports under the original girder which are subject to additional failures.* A competent foundation repair company should be called in to make repairs as necessary.

* Additional footnote for inspectors reading this post: I enlarged the pics also. The 2X block supporting the girder at the right in pic # 1 appears to be nailed into the ends of those horizontal blocks only. The block supporting the girder does not bear directly on top of the pier. That's a lot of load on the nails holding that vertical block in place. Anyone want to bet how that arrangement holds up? (This is obviously based only on a blurry enlarged pic. Don't rag me if it's wrong!)

[Jack Feldmann]

Tony,
Way back on 9/10, after your first post, I asked YOU what you thought, and how you would write it up. YOU apparently do not have the balls to respond.

IF you indeed think this repair is just fine, then you are dumber than a sack of rocks, or possibly a sack of day old dog sh*t - or both.

For you to rant on and on in such a mind numbing way, clearly shows that you are somewhat challenged mentally. I'm sorry for your loss. Since I was the only one on this board to actually SEE this property, to ask someone else questions about what was there is just plain ignorant.

The fact that there are so many things wrong with this area of the floor framing was the exact reason I chose the title of my post. It should have been painfully obvious to anyone with a modicum of building knowledge, that this was one huge cluster f**K of a repair attempt.

Apparently you either enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, or you are dumber than that large size sack of rocks. If it's the former, then you should maybe find another forum to lurk, since we really don't need disingenuous participants here. If it's the latter, then I feel sorry for you, but really don't have patience for the patently ignorant. You are deeply in need of remedial home inspection education.

I suggest you take your short bus to the closest adult school and enroll in some shop classes, then work your way up. I'm sure the books will have lots of pictures and the words will not be too big. There may even be a coloring section in the back of the workbook.

[Rick Hurst]

Jack,

You spoke for what everyone is probably thinking.

I think we should just let this thread go and not entertain this fool anymore with responses to his ignorance.

rick

YouTube - Rare Porky the Pig Thats All Folks