Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Scott Dana's Avatar
    Scott Dana Guest

    Default "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    Inspection Referral SOC

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Rockwall Texas
    Posts
    4,517

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    Everyone should read this and reply at the end.

    I get so tired of the HI's getting blamed for it all.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Portland OR
    Posts
    43

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    OK, I did my part and submitted a reply. I live in Portland OR, just North of Lake Oswego, and clay soils are very common here. You'd think if this was such an issue, practically every house would be racked. I wonder if the homeowners got a second opinion about the "clay minerals" in the soil. I hope the inspector is not found liable.


  4. #4
    Richard Rushing's Avatar
    Richard Rushing Guest

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    Rock-on,
    That-ole house guy...


  5. #5
    john2kin's Avatar
    john2kin Guest

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    hi,,,, thank you dear for sharing the article with us...this is really very informative one..keep on posting such nice stuff


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    559

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    If the home had cracked foundations, racked walls, windows, and doors and the inspector missed it - Shame on that person!

    If there were visible signs and it wasn't reported, The inspector should be held liable for the error and omission and pay the bill.

    That's what people hire us for, that's the job we should do AND we should do it better than anyone else. That's what differentiates the good, the bad, and the ugly.

    Now, if there were no visible signs, then that's a differnent story. Also, can't blame the attorney for looking for deep pockets - it's the nature of the beast and that comes with the territory. Let's hope the inspector did the job he was paid to do and found what sounds to me like obvious signs & included them in the report.


  7. #7
    James Duffin's Avatar
    James Duffin Guest

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    I didn't see where the article said how old the house was. Does anybody know?


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    Quote Originally Posted by James Duffin View Post
    I didn't see where the article said how old the house was. Does anybody know?

    This topic is over three years old. By now I would suspect the issue has been resolved.

    Phoenix AZ Resale Home, Mobile Home, New Home Warranty Inspections. ASHI Certified Inspector #206929 Arizona Certified Inspector # 38440
    www.inspectaz.com

  9. #9
    James Duffin's Avatar
    James Duffin Guest

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    I saw that....the age of the house would matter as to who is responsible I would think.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Snowbird (this means I'm retired and migrate between locations), FL/MI
    Posts
    4,086

    Default Re: "Shrink-swell soil" article. Did inspector miss this?

    Old thread gets revived by new member with broken english, inappropriate, non-professional language ("dear") and then opined by others not paying attention! Hmmmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Amelin View Post
    If the home had cracked foundations, racked walls, windows, and doors and the inspector missed it - Shame on that person!

    If there were visible signs and it wasn't reported, The inspector should be held liable for the error and omission and pay the bill.

    That's what people hire us for, that's the job we should do AND we should do it better than anyone else. That's what differentiates the good, the bad, and the ugly.

    Now, if there were no visible signs, then that's a differnent story. Also, can't blame the attorney for looking for deep pockets - it's the nature of the beast and that comes with the territory. Let's hope the inspector did the job he was paid to do and found what sounds to me like obvious signs & included them in the report.
    Shame on YOU for not paying attention, or actually reading and comprehending what basic information was included in the article; let alone your baseless conclusions.

    Did you read any of the Nine Reader Comments posted to the article (back in the month it was originally published)? Most every one by an HI, and familiar with expansive soils, several (if not all) made by folks who are members here. I think not.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Duffin View Post
    I didn't see where the article said how old the house was. Does anybody know?
    Public record. Sigh. Historical weather conditions and events.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Harris View Post
    This topic is over three years old. By now I would suspect the issue has been resolved.
    Yep, thank you for pointing that out. Dead thread, old news.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Duffin View Post
    I saw that....the age of the house would matter as to who is responsible I would think.
    Are you really thinking? Public record 1973. Single family homes developed across next major street 1978, does that make a difference to you or Ken A.? Even IF so, a HI performs a non-invasive visual inspection and reports on the conditions At the Time of The Inspection. Late Spring, nearly Summer. Did you notice the Article mentions that 2006 purchase - but was dated mid-October 2007?!? Thats over 15 months after they closed!



    Odd and frustrating to see old topics revived by a fly-by (apparent spammer, new member, one-time poster, characteristic peculiar language in post, some of which is non-sense, employing signature line) then pondering by others not fully paying attention to the original information, or willing to expend the least effort to answer their own quesitons, idle curiosity, or otherwise! Its even more frankly, disturbing, to see others bashing an unidentified HI without knowing ANY of the facts or circumstances, let alone having the least experience or having familiarized themselves with the local region, area, or the circumstances of the specific property, when it is spelled out in the dang article itself, and freely available on the WWW with little or no effort whatsoever.

    Shame, yep its a darn shame another "new guy" starts off with over 50 posts and spends the majority of them bashing trashing and misrepresenting the profession/occupation as a whole.

    Public records from clackamas county, oregon, assessors office provide the following (however accurate or inaccurate they may be) (on Cmap parcel info):

    Home built: 1973.
    Townehome.
    Last sold date 06/15/2006, $340,000.
    Current year est. market values:
    Bldg: $142,090
    Land:$125,557
    Ttl: $267,647
    Current year assessed value: $170,468.
    Last assessed value: $165,503* (may be out of date as to "last assessed value").

    Maps show end unit with only a corner abutting ajacent.
    Natural Hazard Information:
    Soil Type: Cove Silty Clay Loam

    Tax Information

    Use Cmap link,

    choose parcel mapping option, and type in: 21E17CB02212

    As far as the HI not catching something, that's likely a red-herring, wishful thinking on behalf of the owners & attorney looking for pockets to dip in.

    Due dilligence, public records, plat maps, geo surveys, etc. for the whole area & subdivision regarding soil type, construction, regional and subdivision mapping county & state long pre-date the sale date.

    Since when are HIs required to do subdivision, lot preparation, foundation, and geotechnical survey searches on behalf of a potential purchaser? Since when do HIs inspect the past and future and report? Are you now expecting crystal balls and/or time machines?


    Construction type and date speak for themselves. Slab on grade on expansive soil. Gee, like that never happened anywhere in the country in the early 70s. Now you're expecting an HI to have xray vision and know if the slab is suspended and pinned or piered or to check the original plans? That's not the HI's job. How do you know the HI didn't report something and/or recommend an engineer or foundation expert evaulate? The article doesn't say anything to that possiblity. The writer doesn't indicate having seen the HI report. Neither does the lawyer.

    This article was published more than 15 months after owners closed. Whatever the circumstances or timing of "discovery" by the owners, of the conditions described in the article were not indicated. When it relates to expansive soils, one would be likely to presume the heaving/expansion would have been more likely to develop or be noticed in a rainy/wet season, and/or a dry season, or some other substantial event, (i.e. liquifaction, tremor, flood, slide, etc.). Late spring doesn't qualify for either (beginning of June) its about the most moderate of times.

    Can't believe other HIs would be so likely to presume or infer a HI actually missed anything significant, or that same HI would be remotely liable, without knowing any of the facts, on this board! Based on the story and timing of it, much more likely and to presume the opposite. Seems obvious the recent contributors didn't read the comments posted to the article on the hosted site, many made by members here. Perhaps someone is just looking to disparage the HI industry, mislead the public, or start an argument?

    Last edited by H.G. Watson, Sr.; 12-14-2010 at 09:57 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •