TRUMAN HOMES leaves home owner on their own...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Plus home inspections mean nothing. They are totally unregulated and there is no liability.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

No home inspector can possibly check every little thing like this

Lack of strapping on an under mount sink would be easily caught by a competent inspector.

The company I used found smaller issues than missing strapping. A $500 inspection would have been a small cost in this case.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Plus home inspections mean nothing. They are totally unregulated and there is no liability.

Liability aside, it would have identified the issue prior to closing. Installation of strapping can then be made a condition of sale or fixed soon after possession.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Plus home inspections mean nothing. They are totally unregulated and there is no liability.

I don't think that's true. They have to carry errors and omissions insurance for a reason. You just have to be able to prove they missed something. There are some basic regulations in Alberta too. I don't think missing the lack of a sink strap in an inspection report would have constituted an error or omission. The epoxy should have done the job alone and that would be pretty hard to inspect.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't think that's true. They have to carry errors and omissions insurance for a reason. You just have to be able to prove they missed something. There are some basic regulations in Alberta too. I don't think missing the lack of a sink strap in an inspection report would have constituted an error or omission. The epoxy should have done the job alone and that would be pretty hard to inspect.

Not that hard. You just have to stand in the sink and see if it holds you.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't think that's true. They have to carry errors and omissions insurance for a reason. You just have to be able to prove they missed something. There are some basic regulations in Alberta too. I don't think missing the lack of a sink strap in an inspection report would have constituted an error or omission. The epoxy should have done the job alone and that would be pretty hard to inspect.

Their liability typically per their contract is the maximum value of what you paid for the inspection.

No idea if they have a duty of care or that would extend beyond the contract like an engineer or architect would.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GGG

Their liability typically per their contract is the maximum value of what you paid for the inspection.

No idea if they have a duty of care or that would extend beyond the contract like an engineer or architect would.

The insurance has to cover up to a million. I'm sure liability extends beyond the $600 bucks for the inspection. You can sue anyone you want too.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The insurance has to cover up to a million. I'm sure liability extends beyond the $600 bucks for the inspection. You can sue anyone you want too.

http://www.nelligan.ca/e/homeinspect...eadbybuyer.cfm

You peaked my interest so I did some google lawyer. They do have a duty of care to be reasonably prudent as defined by their organization however from my read of the link things like Polaks sink would not be covered because it's a latent defect.

From the link it appears if you can't see it the home inspector is not liable

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GGG

http://www.nelligan.ca/e/homeinspect...eadbybuyer.cfm

You peaked my interest so I did some google lawyer. They do have a duty of care to be reasonably prudent as defined by their organization however from my read of the link things like Polaks sink would not be covered because it's a latent defect.

From the link it appears if you can't see it the home inspector is not liable

Yes I think so too. I wouldn't expect any inspector to see the defective glue. I did know of an inspector who missed the aluminum wiring in a house and his defense was that he couldn't be expected to see the wires behind the walls. Too bad the panel was pretty much front and center in every picture my friends brought to court. I think they got about 7k.

[mrkajz44]

I always love the comments that use hindsight to slam competency. A home inspection covers hundreds of items, and it is completely unreasonable to think that something small like straps under a sink should have been caught. Most inspections are looking for big picture things, and I certainly would not be mad at the inspector for omitting something like this.

Honestly, when I bought my condo a number of years back and had an inspection, the thought of a safety system in case the sink fell out of the counter never even crossed my mind. In fact, I had no idea this was even a thing until this thread started.

[speede5]

From my research straps are not a code requirement and manufacturers installation instructions were 50/50 for securing screws on the flange.

An inspector who knows this could be an issue might recommend a strap but as long as the manufacturers instructions are followed there is nothing for an inspector to fault.

Proper adhesive is impossible to assess on an installed component.

Inspectors aren't allowed to take things apart without a homeowners consent, they can't remove cover plates to check wires or even open (remove the cover plate on) a breaker panel. Their hands are tied in a lot of cases.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by speede5

From my research straps are not a code requirement and manufacturers installation instructions were 50/50 for securing screws on the flange.

An inspector who knows this could be an issue might recommend a strap but as long as the manufacturers instructions are followed there is nothing for an inspector to fault.

Proper adhesive is impossible to assess on an installed component.

Inspectors aren't allowed to take things apart without a homeowners consent, they can't remove cover plates to check wires or even open (remove the cover plate on) a breaker panel. Their hands are tied in a lot of cases.

I don't think that last part is totally true, both times I had an inspection done they removed the cover of the panel. Maybe I just got lucky with my inspectors though?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I always love the comments that use hindsight to slam competency. A home inspection covers hundreds of items, and it is completely unreasonable to think that something small like straps under a sink should have been caught. Most inspections are looking for big picture things, and I certainly would not be mad at the inspector for omitting something like this.

Honestly, when I bought my condo a number of years back and had an inspection, the thought of a safety system in case the sink fell out of the counter never even crossed my mind. In fact, I had no idea this was even a thing until this thread started.

That's because like most people you don't dance in your sink to edm

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I don't think that last part is totally true, both times I had an inspection done they removed the cover of the panel. Maybe I just got lucky with my inspectors though?

No inspectors are for sure allowed to take panel covers and outlet covers off. They do it all the time. They usually have little videos on their websites of them standing in front of opened up panels showing the details of an electrical inspection. There is no reason for them not to take them off as they can be put back to the same condition without any damage. Might be different in other places though.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

No inspectors are for sure allowed to take panel covers and outlet covers off. They do it all the time. They usually have little videos on their websites of them standing in front of opened up panels showing the details of an electrical inspection. There is no reason for them not to take them off as they can be put back to the same condition without any damage. Might be different in other places though.

Ok, maybe it's individual company policies then. My first inspector wouldn't, I think maybe because they could break something and be liable. This was many years ago though. Anything intrusive was defered to an expert, even the furnace was off limits, and was supposed to be done by a plumber.

You are supposed to turn off the main if you remove the cover, and a homeowner might have issue with that. The inspector works for the buyer and unless specified/approved you really aren't allowed to get intrusive.

Again, it's all an unregulated industry so there is no real standard, most buyers aren't too picky about what gets looked at either.

[Bill Bumface]

My home inspector missed the fact my roof was actively leaking. Surely looking under the cabinets would be too much work for $500.

[Kjesse]

Home inspectors can be sued successfully. I've seen it more than a dozen times. This is despite a contract that says you can't sue them or their liability is limited to the cost of the inspection (but if you see that clause strike it out or tell them you'll get someone else).

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

My home inspector missed the fact my roof was actively leaking. Surely looking under the cabinets would be too much work for $500.

Happened to a friend of mine this year, water leaking from an outlet in the bonus room an hour after taking possession

Another friend a couple of years ago bought an older bungalow that was renovated into an open floor plan, but with no real re-enforcement done so the roof was noticeably sagging- as far as I know neither had any leg to stand on- home inspectors are a requirement, but seem to have little liability after the fact.

[bizaro86]

Home inspectors aren't a requirement. You're free to buy property without getting one. I have, more than once.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

His condo's insurance is covering it, he is responsible for their deductible (about $8k). His insurance will cover the $8k, but he has to pay the deductible and the resulting rate increase.

This is the precise reason you have a home inspection done prior to possession and proper document review.

Do some of you guys seriously hire a home inspector for a new home build? Those condo units have to pass inspections by the City IIRC before they can be sold. Sure, you can do it (in hindsight), but most times it's a complete waste of money.

In Polak's case, the inspector probably wouldn't have caught this either. Sure it'd be cool to be able to go after the inspector AND Truman, but this home inspector for a new home would have helped him catch this issue prior to it happening IMO is ridiculous. Polak issues so far with his place are sound proofing issues (home inspector prob wouldn't flag it) and the sink (Home inspector wouldn't catch it). Both issues are issues between Truman and Polak. They're not things that a home inspector would have helped with.

Older homes? Yeah, of course you get an inspector. You're looking for serious major issues. But a brand new home? Seriously, it it passed city inspection and if the super major items hold up within the year ("warranty") I really don't know how a home inspector will help.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

My home inspector missed the fact my roof was actively leaking. Surely looking under the cabinets would be too much work for $500.

That's the problem. There are some good home inspectors that are really meticulous and look at everything with a skeptical eye, and then there are some that are pretty much just looking for kick backs from the realtors and will not look too hard for anything.

I think there needs to be more regulation in that business. The last home inspector I had was great and was driving the realtor bonkers (he talked me out of one house because of deficiencies).