The other day a seller gave me his blunt opinion of home inspectors. He made it clear that he disagreed with the general idea of a home inspector citing a problem at an older home if that problem might be, reasonably, expected at a home of that age. I guarantee you that if an inspector used that theory, as a business model, he or she would be spending more time in court than out in the field working. The man said that inspectors use codes retroactively and that is not the intent of codes and should not be allowed. Now, what he says has some degree of good sense and truth. Old houses will not meet all new codes and, in many cases, that is no big deal. In others situations, it is a big deal. Mainly, I am talking safety issues. Most inspectors are trained to know many codes but not to specifically cite them as the reason a repair or modification is required. A high deck with an unsafe railing on a 100 year old house is still a problem, whether codes were around when it was built or not. The person, or the parents of the kid, who was to fall off this 25 foot high deck built over a valley at an older house, would not be sympathetic to the inspector who failed to report this as a safety issue for fear of offending the sensibilities of a sensitive seller who was afraid the inspector might complicate his deal. Get real! Should an inspector not suggest lag screws or positive connections at the ledger board on a high deck when it is simply toe-nailed in place? Should an inspector ignore a deck of flimsy construction that feels unstable, or neglect to recommend installing smoke detectors in an older home since the devices had not been invented yet when the house was first built? Now we get into a specific part of the inspection law in this state that can really rile up sellers. Here it is in bold print: CODE IS NOT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE LAW: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RULES OFTEN TRUMP BUILDING CODES.
WSDA rules regulate all licensed structural pest inspectors -- those inspectors who are legally allowed to inspect for and report on all of the wood destroying organisms. These laws, and they are state laws, apply equally to 100 year old houses and 100 day old houses. There is a zero grace period. All houses are equal and there is no rule allowing an old house to have "just a little bit of rot" unreported. WSDA rules, in some cases, require an inspector to cite a construction method as a problem even though it is allowed by codes, the minimum standards. For example, building codes will allow the use of pressure treated lumber in contact with dirt. WSDA requires that an inspector, at a minimum, probe any such material and automatically report that pressure treated lumber will eventually rot and it would be best to eliminate wood to soil contact. Around here, per the code inspectors, builders can leave treated wood form ties in the foundation. WSDA requires the inspector to probe the wood and to suggest that these ties should be removed. Codes do not require gutters, WSDA cites a lack of gutters as a conducive condition. Even though the inspector must cite these various issues, there is no requirement, by law, that the builder or seller must do the work -- like digging out a crawl space with low clearances to soil. The WSDA rules apply to the inspector and require specific reporting guidelines. Once the inspector has done the report, to WSDA standards, then the buyer and the seller can work out what is to be done and what is not going to be done. When the seller screams foul, simply because something meets code and it is reported as a problem by the inspector, that may or may not be a valid complaint. It varies and one has to use common sense and look at the WSDA rules. And often, when some seller claims that a design meets code, just because he or she hired someone else to do the work, that is just naiveté and wishful thinking on the part of the seller. The person who was hired, licensed or not, may have taken shortcuts. We inspectors do not specifically report code violations, but most of us know the codes better than the average upset homeowner. Here in Washington state the vast majority of home inspectors are licensed structural pest inspectors and we are just doing our jobs. Failure to comply with WSDA law, if you are a structural pest inspector, can lead to WSDA fines and a blemish on one's professional reputation. Additionally, if WSDA investigates a complaint, and determines that an inspector did a sloppy job, that official state report may end up as evidence against the inspector in a court of law. And, needless to say, a judge is likely to be swayed by a document from the state citing sloppy work or incompetence on the part of an inspector. Sometimes what sellers look upon as picky inspectors is nothing more than inspectors following a set protocol that is dictated by laws and standards of practice. All the armchair quarterbacks telling an inspector what we should and should not report, are often full of hot air and inexperience. Walk a mile in our shoes: These experts should, for one month, try the job. They would change their minds quickly when the phone started ringing not with business, but with complaints and demands from past clients who wanted the lousy inspector to pay for omissions in the report. Gee, knob and tube wiring and galvanized pipes would be expected in a 100 year old house. I can even guess that one over the phone. Does that mean we inspectors do not report the conditions? I think not, since I do not want to have to pay to re-wire or re-plumb someone's newly purchased old house. What the seller does not know is that, virtually always, the buyer has a mindset more like the inspector. The buyer wants and demands a detailed and critical report. And, as an inspector, you learn early on in this business that it is better to have one hundred unhappy sellers than to have even one seriously unhappy client. The people involved in the sale, who complain about tough inspectors, are not the ones who get the upsetting calls after the buyer has moved in and has found something amiss, either real or imagined. Thanks for stopping by, Steven L. Smith
Versus 
Check out "This Day In History" -- music and vintage television from the 1950's through the 1980's. I enjoy writing these articles because they take me back to my days in radio broadcasting. Click on Elvis' gold record, below, to revisit those golden hits of yesteryear.
Excellent post Mr Steve. Great information for everyone but in particular Washington State.
Good post. Just last week I had a seller complaining to me that "if the building inspector does not enforce it, why should I need to comply?". The fact is, there are many things around here that actually are required per local code, but the inspectors do not enforce them. That doesn't make the issue any less dangerous or likely to cause damage. If an addition or repair requires a permit, then the work done will have to meet current codes.
Ralph, you bring up a really good point that just because a particular local jurisdiction does or does not enforce compliance with the codes that does not make the codes irrelevant or somehow "go away"----the work still must meet code if the state has adopted the codes.
Looks like you got a little riled up with this one Steve :)
Heather didn't you know that "Steve" is short for "Steveriled?"
Heather,
Just something that inspectors get tired of hearing. If the critics realized what a tight rope inspectors walk, those critics would have a whole new appreciation for the job. They would realize that the inspector soft-selling a problem for their benefit, will lead to the inspector's phone ringing a month later when the deal closes and the people move in. We inspectors cannot afford to be left holding the bag because the seller will be long gone and will have this response: "Gee, I had no clue. You hired that home inspector, call him." Fact!
Sounds as if you did get a little riled on this one. As a real estate agent, I feel that inspectors can say what's there without causing the buyer to panic. Example, if the house was built prior to required things like those ground fault things near sinks he can say those were not required at that time. He doesn't have to make it sound as if the house has to be rewired in order to live in it. It could all be in the way it is stated.
Steve- good points in this post. I think slowly but surely inspectors are getting the point across.
As Eric said, one hopes that inspectors are getting the point across. Regarding Barbara's comment, I don't think any inspector would suggest rewiring a whole house because of a lack of "ground fault things" (actually a very simple fix). On the other side of your post, Steve, is the seller who sees the quality job the inspector does and hires the inspector to do the job for the house he/she is buying.