PDA

View Full Version : House inspections



George
22-01-2010, 08:50 AM
Would appreciate any thoughts on this situation.

My sister bought a house 6 months ago, based partly on a builders report which, while stating 'could not find access to sub-floor', had concluding comments of 'an older house in sound condition needing minor repairs' such as some window rot, new carpet etc.

I went down to help her paint the house and found some bulging weatherboards in a line 2 boards up from the brick perimeter base along one side. On removal, found the entire 4x3 perimeter bearer, ends of most joists and much of the bottom plate had dry rot. So the bulging boards resulted because the house had sunk into the mushy foundation timbers. Removed 3 boards up around the entire house and the result was similar, the only bearer still solid was possibly some heart wood with perhaps the rest being sap wood.

I rang the builder, who was certified and also a joiner, and after viewing said he could not gain access so not his problem. Said the bulging boards may not have been visible when he made the inspection a year ago. Also made the most mystifying statement 'a lot depends on what the house was bought for' meaning that if it was bought cheap enough could cover the cost of any repairs. On a second phone call to say we were taking the matter to a tribunal, he said his lawyer had said we didn't have a leg to stand on. Much is made of not being able to gain access and that the report was a visual one.

However, he also stated the gables were good when one was completely rotted out at one end because of no end to the galvanised spouting (which the plumber also missed - he also stated 'no access found' and there was a leaking main water pipe under the house).
Other visuals were 'glazing good' when the putty could be picked out with your fingers and sticking windows along the bad side which could indicate to an expert that something could be amiss. Much of the report was on things like 'kitchen cupboards had round chrome handles'.

On ringing around discovered that some inspectors on not finding access, ask the agent to ring the seller where it is or permission to knock a hole in the base - our builder said that would not have been appropriate.
Others ask the seller or buyer to find it and they return to complete the inspection. Some even have a little camera to poke through gaps. Our guy must have made about $100 an hour for his 1 hour visit plus paperwork etc. so to have made a return visit to do a thorough inspection would still have been a good earner.

My sister now has to pay to get the job done and pay $100 to go to a hearing and get some or all of it back. We have many photos of all the above. Am told that often they scratch their heads and award 50-50. One estimate was for 11 grand plus gst. As soon as the builder got out of his vehicle he noted the bad design of brick perimeter foundation with the boards finishing inside the face of the brick and a sloping mortar which was supposed to shed water but usually gets trapped behind. He had had a bad experience himself with that design suggesting that some builders may not. But surely a building inspection is about the building, the foundation, the bearers, joists etc UNDER the house and should be inspected at all costs. It should be stated that access MUST be available to do the job properly or there would be no inspection - just my biased opinion of course.

In my view this so-called builder should be made to pay full costs as he failed to inform the customer of the importance of sub-floot access. This was an accident waiting to happen as most houses would be at least ok and nothing would come back to haunt a superficial inspection.

Appreciate any thoughts on this
George

fungus pudding
22-01-2010, 09:22 AM
Appreciate any thoughts on this
George


Nobody's thoughts matter other than the tribunals'. And they will hear both sides of the story before making any determination. We don't have that option. Just make sure you have as much evidence, photos etc. as possible to take with you. Good luck.

George
22-01-2010, 07:02 PM
FP, thanks for input, but what defence could the builder have?
He took the full payment for a part-job - the most important part.
What is a lay person supposed to think when the report says the house is
basically sound?
I would feel this disgusted if it was a stranger's house. Four builders
have said it is either the worst or second worst case they had seen.

Steve
22-01-2010, 07:23 PM
MACDUNK should have a good opinion on your predicament from his involvement in the trade... :)

Year of the Tiger
22-01-2010, 07:25 PM
FP, thanks for input, but what defence could the builder have?
He took the full payment for a part-job - the most important part.
What is a lay person supposed to think when the report says the house is
basically sound?
I would feel this disgusted if it was a stranger's house. Four builders
have said it is either the worst or second worst case they had seen.

If it was me buying the house and the guy I had employed to do a building inspection was unable to do the inspection because of access problems, (for whatever reason) I would have walked away from the deal. After all, houses for sale are like trains at a station, another one will be along within a few minutes... (unless you live in Auckland and that may be within an hour or two :D)

Also the comment 'an older house in sound condition needing minor repairs' such as some window rot, new carpet etc.' would have got me thinking warning! warning! until I knew the exact extent of the "minor repairs".

YOTT

fungus pudding
22-01-2010, 07:27 PM
FP, thanks for input, but what defence could the builder have?
He took the full payment for a part-job - the most important part.
What is a lay person supposed to think when the report says the house is
basically sound?
I would feel this disgusted if it was a stranger's house. Four builders
have said it is either the worst or second worst case they had seen.


The four builders didn't see it when the reporting builder did. You state your sister bought the property 6 months ago, then say the builder did the inspection a year ago. Make sure your evidence is exact for the tribunal. He obviously clearly stated that he had not had full access-he obviously pointed that out because there may have been something he couldn't pass judgement on, yet would normally be covered by such a report. But as I said there are two sides to every disagreement and who knows what he willl come up with. Don't get too wound up about what he charged. Unless he specified a price for inspecting xyz, charged what he quoted but omitted xyz it's hardly relevant (unless plainly ridiculous). Stick to the facts, present them methodically, drag in one or two of the other builders if they are willing to support you - then it's up to the adjudicator.

George
22-01-2010, 07:54 PM
Not worried about the price ($280) and he did the report 10 Jan while she
moved in in July. She was still in Auckland so was absent at time, but her
estate agent (there was one agent for buyer and one for seller) was on
site. The lawyer should also have sighted the report but they all seem to
duck for cover except to offer sympathy. I agree it's buyer beware but people
are urged to use agents and lawyers, get a builder's report etc. so what else
are they supposed to do?
This guy advertises as a builder and inspector in the yellow pages and quite
prominently too, so he sets himself up as an expert and should be, ideally,
fully accountable. Not able to get under the house, come on, surely that
should have been highlighted and a warning that the report was only a superficial
one.

George
22-01-2010, 09:24 PM
When I first read the report my first reaction was "Surely a competent builder
should explain to the buyer employing him to make sure any access is easily
available otherwise he won't even go on to the property."
Imagine four so-called professionals, a builder, plumber, electrician and
an agent walking around a house looking for a sub-floor access (it was under some
lino in the cupboard by the back door). Surely they should know where it is BEFORE
they even get there.
George

minimoke
23-01-2010, 08:47 AM
'an older house in sound condition needing minor repairs' such as some window rot, new carpet etc.

The yellow flags of warning were there.
"older house" - its a given its going to need work - thats the nature of older houses. (Otherwise he owudl have written (recently partially renovated or words to that effect)
Window rot - isn't, IMO, a minor repair and is symptomatic of other problems consistent with it being and older house.
New carpet - thats not a repair thats a capital replacement.

George
24-04-2010, 10:17 AM
Well, bad news for sis, only $250 compensation for some window putty, weatherboards and other bits.
Only appeal is if she thinks the process was not done properly. Inspector was out of town on the day and had a 2 hour phone link for his defence in which he made statements which sis knew were untrue, but can't prove.
Will read the judgement in a few days but looks like she could appeal this process. If you were sure of your innocence, would you not make sure you were in court on the day?
This could end up being a 'fair go' item - look folks this is what can happen even with a builders report - make sure they can gain access to the subfloor.

denpal
24-04-2010, 01:45 PM
I used an building inspection service recently and it was a waste of money. There were so many disclaimers that basically they were not responsible for anything! Best plan would be to go to the property with the inspector plus a friendly builder and all look at the property together. That way nothing will be missed. Small cost for what is involved, ie good risk/reward ratio!

George
25-04-2010, 08:57 AM
Hi Denpal
My argument is they SHOULD be responsible, and accountable. My sister was in another city at the time and relied totally on the 'professionals' report. Here's a link to the building surveyor's pre-inspection policy which MAY be a guideline that all supposed inspectors should follow, even if not a member. http://www.buildingsurveyor.co.nz/standards.php
The main point, to do with accessibility, being "The surveyor should make every endeavour to pre-warn the person giving access that this type of accessibility may be required". Also, under 'Proof of Opinion' - "The nature of the report should be undertaken by the surveyor in a manner where there is a burden upon the surveyor to find proof to sustain opinion rather than merely having the reliance on opinions. This may require: requests for destructive testing, that is, the removal of wall panels or some other element. If such a request is turned down then care must be taken by the surveyor to take note of that and include that information in their report".
In which case the 'inspector' should have either told his prospective customer (sister) to find out where access was or more appropriately, the owner or his agent and to make it available (this could mean clearing out a closet etc).
Any builder would know how crucial it is to check the foundation so lack of access should be HIGHLIGHTED and concerns raised, rather than just mentioned in passing with things like "kitchen cupboards have round chrome handles".
When I asked 'inspector' about the desirability of asking the seller's agent for permission to take out some bricks to have a peek under the house he replied that that would not have been appropriate. As I mentioned earlier, this was an accident waiting to happen and someone should be accountable.
George.

George
09-05-2010, 08:52 PM
A bit of positive news for sis, she won an appeal. Justice may yet be served. Talked to an inspector who said they always ask the person giving them access (which would not be the prospective buyer obviously) where sub-floor and ceiling accesses are and to make them available. This would be either the seller or, usually, their agent. Inspector said this is his policy, it's not written law. Well, it bl--dy should be!