Featuring America's Home Inspector: Nationally Syndicated Columnist, Barry Stone

Another House With An Unpermitted Addition

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry:   You’ve written before about additions that are not permitted, and now we’ve bought a house that has that problem. No one told us about this before we bought the property, and now we’re stuck. Realistically, what can we do? Should we tear down the addition and rebuilt is with a permit? If so, who is liable for the costs, the seller, the agent, or home inspector, or all of the above?  Joanna

Dear Joanna:  If the quality of the unpermitted construction is reasonably good, an as-built permit is probably the best course. An as-built permit can be obtained from the building department. A municipal inspector will come to your home to evaluate the work. If the additions are approved, you can try to recover the permit costs from the sellers. If the work is not approved, the inspector will provide a list of improvements to be made to obtain approval. Worst case scenario would be that the work is so substandard that the building authority orders demolition of the addition.

Regardless of the outcome, the sellers should have disclosed that the additions were not permitted. However, it is also possible that the additions were built before the sellers owned the property and that they were unaware of the lack of permits. Therefore, it is important to determine when the additions were built. If the sellers were aware of the unpermitted additions, they should be liable for the costs to remedy the situation. Unfortunately, you might have to hire an attorney to enforce that liability.

In most cases, Realtors are not qualified to identify which portions of a building are original and which are added, unless they are given that information by the sellers.

Whether your home inspector is liable for professional negligence depends on whether pertinent defects involving the additions were visible and accessible at the time of the inspection. 

Repairing Leaky Pipes With Epoxy

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry:   Our home is only 20 years old, and we just had a pinhole leak in a copper pipe above our dining room. Our insurance will pay to repair all of the damage, but we’re worried about this happening again. Next time the damage could be worse. We’ve heard that leaky pipes can be repaired by coating the insides with epoxy. Is this a good idea, or would you recommend installing brand new pipes throughout the house?  Camille

Dear Camille:  Coating leaky pipes with epoxy is a repair method that has been gaining popularity in the United States since the 1990s. Its use is still subject to debate among plumbing professionals, but many plumbing systems where epoxy coating has been used have withstood the test of time.

Most people have probably never heard of this method for repairing leaking pipes, so here are the basics. The procedure for lining water pipes with epoxy involves the following four steps:

1)  Preparation: All valves, stops, fixtures, and water heaters must be disconnected to prevent them from being damaged by the epoxy and to enable the entire piping system to be drained of water. Hot air is then blown through the pipes to dry them completely. The pipes must be totally dry to enable the epoxy to adhere.

2)  Cleaning: The interior surfaces of the pipes are then scoured of corrosion and scale by means of sandblasting. This is done by forcefully blowing abrasives through the pipes.

3)  Coating: Epoxy is blown through the pipes to coat the entire system. This seals all joints and prevents further corrosion of the metal. Excess epoxy is then blown out of the pipes and steam is injected to cure the new synthetic coating.

4)  Reconnection: All of the valves, stops, fixtures, and the water heater are reinstalled.

The total cost for this process is approximately 80 to 85 percent of the cost to replace all of the pipes in the building. On the positive side, the epoxy method is much less intrusive than repiping because no holes are cut into walls and floors, as would be done if new pipes were installed.

Expected longevity is also an important consideration. Epoxy coatings are usually guaranteed for approximately 10 years, which is much less than the life expectancy for new pipes. If you plan to stay in your home for many years, this would be a significant consideration. If you go with epoxy, be sure to research the companies you may hire. Find a contractor who has been doing this for many years and who has a reputation for high quality work.

A Chip Off The Old Tub

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry:   I purchased my house about a year ago. At the time, the bathtub seemed to be OK, but now it is apparent that it was painted to cover rust. I also found plumbing problems under the sinks, but none of these issues was reported by my home inspector. What can I do about this?  Dawn

Dear Dawn:  The parties who are potentially liable are the sellers and your home inspector. Sellers are required to disclose all known defects. However, the sellers in your case may not have thought the painted tub was a defect. It might have seemed to them that this was a former defect, having been repaired with paint. Unfortunately, paint is not a permanent repair for the damaged finish on a bathtub. In most cases, chipping or peeling eventually occurs.

Home inspector liability depends on whether the problems were visible at the time of the inspection. The paint on the tub may not have been obvious at the time of the inspection.

As for the plumbing problems, seller liability depends upon whether the previous owners were aware of those issues and whether the problems even existed prior to the sale. Home inspector liability depends on whether the problems were visible and accessible at the time of the inspection. If the problems involve leakage, that may or may not have been occurring at the time. If there are installation defects, they may have been obscured by storage under the sinks, as is often the case during home inspections.

You should contact your home inspector and request a second look at these problems.

Asbestos Pipe Insulation Not Disclosed

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry:   My home was built in 1926 and has asbestos insulation on all the hot water pipes under the building. Fortunately, all of this asbestos has been wrapped. When I first learned about it, I was horrified and wondered why my home inspector hadn’t mention it when I bought the property. My main concern is what will happen when I eventually want to sell the home. Can I resell it in this condition, without penalty?  Am I required to have the asbestos removed? And also, do I have recourse from my home inspector for not mentioning the asbestos?  Judy

Dear Judy:  Asbestos pipe insulation was common in the 1920s and is not regarded as a significant health risk when it is undamaged and intact. Fortunately, the asbestos insulation in your home been encapsulated, rendering it in much safer condition than when it was exposed to the air.

As a seller, there is no requirement for removal of asbestos, and there are no penalties for merely having it. Your only requirement will be to provide full disclosure to prospective buyers, to let them know that the asbestos material is present. If the former owners were the ones who had the pipes wrapped, they probably knew about the asbestos and should have provided some disclosure.

Environmental hazards such as asbestos are not within the scope of a home inspection. However, competent inspectors who take their work seriously will often point out situations where the presence of asbestos is likely, such as insulated pipes in an old home. This is something that your home inspector would have been wise to do, even though not required to do so.

House Need To Be Rewired?

The House Detective: by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry:   We just bought a home but can’t move in because of major electrical problems. Before we bought it, our home inspector found a few electrical defects, but he said these were minor, so we waited till the escrow closed before making repairs. Our electrician now says that the previous owner tampered with the wiring, and the entire house needs to be rewired. But we don’t have enough money to pay for that kind of repair. Shouldn’t our home inspector have reported this situation, and isn’t he liable for the cost of rewiring?  Carol

Dear Carol:   If your home inspector failed to identify visible defects in the electrical wiring, then he is probably liable for the repair costs, depending on liability limits in the inspection contract and liability laws in your state. However, before rushing to judgment regarding liability, there are other questions that should be answered.

Presently, you have two conflicting opinions about the electrical system. The home inspector says there are some minor defects (whatever that means), and the electrician says the house needs to be rewired. The question is, “Who is correct?” Two possibilities come to mind: either you have a home inspector who overlooked significant defects or an electrician trying to land a big job. This uncertainty should be resolved before taking action.

One thing to keep in mind is that it’s extremely unusual for a house to require total rewiring. Most electrical defects are specific and can usually be repaired without replacing all of the wires. If the previous owner of your home “tampered with the wiring,” it is hard to imagine that he affected all of the circuits.

To gain some clarity on the situation, you should get a third opinion from another electrician. If the second electrician agrees that the house needs to be rewired, the home inspector should be notified and should come to the property to explain why he failed to correctly evaluate the electrical system. At that point, he should be asked to file a claim on his errors and omissions insurance, assuming that he has insurance.

Additionally, the seller of the home should not be dismissed from potential liability. The electrical code requires that there be a permit for altering the wiring in a home. If the seller “tampered” with the wiring in ways that affect safety, the work was most likely not permitted. If that is the case, the seller should have disclosed this prior to sale of the property. If no disclosure was made, the seller should pay for the electrical repairs.