The lady had a question

[ICE]

This is in the attic. I was there for a furnace install inspection. So I wrote a correction about collapsing the duct with zip ties. The lady HO in her 40's brought it up after I came out of the attic. You never know what they know and she has been in the attic looking for herself.

 

[SCBO1]

Maybe she put the zip ties on to see if the inspector would catch it???:devilish:

 

[Msradell]

The contractor wanted to avoid dampers in the ductwork so he used the zip ties to reduce the cross-section of the ducts while he was balancing airflow! New way of doing it that much cheaper.

 

[JBI]

I've seen worse... sadly.

 

[ICE]

The contractor wanted to avoid dampers in the ductwork so he used the zip ties to reduce the cross-section of the ducts while he was balancing airflow! New way of doing it that much cheaper.

Ya I figured as much. A little too cheap for me.

 

[SCBO1]

ICE & Msradell,

So what your saying is the contractor is scamming and when doing the inspection we inspectors need to be aware of this trick?

 

[ICE]

ICE & Msradell,So what your saying is the contractor is scamming and when doing the inspection we inspectors need to be aware of this trick?

Yes .

 

[ICE]

This time around the lady asked if she should feel air



coming out of here when the furnace is operating.



The correction stated to replace the vent with B vent that is sealed all the way through the roofs.

 

[north star]

@ 0 @ 0 @


Soooooo, ...ICE, have you been "un-marginalized" ?

Some time back you mentioned that you fell out of
favor with management, and was only doing a few
types of less critical inspections.

Have you now regained favor with management, or
are you still "in the doghouse" [ so-to-speak ] ?
Curious minds wanna know...


@ 0 @ 0 @

 

[ICE]

"Have you now regained favor with management"

I have given up on that. There is just no way to please management without compromising my morals.

Here is an example from this week. The inspection is for a remodel of a house. A den has been converted to a bedroom. Not a big deal. A door was moved and a closet was built. The rub is that the owner pulled the permit as an Owner/Builder. In so doing, the owner must sign on the permit that the dwelling is his primary residence and it will not be offered for sale for a period of one year.

This house is vacant and there is a realtor's sign on the lawn. At the first inspection I was met by a workman and I wrote a correction to have a licensed contractor obtain the permit. The next day the owner called for another inspection. The owner was there for this visit and wanted to know what the problem is. I explained the situation and the owner exclaimed that the house is not for sale. I pointed out the sign and the owner said that the sign is meaningless because he is telling me that it is not for sale. I assured him that I would not be able to help him.

I called the realtor and he said that he has the listing and $489K is the asking price. He told me that the owner lives elsewhere and this house has been a rental.

The owner went to my office and complained to the office manager. The office manager sent another inspector with instruction to sign off the work and proceed to a final inspection.



I asked the manager if the owner/builder rule can be tossed out in the future. I was told no and that it will be handled on a case by case basis. Which is double speak for liars and cheaters reign supreme.

While there are no apparent life safety issues I prefer a level playing field. And I Shirley don't want to coddle liars.

 

[north star]

@ ~ @ ~ @


Thanks for the update **Tiger** !

You keep on fighting **Tiger** !


@ ~ @ ~ @