Upon inspection of a chimney today I saw something that really made me shake my head. The home was a ranch with a wood/coal furnace in the basement. What I saw in the basement was normal smoke pipe going into a section of class A through a masonary wall. Outside was a vinyl sided sixteen ft. chase with a class A cap on top. After somewhat of a strugle getting on the snow/ice covered roof the cap seemed to be some how connected to the top section of pipe. The top section was very loose so I pulled the cap and top section out of the chase. Little did I know that was the whole chimney. Looking down the chase all I could see was the plywood interior and a piece of class A at the bottom. Needless to say I told the homeowner not to burn , call the guy who built it and I got the heck out of there. I was so baffled that I forgot to even charge him....
Just when you thought you've seen it all...........
- Thread starter sweeper
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
- Nov 6, 2006
- 407
freind of mine, tells me a similar story,
the house he grew up in, bought from a builder, his father built fires in teh fireplace all the time, they stayed warm in the winter that way.
Back then, the local fire department would check and clean the chimnys every year for free. part of a community good will thing.
after several years the fire dept. started charging, and my freinds dad calls a regular chimny sweep to come and clean it before use one winter.
the sweep came back inside, got the homeowner and took them on the roof, shined a light down the chase, nothing but plywood covered in tar ( roofing) paper.
they couldnt beleive it.
tried in vain to contact the builder, he had already moved, found several other houses in the subdivision with the same type of deal.
they ended up bricking up the fireplace.
crazy stories like that make me look extra hard at anything bought used, you just NEVER know what some people will do.
the house he grew up in, bought from a builder, his father built fires in teh fireplace all the time, they stayed warm in the winter that way.
Back then, the local fire department would check and clean the chimnys every year for free. part of a community good will thing.
after several years the fire dept. started charging, and my freinds dad calls a regular chimny sweep to come and clean it before use one winter.
the sweep came back inside, got the homeowner and took them on the roof, shined a light down the chase, nothing but plywood covered in tar ( roofing) paper.
they couldnt beleive it.
tried in vain to contact the builder, he had already moved, found several other houses in the subdivision with the same type of deal.
they ended up bricking up the fireplace.
crazy stories like that make me look extra hard at anything bought used, you just NEVER know what some people will do.
sweeper said:
hence the reason for having a mandatory certified home inspection done before closing, if it has a flue then by law the flue should be checked by a certified sweep before closing ( i would demand it) and not some "pencil whip" just to get it closed. the builder and the inspector should have some accountability in this admittedly there are some things that you just cant see,(under foundations below masonary chimneys and such) , but this is blatant! these setups could have killed a family very easily. thats insane, what did the builder save a few hundred bucks worth of pipe! jesus!
- Nov 6, 2006
- 407
I agree!
BUT, in my own experience most inspectors that do them before a real estate transaction are not qualified to determine such stuff.
in fact, the last 2 that I have used, had a clause that said there was NO warranty, or no liability upon them in the event of unsafe stuff determined after the inspection.
they are basically worthless in my opinon, and simply a vein of revenue due to loan requirments.
maybe there are actual competant good ones around here, but ive never heard or seen anything about them.
BUT, in my own experience most inspectors that do them before a real estate transaction are not qualified to determine such stuff.
in fact, the last 2 that I have used, had a clause that said there was NO warranty, or no liability upon them in the event of unsafe stuff determined after the inspection.
they are basically worthless in my opinon, and simply a vein of revenue due to loan requirments.
maybe there are actual competant good ones around here, but ive never heard or seen anything about them.
I have seen two such situations built before my tenure as an inspector. I was doing the inspection after the disaster I did catch two liner installations that started the liner from the bottom and the top but left the middle section out Fortunately I caught it with an angle mirror and flash light these were in older chimneys that I condemed and would allow their use witha full liner.
One idiot installer left the evidence a mangled piece near the chimney. Remember a lot happens once an inspector leaves, we are not paid to sit there 8 hours a day to watch everything.
One idiot installer left the evidence a mangled piece near the chimney. Remember a lot happens once an inspector leaves, we are not paid to sit there 8 hours a day to watch everything.
ozark,
IMHO they should be. there has to be some motivation to do somthing correctly, a statement of non-liability means a "pencil whip" whats the purpose of an inspection by an "inspector" who isnt qualified to do the inspection? ELK would have probably hunted down the builder and beat them to death (rightfully so). in the long run , situations like the above, (fortunately non- lethal from being caught by somebody competant) did not cause injury or property damage. but if this is the way realtors work , i want no part of it! if sombody is charged with the duty of inspecting a chimney and they dont have enough sense to look down the flue they are negligent, a crack ina terra cotta liner is one thing , the flue missing its mid section is another. if im the homeowner im sueing sombody over this one , and possibly trying to get criminal charges brought on the builder at least and possibly the inspector for criminal negligence!
IMHO they should be. there has to be some motivation to do somthing correctly, a statement of non-liability means a "pencil whip" whats the purpose of an inspection by an "inspector" who isnt qualified to do the inspection? ELK would have probably hunted down the builder and beat them to death (rightfully so). in the long run , situations like the above, (fortunately non- lethal from being caught by somebody competant) did not cause injury or property damage. but if this is the way realtors work , i want no part of it! if sombody is charged with the duty of inspecting a chimney and they dont have enough sense to look down the flue they are negligent, a crack ina terra cotta liner is one thing , the flue missing its mid section is another. if im the homeowner im sueing sombody over this one , and possibly trying to get criminal charges brought on the builder at least and possibly the inspector for criminal negligence!
- Nov 6, 2006
- 407
Once again, I AGREE.
But im also sure, this is why the contract the inspectors make you sign basically absolves them from anything later.
They are tired of being sued for thigns they overlook!
haha
I wish we had inspectors like Elk here locally.
the guys I have used have one step up from morons. and im only saying that to be nice, I honestyl wouldnt trust them to inspect my bucket of dirt.
I followed them, made my own notes, and inspected before and after them, thats how I made my decision to purchase, the "inspectors" where simply a matter of loan compliance, and obviously, they check for a VERY few things that would devalue the home below what the mortgage company is willing to loose.
But im also sure, this is why the contract the inspectors make you sign basically absolves them from anything later.
They are tired of being sued for thigns they overlook!
haha
I wish we had inspectors like Elk here locally.
the guys I have used have one step up from morons. and im only saying that to be nice, I honestyl wouldnt trust them to inspect my bucket of dirt.
I followed them, made my own notes, and inspected before and after them, thats how I made my decision to purchase, the "inspectors" where simply a matter of loan compliance, and obviously, they check for a VERY few things that would devalue the home below what the mortgage company is willing to loose.
stoveguy2esw said:
What amazes me is that the FD didn't catch it before the sweep did. Sure it was free, but what did the FD guys do, run a HOSE down the chimney? It would have seemed like the FD would have had an interest in catching bad installs just so they don't have to come out on a "rush visit" - I know some communities have a policy of encouraging folks to get an FD sponsored "free fire safety inspection" just on the grounds that if it prevented a couple of fires a year it would pay for itself in less tax money expenditure...
Gooserider
Gooserider
Maybe you hired the wrong inspector. Did you price shop like most home buyers do and hire the cheapest guy? There's a reason the cheapest guy is the cheapest, he doesn't know what he's doing. I've been a home inspector for 18 years and done over 8,000 inspections with very few problems. It makes me crazy when people call me and say well gee, your price is higher than some others so I'm going to go with them. You get what you pay for.
- Status
Similar threads
