I have heard of more than one situation where there were defects or code violations in new construction. In one case it was an improper furnace installation, In another it had to do with the basic construction standards being inadequate. In most cases the inspection shouldn't turn up anything but it's a good idea to have one if you can afford it.
Home inspectors should be familiar with codes however their inspection is more of a safety inspection.
Many inspectors do not address cosmetic defects, nor should they.
Some states have strenuous building codes......as does CA, however it comes down to how well the buiding inspector did his / her job.
Are they liable if they miss something.......well since they are a government official.....in all probability they are not. Government seldom takes responsibility for anything......however, they are good at collecting money from you and I.
With that said....it never hurts to have one done.......just make sure you understand what the inspection consist of.....
Yes a good Home Inspector will be even more meticulous when he/she does a new home inspection. Also, most home warranties are for one year. Have a Home Inspection in month 10-11 so that if anything is wrong your experienced home inspector will call it out to your attention and you would be able to have the developer or builder take care of it before your warantee does expire.
only one person has expressed opinion on timing. i find that suggestion quite interesting and helpful, by the way! (thanks ski675)
any other recommendations on timing? should I do it immediately before or after the builder walk through, or wait until a year (or a little less) later like ski675 recommends?
The first thing you need to check on is if the builder/developer offers a warranty. In Michigan while most builders offer a 1 year warranty, they are not mandated to by law. If yours offers a warranty then there shouldn't be any need to hire an inspector, unless of course you don't feel the builder is trustworthy, and in that case you might consider buying elsewhwere. Also, just because the builder offers a warranty doesn't mean you can wait til the 11 month mark on a 12 month warranty and call for repairs. Check the contract guidelines! The problem with home inspectors, Not All of them, is that here they aren't required to be licensed so any Joe can say he is one without any real qualifications. Just some things to check into
I would agree to doing a later rather than earlier inspection provided you have a one year warranty. And read the warranty so you are clear on the coverage!!
Some defects take time to manifest themselves. Case in point. My brother and sister in law bought this wonderful 400K house. It had a sump pump in the basement. Turns out the drainage wasn't done right or at all. Now during heavy down pours - of which there were no shortages this year in the northeast - they literally have water shooting out of the walls (lots of pressure back there!!)
Now this is behind basement walls and under the foundation - a little hard for a home inspector to see or determine if there is a problem there. Had they waited a couple of months and seen this happening they could point it out to the home inspector and try to get something resolved. As it stands now - the builder says the following: "your one year warranty has expired therefore we are no longer responsible .... blah blah blah" you get the point.
So do it late but leave yourself a time cushion in case they drag their feet. I would shoot for 10 or 11 months. And if something comes up get it resolved ASAP - document EVERYTHING. Send them a certified letter if you have to file a claim. Over the phone doesn't hold up in court.
Just in case you were wondering - they got a quote on the repairs needed to fix their basement - over 15 K - OUCH
Good thing they hadn't finished the basement yet - that would add new drywall and carpeting to the bill - plus mold problems....
I think it depends on the builder, the type of structure, and the state law (to name a few things). If its a national builder (e.g. Kaufman & Broad) they do a fair job of quality assurance.
If its a tract home in a subdivision with the same cookies cutter model they're pretty much uniform schlock built without much variance. If it's a custom built home , I 'd have an inspection.
Some states provide a builder's wanranty of one or two years. Some states have an implied builder's warranty for structural defects for up to ten years.
Quote:
On 2004-02-27 10:48, sammyvegas wrote:
I think it depends on the builder, the type of structure, and the state law (to name a few things). If its a national builder (e.g. Kaufman & Broad) they do a fair job of quality assurance.
If its a tract home in a subdivision with the same cookies cutter model they're pretty much uniform schlock built without much variance. If it's a custom built home , I 'd have an inspection.
Some states provide a builder's wanranty of one or two years. Some states have an implied builder's warranty for structural defects for up to ten years.
Funny you'd say if it is built by a national builder that they do a fair job of QA but if it's a custom built home have it inspected I have seen the quality that these national builders put into their homes and in my opinion if it's a national builder(production builder) I would have it inspected seeing how they tend to be able to get away with more than a small builder can when it comes to building inspections.
Funny you'd say if it is built by a national builder that they do a fair job of QA but if it's a custom built home have it inspected <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif"> I have seen the quality that these national builders put into their homes and in my opinion if it's a national builder(production builder) I would have it inspected seeing how they tend to be able to get away with more than a small builder can when it comes to building inspections.
[/quote]
Unfortunately Tom,
The majority of the public is not educated on what "quality" is when it comes to these track homes. I run into the same mess you do......I have had inspectors get their tape measures out and check the number of nails I have per inch versus a track builder having major structural issues that are never brought up until Harriet Homeowner is complaining to licensing board about their problems.
I don't know about Mich. and its licensing board but I seldom see large builders in trouble with the NC board..........its usually the new licensed small builders (paper contractors that dont even own a hammer)...........can we say POLITICS.
I agree with you. The big boys are the ones that have the resources to give the resources in order to get around the system. And quality? Nah. I think in the final anaysis, it comes down to the particular builder and not the pricetag of the home. I've seen better built $250K new homes than ones at $800K.
I'm glad I'm not the only one witht his opinion I do believe a lot of it boils down to politics as NC stated. My wife and I have been struggling to get our business running solid but with all these big corporations around us it is very tough. They seem to be able to do what they want and as for quality....well like you said Nancy, it comes down to the builder. They keep tossingup these cookie cutter homes with rediculous price tags and they all look the same, but people buy as they figure they must be getting a qaulity product if it's a national company. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson and call the smaller guys next time Oh, Nancy, I just finished reading your book as well. Very interesting. I still have a great deal to learn about land development though as we have always built in developed subs. Or next step will be learning some more about developing and finding backers to do a small sub as it seems to be one of the only ways to compete around here.
btw, i found a website entitled "hbhomesucks" with the standard dott comm at the end, that makes me concerned about this builder.
also, i spoke with the builder's construction supervisor today, and they said that i cannot have an inspector come in before closing. should this alarm me? i plan to go to a kb home customer service rep to see exactly where this is prohibited. i don't recall seeing this rule anywhere.
As long as the home inspector is limiting his scope of the inspection to code violations, then the builder should not have a problem with the inspection.
Builders do not want people pointing out their "legal shortcuts" to their clientel.
This I suspect is the main reason what the national builders fear.
By educating the public to the inferior quality products that they often put up would cost them their livelihood.
There are a few legit reason such as "safety liability" issue that could be a concern. Last year I had my insurance rep come to one of my jobsites to check for any possible violations.....even though I have never had a claim. They were addament about posting "No Trespassing Signs" and limit only subs to the sight while work was underway.
Tom, the other issue that you and I should be concerned with is that the major builders are attempting to push the smaller builders out of the area. At one time it was fairly easy to find developments where "contractors are welcomed"......but today, you have large national builders contacting the smaller developers and basically paying outrageous prices to flip local properties to them. They turn around and play politics with local government and end up putting of cookie cutters that have very little value 5 years after they are sold.
There are very few local officials that realize that they are getting the losing end of the deal when property values fail to increase. Many of these neighborhoods will often become depressed neighborhoods within 10 years.
I have witnessed it first hand in Ohio, Virginia and now I see the same thing happening in North Carolina.
The small builders greatest weapon is to educate the public to what they are buying as well opening the eyes of our public officials.
I know this thread is getting off topic but it is something that builders as well as homebuyers need to be aware of.
A friend of mine had a custom built "high end" home built and asked if I would walk through it with him when it was complete.
While up in the attic I noticed the boot around the soil pipe was not installed correctly by the roofer and water had been leaking into the attic.
It cost the builder $300 for an exterminator for the carpenter ants and a new boot for the soil pipe but how much do you think it would have cost my friend if these ants were not discovered for a few years?
A compitent home inspector is a small price to pay for piece of mind.
Quote:
On 2004-03-06 21:43, JohnNH wrote:
A friend of mine had a custom built "high end" home built and asked if I would walk through it with him when it was complete.
While up in the attic I noticed the boot around the soil pipe was not installed correctly by the roofer and water had been leaking into the attic.
It cost the builder $300 for an exterminator for the carpenter ants and a new boot for the soil pipe but how much do you think it would have cost my friend if these ants were not discovered for a few years?
A compitent home inspector is a small price to pay for piece of mind.
<font size=-1>[ Edited by JohnNH on Date 03/06/2004 ]</font>
I hate to say it but obviously the builder wasn't that great. I only say this because a builder is only as good as his subs. I would say this is what happens when a builder attempts to use cheap subcontractors. A competent builder would know he had competent subs as well. Often people fail to ask about the subcontractors when hiring a builder, which is funny as the subs build the house Sorry to hear about your friends troubles but at least it was caught in time.
[quote]
On 2004-03-06 22:08, TomC_MI wrote:
Quote:
"I hate to say it but obviously the builder wasn't that great. I only say this because a builder is only as good as his subs. I would say this is what happens when a builder attempts to use cheap subcontractors. A competent builder would know he had competent subs as well. Often people fail to ask about the subcontractors when hiring a builder, which is funny as the subs build the house."
Tom,
Sure do agree with you about a builder being only as good as his subs. Site (sub) supervision is so critical. As you say, it is the subs who do the building, not the builder. Knew one builder who actually had to tear down a house because township said it encroached on setbacks. Needless to say, he got himself another site super.
I have heard of more than one situation where there were defects or code violations in new construction. In one case it was an improper furnace installation, In another it had to do with the basic construction standards being inadequate. In most cases the inspection shouldn't turn up anything but it's a good idea to have one if you can afford it.
Home inspectors should be familiar with codes however their inspection is more of a safety inspection.
Many inspectors do not address cosmetic defects, nor should they.
Some states have strenuous building codes......as does CA, however it comes down to how well the buiding inspector did his / her job.
Are they liable if they miss something.......well since they are a government official.....in all probability they are not. Government seldom takes responsibility for anything......however, they are good at collecting money from you and I.
With that said....it never hurts to have one done.......just make sure you understand what the inspection consist of.....
NC
Yes a good Home Inspector will be even more meticulous when he/she does a new home inspection. Also, most home warranties are for one year. Have a Home Inspection in month 10-11 so that if anything is wrong your experienced home inspector will call it out to your attention and you would be able to have the developer or builder take care of it before your warantee does expire.
thanks for the replies!
only one person has expressed opinion on timing. i find that suggestion quite interesting and helpful, by the way! (thanks ski675)
any other recommendations on timing? should I do it immediately before or after the builder walk through, or wait until a year (or a little less) later like ski675 recommends?
thanks
allcash
Hello Allcash,
The first thing you need to check on is if the builder/developer offers a warranty. In Michigan while most builders offer a 1 year warranty, they are not mandated to by law. If yours offers a warranty then there shouldn't be any need to hire an inspector, unless of course you don't feel the builder is trustworthy, and in that case you might consider buying elsewhwere. Also, just because the builder offers a warranty doesn't mean you can wait til the 11 month mark on a 12 month warranty and call for repairs. Check the contract guidelines! The problem with home inspectors, Not All of them, is that here they aren't required to be licensed so any Joe can say he is one without any real qualifications. Just some things to check into
I would agree to doing a later rather than earlier inspection provided you have a one year warranty. And read the warranty so you are clear on the coverage!!
Some defects take time to manifest themselves. Case in point. My brother and sister in law bought this wonderful 400K house. It had a sump pump in the basement. Turns out the drainage wasn't done right or at all. Now during heavy down pours - of which there were no shortages this year in the northeast - they literally have water shooting out of the walls (lots of pressure back there!!)
Now this is behind basement walls and under the foundation - a little hard for a home inspector to see or determine if there is a problem there. Had they waited a couple of months and seen this happening they could point it out to the home inspector and try to get something resolved. As it stands now - the builder says the following: "your one year warranty has expired therefore we are no longer responsible .... blah blah blah" you get the point.
So do it late but leave yourself a time cushion in case they drag their feet. I would shoot for 10 or 11 months. And if something comes up get it resolved ASAP - document EVERYTHING. Send them a certified letter if you have to file a claim. Over the phone doesn't hold up in court.
Just in case you were wondering - they got a quote on the repairs needed to fix their basement - over 15 K - OUCH
Good thing they hadn't finished the basement yet - that would add new drywall and carpeting to the bill - plus mold problems....
I think it depends on the builder, the type of structure, and the state law (to name a few things). If its a national builder (e.g. Kaufman & Broad) they do a fair job of quality assurance.
If its a tract home in a subdivision with the same cookies cutter model they're pretty much uniform schlock built without much variance. If it's a custom built home , I 'd have an inspection.
Some states provide a builder's wanranty of one or two years. Some states have an implied builder's warranty for structural defects for up to ten years.
hey,
thanks for the great feedback, folks.
(this website is truly a wonderful resource.)
the builder, by coincidence, is KB Home (i.e., Kaufman and Broad)
i do have information on the warranty, which i have read and will read again with a fine-toothed comb.
i was worried that i should do the inspection now, but i think i'll wait a few months based on the feedback.
thanks again, fellow reiers
allcash
Quote:
On 2004-02-27 10:48, sammyvegas wrote:
I think it depends on the builder, the type of structure, and the state law (to name a few things). If its a national builder (e.g. Kaufman & Broad) they do a fair job of quality assurance.
If its a tract home in a subdivision with the same cookies cutter model they're pretty much uniform schlock built without much variance. If it's a custom built home , I 'd have an inspection.
Some states provide a builder's wanranty of one or two years. Some states have an implied builder's warranty for structural defects for up to ten years.
Funny you'd say if it is built by a national builder that they do a fair job of QA but if it's a custom built home have it inspected I have seen the quality that these national builders put into their homes and in my opinion if it's a national builder(production builder) I would have it inspected seeing how they tend to be able to get away with more than a small builder can when it comes to building inspections.
[/quote]
Funny you'd say if it is built by a national builder that they do a fair job of QA but if it's a custom built home have it inspected <IMG SRC="images/forum/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif"> I have seen the quality that these national builders put into their homes and in my opinion if it's a national builder(production builder) I would have it inspected seeing how they tend to be able to get away with more than a small builder can when it comes to building inspections.
[/quote]
Unfortunately Tom,
The majority of the public is not educated on what "quality" is when it comes to these track homes. I run into the same mess you do......I have had inspectors get their tape measures out and check the number of nails I have per inch versus a track builder having major structural issues that are never brought up until Harriet Homeowner is complaining to licensing board about their problems.
I don't know about Mich. and its licensing board but I seldom see large builders in trouble with the NC board..........its usually the new licensed small builders (paper contractors that dont even own a hammer)...........can we say POLITICS.
NC_Yank
TomC_MI,
I agree with you. The big boys are the ones that have the resources to give the resources in order to get around the system. And quality? Nah. I think in the final anaysis, it comes down to the particular builder and not the pricetag of the home. I've seen better built $250K new homes than ones at $800K.
Hello NC_Yank and Nancy,
I'm glad I'm not the only one witht his opinion I do believe a lot of it boils down to politics as NC stated. My wife and I have been struggling to get our business running solid but with all these big corporations around us it is very tough. They seem to be able to do what they want and as for quality....well like you said Nancy, it comes down to the builder. They keep tossingup these cookie cutter homes with rediculous price tags and they all look the same, but people buy as they figure they must be getting a qaulity product if it's a national company. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson and call the smaller guys next time Oh, Nancy, I just finished reading your book as well. Very interesting. I still have a great deal to learn about land development though as we have always built in developed subs. Or next step will be learning some more about developing and finding backers to do a small sub as it seems to be one of the only ways to compete around here.
btw, i found a website entitled "hbhomesucks" with the standard dott comm at the end, that makes me concerned about this builder.
also, i spoke with the builder's construction supervisor today, and they said that i cannot have an inspector come in before closing. should this alarm me? i plan to go to a kb home customer service rep to see exactly where this is prohibited. i don't recall seeing this rule anywhere.
thanks again for the help!
allcash
As long as the home inspector is limiting his scope of the inspection to code violations, then the builder should not have a problem with the inspection.
Builders do not want people pointing out their "legal shortcuts" to their clientel.
This I suspect is the main reason what the national builders fear.
By educating the public to the inferior quality products that they often put up would cost them their livelihood.
There are a few legit reason such as "safety liability" issue that could be a concern. Last year I had my insurance rep come to one of my jobsites to check for any possible violations.....even though I have never had a claim. They were addament about posting "No Trespassing Signs" and limit only subs to the sight while work was underway.
Tom, the other issue that you and I should be concerned with is that the major builders are attempting to push the smaller builders out of the area. At one time it was fairly easy to find developments where "contractors are welcomed"......but today, you have large national builders contacting the smaller developers and basically paying outrageous prices to flip local properties to them. They turn around and play politics with local government and end up putting of cookie cutters that have very little value 5 years after they are sold.
There are very few local officials that realize that they are getting the losing end of the deal when property values fail to increase. Many of these neighborhoods will often become depressed neighborhoods within 10 years.
I have witnessed it first hand in Ohio, Virginia and now I see the same thing happening in North Carolina.
The small builders greatest weapon is to educate the public to what they are buying as well opening the eyes of our public officials.
I know this thread is getting off topic but it is something that builders as well as homebuyers need to be aware of.
NC_Yank
A friend of mine had a custom built "high end" home built and asked if I would walk through it with him when it was complete.
While up in the attic I noticed the boot around the soil pipe was not installed correctly by the roofer and water had been leaking into the attic.
It cost the builder $300 for an exterminator for the carpenter ants and a new boot for the soil pipe but how much do you think it would have cost my friend if these ants were not discovered for a few years?
A compitent home inspector is a small price to pay for piece of mind.
[ Edited by JohnNH on Date 03/06/2004 ]
Quote:
On 2004-03-06 21:43, JohnNH wrote:
A friend of mine had a custom built "high end" home built and asked if I would walk through it with him when it was complete.
While up in the attic I noticed the boot around the soil pipe was not installed correctly by the roofer and water had been leaking into the attic.
It cost the builder $300 for an exterminator for the carpenter ants and a new boot for the soil pipe but how much do you think it would have cost my friend if these ants were not discovered for a few years?
A compitent home inspector is a small price to pay for piece of mind.
<font size=-1>[ Edited by JohnNH on Date 03/06/2004 ]</font>
I hate to say it but obviously the builder wasn't that great. I only say this because a builder is only as good as his subs. I would say this is what happens when a builder attempts to use cheap subcontractors. A competent builder would know he had competent subs as well. Often people fail to ask about the subcontractors when hiring a builder, which is funny as the subs build the house Sorry to hear about your friends troubles but at least it was caught in time.
[quote]
On 2004-03-06 22:08, TomC_MI wrote:
Quote:
"I hate to say it but obviously the builder wasn't that great. I only say this because a builder is only as good as his subs. I would say this is what happens when a builder attempts to use cheap subcontractors. A competent builder would know he had competent subs as well. Often people fail to ask about the subcontractors when hiring a builder, which is funny as the subs build the house."
Tom,
Sure do agree with you about a builder being only as good as his subs. Site (sub) supervision is so critical. As you say, it is the subs who do the building, not the builder. Knew one builder who actually had to tear down a house because township said it encroached on setbacks. Needless to say, he got himself another site super.