TO: M********** ********
RE: ******** Inspection & Evaluation
***********************
FROM:The Pevar Company
Dear *************:
Thank you for involving me with critiquing your prospective home buyer's Inspection Report (“Report”). You asked me to give you my professional opinion about issues raised in the Report. After I personally inspected your home, what follows are my observations and recommendations. In this critique, the page references are to the Report that was written by Mr. N************, dated**********
COMMENTS:
The Report is based on visual and electronic moisture scanning of selected areas. (pg. 2, 1.2)
On page 4 of the Report, the home inspector (“Inspector”), stated his specific recommendations for remedial work. As evidence that corrective work was needed, the Inspector often refered to photographs included in Report.
Secton 3 of the Report includes examples and photographs that are not from your home, but instead are from other homes. Additionally, Section 3's comments and recommendations do not reference specific manufacturers or codes.
The Report does not state the fact some stucco design codes and installation recommendations of today are different from when your house was built. Because of this, some of the recommended “remediation” is really “upgrading to meet current design.” Other “remediation” improves the looks of the Stucco, but is not work that is needed to correct actual defects that would allow water into the house. Additionally, the Report does not reference any evidence that water is entering into your house.
SPECIFIC ISSUES LISTED ON PAGE 4:
Paragraph 2: Lists four general observations but does not state that these are issues that need to be corrected. Specifically:
1. REPORT STATEMENT: “No weep screed is installed a the base of the [stucco] system.” COMMENT: I inspected the stucco to see if weep screed was installed.
For example, the Report includes a photograph at the front 2nd floor bathroom window, as an example of a location that lacks weep screed (pg. 18, grid E3). That photograph is not clear enough to show whether there is weep screed there.
However, when I personally inspected that location, I saw that it has a weep screed at the bottom of the stucco where it terminates above the brick. The function of weep screed is to drain any liquid water that is behind the stucco. By way of clarification, it is normal for moisture in the air to condense between the stucco and the house insulation during the air conditioning season. The weep screed lets that water drain out of the wall system so it can evaporate outside. In this connection, see Report pg. 8, para. 2, 3rd sentence: “For drainable systems caulk only below the flashing, leave upper edge open for drainage of the system.”
This advice should be followed and your house was actually built this way, using weep screed (aka “flashing”), and using caulking below the weep screed. Contradicting this good advice, pg. 4, paragraph 5 recommends doing new work to fully caulk the windows, which would stop the system from draining. The bottoms of windows were not caulked, and should not be caulked. The installer correctly installed flashings below the windows to allow weeping and drainage from the windows. This was proper workmanship. There is no “corrective” work needed.
2. REPORT STATEMENT: “No expansion joints are installed.” COMMENT: The new Code requires expansion joints to divide the stucco areas into regions of no more than 144 sf. This requirement is a recent code change and was not the code when this house was built. The function of the new requirement is to reduce the number of cracks in the stucco. In fact, even with the new code, there will be cracks in the stucco, as evidenced by existing wall areas that size or smaller that have cracks in them. It is the nature of stucco to develop very fine hairline cracks.
In this connection, see the Report pg. 4, the 4th “General Improvement Recommendation,” which to new work to seal the observed stucco cracks. The Report did not cite any elevated moisture findings associated with these stucco cracks. In fact, there was no visible sign of water entering into the house walls and causing paint to peal, or other signs of liquid water in the drywall. This means that the stucco cracks are cosmetic in nature and were not found to be a source of water infiltration. Considering that there is no evience that the cracks are causing any damage, there is no or purpose to seal the stucco.
After stating that the cracks were neither “severe or extensive,” the Report inexplicably and unreasonably states that the cracks “need to be sealed.” The Report neither claims that sealing is needed to keep water out of the house, nor does the Report cite any Code or other objective standard that requires sealing the stucco cracks. There is no basis in the code to seal the stucco, and there is no sign of water entering into the house from these stucco cracks.
3. REPORT STATEMENT: “No window or door casing beads are installed.” COMMENT: “Casing beads” refers to vertical or horizontal metal or plastic flashing materials that are positioned against the exterior window or door frames to create a gap into which backer rod is installed. Caulk is installed on top of the backer rod. Some window and door manufacturers recommend this, some do not.
In your house, a metal bead is installed around the bathroom window the Inspector photographed and cited earlier (and in error), in his Report. The beads used in this house were not the kind of bead designed to create a gap and there is no evidence that these beads are not keeping water out of the house, or that lack of caulk is letting water into the house. To the contrary, the Report shows that the inspector's own electronic moisture scanning did not show moisture around the doors and windows. Thus, the Inspector's own moisture measurements are evidence that the window and exterior door beads are doing the job that needs to be done. They are keeping water out.
Additionally, the Pella windows in this house have a metal exterior and also have wide mounting-flanges around their edges. The stucco and brick and cast stone all overlap and hide these mounting-flanges which function to keep water from entering the house through the window. At this house, windows and doors are caulked with clear silicone caulk that is tightly adhered to the windows, door frames and brick, which is why the electronic moisture testing did not find water around the edges of the windows and doors. Because there is no evidence that indicates that there is a problem that needs to be remediated, there is no practical or code reason for doing this extra work. No remededial work is needed.
4. REPORT STATEMENT: “No kickout flashings are installed.” This is true. Recently the codes and manufacturer recommendations have been revised to require kickout flashings, which therefore would be expected and required by the New Castle County Code compliance inspector if this was a new house. However, the house is 14+ years old. When this house was built and inspected, kickout flashings were not required. Today's Code does not require that the home owner upgrade the construction to meet this sort of new Code. As a general rule, code that impact life/safety need to be upgraded, whereas other sorts of code changes do not have to be upgraded when a house is sold. This recommendation for upgrading is not required by code.
5. REPORT STATEMENT: “No original caulking details have been provided for windows and doors.” COMMENT: Contrary to this statement, your house actually has cauling installed between brick/caulk at the exterior window and door frames. The silicone is cldar urethane, the highest quality. Apparantly the Inspector did not notice the caulk, perhaps because it is clear rather than tinted.
There is no evidence of leaking into the house. Thie Inspector's electronic moisture scanning did not find elevated moisture associated with the windows or doors, whether caulked or uncaulked. There is no material to install and there is no damage to remediate.
This concludes my comments about the Report's initial general comments.
REPORT PARAGRAPH 4: See #4 above regarding kickout flashings.
REPORT PARAGRAPH 5: The Report does not cite any specific damage, imperfection or moisture infiltration to any window. However, the Report cites the 2nd floor bathroom window as being defective and needing to be repaired. That window's top and bottom sash both operate smoothly, it latches, the sashes stay in open position and do not move up or down on their own, there is no evidence of cracking, warping, breakage or any damage whatsoever.
Based on these observations, it is a fact that the Report overreaches by recommending replacement of this unbroken and fully operational window. In this connection, the Report states that the “damage” was caused by: “...heaving of the capstone detail.” Just as there is no observable window damage, it is unclear if the capstone has “heaved,” or whether it is now positioned as it was when it was originally installed. There are no observable signs (i.e. cracks or gaps), that the capstone has “heaved.”
The Report also states that: “All windows will need to be fully caulked.” ln fact, the windows are already caulked with clear silicone, as discussed in #5 hereinabove. Because there is no evidence that the windows and doors are letting water into the house, then there is no need to either add caulk or to remove and replace existing caulk. The existing caulk is well adheared, is not cracking or pealing.
REPORT PARAGRAPH 6: Stucco expansion joints are discussed in #2 hereinabove. Additionally, the Report states: “Normally expansion joints are not retrofitted unless damage and bulging is occurring.” Because the Report does not cite either damage or bulging, this means that no expansion joints need to be retrofitted. Thus, the Report does not actually recommend retrofitting expansion joints into the existing stucco.
REPORT PARAGRAPH 7: See comments below to the numbered list of “General Improvements.”
1. Moisture above capstones that separate brick and stucco. The Report recommends caulking, which was discussed in #1 hereinabove. The Report cites a finding of “elevated readings” of moisture and then speculates that the moisture readings were caused by caulk that is missing between the stucco and the cap stones. This “finding” is actually speculation and not a statement of fact. Consider that the moisture can and should come from the stucco weep screeds that are functioning properly by allowing moisture to exit from behind the stucco and onto the stone caps. This means that it is only to be expected that there will be some elevated moisture readings in those areas because the design channels liquid moisture to drain through those areas.
The Report did not identify any capstones that are sitting on brick, but somehow are no longer bonded to the top of the brick. That is what “heaved,” means. It means that the capstones are separately from the brick. It is possible that the cap stones are still well fastened and have not moved, and that the perception of “movement” is because the capstones were not aligned perfectly or because they are not all identically sized, resulting in the appearance of “movement.”
In this connection, because no specific capstone was found to be sitting on but not attached to the brick, there is no location cited to remediate, and no reason to believe that the capstones need to be reattached to the brick. For this reason, there is no basis for removing and reinstalling any of the capstones, let alone removing and reinstalling any particular capstone.
The Report also requires adding caulk between the stucco and capstones, which contradicts the Report's earlier recommendation cited above, where it stated that systems that are designed to drain must be left open so they can drain. Caulking the joint between the stucco and the capstone would trap moisture behind the stucco and inside of the window frames and can cause mould, rotting and water entering into the house. There is no basis for adding caulk between the stucco and the capstones.
The bathroom window discussed repeatedly above is not broken and does not need to be replaced. WORK TO DO:However, the brick mortar joints below that window should be repaired either with new mortar or with silicone caulk. Caulk may be preferred because if the house is moving in that area, the caulk will move with the house, whereas new mortar may fail. I recommending doing this remedial work.
2. See above regarding adding caulking window frames. Stucco and brick that abut patios keep water out of the house by continuing below the patios. Caulk or grout at the wall/patio junctions will help to prevent water/ice from damaging the patios, but it is the stucco and brick that keeps water out of the house. This house is being sold as a 14-year-old house, not as a new house. This level of new work does not keep water out of the house. The County inspector would require the wall/patio junction to be sealed in a new house. This is not required for an older house. The Buyer may wish to do this work to preserve the patios, but this is an upgrade, bringing an older house up to new house condition. WORK TO DO: Caulk any uncaulked pipes, vents or other wall penetrations. The Report did not identify any such locations needing caulking, but it is possible there may be some that should be caulked. I recommend doing this specific caulking.
3. See above #4 discussing kickout flashing. Kickout flashings were not required by the codes when this house was built 14+ years ago. Lack of the flashings has not been found to allow water into this house. Kickout flashings matter if and when the stucco job and other flashing portions of the stucco system do not intercept water from entering the house.
4. See above #2 regarding stucco cracks. The Report states that the stucco cracks : “...were not severe or extensive.” This reaffirms that the stucco cracks are not allowing water to come into the house. The Report recommends painting the stucco cracks. If they are painted, they will still be visible. Painting the stucco cracks is not remedial in nature, but is rather a kind of cosmetic upgrade which the buyer may wish to do, but which is not needed to protect the house from water because the unsealed stucco cracks are not letting water into the house.
Very truly yours,
The Pevar Company
Marc Pevar, President