Agent says building permits not required; contractor disagrees

Q: When we bought our home, the seller disclosed that the sunroom had been added without a building permit. Our Realtor assured us that a permit was not required because the room is less than 150 square feet. Now we're doing some remodeling, and our contractor says the sunroom is not legal without a permit. So we called our Realtor, and she said the contractor is wrong. Who do we believe? Barbara

A: Your contractor is correct, and your Realtor is misinformed. Agents who offer uninformed advice can damage their clients and saddle themselves with enormous financial consequences. When a real estate professional is faced with building code questions, the best answer is, "I not sure, but I'll check with the building department."

Building codes are specific as to the kinds of work that require permits. For example:

Section R105.1 of the International Building Code states:

"Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit."

Wording of that kind doesn't allow much wiggle room? It's straightforward and absolute, with few possible exceptions. Another example is Section 106 of the Uniform Building Code, which states:

" ... no building or structure regulated by this code shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved improved, removed, converted or demolished unless a separate permit for each building or structure has first been obtained from the building official."

If your Realtor insists that no permit was required for your sunroom, ask her to explain these codes.

Q: We bought our home about a year ago. At the time, we were in a hurry to move because our landlord had given us notice. If it hadn't been for the rush, we might have had a home inspection, but our Realtor said we didn't need one because the house had been "well cared for." That advice would be laughable if it weren't for the thousands of dollars we've spent on plumbing, electrical, and miscellaneous repairs. The seller omitted all these problems from his disclosure statement, but we're especially disappointed in our agent for the faulty advice she gave. Shouldn't she have recommended a home inspection, and isn't she or the seller liable for the repair costs? Pati

A: You had every right to expect full disclosure from the seller, as required by law, and proper advice as well from your agent, as required by the Realtors' Code of Ethics. Unfortunately, complaints such as these are common.

Competent agents know that it is unethical to discourage a buyer from hiring a home inspector. There is, in fact, no situation when an agent should advise against a home inspection, regardless of whether the home is new, well maintained, being sold as-is, or any other lame excuse. Faulty advice of this kind demonstrates professional ignorance or personal dishonesty, neither of which is acceptable for a licensed real estate professional.

Your first course of action is to find the most qualified and experienced home inspector in the area and have your home thoroughly evaluated. A good inspector will find more defects than you have yet discovered. Once you have the inspection report, there may be cause for legal action against the agent and the seller. That is something you'll have to decide once you know the full extent of undisclosed defects.

As for the repair costs you've already incurred, these should be discussed with a real estate attorney to determine the best course of action.

Q: I'm a construction supervisor for a residential developer, and I'm tired of dealing with know-it-all home inspectors. My company builds good homes. We build them to code, and we don't sell them till they've passed municipal inspection. Still, some of our buyers waste their money on bogus home inspectors: self-appointed "experts" who invents imaginary problems. For example, we installed a water heater and secured the exhaust connections with metallic tape. The city inspector signed it off, but a home inspector said the connections should be fastened with screws. In another house, a home inspector said that every window should be safety glass. Why don't you guys find real jobs instead of making up problems where there aren't any?

A: Competence varies widely in every profession. Admittedly, there are home inspectors who might be better suited to other professions, just as there are construction supervisors who don't measure up to your own professional standards. If we dismiss the credibility of an entire profession on the basis of poor performance by some, we could write off all doctors because of a few malpractitioners; we could reject all carpenters because some are wood butchers; or we could discard all attorneys because ... well, we'll skip that example.

Of the two instances you cite, one is favorable to the home inspector and one is not. Flue pipe connections on a water heater are required to be secured with screws or other approved method. Tape is not an approved method because the glue eventually dries out and loses its adhesion. Ensuring permanent attachment of an exhaust pipe is a vital safety concern, and screws do not detach due to age. The municipal inspector, rather than approving the taped connections, probably failed to notice them. Fortunately, this error was caught by the "know-it-all" home inspector.

In your other example, a home inspector called for tempered safety glass for all windows in a home. That finding was clearly an overreach. However, there are instances where safety glass requirements are overlooked in new homes. Common examples include windows adjacent to bathtubs or at stair landings. Defects such as these are sometimes missed when buildings are signed off. Home inspectors provide a final backup in such cases.

The bottom line is this: All new homes have defects, regardless of the competence and integrity of the builder or the construction supervisor. If this were not the case, the essential imperfection of humanity would be disproved. Some new homes have repair lists that are long, while others have only a few issues. In most cases, defects are minor, but serious problems, such as safety violations, are not uncommon. A home inspector can spend 3 or more hours in search of construction errors. A municipal inspector is likely to be there for half an hour at most.

Finally, a thorough home inspection can benefit the builder, as well as the buyer, by reducing the number of complaints likely to occur after the home is sold. It lessens the possibility of injury to occupants and limits the likelihood of future lawsuits. Builders, in fact, would be well advised to hire a home inspector of their own to provide a final "pickup" list when construction is completed. Then the buyers' home inspector would be less likely to irritate the supervisor with further disclosures.

• Email Barry Stone, certified building inspector, at barry@housedetective.com.

Distributed by Action Coast Publishing