Water heater red-tagged after inspector OK’d it
Q: When we purchased our residence, our home inspector said the water heater was an old model but was in usable condition. After moving in, we called the gas company to light the burner pilot. The gasman red-tagged the unit and refused to light it. According to the gas company, the water heater is unsafe and should not be used. Do we have recourse against our home inspector?
A: The defining question in this situation is “What exactly is wrong with the water heater?” Without that information, it is not possible to fairly judge between the home inspector and the gasman.
A home inspector should disclose conditions that are visible and accessible at the time of the inspection. With water heaters, the possibilities are numerous. For example, there could be rust damage in the burner compartment, a defective flue pipe, a detached flue baffle, a faulty gas connection, improper gas piping, an unstable platform, lack of a temperature pressure relief valve, flue contact with combustible materials, soot in the burner compartment or in the flue, a damaged or missing draft diverter, back-drafting of combustion exhaust, and so on. Some of these conditions call for replacement of the water heater, while others are repairable.
One possibility is that the water heater is so old that it does not have an orifice for installing a relief valve. Most water heaters of that age (60 years or more) have long since found passage to the nearest landfill, but a small number of these antiques are still in service and in need of replacement. A defect of that nature would call for replacement of the fixture.
In most cases of red-tagging, the gas company specifies the defects of concern. If you check the tag, you’ll probably discover what they found. In any event, the home inspector should be contacted regarding reinspection and reconsideration of the water heater. If he missed a visible defect, he may be liable for repair or replacement.
Q: In one of your articles, you described a municipal building inspector as being “consumed with the zeal of high office.” This was so spot-on as a description of bureaucrats I’ve encountered. Why does this seem to be such a common issue?
A: A common problem with bureaucratic systems is that they tend to promote employees to their relative levels of inefficiency. Once they reach the level at which they no longer do good work, they cease to be promoted. Instead, they remain in those positions until their day of retirement, because most governmental systems preclude the likelihood of demotion or of being fired. Additionally, government employment is often a place of refuge for those whose talents are insufficient for the competitive demands of the marketplace. Accordingly, bureaucracies attract managers whose faulty decision-making processes render them unacceptable to private employers whose main concern is customer satisfaction and a profitable bottom line.
In fairness, however, it should be noted that not all bureaucrats are of this low caliber. There are many highly qualified people who also find themselves in government employment. Unfortunately, the percentage of sour apples in the bureaucratic barrel seems higher than one is likely to find in private industry.
• Distributed by Action Coast Publishing. Questions to Barry Stone can be emailed to barry@housedetective.com.