Should home inspectors disclose mold?
Q: In one of your articles, you faulted a home inspector for failing to disclose mold that was present in a home. I am a professional home inspector, and this misinformation concerns me. Your readers should be told that mold and all other environmental issues are not covered under the standards of practice for the home inspection profession. No home inspector is required to investigate or report on such things, and your readers should be informed of that fact. Please clarify this in an upcoming article.
A: You are correct about the about the standards of practice for home inspectors. Environmental hazards such as mold are not within the scope of a professional home inspection, and home inspectors are not expected to report on such issues. Unfortunately, that does not let home inspectors off the hook completely. So, here is a critical point to consider.
In cases where mold is visible on accessible surfaces — beneath a kitchen sink, on a bathroom windowsill, in a plumbing access, or the corner of a closet — what should a home inspector do? Should the inspector ignore that condition and say nothing about it, simply because mold is not within the scope of the inspection? To do so would constitute professional negligence. Instead, the inspector should point out the “stains,” without describing them as mold, but recommending further evaluation by a mold specialist, just in case. In this way, the inspector complies with the standards of practice, reduces potential liability and protects homebuyers by providing full disclosure of visible defects.
Q: Now that I'm selling my home, I'm concerned about improvements that were done without building permits. In past articles, you stress the importance of disclosing nonpermitted work to buyers. What I want to know is, will disclosure really protect me from liability?
A: We live in a sue-happy world. No one has absolute protection from legal liability. Regardless of what we do, we can be sued for doing something wrong, and we can be sued for doing nothing wrong. We can never eliminate liability completely, but fortunately, we can take steps to reduce our levels of liability.
When selling a home, full disclosure of nonpermitted work reduces your liability, but the way you frame those disclosures can make a critical difference. A common mistake that many sellers make is to state or imply that all work was done correctly or “according to code,” even though it was done without permits. Such statements can get sellers into deep trouble.
Unless sellers are professional building inspectors, they have no idea whether improvements were done according to code. Building codes are voluminous and exhaustively complicated. Only the most informed experts are totally familiar with their intricacies. When disclosing that work was done without permits, you should state that “no guaranty is made regarding compliance with building codes.” You should also recommend that buyers hire a qualified home inspector to evaluate the condition of the improvements, as well as the rest of the property. With that kind of disclosure, you should be reasonably safe from complaints after the close of escrow.
• Distributed by Action Coast Publishing. Questions to Barry Stone can be e-mailed to barry@housedetective.com.