HI Technical Bulletin Issue 1 October 2007
For registered members of the SAVA Certification Scheme
This month: • Site Notes
Welcome to Issue 1 of SAVA’s Home Inspector Technical Bulletin.
• Drainage Systems
This bulletin will be produced quarterly
• Settlement and Subsidence
and sent to all Home Inspectors
• Meet the Home Inspector
who are training with SAVA.
• Recording Limitations of Inspection • Contacts & Feedback
registered with the scheme and those
The bulletins will focus on Home Condition Reports and associated non-energy issues. We trust that you will find the bulletin useful for your day-to-day work and we welcome any feedback you have about what you would like to see covered in future editions.
Site Notes When most residential surveyors are successfully sued it is not because they were negligent but because they were unable to prove that they were not negligent. The reason they, their employers or, more tragically, their estates cannot demonstrate that they were not negligent is due to the inadequate record of the inspection, incorrectly filed or lost files and poor desk study with no demonstration of the thought process that lead to the professional judgement reported. Luckily, in the current market, there are not many occasions when surveyors actually end up in court, but following the implementation of HIPs, there are some significant changes to the market that could mean more challenges to the judgements and reports of Home Inspectors. So a number of issues should be considered:
•
The Home Inspector will be liable to more than just the party who commissioned the report. He/she will have a duty of care to any party that relies upon the contents of the report, which could include the ultimate purchaser or lender.
•
Home owners will become more informed. Over a period of time they will become used to reading and interpreting Energy Performance Certificates and Home Condition Reports.
•
We are becoming a more litigious society – the tendency towards ‘having a go’ is already with us. The many legal firms advertising on a ‘no win/no fee basis’ bear this out.
•
The new report format is a more controlled product. There will be less opportunity for protective prose in which to hide liability.
So what poor practices should be avoided? Bad handwriting – it may be difficult to write clearly and accurately on site, but the record is of no value at all if no one else can interpret what the Inspector saw/recorded. Because writing on site is so difficult it is worth considering developing and using proformas and abbreviations. Where handwriting is so bad to be effectively illegible, then it may be worth transcribing the notes and keeping a file copy of both the original site notes and the transcription. Misuse of proformas – as discussed above, proformas can be a wonderful tool for inspectors, but they need to be completed. This may seem an obvious statement but many proformas include sections left blank. Does this mean the Inspector in question did not see the item to which that section related or was it simply that it was not present on that particular occasion? If the Inspector could not see a feature but knows it is present, then this needs to be clearly stated as a limitation of inspection. If it is a feature which is not present, then it needs to be clearly stated as being not present on this occasion. Misuse of abbreviations – again another wonderful tool. When doing an inspection an Inspector does not need to write in longhand. But it is essential that a reference document interpreting the abbreviations be prepared and that a copy of that
HI Technical Bulletin document is readily available. There should be at least one general office copy, which should be revised and clearly dated every time the abbreviations change. Not making full use of diagrams / sketches – again these are a useful tool, but one that Inspectors rarely use to their full advantage. For instance colour can be useful to distinguish between say light switches and sockets; locations of trees and shrubs can be included together with an estimate of their height; damp meter readings can be recorded; cracks can be noted and measured etc. However, the same rules apply as for abbreviations. A key should be prepared and in particular should include:
“...photographs
•
Where different colours are used, it must include an interpretations of what these mean;
•
An explanation for the different symbols used. It is wrong to assume that another reader will know what a symbol means.
offer an effective way to record what the inspector saw on site...”
A copy of the key should be kept in the office, if possible with every file, and revised when new/alternative symbols are introduced. Not using photographs – with modern powerful and relatively cheap digital cameras, photographs offer an effective way to record what the Inspector saw on site and also, crucially, what he could not see because of an obstruction etc. But photographs must be:
•
Annotated so that it is clear where they were taken and what they are of;
•
Dated (so it can be confirmed that they were taken at the time of inspection);
Page 2
•
Securely stored and if digital, backed up.
Drafting the report on site – often Inspectors use the site notes to actually begin to draft the report rather than recording what they see. For example the site notes may say ‘lounge window needs replacing’ rather than ‘windows: - rear elevation – lounge – rot noted in btm lh corner, extending half way along frame in both directions’. This is a particularly common fault where site notes are dictated. Missing page identification – without a system of logging each page of the site notes how can a future reader be sure that the notes they are looking at all relate to the property in question? Why should HIs be concerned about these issues? It is simple: Inspectors do not want to be sued, to have to return any fees or waste any time challenging claims. They do not want to have to pay high PI insurance premiums and have their dependants settle claims after their death. For example, one widow of a Chartered Surveyor, when her late husband’s site notes were completely indecipherable to anyone else, had to pay out £30,000. If in any doubt about what would be acceptable practice, apply the ‘Clapham Omnibus Test’. Ask yourself: if I fell under the bus tomorrow, would someone else be certain to know what I saw on my inspections. If there is any doubt at all that they would, then you need to change your note taking practices.
Drainage Systems All Home Inspectors will be aware of the need to undertake inspections in a methodical manner and for evidence to be clearly recorded. However, the task can be more challenging when the element of the building is largely concealed. Government statistics indicate that some 8 per cent of dwellings have defective underground drainage systems that can lead to incidents of blockages or other malfunctions. Although testing of any system is outside the scope of an Inspector’s duties they are expected to undertake a visual inspection of the system within the restrictions and limitations set out in Section F5 of the Inspection and Reporting Requirements. Before looking at some examples of visual evidence that suggest that all may not be
well below ground it is worth considering briefly the types of soil drainage pipework that may be present in domestic installations. Salt glazed stoneware pipes – these were first introduced in the mid 1840’s and were still being laid in new systems over 125 years later. They were usually manufactured in about 900mm lengths with a collar into which the plain end of the adjoining pipe was fitted. A watertight joint was formed using tarred hemp yarn covered with a cement mortar fillet. Salt glazed pipes have generally provided good reliability in installations where the ground into which they have been laid is not subject to expansion or contraction arising from changing moisture content. However, where movement occurs the rigid nature of
Issue 1 October 2007
Page 3
joints may result in joint failure, escape of liquid and subsequent localised erosion of the supporting soil around the pipes. Pitch fibre pipes – this was hailed as a new age material in the late 1940’s and offered the advantages of lightweight handling in longer lengths of pipe. Sadly this material failed to meet expectations and was used commercially for only about 30 years. Failure rates became significant frequently within 10 years of installation. Site experience was to show that these pipes were unable to withstand prolonged exposure to hot water, cooking oils or fats. Dense compressed clay pipes – these are frequently referred to as Hepsleve, although this really is now a generic term. These offered flexible couplings, high compressive strength and longer lengths. PVC-U pipes – the most commonly used material in modern domestic installations.
First Signs of Trouble Inspection Chambers When poorly constructed or constructed with unsuitable brickwork unable to withstand degradation from damp or frost action, it is not unusual to find pieces of spalled brickwork or perished cement-mortar benching falling into the drain channel. The presence of such material is a defect that will usually result in blockage incidents. The Inspector’s judgement and the application of the SAVA Protocol Path for condition ratings should be followed. In most instances this will probably arrive to the award of Condition Rating 2 but in some instances particularly, where it has not been possible to inspect all inspection chambers, Condition Rating 3 may be appropriate. Salt glazed channels – the Inspector should always be satisfied with the appearance and durability of any joints to pipework connected to the channel. Similarly a check should be made of any branches leading into the chamber to ensure that they discharge their contents generally in line with the direction of flow. Watch out especially for any signs of root growth penetration around pipe joints, remember if roots can get in, water can escape. Where drainage runs are located in close proximity to the external walls of a dwelling subsidence of the foundations can frequently occur.
being present the Inspector should undertake particular care and vigilance in their inspection. The design life of the material will have already been exceeded and in the light of extensive research relating to failures of this material, we would suggest that a cautious approach requiring further investigation is followed. Soil drains are designed to be self cleansing and this function in part is satisfied by the volume of discharge along the pipework. Approved Document H Table 6 demonstrates the relationship between pipe size, minimum gradient and peak flow – this clearly explains when 100mm diameter pipe can be laid to a 1:80 rather than the more frequently quoted 1:40 gradient. Ground settlement, root growth and occasionally poor workmanship are all reasons why drains may not be self cleansing and evidence of this can be observed by the presence of silting or stagnant water in chamber channels. The condition of pipework and joints can now be readily surveyed using specialist cctv cameras. Although the cost of this work will vary according to the extent of work undertaken conclusive evidence can frequently be obtained for under £200. Photo 1 shows root growth penetrating into an inspection chamber.
Where this type of pipework is identified as
blockages in soil drains can create significant health and safety issues”
Photo 1
The presence of root growth creates a clear trail of suspicion and further investigation will be required and Condition Rating 3 recorded. Pitch fibre pipes – their presence itself is probably sufficient to justify further investigation since the original design life of 40 years will already have been comfortably exceeded.
“Incidences of
Photo 2
Photo 2 depicts a chamber that is generally in poor condition and where the presence of silt suggests that the drain is not selfcleansing.
HI Technical Bulletin It should be appreciated that incidences of blockages in soil drains can create significant health and safety issues. Where visual evidence suggests that a blockage has occurred it is important that the homeowner is questioned about this. Evidence of soiled deposits around the benching or walls of the chamber may be associated with a one-off occurrence - (many householders use their drains as a convenient method for disposal of animal or other cooking fats) - and is therefore not an immediate reason to condemn any system, however, their presence should invite further enquiries. The Inspector must then form his own judgement as to whether further investigation is required, and record the evidence and reasoning in the site notes.
“Not all soil drainage is connected to a public sewer; many rural properties have their own private drainage system.”
Page 4
presence of heavy soiled deposits around the upper section of the tank would normally be associated with this defect. In some instances the problem will be associated with blockages to the irrigation pipework, on other occasions the problem may be with the soakaway pit itself. Further investigation is required and Condition Rating 3 should be recorded. Photo 3 - the top of a modern grp septic tank - reveals a number of non-standard features.
Although the presence of defects to underground pipework cannot be normally identified the Inspector should always be aware of and record unusual depressions or damage to ground or paved areas that may correspond to the anticipated line of drain runs. Do not always assume that soil drainage is connected to a public sewer, many rural properties have their own private drainage system in the form of a cess pit or, as more frequently seen, a septic tank. Although the IRR Section F5 does not require the Inspector to have “an in-depth knowledge” as to the functionality and regulations involved with these, as with the appearance of traditional inspection chambers and pipework, the Inspector must be able to recognise where their appearance departs from that normally expected. The Inspector may occasionally come across older, rural properties where a large traditionally constructed septic tank is present. This employs similar principles to the modern bottle trap but is probably recognised by the presence of a number of inspection covers set into a concrete slab that forms the cap over a brick sided structure. The rise in the number of properties constructed or converted in areas not served by mains drainage has resulted in the rapid expansion of grp pre-formed bottle traps. Normally only the section between the 600mm diameter trap top and the inlet level some 1.00 metre below can be seen but the tank should also have vertical shafts adjacent to the bottle top that with care and a good torch beam will allow inspection of the horizontal section of both the inlet and outlet pipework. Both pipes should be clear, i.e. water not visible within them. Water present in the outlet pipe would normally indicate that the discharge to the drainage field (the area where sub-surface irrigation pipes discharge the liquid effluent) is defective. The
Photo 3
Although it is permissible to use a lightweight domestic inspection cover and frame over the top of the tank the single seal between the cover and frame should be well greased to form an air tight seal. Tank manufacturers normally supply heavy duty, double seal cover and frames that are better suited to resist the highly corrosive nature of the tanks contents. It is certainly not normal to see a rubber sheathed 230v cable disappearing into the depths of the tank (upper left hand corner), and whilst the facility for a dip-stick (vertical open pipe at top centre) is frequently seen that flexible hose from within certainly would not normally be present. Although less readily apparent the Inspector might also notice that the level of the tank fluids would appear to be significantly closer to the top of the tank rim than might be expected. The inlet to tanks of this kind is normally located 1.00m below the rim of the unit, an extension section that permits the inlet to be increased to a maximum of 1.50m can be fitted but it should be appreciated that in all instances the outlet level is always at a slightly lower level to the inlet. Here the level of the liquid was less than 600mm below the top of the tank so clearly all is not well in this instance and even though the Inspector may not know or be able to determine quite what is wrong they should now be marking down this system as Condition Rating 3 – Further Investigation. Many of you may by now have deduced what was happening here although the exact
Issue 1 October 2007
Page 5
cause certainly would require the ‘Further Investigation’ specified.
Clearly there are Health & Safety issues for a Home Inspector to record.
The outfall pipework is most probably partially or totally blocked and this has effectively turned the septic tank into a cess pit. The previous owner has used a conveniently located external power point to connect to a sump pump immersed at the bottom of the tank. The flexible hosepipe is discharging effluent over the surface of a nearby gravel pit.
All forms of septic tank require periodic pumping out to remove anaerobic sludge and the Inspector should note whether vehicular access to a tank is readily available. Keith Layton, MRICS
Settlement and Subsidence Cracks in the walls of a house can often, but by no means always, be caused by subsidence or settlement of the property. One must, however, be careful to differentiate between the two. Settlement is the downward movement brought about by the pressure from a foundation causing compression of the ground immediately below it. Most soils (rocks and perhaps dense gravel excepted) will, like any plastic material, compress under pressure. Normally this is fairly evenly distributed and the house settles as a unit as it is built. This is commonly termed primary settlement. Once this occurs the property will remain in equilibrium with the load bearing soil and no further movement need be anticipated unless some external factor becomes operable. However, if the ground is not uniform in character or the load on part of the foundations is disproportionately high, one section of the foundations may settle more than another, causing differential settlement, leading to cracking of the superstructure in the vicinity. The adding of an extension can often result in such settlement, resulting in cracks where it joins the original structure. Settlement of this nature therefore is a relatively minor defect and is not normally a continuing problem. Minor repairs and repointing is often all that is necessary. Damage as a result of settlement is not normally covered by the household insurance. Subsidence on the other hand is downward movement of the ground brought about by activity in the ground below the foundations, and can be caused by:
•
Removal of water from the ground by pumping or, more commonly, the extraction of water from shrinkable clay subsoils by tree roots during prolonged dry periods. Trees absorb large quantities of water from the surrounding ground. In some clay soils this can dehydrate soils and cause them to shrink, resulting in subsidence. NHBC Chapter 4.2 provides guidance for buildings near trees.
•
Leaking drainage or water service pipes which can soften the ground under the foundations or wash the subsoil away. This can particularly affect a 19th Century or older property where the pipes have reached, or are fast approaching, the end of their lives.
•
Subsurface mineral extraction. Mining operations can cause surface subsidence when old workings collapse. Similarly swallow holes in limestone rocks can collapse, again causing surface subsidence. Coal mining used to be a common cause, but with the demise of the industry this is not so much of a problem. Information regarding the location of old coal fields may be obtained from the Coal Authority at www.coal.gov.uk.
• •
Compression of loose, man-made fill owing to its self-weight or the ingress of water. The most common examples are old filled quarries, the presence of which may not have been known when the house was built. Reference to old O.S. maps may be helpful.
•
Excavations which remove lateral support to foundations. The most common cause is the excavations required for new drains taken below the level of existing foundations.
Conversely, upward movement of the ground, or heave, can have very similar effects on a property and sometimes it is difficult to tell whether one side is going down or the adjacent side is going up. Causes of heave are:
•
Rehydration or increase in water content of clay soils caused by the removal of trees when the clay swells as it becomes wetter.
•
Formation of ice lens in silts, fine sands
“The Home Inspector must be careful to differentiate between settlement and subsidence.”
HI Technical Bulletin and chalk during prolonged freezing conditions where the water table is high and the foundations relatively shallow. Unheated buildings, buildings under construction, and cold stores are most at risk. In domestic buildings with masonry walls, subsidence and heave will generally cause visible cracking of both external and internal walls. The type of subsidence can often be deduced from an examination of the cracking pattern, with the help of reference sources such as BRE Digest 251 and the Institution of Structural Engineers guide. HIs should always note the existence of cracking, including a comment on whether the cracking is historic and stable, or recent and progressive. Inserting and monitoring a
Page 6
tell-tale across cracks will determine whether the movement is continuing or static. As subsidence and heave due to ground movement are normally covered by the buildings insurance policy, subject to an excess, monitoring is often carried out by Loss Adjusters following a claim. The remedy for subsidence, depending on the circumstances, will often involve underpinning either with mass concrete or piles, where a suitable and stable bearing can be located at a lower depth. Where movement is a result of mining subsidence there is little that can be done, apart from patching up the damage, although once the surface subsidence has occurred little continuing movement need be expected. R M Higgins, BSc, CEng, FIStructE © 2007
References: Institution of Structural Engineers. Subsidence of low rise buildings, 2nd edition, 2000. BRE Digest 251 1995 : Assessment of damage in low-rise buildings with particular reference to progressive foundation movement. NHBC Standards 2007 : Chapter 4.2, Building near Trees. R M C Driscoll and M S Crilly. Subsidence damage to domestic buildings : lessons learned and questions remaining. BRE Centre for Ground Engineering and Remediation, 2000
Meet the Home Inspector – Alan Milstein “We have an exceptionally good product and an exceptional opportunity to target an undeveloped market. We should all be shouting the benefits of HCRs from the rooftops!” Coming into the Home Information Pack industry from a sales and marketing background, selling everything from Mickey Mouse watches to double glazing, Alan Milstein understands the need to put across the benefits of his product in the clearest way possible. The Chichester-based Home Inspector was amongst the first wave of Home Inspectors to qualify from SAVA’s Fast Track programme. Indeed, Alan was entering the final stages of his training when the Government removed the mandatory HCR from the HIP last July. Did this affect his outlook on his new career? “No, I’m an optimist! The opportunity still exists to sell HCRs to whoever wants one - and the challenge is to educate people about the benefits of having one done. With so few homebuyers or sellers having any sort of survey undertaken, there is a huge opportunity for Home Inspectors to market their services and build a successful business.” Allying himself with his wife’s conveyancing firm, Alan was able to promote his services by including
Issue 1 October 2007
Page 7
information about HCRs alongside conveyancing quotes. “I’ve enjoyed putting the information out there and building my business. It’s been a steep learning curve. I’ve had to overcome my initial lack of experience – I still struggle to get round a 3-bed semi in less than 4 hours – but I’m working twice as hard as an average experienced surveyor to make up for it! The customers have been happy, because we work hard to turn everything around as soon as possible. And adding extra information to the report, like photos and other relevant information is an easy, low-cost way of adding value.” Heavily involved in the Buyer’s HCR, and having already undertaken the RICS Valuation Course, Alan sees the Home Inspector
qualification as only the beginning. “Gaining other skills and qualifications mean that I have fall-back options and I am set up for future industry developments. But the best advice for new or aspiring Home Inspectors is simple: stay local. Network with other local HIs and HIP companies, and offer services relevant to your area. There are terrific opportunities to make a successful and enjoyable living.” Alan Milstein is Director of CHIPS (Chichester and District Home Information Pack Services) Ltd.
Recording Limitations of Inspection There are no specific sections within the HCR software to record limitations of inspection. However, it is possible to enter limitations in certain cases. This article describes how you could enter a limitation of inspection into the HCR. Let’s take an example where a single roof is present on a property, but it is only possible to view the front sloped surface of the roof due to access restrictions to the rear (i.e. there is a limitation of inspection as the rear slope is not visible from the ground). In order to record this limitation you must
Enter the first roof with the relevant condition rating details, description and justification, as shown in the example on the right. Ensure that you are identifying the construction element sufficiently so that it can be differentiated easily from the second roof covering that you will enter later. Once you have entered the details for the first roof, click “Return To Summary”.
enter two roof coverings, even though there is only one roof covering present. The first roof covering you enter will be the front roof slope that you can see. You must record this in the normal way by applying a condition rating and describing the construction in full. The second roof covering will be the rear roof slope that you cannot visibly inspect with a condition rating applied of NI (not inspected). You must then enter the reason why you have not inspected it in the “Reason Not Inspected” section. See Example below: within section D – Outside Condition, select “New” in the “Roof Coverings” section.
“You can enter limitations of inspection into the HCR in certain cases. ”
HI Technical Bulletin
Page 8
You will then be returned to section D – Outside Condition, with the first roof covering entered into the table as shown on the right.
Enter the second un-inspected roof covering and select “New” in the “Roof Coverings” section as shown on the right.
Enter the second roof with the details for “Condition Rating” as NI – Not Inspected, and your reasons for not inspecting this element. Ensure that you are identifying the construction element sufficiently so that it can be differentiated easily from the first roof covering that you entered earlier. (See screenshot on the right). Once you have entered the details for the second roof, click “Return To Summary”.
Upon returning to the section D summary screen you will now see (screenshot below right) that both roof coverings have been entered, the entry showing the actual condition of the front slope and the second entry the limitation of inspection for the rear slope of the same physical roofing. Although we have used a roof as an example, it is possible to enter other limitations in the same manner against the relevant construction element.
We need your feedback We hope you found this technical bulletin useful. We would like to get your feedback on this edition—good or bad. Are there any areas you would like to see covered in future editions. Are SAVA The National Energy Centre Davy Avenue Milton Keynes MK5 8NA Email: bulletins@nesltd.co.uk Web: www.sava,org.uk
there any particular problems that keep coming up? Drop us a line at: bulletins@nesltd.co.uk Registration Services & Compliance 01908 540605 info@sava-cs.org.uk Technical Support Helpdesk 01908 540602 support@nesltd.co.uk Candidate Advisors 01908 442240 Training enquiries 01908 442254 NES One Credit Top up line: 01908 547941