To Report, or Not Report Room Heat Supply

TO REPORT, or NOT REPORT  HEAT SUPPLY to LIVING ROOMS

An expert witness called to ask if any SOP requires a home inspector to report there was no heating supplied to a room where people live.
It was the client’s first winter in the home., The inspection report said the heating and air conditioning systems were OK.  The cold front came a week or two ago.  The people were freezing in the living room and the dining room.  That’s when they noticed there were no heating supply vents in either room.
Should the home inspector have reported that?  Or does his SOP give him an out?
This is not as obvious as it sounds.  Inquiring minds that really want to know need the whole story.
The short answer is that “adequacy” or balance of a heating system is specifically excluded by all three SOP.  NAHI 11.3.9; ASHI 8.2.B.1; NACHI; 3.4.II.  That has led some home inspectors – understandably – to think reporting rooms without heat is not required.
But supply, or “distribution,” are different from “adequacy” or “balance.”
Having no supply at all – zero distribution to a room – is not a question of “adequacy” or “balance.”
And then, if there is no supply at all, is that a “significant deficiency”?

“Balance” is keeping the temperature more or less the same throughout the home.  “Adequacy” asks whether or not that temperature is hot enough, or cool enough.

Having no supply at all – absolutely zip, nada, zero conditioning in a heated, air conditioned home – in a room people can occupy (not a garage, for example) comes before either of those issues.  Adequacy and balance do not even come up when one living area is 0 and others are 70, the thermometer setting.  You only get to “adequacy” and “balance” after you have supply.
A total lack of heat supply to a room meant to be occupied year-‘round should be included in a home inspection report for three reasons.
First, that is the best, and most sensible, way to square the meaning of a “significant deficiency” (required to be reported by state law and each SOP) with the specific SOP for heating and air conditioning.  For example, a heating system is not performing its intended function if it only heats part of the home.  (ASHI and NAHI)  A heating system also is likely to have a material, adverse effect on the value of a home.  (NACHI)
Reporting zero heating supply is not just “best practice,” it is the right way to report “significant deficiencies.”  “The report shall include … a report on any system or component that, in the professional opinion of the inspector, is significantly deficient.”  KRS 198B.700(5)(a).  (Some say this statute is “just” a “definition” section.  But that misunderstands it.  The laws and decisions on interpreting statutes start by saying that titles of statutes do not count.

Second, there is a “duty of care” in basic negligence law.  The idea is that no one can write all the itty, bitty rules for every last thing (though some folks keep trying.  Don’t get me started.).  That means we look for the everyday meeting point, or balance, between what people reasonably expect and what a licensed professional typically and reasonably does to fill to meet those expectations, and fill in all the blanks.
Practically any jury that is not homeless would decide that people ought to be told in a home inspection report if one or more rooms freeze in the winter.  It would be careless to leave it out.  It matters if you freeze in the dining room every winter.

Third, the last thing a home inspector wants is for a client to have a legitimate claim that the inspector failed to disclose a material fact or, worse, concealed it.  At the end of the day, we are the pros, and clients are the amateurs.  It would be hard for most people to believe that a professional home inspector did not notice a room (or rooms) had no supply vents – meaning no heating or air conditioning in the space.  Or that he did a basement or crawl and did not see a subfloor with no ducts at all.
Even so, it is fair to say there is wiggle room for an inspector.  No SOP rule is dead on.  No SOP flatly says inspectors are required to report zero supply.  We have to fill in the blank.    But that is why all of the work of home inspectors depends on solid professional judgements.
That brings up one last principle involved: When in doubt, err on the side of the client’s best interest.
In particular, here are the details, SOP by SOP, along with a real life Kentucky case:
NAHI
NAHI’s SOP says the inspector will describe “the heating distribution system.”  11.2.1.  The inspector is not required to “evaluate the capacity, adequacy, or efficiency of a heating or cooling system.” 11.3.9.
Inspectors also are required to inspect “central” air conditioning “cooling distribution.” 12.1.2.  Inspectors are not required to “evaluate the capacity, efficiency, or adequacy of the system.”  12.3.4.
NAHI’s definition of a significant deficiency is “visible defects and/or condition that, in the judgement of the inspector, adversely affect the function and/or integrity of the items, components, or systems.”  1.6.
ASHI
ASHI’s SOP says an inspector required to heating “inspect vent systems” and “distribution systems” and then report “energy sources.”  8.1.B.2, 3, and C.1.  An inspector is “NOT required to: … determine (1) heat supply adequacy or distribution balance.”  8.2.B.1.
Inspectors also are required to inspect air conditioning distribution systems. 9.1.B.2.  An inspector is not required to “determine cooling supply adequacy or distribution balance.”  9.2.B.
ASHI’s exclusions also say inspectors are not required to determine the “strength, adequacy, effectiveness, or efficiency of any system or component.”  13.2.A.3.
ASHI’s definition of a significant deficiency requires home inspectors to report “systems and components…that in the professional judgment of the inspector, are not functioning properly, significantly deficient, unsafe, or are near the end of their service lives.”  2.2.C.1.
ASHI’s new proposed changes to its SOP (as of 11-15-2013, and not yet adopted) do not change those standards.  However, the proposed new ASHI SOP adds a new definition of “significant deficiency.”  “Significant deficiency,” as used in 2.2.C.1, would be defined as “a system or component that, in the inspector’s judgment, lacks an essential quality of element that is likely to have an important impact on its ability [to] perform its intended function.”  (Proposed) Glossary
Inter-NACHI
NACHI’s SOP says the inspector shall inspect “the heating systems,” with no specific mention of unsupplied living spaces. 3.4.I.
A NACHI inspector is not required to “determine the uniformity, temperature, flow, balance, distribution, size, capacity, BTU, or supply adequacy of the heating system.”  3.4.II.
NACHI’s exclusions also say a home inspector is not required to determine “the size, capacity, BTU, performance or efficiency of any component or system.”  2.2.I.
The definition of a “material defect” required to be reported under the NACHI SOP is “a condition of a residential real property, or any portion of it, that would have a significant, adverse impact on the value of the real property” or that is unsafe.  1.2.

All three SOPs, and Kentucky state law, say the home inspection is not a “compliance” inspection under a building “code.”  NAHI 1.9; ASHI 13.2.8; NACHI 2.2.

Last, if that seems confusing, two more points: If your first impression was that it is just “common sense” to tell people if some rooms have no heat, then you got it.
Second, from the school of hard knocks, here’s one more actual Kentucky home inspection story.  It’s a real case.
A few years ago, one of our highly capable inspectors was hired to inspect a flip.  It was a classic turn-of-the-century home.  The radiators had been ripped out and a new central HVAC system was installed.
The agent’s listing bragged the home had “all new HVAC.”
The flip artist did a fine job running HVAC ducts throughout the first floor to supply heat.  The only problem was that he ran no ducts to the second floor.  He also left the radiator pipe holes in the floors there.  You already know the bedrooms were on the second floor.  Naturally, the flip investor forgot to tell anyone, all the way to the closing.  And the inspection report was silent.  It just said the furnace worked.
The clients figured out it as soon as winter blew in.
The home inspector and the agent split the cost of running heat to the second floor.

 

Call Now Button