I am selling my house, and the buyer's inspector is indicating that
there is no flashing between the deck and the house. Is this something
that I will need to repair? From my internet scanning, flashing between
the deck and house became a requirement by CABO 703.8 since 1995. Since
the house was built in 1991, I should not be required to fix this, correct?
Here is the pertinent info:
House constructed in 1991 in North Carolina.
House has Abitibi hardboard siding.
Deck boards run perpindicular to the house.
The deck floor surface is about 1 foot above ground.
It is entirely possible that the deck is free standing and not attached
to the house, but I don't remember and I am unable to look at the
present time.
Thanks a bunch.
--Jim
[email protected]
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 02:55:18 GMT, someone wrote:
>... I should not be required to fix this, correct?
>
You may be confusing two different concepts when you ask if this is
"required". Required by WHO? Apparently it would not be "required"
by the city or town authorities.
But it may well be "required" by the BUYER. What does your contract
say, that you only have to fix violations? That they can only inspect
for violations and have to accept anything that is not a violation?
Or is it more open-ended? The buyer may consider this a "defect" or a
"shortcoming". So if the buyer wants it fixed, who is going to blink
first?
He is certainly not bound by usenet opinions.
-v.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I am selling my house, and the buyer's inspector is indicating that
> there is no flashing between the deck and the house. Is this something
> that I will need to repair? From my internet scanning, flashing between
> the deck and house became a requirement by CABO 703.8 since 1995. Since
> the house was built in 1991, I should not be required to fix this, correct?
I'd be suspicious, perhaps because I was burned by this. My deck,
house rim-joist, and sill all rotted out about seven years ago. It was
a mess, but not *terribly* costly. It cost me about ~$300 for a
contractor to come out and fix the rim-joist and sill. I repaired
(rebuilt actually) the deck myself. That was another few hundred
dollars. It could have been *much* worse.
> Here is the pertinent info:
> House constructed in 1991 in North Carolina.
It's possible the flashing isn't required by code, but it really should
be there. It can (likely will) cause a lot of damage otherwise. BTDT!
> House has Abitibi hardboard siding.
> Deck boards run perpindicular to the house.
>
> The deck floor surface is about 1 foot above ground.
You're likely to trap a lot of moisture under the deck and against the
house. My deck is about the same height.
> It is entirely possible that the deck is free standing and not attached
> to the house, but I don't remember and I am unable to look at the
> present time.
I rebuilt mine as free-standing. I didn't want to go through the angst
of having the sliding glass door almost falling into the basement
again! Of course if it's free-standing there won't be any flashing,
since it's not connected.
--
Keith
"Jim Austin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am selling my house, and the buyer's inspector is indicating that
> there is no flashing between the deck and the house. Is this something
> that I will need to repair? From my internet scanning, flashing between
> the deck and house became a requirement by CABO 703.8 since 1995. Since
> the house was built in 1991, I should not be required to fix this,
correct?
>
> Here is the pertinent info:
> House constructed in 1991 in North Carolina.
> House has Abitibi hardboard siding.
> Deck boards run perpindicular to the house.
>
> The deck floor surface is about 1 foot above ground.
>
> It is entirely possible that the deck is free standing and not attached
> to the house, but I don't remember and I am unable to look at the
> present time.
>
> Thanks a bunch.
> --Jim
> [email protected]
a lot of inspectors, especially the younger ones, only know (?) the current
code and not when different things were put in. we had one that insisted a
lot of the current codes were mandatory-to-fix in my 1970 built home that i
was trying to sell.
regards,
charlie
cave creek, az
In article <[email protected]>, Jim Austin
<[email protected]> wrote:
I am selling my house, and the buyer's inspector is indicating that
there is no flashing between the deck and the house. Is this something
that I will need to repair? From my internet scanning, flashing between
the deck and house became a requirement by CABO 703.8 since 1995. Since
the house was built in 1991, I should not be required to fix this, correct?
Code has nothing to do with it.
A buyer's inspector is not a code inspector, for exactly this reason.
He would have to determine when a given system was built or installed
(deck, hot water heater, electrical panel, door) and what the code was
at that time in that jurisdiction (city, county, etc.)
There's no way anyone can do that, and even if there were, there's no
way anyone can tell when a given component was built or installed.
Buyer's inspectors, furthermore, aren't trained for code inspections.
It's an entirely different issue, with entirely different standards. If
they were, they'd be working for the relevant agency. Buyer's
inspectors are home inspectors, not code inspectors.
Buyer's inspectors inspect for whether or not a given component is
installed correctly and functioning as it was designed to function.
A deck with no flashing between it and the house wasn't installed
correctly, and will cause other problems. That's why the inspector
called it out.
It needs to be fixed. Whether you fix it or cut the price because of it
is up to you. You have a few options, and your real estate agent can
explain them to you.
Best of luck, and let us know how it comes out!
--
Lyle B. Harwood, President
Phoenix Homes, Inc.
(206) 523-9500 www.phoenixhomesinc.com
I believe you can go one of two ways.
If your house "band" is P.T. , flashing is not required by code in NC.
Flashing is much better than not.
I install P.T house bands (where deck connects) AND use flashing.
Just to be on the safe side.
db
"Jim Austin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am selling my house, and the buyer's inspector is indicating that
> there is no flashing between the deck and the house. Is this something
> that I will need to repair? From my internet scanning, flashing between
> the deck and house became a requirement by CABO 703.8 since 1995. Since
> the house was built in 1991, I should not be required to fix this,
correct?
>
> Here is the pertinent info:
> House constructed in 1991 in North Carolina.
> House has Abitibi hardboard siding.
> Deck boards run perpindicular to the house.
>
> The deck floor surface is about 1 foot above ground.
>
> It is entirely possible that the deck is free standing and not attached
> to the house, but I don't remember and I am unable to look at the
> present time.
>
> Thanks a bunch.
> --Jim
> [email protected]
>
"Jim Austin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am selling my house, and the buyer's inspector is indicating that
> there is no flashing between the deck and the house. Is this something
> that I will need to repair? From my internet scanning, flashing between
> the deck and house became a requirement by CABO 703.8 since 1995. Since
> the house was built in 1991, I should not be required to fix this,
correct?
1. Legal point: was the 1995 standard retroactive?
Probably not: your lawyer knows.
2. Marketing point: lack of flashing is defective
(lack of) waterproofing so a seller's tool to negotiate
the price down a couple of hundred dollars.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
dphillipson[at]trytel.com
"Jim Austin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am selling my house, and the buyer's inspector is indicating that
> there is no flashing between the deck and the house. Is this something
> that I will need to repair? From my internet scanning, flashing between
> the deck and house became a requirement by CABO 703.8 since 1995. Since
> the house was built in 1991, I should not be required to fix this,
correct?
>
> Here is the pertinent info:
> House constructed in 1991 in North Carolina.
> House has Abitibi hardboard siding.
> Deck boards run perpindicular to the house.
>
> The deck floor surface is about 1 foot above ground.
>
> It is entirely possible that the deck is free standing and not attached
> to the house, but I don't remember and I am unable to look at the
> present time.
I would contact your building department to see what code was in effect in
1991, was the house permitted and inspected, and if so, will the building
official back you up with a letter. If it met code in 1991 and you did not
alter the house, the item above would not need to be corrected.
However, if the deck was added after 1991, then it could fall under a
different code. The building department should have a record of the deck
permit and inspections someplace on file and asking for a letter should be
just as easy.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Phillips, Jr., P.E.
Worthington Engineering, Inc.
145 Greenglade Avenue
Worthington, OH 43085-2264
[email protected]
(remove NS to use the address)
614.937.0463 voice
208.975.1011 fax
http://worthingtonengineering.com
"Keith R. Williams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > I am selling my house, and the buyer's inspector is indicating that
> > there is no flashing between the deck and the house. Is this something
> > that I will need to repair? From my internet scanning, flashing between
> > the deck and house became a requirement by CABO 703.8 since 1995. Since
> > the house was built in 1991, I should not be required to fix this,
correct?
>
> I'd be suspicious, perhaps because I was burned by this. My deck,
> house rim-joist, and sill all rotted out about seven years ago. It was
> a mess, but not *terribly* costly. It cost me about ~$300 for a
> contractor to come out and fix the rim-joist and sill. I repaired
> (rebuilt actually) the deck myself. That was another few hundred
> dollars. It could have been *much* worse.
>
> > Here is the pertinent info:
> > House constructed in 1991 in North Carolina.
>
> It's possible the flashing isn't required by code, but it really should
> be there. It can (likely will) cause a lot of damage otherwise. BTDT!
>
> > House has Abitibi hardboard siding.
> > Deck boards run perpindicular to the house.
> >
> > The deck floor surface is about 1 foot above ground.
>
> You're likely to trap a lot of moisture under the deck and against the
> house. My deck is about the same height.
>
> > It is entirely possible that the deck is free standing and not attached
> > to the house, but I don't remember and I am unable to look at the
> > present time.
>
> I rebuilt mine as free-standing. I didn't want to go through the angst
> of having the sliding glass door almost falling into the basement
> again! Of course if it's free-standing there won't be any flashing,
> since it's not connected.
>
> --
> Keith
* to avoid this is the future *
I always cut 1" pieces of pvc pipe for spacers behind the deck rim joist.
using 1/2" x 5" lag bolts staggered every 16" (bolting through the pvc
spacer) thus allowing water to go behind the deck joists and also allows for
air to dry it out.
works for Chief
"Lyle B. Harwood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> A deck with no flashing between it and the house wasn't installed
> correctly, and will cause other problems. That's why the inspector
> called it out.
>
> It needs to be fixed. Whether you fix it or cut the price because of it
> is up to you. You have a few options, and your real estate agent can
> explain them to you.
>
> Best of luck, and let us know how it comes out!
>
> --
> Lyle B. Harwood, President
OK, now let's get back to reality.
Keep the deck from having leaves and crap building up in the corner , keep
some caulk on it, and it will likely never cause a problem.
--
Jim in NC