Go Back   TeamTalk > Off Topic > Off Topic Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-20-2013, 11:40 AM
h2oskifreak's Avatar
h2oskifreak h2oskifreak is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: May 2007
Boat: 1994 PS 190 TBI
Location: West
Posts: 1,216
If an Appraiser get totally out of control, they can be reported to VA/FHA and if enough complaints come in, the Regulatory agency can yank their approval. Also, if one lender has regular trouble with an Appraiser, they can be removed from the list of approved appraisers and simply not used any longer. I have seen this work.
__________________
"One foot in the grave, one foot on the pedal, I was born a rebel" Petty
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-20-2013, 11:51 AM
kkkeating kkkeating is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Boat: Mastercraft X-9 2001
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 187
Depending on the placement of the sill plate and the construction of the basement, the FHA inspector most likely is correct in his statement, assuming the type of cable you’re using is nometallic-sheath cable(romex). The odd item is the inspector couldn’t point out in the code where this is required. This is covered in the 2011 National Electrical Code, Article 334.15(C)(Exposed work, In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces). The NEC makes it clear that physical protection is always to be provided where the cable is subject to physical damage, which is a possibility in an unfinished basement. The article is used to define how the cable can be used in exposed work. The important sentence in this article states “Nonmetallic-shealth cable installed on the wall of an unfinished basement shall be permitted to be installed in a listed conduit tubing or shall be protected in accordance with 300.4.

A photo of the installation would help out in making a final evaluation.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-20-2013, 12:11 PM
homer12's Avatar
homer12 homer12 is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Boat: MC Tristar 190 OB, 1989
Location: midwest
Posts: 356
I wonder if he even knows what NEC stands for? lol...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-20-2013, 02:00 PM
JohnE's Avatar
JohnE JohnE is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Boat: 1997 '190 LT-1/ 'slot
Location: Boston 'burbs
Posts: 8,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkkeating View Post
Depending on the placement of the sill plate and the construction of the basement, the FHA inspector most likely is correct in his statement, assuming the type of cable you’re using is nometallic-sheath cable(romex). The odd item is the inspector couldn’t point out in the code where this is required. This is covered in the 2011 National Electrical Code, Article 334.15(C)(Exposed work, In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces). The NEC makes it clear that physical protection is always to be provided where the cable is subject to physical damage, which is a possibility in an unfinished basement. The article is used to define how the cable can be used in exposed work. The important sentence in this article states “Nonmetallic-shealth cable installed on the wall of an unfinished basement shall be permitted to be installed in a listed conduit tubing or shall be protected in accordance with 300.4.

A photo of the installation would help out in making a final evaluation.
In over 30 years wiring houses and almost 10 years reading opinions on Mike Holt's forum I have never heard of anyone interpreting that a cable stapled to a sill plate is subject to physical damage. And if he allows cables run perpendicular to joists through bored holes than how he could possible say one is subject to damage and one is not? It is pretty much impossible to substantiate. Lets face it his has OP by the ***** so cables will get covered. But if he is saying they are subject to physical damage that is BS. Plus a half round conduit will not be an approved method of protecting a cable from physical damage.

334.15(C) makes it clear that the cables can be stapled to a running board underneath a joist. Along the sill is almost identical. (Actually a bit more protected when sill is set back from foundation edge which is almost always.
__________________
'97 Prostar 190 - LT-1

Prior boats - 2009 X14, 2008 X14, 2005 197, 1988 Tristar 190, 1989 Prostar.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-20-2013, 02:17 PM
Traxx822's Avatar
Traxx822 Traxx822 is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Boat: Mastercraft, Maristar 200VRS, 1995, Indimar 5.7, My first MasterCraft
Location: Chicago SW sub
Posts: 2,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkski View Post
So, I finally have a buyer lined up for my old house and while I knew I would have to do some items, like a new electrical panel (mine was a Federal Pacific which they frown upon), I was surprised by what the FHA appraiser wants done.
For starters, I should mention that the buyer had a home inspection done and the electrical items the guy pointed out were the box and that a couple of GFI outlets needed to be added, otherwise all good. So, the FHA appraiser comes in and he says that all wiring in the basement must be run thru the floor joists or in conduit and it can not be stapled to the sill plate or the side of any floor joist. Now, I understand not having a wire tacked to the underside of a joist, but to run alongside a joist and tacked up 5 inches or so from the bottom, I thought that was fine. So, I had 2 different licensed electricians come thru and they took a look at my wiring and said it was code however the FHA appraiser informs me that while it may be fine for conventional it is not OK for FHA. So, everything is going into conduit but I wanted to see if any of you guys have ever run into this or if this appraiser has some bad info.
Thanks in advance.
I work in Mortgage field services as a contractor for banks directly so I am pretty accustomed to having this issue. FHA loans are completely different from Conventional loans. And they come with a different set of rules. Its kind of what you get for allowing the government to assist on first time home buyer credit and other things. But your loan ... albeit may be deep entrenched and in fine print, will clearly state that your home must pass all current regulations for safety. They consider electrical to be a safety issue. So if you are going to sell your home it has to comply with current codes. Even if what was performed was done correct at the time.

I can also tell you that it is better fire protection to run your wires in pipe, through the floor joists. Not stapled or romex wire run like extension cords all over the place. Yes I know not all states require conduit, but FHA requires you comply with all new regs.

My advice is no never accept any government assisted loan. Even for first time home buyer credit of $8k. Because they will make you spend that savings later ... EVERY SINGLE TIME. Its their job to make sure that the home they finance is of the highest quality and most current standards so if you default then they have a more valuable and safe home to resell.

It sucks, FHA sucks. Even though I make my living off of doing these repairs to FHA homes in default.

As a note: Romex is not allowed in any homes in my area. Exposed or not. It is a violation is any manner.
__________________
When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.
1 Corinthians Chapter 13 - 11
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-20-2013, 03:12 PM
JohnE's Avatar
JohnE JohnE is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Boat: 1997 '190 LT-1/ 'slot
Location: Boston 'burbs
Posts: 8,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traxx822 View Post
I work in Mortgage field services as a contractor for banks directly so I am pretty accustomed to having this issue. FHA loans are completely different from Conventional loans. And they come with a different set of rules. Its kind of what you get for allowing the government to assist on first time home buyer credit and other things. But your loan ... albeit may be deep entrenched and in fine print, will clearly state that your home must pass all current regulations for safety. They consider electrical to be a safety issue. So if you are going to sell your home it has to comply with current codes. Even if what was performed was done correct at the time.

I can also tell you that it is better fire protection to run your wires in pipe, through the floor joists. Not stapled or romex wire run like extension cords all over the place. Yes I know not all states require conduit, but FHA requires you comply with all new regs.

My advice is no never accept any government assisted loan. Even for first time home buyer credit of $8k. Because they will make you spend that savings later ... EVERY SINGLE TIME. Its their job to make sure that the home they finance is of the highest quality and most current standards so if you default then they have a more valuable and safe home to resell.

It sucks, FHA sucks. Even though I make my living off of doing these repairs to FHA homes in default.

As a note: Romex is not allowed in any homes in my area. Exposed or not. It is a violation is any manner.
Certainly a steel conduit offers better protection than romex. Chicago is somewhat famous for requiring conduit in residential. I wouldn't wire my house that way if you paid me. Completely overkill and unnecessary IMO. Interesting fine print.

Interesting advice on the gov. loan too.
__________________
'97 Prostar 190 - LT-1

Prior boats - 2009 X14, 2008 X14, 2005 197, 1988 Tristar 190, 1989 Prostar.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-20-2013, 03:52 PM
kkkeating kkkeating is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Boat: Mastercraft X-9 2001
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 187
In over 30 years wiring houses and almost 10 years reading opinions on Mike Holt's forum I have never heard of anyone interpreting that a cable stapled to a sill plate is subject to physical damage.

Response: This has come up before, and the code is not as clear as it should be. Depending on where the sill plate is in relation to the wall is really the question. If it’s somewhat recessed and up high then that’s open to interpretation, however the inspector of the AHJ has the final say regarding the interpretation. If it’s low, not recessed, and accessible then it can easily be claimed that it needs protection. NEC 334.12(B) clearly states that for exposed work for this type of cable, “The cable shall be protected for physical damage where necessary” That’s why I asked for photos.

And if he allows cables run perpendicular to joists through bored holes than how he could possible say one is subject to damage and one is not? It is pretty much impossible to substantiate.

Response: Because the code clearly states that cables can be run perpendicular to the joists in bored holes. See NEC NEC 334.12(C) which states “Smaller cables shall be run either through bored holes in joists on running boards” The reason for running boards is to prevent people from “clothes hanging”, or in other words preventing people from hanging items from the cable. Granted, people can still hang items from the cable through the bored holes, but for some reason the code felt this wouldn’t be as much of an issue as when the cable is directly on the bottom of the joists.

The point being with my post is the inspector is not necessary out of bounds with his request. The code is not as clear as it should be for this type of installation. I’m a professional electrical engineer who works in the industry and you’d be surprised what can come up in a lawsuit. And it doesn’t matter what’s in the code. If I was to design this installation, and if someone damaged the cable and got electrocuted, the first item the attorneys’ would bring up would be “The code requires physical protection of the cable, and obviously you didn’t provide it as someone got electrocuted”. At that point in time my Errors and Omission’s insurance kicks in $50K as opposed to trying to fight it and paying substantially more after a trail. This could be the inspector’s company policy for this type of installation. It cost no money to them to implement, and can save a potential lawsuit from occurring in the future against them.

Last edited by kkkeating; 11-20-2013 at 05:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-20-2013, 04:07 PM
cbryan70's Avatar
cbryan70 cbryan70 is offline
MC Maniac
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Boat: 1993 Prostar 205
Location: midwest
Posts: 3,651
Send a message via AIM to cbryan70
I bought my home FHA and somehow no repairs were needed. I dont even think they sent an home inspector out besides the one I paid.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier Bob
She always misses me and when I turn her on it is hard to turn her off! She is MC and she completes me! She is the first ride that wants it as much as I do!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-25-2013, 10:54 AM
JohnE's Avatar
JohnE JohnE is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Boat: 1997 '190 LT-1/ 'slot
Location: Boston 'burbs
Posts: 8,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkkeating View Post

The point being with my post is the inspector is not necessary out of bounds with his request. The code is not as clear as it should be for this type of installation. I’m a professional electrical engineer who works in the industry and you’d be surprised what can come up in a lawsuit. And it doesn’t matter what’s in the code. If I was to design this installation, and if someone damaged the cable and got electrocuted, the first item the attorneys’ would bring up would be “The code requires physical protection of the cable, and obviously you didn’t provide it as someone got electrocuted”. At that point in time my Errors and Omission’s insurance kicks in $50K as opposed to trying to fight it and paying substantially more after a trail. This could be the inspector’s company policy for this type of installation. It cost no money to them to implement, and can save a potential lawsuit from occurring in the future against them.
This is the only part of your response that I agree with. But lets agree to take the rest over to Mike Holt's site. We won't bore anyone here with it. We'd have ten pages of responses over there.
__________________
'97 Prostar 190 - LT-1

Prior boats - 2009 X14, 2008 X14, 2005 197, 1988 Tristar 190, 1989 Prostar.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-25-2013, 03:30 PM
jkski jkski is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Boat: 2008 40th Anniv. Prostar 197 MCX and Powerslot
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 1,910
To help close this out, I met the appraiser at the house over the weekend when he went to do his re-inspection. He still did not provide any documentation but did pass it so we are now in the home stretch.....I think.
The appraiser kept talking about wires not in conduit or running thru joists as a safety hazzard stating that a wire that is up against something hard, like being stapled to the side of a joist, poses a potential hazzard in that the wire could easily be stabbed, whereas one running thru a joist can not as it will move or give.
Still not happy about it but it's $200 closer to a closing date!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:32 AM.