FHA -inspection issues

[phoebe33764]

Yesterday I performed an FHA inspection for a multi family home built in 1925. The detached garage has an apartment above it. On the ceiling was about a 2 foot section of missing popcorn. Owner stated that their roof was repaired going on 2 years ago. No stains on ceiling. No attic, obviously. I was unable to determine if there was a roof leak. Owner states that the son (who lives in the apt) didn't want the popcorn on the ceiling and proceeded to take it off, not finishing the job. Would you call for a roof inspection?


2nd issue. This home happens to have an inground spa. There was no water in spa. Owner drained spa because she said that it didn't work. I have never come across a spa that was drained. I have experienced a pool drained and this is a red flag as it is an insurance risk. I am sure the same goes for this spa. Someone could fall in and hurt themselves. Because the spa is inoperable, should I subject this to repair? There is no way this little old lady would be able to afford getting this spa repaired but she did get advice to fill it with dirt. The location of this spa is in an enclosed patio that has access only from french doors from the main house which she keeps locked.

Just curious, that if upon original inspection, she filled it, do I mention that it is there and not value it?

Peeling Paint appears on the rear of the property as well. Possible lead base issue? She had her house for sale 3 years ago and the listing mentioned the house needing paint. She bought the house in 1995 and I am sure that it isn't the original paint. Should I subject this to repair?

Please advise.

 

[CANative]

Condition the appraisal on repair of defective paint on a structure built prior to 1978.

It's up to you on the missing popcorn. It wouldn't get much attention from me. Same for the spa.

 

[phoebe33764]

Thanks for responding, Greg. Will do about the defective paint. I am curious why you would not give attention to the spa. Would you not take a photo of it and ignore it completely?

 

[CANative]

Of course I would include a photo of it. And no, I would not ignore it. It just wouldn't get me too excited. Do the same thing you would do for any other lender type assignment.

Here's a sample of my FHA repair addendum. Some things are required for MPR and some are not.

REQUIRED INSPECTIONS OR REPAIRS:
The below items were noted during the onsite visual observation and subsequent investigation of the subject property's relevant characteristics. Unless otherwise indicated, these items require professional trade/skill inspection or repair to meet MPR (minimum property requirements). Repairs must be completed in a professional manner in compliance with HUD guidelines. Lender to coordinate repairs and document that all readily observable deficiencies indicted in this report have been acceptably corrected or waived by lender.

Foundation:
Inspection and certification by a licensed engineer of the foundation that is installed verifying that the requirements found in the HUD manual "Permanent Foundation Guide for Manufactured Homes" have been met.

Attached decking and awning:
These items which are attached to the manufactured home are listed in the CA HCD publication HCD MH 604 (Rev 11/2007), "Manufactured Home Alterations and Permit Guidelines" as structural alterations (Accessory Structure). A permit, plan review and load calculation is required by the California Housing and Community Development Department. The local planning and building department does not have jurisdiction or responsibility for these items. HUD/FHA does not specifically require plans or permits and the appraiser did not observe any readily apparent evidence of damage, poor workmanship or impending failure. It appears that the attached decking is supported by a ledger board attached to the siding of the manufactured home and the wood frame awning is attached to the manufactured home's roofing system. The appraiser recommends a structural inspection but does not make this a requirement.

Pest/Termite/Wood destroying organisms:
While the appraiser has no specific expertise in identifying problems associated with infestations of wood destroying organisms, a possible problem was observed at the south end of the improvements where the skirting has been removed and some minor repairs appear to be in progress. It appeared that sections of the pony wall framing or mudsill have been removed and there were some signs of insect activity such as particulate matter and wings. A prudent course of action would be to have the property inspected by a pest control company and this is commonly done as part of a sales transaction in this area. The assumption is made that there is no signficant infestation and that the condition does not require repairs or alterations. The value opinion is made subject to an inspection and clearance.

Roofing:
The composition roofing appears to be original and the appraiser observed several areas which have been patched and repaired. No evidence of leaking noted during the interior visual inspection. The assumption is made that the roofing is not in immediate need of replacement but remaining life cannot be assessed by the appraiser. A roofing inspection is required to insure the property meets MPS.

Cost to cure for items causing a condition rating of "fair."
These items do not rise to the level of damage or deferred maintenance which adversely affect the livability, soundness or structural integrity but do have a less than favorable effect on marketability and value. The effect on value has been addressed in the sales comparison approach by making adjustments to the comparable sales for market reaction to the condition and repairs are not required for the property to meet HUD/FHA MPS.

Carpeting: Most of the carpeting appears to be remnants which are not properly installed or affixed. They are worn beyond the point which professional cleaning would be effective. Cost of standard grade carpeting, installed, is about $30 per square yard and there is about 110 square yards of carpeted area (70% of 1,411 square feet of GLA). Cost to cure is about $3,300.

Roofing: The composition shingle roofing appears to be original thus making it about 19 years old. Average life expectancy of this type of roofing is about 17 years. Cost of recovering (not removing the old shingles) is about $3.50 per square foot installed. There is about 1,500 square feet of roof surface so the cost would be about $5,250.

Edit... Found a typo. Wish I had noticed it when I sent this file in. LOL... oh well.

 

[phoebe33764]

Thanks again Greg. I appreciate your comments.

 

[Brad Pack]

The spa MUST be filled with water and fully operational or removed.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Thanks again Greg. I appreciate your comments.

And...take heed to Brad Pack's post immediately above!

 

[CANative]

HUD/FHA doesn't give a toot about permits and building code compliance but the spa must have a few gallons of water in it or out it goes?

That's sort of like the MH (formerly called a MOBILE home) can never have been moved but if it's a site built house it can be moved around the country twice a year and be OK for FHA insurance.

Where's the MPR or other handbook cite for the spa thing Brad? I don't want to make a mistake like this again.

 

[phoebe33764]

And...take heed to Brad Pack's post immediately above!

So let me get this straight, let's say that upon inspection, I came across this inground entity and it was a spa sized "planter" with a big palm tree plopped in the middle of it. No hazzard to anyone. No value given as it is a planter. Are you and Brad inferring the owner remove it?

If FHA's main concerns since revision are Safety, Security and Soundness, a drained pool or spa in this case would violate the Safety catagory, nothing to do with FHA security and really doesn't affect the structural integrity of the home. If she had filled it, then it seems it would be a non issue.

There is no way this little old lady is going to have it removed. Brick pavers surround the spa that appear to cost more than the spa itself. If she fills it with water it really doesn't matter since she knows it does not work. This is where I am having trouble, she doesn't want to use this spa or if she did, she would have had it fixed.

Wouldn't the best action be for the appraisal to be subject to repair with a suggestion that it be filled with dirt or sand so it doesn't post a hazzard to anyone falling in? What if this was a purchase and the prior owner had it filled? Would FHA call for the "filling" to be removed or call for the entire inground spa to be uprooted?

I am just trying to make sense of this.

 

[Rufus]

Wouldn't the best action be for the appraisal to be subject to repair with a suggestion that it be filled with dirt or sand so it doesn't post a hazzard to anyone falling in?

As you posted before:

The location of this spa is in an enclosed patio that has access only from french doors from the main house which she keeps locked.

Personally, I think that covers the safetly aspect but, of course, this is just logic speaking not government approved rationale.