Stair Railings - Safety Concern?

[Zoe]

I would not like that drop as homeowner as drop. I would tell lender that and you as the homeowner

 

[Tom4value]

yes, but... you'd agree that there are different inspection, analysis, and reporting requirements betwixt the GSE's and FHA, would you not? I'd agree with you RE the lack of handrail being a safety concern for this scenario - regardless of whether it's being insured or securitized, but for the deck that is 20' long and has 3 steps down (the entire length of the deck), the question of whether it's FHA or GSE becomes relevant doesn't it?

View attachment 91376

No, I disagree. The argument that you can, "have a less inspection with conventional than FHA" is a lie. Aside from reporting lead paint and taking a photo of an attic, a conventional inspection SHOULD BE THE SAME DETAIL. Safety concerns are an issue with conventional. The lender cannot sell a loan with a safety issue. period.

Regarding your photo, check with the building inspector. If the BI says it is to code, then it is not an issue, regardless of loan type.

 

[sputnam]

That would be in engagement letter. I set SOW.

If client wants "as is" vs "subject to", I have no problem with it. However, the fee will change.

If you have a knowledgeable client, it is probably in the Lettor of Engagement. Not all of them are knowledgeable. Not all of them are diligent about the client requirements and guildelines being included in their LOE. Additionally, they expect you to know any GSE requirements.

 

[alebrewer]

No, I disagree. The argument that you can, "have a less inspection with conventional than FHA" is a lie. Aside from reporting lead paint and taking a photo of an attic, a conventional inspection SHOULD BE THE SAME DETAIL. Safety concerns are an issue with conventional. The lender cannot sell a loan with a safety issue. period.

Regarding your photo, check with the building inspector. If the BI says it is to code, then it is not an issue, regardless of loan type.

So - you just contradicted your own assertion. The moment you introduced 'Aside from', you assented that the inspection SOW is different for F/F than for FHA. In addition, the reporting requirements are different. For instance - FHA requires the case number to be reported as well as acknowledgement that FHA is the intended user - F/F don't issue case numbers, so no case number is required, and they have no requirement to acknowledge intended users in the commentary. So yes - the SOW is different for F/F than for FHA.

I get your point - I really do - but you could be confusing folks herein.

RE the photo - it was a random photo demonstrating the silliness of some of the FHA requirements. I don't need to check with any building inspectors.

 

[Zoe]

Its 48" but you'd have to work at falling off. Its been there 35 years, no falls yet, and that's after raising kids and older people.

Bottom line is that there's a big difference between falling 48" onto grass and falling 8' onto concrete. To me, it seems that the GSE's say you don't have to make it subject-to but I don't think its a requirement to essentially ignore a dangerous situation.

If my client told me to remove a hazardous 'subject-to' repair I'd consider it an unacceptable assignment condition.

Did you build it? Just put a little back rail around the back of the bench. Like sitting in a chair. It will dress it up. Just secure it to the bench. Your patrons can lean back on it. It will look good. The house is on one side. You only got 2 sides on that bench.

The bench looks nice. I would probably use screws to secure the back stop railing to secure it to the bench. You probably only need the back side of that bench to make it look nice.

 

[Tom4value]

So - you just contradicted your own assertion. The moment you introduced 'Aside from', you assented that the inspection SOW is different for F/F than for FHA. In addition, the reporting requirements are different. For instance - FHA requires the case number to be reported as well as acknowledgement that FHA is the intended user - F/F don't issue case numbers, so no case number is required, and they have no requirement to acknowledge intended users in the commentary. So yes - the SOW is different for F/F than for FHA.

I get your point - I really do - but you could be confusing folks herein.

RE the photo - it was a random photo demonstrating the silliness of some of the FHA requirements. I don't need to check with any building inspectors.

Not really. Reporting criteria may be different but inspections are the same. For attics, even conventional I go up in walk-up and drop stair. Scuttles, I admit, I don’t unless I suspect a leak.

Peeling paint for conventional, I photo/mention/condition for excessive that would affect structural integrity (exterior siding, bathroom shower, etc.).

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

a conventional CONFORMING (FNMA) loan inspection SHOULD BE THE SAME DETAIL.

to clarify - the conventional non-conforming loans are different. They do not require measurement, and often not even inspection. They only need to comply with USPAP and lender instruction. These loans are not sold to secondary market but do originate in banks...real banks, not loan originators or mortgage brokers.

 

[DISfunctionalObsolescence]

Back in my day, we could ride on the back of my grandmas car at 8 years old while holding onto her spoiler so she could drive 5 miles to her house going around 20 MPH. This overly ‘safe’ stuff has weakened humanity. I don’t call stuff out unless I know it could kill someone. Otherwise, buyer beware. People falling down stairs is hilarious anyway!

 

[RCA]

I have an an appraisal with a few questionable staircases. The first is a staircase with no railing leading to an unfinished attic. I almost never see attics and want to hear other opinions on what needs to be fixed and is considered a health and safety concern. Should this attic staircase be required to have a railing?

The second problem is a staircase leading to a storage / bonus room above a detached garage. The staircase has some rotting boards and the railing is also a problem. Should I make this garage staircase subject to repair too? Since neither of these staircases lead to GLA I wonder how other appraisers this.

its a question of compliance to local codes and safety.

 

[Zoe]

You provide the value or values that the Client requests. If you know the appraisal is for a HUD or VA loan, and there are safety issues then, you MUST complete the appraisal subject to correction. If the appraisal is for a conventional loan then, you do as the Client instructs. As-Is or Subject to correction or both. Always, you describe the subject property accurately... including any safety issues that you find. The Client can't just 'do as they wish' with your appraisal. If you complete the appraisal subject to correction, and they need As-Is, you are going to be making a revision.

That is true but if I am doing "subject to" and my client wants "as is" in original engagement, I can turn around and tell my client that I need them to get estimates to repair these "safety" issues and current "code violations" before I can give them an "as is" value.

Do you catch my drift?

Even if no building code is involved. Give me the estimates and I can give you "as is" opinion of market value.