V. Nightshade
Junior Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- California
Does FHA require that all exposed wiring be corrected? I noted and photographed a missing recessed lighting fixture, with exposed wiring in the ceiling. I did not condition the report on it, but I noted it and assumed that it would be fixed prior to close of escrow. (The owner was in the process of correcting any problems that hat emerged from prior building inspection.)
I received a request to confirm that this had been done and to change the date on my report. I said if they needed me to re-inspect, I would need to do it as a final report, and the middleman immediately agreed and seemed annoyed at the "client" for trying to get around this.
My question is this: Was this really a conditionable health and safety issue? It was just a missing light cover? I felt that I needed to disclose it since not disclosing is a slippery slope
(As I was writing this, the agent called, as she was frantically looking for the exposed wires, which of course weren't there because he put the light cover back on.)
(On further reflection, it's not my problem. If the UW wants me to re-inspect, then that's fine. It does seem a little like overkill. It seems that there could be other equally sensible ways of determining that the light cover was reinstalled.)
Any guidance and citation of chapter I should reread would be helpful.
Thanks
I received a request to confirm that this had been done and to change the date on my report. I said if they needed me to re-inspect, I would need to do it as a final report, and the middleman immediately agreed and seemed annoyed at the "client" for trying to get around this.
My question is this: Was this really a conditionable health and safety issue? It was just a missing light cover? I felt that I needed to disclose it since not disclosing is a slippery slope

(As I was writing this, the agent called, as she was frantically looking for the exposed wires, which of course weren't there because he put the light cover back on.)
(On further reflection, it's not my problem. If the UW wants me to re-inspect, then that's fine. It does seem a little like overkill. It seems that there could be other equally sensible ways of determining that the light cover was reinstalled.)
Any guidance and citation of chapter I should reread would be helpful.
Thanks
Last edited: