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.