I received a phone call the other day from a family friend who is a realtor. She mentioned that she has a listing with foundation problems. The inspector noted some cracks and advised consulting a professional. Usually, that ends up being a foundation repair company, which then sends out a salesperson who earns a commission from a local foundation repair business.

I have been writing for years about the problem with such an arrangement. These salespeople are unqualified to do engineering work, as well as their conflict of interest in diagnosing problems that they profit from through the solutions they propose. In this case, the salesperson claimed that $80,000 worth of work was needed.

The report was typical of what most foundation repair salespeople produce. Similar reports are sent out many times every day. Some may not even include the information listed below.

So I asked her to send me the inspector’s report as well as the “report” from the foundation repair company. I was shocked, to say the least. The report included the topo analysis, which is further down in this blog.

This was part of a real estate transaction. As a result, a home inspection was performed. Under the foundation section, pictures were shown of a cracked stem wall due to rusted rebar, and advice was given to seek an expert to evaluate the stem walls and propose repairs.

This was what was called out on the inspector’s report. 

There are several horizontal stem wall fractures, which are not uncommon. While there is no evidence of structural displacement at this time, you may wish for a further evaluation by a qualified contractor for repair suggestions to avoid further damage to the stem walls and possible structural displacement.

The foundation repair company was called out and addressed those stem walls with deteriorating rebar. However, the commissioned salesperson took it upon themselves, without cause or recommendation (as they are trained and encouraged to do), to perform a floor elevation survey and recommend a pile system to address nonexistent settlement. 

This was completely unwarranted. Why? Because foundation repair salespeople are encouraged to quote as many items as possible, whether needed or not, to maximize sales revenue. Larger projects tend to be more profitable. See my blog (on this subject).

Floor Elevation Survey by Foundation Repair Company

I note the following regarding this “analysis”:

1. The maximum differential is 8/10” or a little more than ¾”. That is barely enough to notice. Arizona State University established that most homes are out of level by ±5/8”. Most geotechnical reports show that houses usually settle between ¾ inches and 1¼ inches, often during construction. For a house out of level by .8”, this isn’t significant, especially considering it might have been built at those elevations originally.
   
2. Notice the coloring. “Green means good”, “red means bad”. This is an oversimplification and a manipulation. It tries to suggest that higher elevations are necessarily good and all lower elevations are bad. This completely ignores the fact that much of the movement of foundations, especially in arid climates like Arizona, can be caused by upward heaving from expansive soils. See my blog (on this subject).
   
3. The Garage elevations are all incorrect. Garage floors are sloped for drainage and usually have a 4-inch step from the home floor slab to contain carbon monoxide from the vehicle. The garage floor slab can play a significant role in understanding the overall performance of the entire slab and foundation if it is analyzed properly. The stem walls of the perimeter are placed level with the house floor slab and should be used instead of the garage floor, which, if used, provides misleading data. The company knows this because the topo lines would normally show red, indicating they are 4 inches lower and slope downward toward the garage door. Therefore, they have intentionally ignored the elevations in the garage, which results in an incorrect interpretation of the entire slab and foundation.
   
4. The spacing of the topo lines is 1/10”. This is misleading and not in the universally accepted spacing of 2/10”. This has the effect of having a bunch of topo lines that give the effect of so many topo lines seem like there is a lot more movement. It is deliberately manipulative, creating the false impression of severe movement.

What is Missing … But Should Be Included

Now lets look at what is missing from this analysis. As I have pointed out in my numerous blogs and books, to understand the elevation survey, 17 types of data need to be examined. See my blog here.

I emphasize multiple times that trying to understand elevations in isolation without additional data is incorrect and misleading. Elevations are not absolute; instead, they are relative. There is no benchmark, so you can’t analyze them in isolation to determine what has risen or fallen. They must be interpreted in relation to each other, which means you need other data to accurately assess movement.

1. First and foremost, elevations without damages are vacuous. There is no way to know if the low points went down or if the high points went up. Damage helps us understand movement. If there are signs of stress (cracks in walls, floors, or ceilings; doors or windows out of square; baseboards, cramming, or gaps; truss crush; etc.) in the low areas, we might start to hypothesize movement downward. Conversely, if the signs of stress are in the high areas, then we might start to look more closely at expansive soil heave in those areas. Without either, we have no clue. See my blog here.
   
2. No mention is made of soils on this site. Expansive clays can swell or shrink. Sands and silts cannot heave, and therefore the upward movement can be discounted. Without this info, our ability to understand movement is limited and could easily be in error. See my blog (on this subject).
   
3. No discussion of climatic moisture levels is mentioned. Without that analysis, the likelihood of heave vs settlement is not understood, leaving the result open to serious mistakes. See my blog (on this subject).
   
4. Have there been water leaks? How recent are signs of stress? These and many other questions help us understand the conditions that shed light on the likelihood of future movement. See my blog (on this subject).
   
5. There are no aerial photos. Without understanding things like grass that tends to be overwatered, trees that suck water, pools that contribute water, improper drainage, and many other issues that need to be understood before conclusions are reached. Nor is there any discussion of the site topography that would help us understand water flow around the house. See my blog (on this subject).
   
6. There is no discussion of the foundation type, trusses, or any interior load-bearing walls. Without this data, significant errors in designing repair plans are likely to occur. See my blog (on this subject).
   
7. No scale is shown. Is it to any scale? Without that assurance, we cannot be sure that the dimensions are correct, putting the plan in serious question. See my blog (on this subject).
   
8. No mention is made of the age of the house. This is extremely important information for understanding moisture migration under the home. It usually takes 20 years or more for moisture to migrate under the slab. Without this data, we have no idea how to interpret the various elevations. See my blog (on this subject).
   
9. No discussion is offered as to the severity of the problem. Verbally, I am sure some comments were made to encourage the homeowner to buy the proposed repairs. I am confident that the commissioned salesperson has no clue about engineering allowables for tilt and deflection. See my blog (on this subject).

I took the liberty of running the floor elevations through our software, with the results shown below using PTI standard allowables. (PTI DC10.8)

As you can see, this house easily passed in both tilt and deflection. Deflection was almost half the allowable, and tilt was almost 1/10^th  the allowable. But I am sure the salesperson told the customer that, on a scale of 1 to 10, based on their “experienced opinion,” it was an 8.5… whatever that could possibly mean.

1.  I am confident that no peer review process has been undertaken, and, obviously, no engineering seal is present; therefore, none has been employed here, which almost ensures serious fundamental mistakes. See my blog(on this subject)
   
2. The plan shows 6-foot spacing between piers. Lightly loaded stucco homes with concrete stem walls, rebar, and no snow loads can be spaced at 8 feet. Using that data, significant savings can be achieved. Without this careful analysis, the homeowner will pay automatically 25% more. This benefits the foundation repair company and the salesperson’s commission, but it’s not so good for the homeowner, who ends up paying for unnecessary capacity. Of course, in this particular case, no piers were ever needed.

Conclusion

This is a typical sales job where the salesperson has no idea how to evaluate a foundation’s performance. They push ahead and “recommend” whatever they can to boost sales and earn a big commission. The silent fleecing of America.