Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The lead issue is so frustrating. We have two kids under six and I couldn't find a single person who recommended doing the lead test, including our realtor and others who are supposed to be representing our interests. I think because it's such a liability issue, but if I heard one more person give the whole "We all grew up with it and we're fine" or "Don't let your kid chew the walls" or "That's only a problem for bad inner city parents who don't watch their kids and lead them eat paint chips"(!) I was going to scream.
**Vent: the problem with lead paint is not so much about kids eating paint chips, it's from the dust that is released and inhaled or ingested by kids who put everything in their mouths (toy has saliva on it, lead dust sticks to saliva, toy goes back in mouth). Windows with lead paint release that lead dust every time they are opened or closed due to the friction against the paint. Ok, vent over.**
We hired a lead inspector anyway at the time of the home inspection, and even though I was verbally given results nothing was disclosed to anyone, I think so we would be given the choice of walking away or negotiating and the sellers wouldn't be required to delead. It also meant that we technically wouldn't have to delead right away either if we bought the house. It's all both a relief not to be under any legal requirements and frustrating that this all seems to mean so little to everybody whether kids get lead poisoning or not, as long as no laws are broken.
Anyway, we chose this house even though it was built in the 1940s because the outside was covered with vinyl siding and all of the windows have been replaced, two major areas where lead paint would be found and where it would be the most expensive to clean up. We figured that if there were lead paint it might be on minor areas we could afford to have remediated, and sure enough, there were just two areas in the basement which we can afford to have done before we move in. Actually when I spoke with a deleading contractor he said it would cost more to do the cleanup and certification than to do the actual work.
So we got a test pre-purchase and are deleading by choice but apparently we wouldn't have to since the test results weren't reported. The previous owners bought before they had children so they didn't have to test or delead even though kids under six were living in the house. As is my understanding, if they or we did a lead test after buying the house and after having kids, if those tests showed that there were lead in the house, then according to MA law it would have to be remediated within 90 days.
Good luck with whatever you choose and congrats on the new baby
Your post is great and sums up nicely just how frustrating it is dealing with home purchase/renting while being mindful of the lead issue. Laws are there just to be able to avoid liability. Burden is on the buyers which is unfair for the amount most sellers like to charge today, even for less than modest homes. Young families beware. It is serious poisoning and often with life-long consequences.
We have two kids under six and I couldn't find a single person who recommended doing the lead test, including our realtor and others who are supposed to be representing our interests.
Out of curiousity . . . did your agent try to tell you lead paint was harmless? Did they try to convince you that it was unlikely there was lead in the house? It sounds like they advised you not to have the house tested during the purchase process. Is that solely what you're basing your statement on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribechamy
We hired a lead inspector anyway at the time of the home inspection, and even though I was verbally given results nothing was disclosed to anyone, I think so we would be given the choice of walking away or negotiating and the sellers wouldn't be required to delead. It also meant that we technically wouldn't have to delead right away either if we bought the house. It's all both a relief not to be under any legal requirements and frustrating that this all seems to mean so little to everybody whether kids get lead poisoning or not, as long as no laws are broken.
I'm pretty sure your lead inspector could lose their license for acting in such a manner. Lead paint tests are required to be documented and reports are required to be filed with the state. You should double check the state's lead paint database to make sure your house isn't in there. Regardless, just getting a verbal report like this opens up a whole can of worms and raises tons of questions. If you're going to test, hire someone who will play by the rules.
Out of curiousity . . . did your agent try to tell you lead paint was harmless? Did they try to convince you that it was unlikely there was lead in the house? It sounds like they advised you not to have the house tested during the purchase process. Is that solely what you're basing your statement on?
I got the necessary disclosures, and statements about how the lead status was unknown per the listing but there was a chance that there was lead in the home because it was built prior to 1978, etc. etc. But I also got some of the attitude I quoted above. And when I mentioned lead testing was told, "Oh, you don't need to do that" This was this particular agent, with whom I'm working because they're very good at what they do in terms of finding and negotiating houses, but with whom I disagree on this issue. But this is far from the only agent for sales and rentals who has expressed similar attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU
I'm pretty sure your lead inspector could lose their license for acting in such a manner. Lead paint tests are required to be documented and reports are required to be filed with the state. You should double check the state's lead paint database to make sure your house isn't in there. Regardless, just getting a verbal report like this opens up a whole can of worms and raises tons of questions. If you're going to test, hire someone who will play by the rules.
I hired a licensed inspector whose name is on a list of those recommended by state lead removal programs. I found the inspector independently and paid out of pocket. I was surprised too when my agent said it wouldn't be reported and when I didn't see anything in the written report, but there you have it. I think if I were the homeowner it would have been reported. The house wasn't in the database before testing and isn't now. (How often is the MA "Lead Safe Homes" database updated?)
I feel I'm bursting a bubble here, playing by the rules is important to you, but as someone who has moved frequently as a renter (and had to deal with lead disputes with two landlords) and is now a buyer, I can tell you that the number of people who don't seem to care as long as they don't get sued is astonishing. As the current case in Melrose demonstrates, some don't seem to care even if they do get sued.
Because of the burden upon homeowners to de-lead, people don't test, don't disclose, don't use the L word if they can help it - it's all, "Oh, we're not sure, but it is an old house" or "It's probably fine, we all grew up with it, didn't we?" or "You have young kids, this might not be the house for you". (Yes, illegal, but it's all so subtle and polite most people don't pursue it or even realize it is so).
Maybe if property owners felt safer testing or knew they could get help with abatement they might test and find out as we did that they may not have too much work to do or that it doesn't have to be a radical effort. Exteriors can be covered by new materials. Windows and woodwork can be replaced and the home cleaned. Only surfaces six feet from the ground/floor need to be abated. Some surfaces can be encapsulated with special paint if done correctly. None of this is free and all needs to be done carefully (which can be more expensive) but it isn't necessarily cost-prohibitive. Owner occupants can get financial assistance and a tax break, and if landlords took the time and investment to go through the lead compliance process they'd find they would have their pick of willing tenants who would pay for that assurance.
But everyone is scared of the unknown, and others don't really care, so here we are.
Last edited by tribechamy; 06-10-2013 at 06:51 AM..
Reason: clarification
I got the necessary disclosures, and statements about how the lead status was unknown per the listing but there was a chance that there was lead in the home because it was built prior to 1978, etc. etc. But I also got some of the attitude I quoted above. And when I mentioned lead testing was told, "Oh, you don't need to do that" This was this particular agent, with whom I'm working because they're very good at what they do in terms of finding and negotiating houses, but with whom I disagree on this issue. But this is far from the only agent for sales and rentals who has expressed similar attitude.
When you say "attitude I quoted above" I'm guessing you're referring to the attitude of "it's harmless and we all grew up with it." If that's what you mean then that agent is not doing the right thing for their clients. If they said "don't bother testing because there's definitely lead paint in this house and lead paint is harmful" then that's more of a case open for debate. I would also add that in a higly competitive market like what we're dealing with today in most of Eastern MA that added contingencies make your offer less attractive and this is something that potentially could be dropped and addressed once you take ownership. In a house like yours where the windows have been replaced and the outside vinyl sided, it's a pretty safe bet that the amount of de-leading needed is going to be minimal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribechamy
I hired a licensed inspector whose name is on a list of those recommended by state lead removal programs. I found the inspector independently and paid out of pocket. I was surprised too when my agent said it wouldn't be reported and when I didn't see anything in the written report, but there you have it. I think if I were the homeowner it would have been reported. The house wasn't in the database before testing and isn't now. (How often is the MA "Lead Safe Homes" database updated?)
I feel I'm bursting a bubble here, playing by the rules is important to you, but as someone who has moved frequently as a renter (and had to deal with lead disputes with two landlords) and is now a buyer, I can tell you that the number of people who don't seem to care as long as they don't get sued is astonishing. As the current case in Melrose demonstrates, some don't seem to care even if they do get sued.
It doesn't matter who orders the test. There must be a report done and the report must be filed with the state. I don't work with people who don't play by the rules because if they're willing to break one rule it makes me wonder what other rules they're willing to break or severely bend. How can I trust a lead inspector who doesn't file his report to actually do a thorough inspection? Maybe he's the kind of guy who if you slip him a couple of bucks he'll say whatever I tell him like "oh there's only a little lead in the basement." I don't want to be associated with those types of people. I don't know how far your inspector is willing to take it, but doing one questionable thing makes me want to question everything done by that person.
As for how often the database is updated . . . I don't have that answer but being that it's run by the state it's probably not updated as often as it should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribechamy
Because of the burden upon homeowners to de-lead, people don't test, don't disclose, don't use the L word if they can help it - it's all, "Oh, we're not sure, but it is an old house" or "It's probably fine, we all grew up with it, didn't we?" or "You have young kids, this might not be the house for you". (Yes, illegal, but it's all so subtle and polite most people don't pursue it or even realize it is so).
Maybe if property owners felt safer testing or knew they could get help with abatement they might test and find out as we did that they may not have too much work to do or that it doesn't have to be a radical effort. Exteriors can be covered by new materials. Windows and woodwork can be replaced and the home cleaned. Only surfaces six feet from the ground/floor need to be abated. Some surfaces can be encapsulated with special paint if done correctly. None of this is free and all needs to be done carefully (which can be more expensive) but it isn't necessarily cost-prohibitive. Owner occupants can get financial assistance and a tax break, and if landlords took the time and investment to go through the lead compliance process they'd find they would have their pick of willing tenants who would pay for that assurance.
But everyone is scared of the unknown, and others don't really care, so here we are.
It's a complicated issue and there are many reasons why some people don't test and don't delead. I think it's different in every situation. Even if everyone knew about the incentives to delead, I don't believe that you would see a huge up tick in the amount of deleading.
Sellers usually have an upper hand in a many transactions. Buyers better do not get "cheeky" and demand the truth. Fact that someone lives in the house for 10 plus years and has no clue about lead is just ridiculous, but that is how things stack around here. It should be huge red flag to prospective buyers that sellers chose to play the game of "I do not knows". Tests are cheap and quick. RE agents do not do their part as well. Most are very uneducated on the lead issues, and the idea that kids need to "chew walls and windowsills" to get poisoned is another big red flag. Any agent spewing such nonsense has no clue, and should be not selling old homes. Lead is everywhere including your yard, pipes, basement, etc.
In MA we have dismal home disclosure laws, and in essence burden is on the buyer to figure out if sellers are hiding some flaw, and most sellers do that with help of their Realtors that never know anything about anything as well. RE is not an honest game, and huge gains in home prices are making MA RE market into a pyramid scheme of lowest kind.
That is in stark contrast with some other states which have more detailed mandatory disclosures, and especially California that has the most stringent ones. It is absolutely not fun to rent or buy with young kids in mind, as most people only care about money in their pockets, and not what is right thing to do.
Buyers who go with the "flow" are helping this crocked system multiply, so they are just piling more issues for the future. Those are usually future sellers with mile long "I do not know/unknown" disclosure list.
Our house was built in the 1770's and when we bought it 3 years ago, we knew it was extremely likely it would test positive for lead. We decided not to do the lead inspection when buying it because we knew it would come back positive. The inspector can give you a formal report, but that report must be filed with the state. In order for your house to be considered "deleaded", then you have to have all the work done, have the house re-inspected and get a clean report.
Fast forward to last year when our daughter was born. At that point, we decided to have a lead test done so that if there were areas that really needed to be addressed, we could focus on those areas.
Our experience was very similar to tribechamy's. We used a lead inspector (there are several levels of these, btw), but didn't file any reports with the state. When you go that route, the inspector can't give you a written report, so you have to follow him/her around and take dubious notes.
Our lead inspector said several things that we took to heart:
1. Even if you have some peeling paint, simply painting over it is enough to remedy the peeling paint risk.
2. The areas for concern (as others have pointed out) are mostly windows and doors since the friction of opening and closing is what creates lead dust.
3. It's likely that all of the lead dust from the windows and doors has already been rubbed off after years and years of use.
We decided to replace all of the wood around our windows, which eliminated the lead dust issue with the windows (expensive, but it was our top priority). The doors were tougher--we were originally planning to have them dipped, but ultimately just repainted them. We also repainted 9 rooms in our house that had lead paint. They were recently painted before we moved in, but we just wanted to be extra sure that they all had fresh coats of paint, which means there should not be any peeling at all for a long time. I've been painting since January and just finished last week, so that was 6 months of painting and I'm so done.
I understand that many, many homes in the area are old and have lead paint. But you still have to do what is most comfortable for you. While our house is not completely de-leaded, I'm glad we had the inspection done (albeit the non-formal inspection) and we feel better having addressed the areas that were most concerning for us.
I've never heard of this "non-formal" or "verbal" lead paint inspection you guys are talking about. Next time I bump into a lead inspector, I'll have to ask about it. To me it sounds like bending/breaking the rules, but I might be wrong. The lead inspections I've been a part of have never had the option of a verbal report.
When you say "attitude I quoted above" I'm guessing you're referring to the attitude of "it's harmless and we all grew up with it." If that's what you mean then that agent is not doing the right thing for their clients. If they said "don't bother testing because there's definitely lead paint in this house and lead paint is harmful" then that's more of a case open for debate.
The funny thing is that it's both: Don't bother testing, there is lead there, lead is bad, I knew this one kid, blah blah blah, but oh, don't worry, you probably won't have to worry about it, just don't let your kid chew the windowsills. And again, this is multiple agents over the years, potential landlords, people at the bank, relatives, etc. I would love to hear one person say, "Oh, great idea!" about testing/deleading but the reaction is usually, "Are you sure you want to go there?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePRU
It doesn't matter who orders the test. There must be a report done and the report must be filed with the state. I don't work with people who don't play by the rules because if they're willing to break one rule it makes me wonder what other rules they're willing to break or severely bend. How can I trust a lead inspector who doesn't file his report to actually do a thorough inspection? Maybe he's the kind of guy who if you slip him a couple of bucks he'll say whatever I tell him like "oh there's only a little lead in the basement." I don't want to be associated with those types of people. I don't know how far your inspector is willing to take it, but doing one questionable thing makes me want to question everything done by that person.
To be clear, I thought the test I was ordering was the real deal, so much so that I was wringing my hands worrying about how the homeowners would take the results and feeling guilty about what might happen if our sale fell through. There was nothing during the test to indicate to me that this wasn't all above the board. Why it wasn't reported, or if (was our agent mistaken?) I can only guess. While my guilty feelings evaporated and I feel relieved that we can get the work done on our timetable, I'm frustrated that it seems to have "not counted". Especially since I paid for it.
I've never heard of this "non-formal" or "verbal" lead paint inspection you guys are talking about. Next time I bump into a lead inspector, I'll have to ask about it. To me it sounds like bending/breaking the rules, but I might be wrong. The lead inspections I've been a part of have never had the option of a verbal report.
I agree, it is weird.
As of June 9, 1989, 105 CMR 460.750: LEAD POISONING PREVENTION AND CONTROL states: whenever dangerous levels of lead are found in residential premises, the inspector shall report this to the owner, to the tenants in the dwelling unit inspected, and to the Director of the State Program. The report shall also inform the tenant about the tenant’s rights and remedies under the lead law, regulations and the State Sanitary Code, and shall contain information on how to reduce children's exposure to dangerous levels of lead. The forms of notification to be distributed as follows: TO THE OWNERS — by the inspector
Copy of the Inspection Report
Residential Deleading Advisory
Notice to Property Owner and Occupants’ Rights and Remedies
Notice to Tenants of Lead Paint Hazards
Deciding Whether to Encapsulate
Interim Control of Lead Paint Hazards
TO TENANTS OF THE DWELLING UNIT INSPECTED — by Inspector
Copy of the Inspection Report
Residential Deleading Advisory
Notice to Property Owner and Occupants’ Rights and Remedies
Notice to Tenants of Lead Paint Hazards
Deciding Whether to Encapsulate
Interim Control of Lead Paint Hazards
TO ALL OTHER TENANTS IN THE BUILDING — by Owner
Notice to Tenants of Lead Paint Hazards
TO ALL MORTGAGEES AND LIENHOLDER(S) — by Owner
Copy of Inspection Report
TO THE CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM — by the inspector
A copy of the report cover sheet (page 1)
Because the Massachusetts Lead Law does not require property to be lead-free, it is essential that owners ensure that their properties remain free of lead hazards/urgent lead hazards after compliance has been documented. ????
CLPPP requires inspectors to attach the CLPPP “Fact Sheet on Maintaining Full Compliance” to every Letter of Full Initial Inspection Compliance and Letter of Full Deleading Compliance issued. CLPPP recommends that the owner or a representative visually assess the property on a routine basis, and whenever the occupant reports loose paint, removed or loose coverings, damaged encapsulants, loose putty, and/or deteriorated plaster. The property owner may also hire a lead inspector to perform this assessment. Instructions for the inspector and the property owner on how to perform a post-compliance assessment determination (“PCAD”) of a property with a Letter of Full Compliance are in Appendix A of this document For properties with a Letter of Interim Control, refer also to the CLPPP booklet, “Interim Control of Lead Paint Hazards: A Step-by-Step Guide.”
Our house was built in the 1770's and when we bought it 3 years ago, we knew it was extremely likely it would test positive for lead. We decided not to do the lead inspection when buying it because we knew it would come back positive. The inspector can give you a formal report, but that report must be filed with the state. In order for your house to be considered "deleaded", then you have to have all the work done, have the house re-inspected and get a clean report.
Fast forward to last year when our daughter was born. At that point, we decided to have a lead test done so that if there were areas that really needed to be addressed, we could focus on those areas.
Our experience was very similar to tribechamy's. We used a lead inspector (there are several levels of these, btw), but didn't file any reports with the state. When you go that route, the inspector can't give you a written report, so you have to follow him/her around and take dubious notes.
Our lead inspector said several things that we took to heart:
1. Even if you have some peeling paint, simply painting over it is enough to remedy the peeling paint risk.
2. The areas for concern (as others have pointed out) are mostly windows and doors since the friction of opening and closing is what creates lead dust.
3. It's likely that all of the lead dust from the windows and doors has already been rubbed off after years and years of use.
We decided to replace all of the wood around our windows, which eliminated the lead dust issue with the windows (expensive, but it was our top priority). The doors were tougher--we were originally planning to have them dipped, but ultimately just repainted them. We also repainted 9 rooms in our house that had lead paint. They were recently painted before we moved in, but we just wanted to be extra sure that they all had fresh coats of paint, which means there should not be any peeling at all for a long time. I've been painting since January and just finished last week, so that was 6 months of painting and I'm so done.
I understand that many, many homes in the area are old and have lead paint. But you still have to do what is most comfortable for you. While our house is not completely de-leaded, I'm glad we had the inspection done (albeit the non-formal inspection) and we feel better having addressed the areas that were most concerning for us.
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't you be concerned about your own exposure to lead during pregnancy and just plain living surrounded by it? Six years of age is very arbitrary cut-off, and anybody can get lead/heavy metal poisoning at any age.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
