It seems like everytime a home inspection is ordered the agent refers to the process as a deal killer. Is it because they find issues to make it look as if homeowners are getting their money's worth?

Well, we wouldn't want that would we?

It depends on how things are presented to the buyer. We had a listing with minor things that needed to be taken care of, but the engineer blew it up and even gave cost for FUTURE POSSIBLE repairs that scared the buyer off. The roof was only 10 years old, no leaks...he said well in 10 years it will need full rip and replacement at a cost of XXXXXX (it had a few layers) and the buyer wanted $20,000+ credit for that and burner replacement, etc. in the future even though everything as working and not old. The house was solid, but did need cosmetic changes that was all. I think this buyer was not prepared for what is involved in owning a home. And so he backed out based on the report.

It is one thing to prepare them by telling them that keeping up a home costs time, effort and money, but a few inspectors carry it too far.

Totally agree besides many of them are working with rehabbers or have referrals. Same with pest inspections, I do not use the same compan that does an inspection.

Layered roofs deteriorate much faster than if the roof was stripped and a single layer was laid. Also, the warranty is usually voided when layered.


Would you not want to know that you might have to come up with a big chunk of cash in the near future? I don't give estimates but I do tell my clients that they should budget for certain repairs.

I find usually what sellers do not replace because of cost is the heating unit,a/c unti,water heater,roof thie big ticket items they do not want to replace.

As a fudiary to the buyer no you don't want to kill the deal but at the same time if the seller is asking market and in 5 years you have to outlay 15 to 20k for maintenance issues did the buyer get a fair deal?For me I would never buy that house,for one you are never supposed to go more than one layer over,anything more than that the weight puts a huge strain on the houses support system.

Some home inspectors do get rediculous,if it's not a brand new house there are going to be things wrong with it regardless,even new houses have problems.The 20k was overkill but it sound sliek the buyer LIKED but did not LOVE the house.

I have one that just closed but the buyers inspection showed lp siding which the time to file for replacement has expired and had other problems but they loved the house,waived the inspection contingency,and closed on it anyway.

My son owned his own roofing company so I am well aware of how it works. Also in this area, three layers ARE allowed.

My point was he was giving prices for things way down the road and the buyer took this as a NOW problem. Yes they should be aware of things, but on a home over 20 years old it is unrealistic to think that nothing will need to be repaired in the future, anything and everything will have to be replaced or repaired sooner or later. So if we look at any house with a roof over 10 years old the seller should be expected to lay out or rebate for this? Not in NY! Most homes on LI were built in the 50's. I can drive thru most neighborhoods and spot 90% of them that need to be replaced.

they call them dealbreakers because Realtors have this fear of suggesting to the seller that physical conditions may erode the price that the Realtor has recommended. An oversight?, or maybe just wishfull thinking.

Layering may be "allowed" but that does not make it right. Ask your son why the manufacturer's warranty is void when roofing materials that are layered.


I just re-read this quote and have to admit I misread it the first time. For some reason, I thought it said that he was recommending immediate replacement. Perhaps it was the way the rest of your post was written.

There is no way anyone can guess the life span of a roof, especially one that is incorrectly installed. It is also not possible to guess what the cost would be in 10 years.

It was explained above that home inspectors are referred to as deal killers and a lot of times they are. At the same time, they kill one deal, you get them into another deal. I'm no expert on home repairs or anything, but when I show a house and see any visual faults I point them out to my clients. I also recommend the same home inspector every time because he does a great job and is very thorough. If a house isn't right for you, it's not right for me. I always recommend the home inspection and when they say they have a friend that can do it, I still recommend they get a licensed home inspector to cover everyone's [censored]. Real estate is a big referral business and having one angry customer can get you a lot of bad impressions (especially in smaller areas).

Home inspectors are great. They offer that opinion that saves everyone involved. They are great insurance plan as far as I am concerned. They get the broker and seller off the hook. You just need to find a good one. Because whenever you inspect a house you will find things. Those things just need to be disclosed in good way.

And selling advertising specialities qualifies you with experience on this subject?

And the period of time immediately following the Home Inspections is called the "re-negotiating period". lol

In NC, we are specifically discouraged by the State to mention remaining life of components. No one has a crystal ball and conditions change almost daily and certainly from house to house. I report the items that need attention and not try to predict how many more years the dishwasher will last.

There is always the option of a second opinion, I often pay for it out of my pocket. If anything it puts the parties at ease if the findings are the same, 10% of the time I save someone money.

Inspectors were thought of as deal killers in my area also..Untill we devised a "Home Inspector" agrement which states many things such as:

1-The home Inspector will be liable for all mistakes made that effect the deal in a negatively monetary way

2- The inspector agrees to pay $50 per hour to the Seller, to clean any/all mess created by the Home Inspector.

3- The inspector MUST sign/authorize this form to be allowed on the premise to do the inspection.

Guess who authorized these terms???? The Seller and Buyer.

Get knowledgeable.

I question what you think "near" future is. 10 years is not "near future" to me. In my area, MA, the home inspector states he can't quote prices.

Item #1 is covered by our Errors & Omissions Insurance. If you're using an uninsured inspector, you deserve what you get.

Item #2 is simply absurd. I clean up after myself. This is just an attempt to "scare away" any potential inspectors.

You're essentially denying your clients an inspection based on that "contract." No reputable inspector would enter into such an agreement. What do you "require" of the WDO inspector? After all, their inspection involves "destructive testing."

Jeff,
Our form is NOT to scare away any reputable or insured inspector...It is the exact opposite. We want insured, knowledgeable, and unbias inspectors everyday for our clients.
In NY, "ANYONE" can file a fee and become a "inspector".
The only inspector who will not sign/authorize our form is the: uninsured, biased, and in-experienced one.

CA is an unregulated, unlicensed state as well (with regard to Home Inspectors).

I perform several-hundred inspections each year. If I were to be asked to sign this type of document, I would very likely walk away. Your "contract" is a red-flag and tells me that you have a "chip on your shoulder" when it comes to inspectors (perhaps from unpleasant experiences in the past). As an "experienced" Home Inspector, I see this contract as a form of "posturing" - getting ready for a fight.

When I walk away, you have effectively reduced the number of qualified inspectors your client has to choose from.

An unfortunate part of human nature is that there are always those who feel they have to "prove" something and this is why some inspectors get labeled as "deal killers." There are "bad apples" in all professions.

When we (inspectors and RE Agents) set our ego's aside, we can better serve our clients.

Fyi,
That is how I got into real estate. I was a certified Home Inspector for many, many, many years.

And,

We actually do have Home Inspectors who have no problem signing this agreement.

Why would u have a problem with it?

The purpose of your contract is to put me on notice. You're basically saying, "I know you're gonna screw something up and when you do, you're gonna pay!!" As I stated, it is posturing - plain and simple.

I am a very busy inspector. Why would I need to walk into a "hornets-nest" when I can simply move on to the next one?

The inspector willing to sign something like this, is the one who will be more likely "soften" the inspection report (polar opposite of the "deal-killer").

I will not exaggerate a given defect to make myself "look good" or "feel important," but at the same time, I will not minimize that defect in order to help the transaction close.

I will give unbiased information to our client that will help them make an informed decision.

Where do those above statements come from?

That is your opinion and u have a right to it.
I understand your position as stated earlier, I was a Home inspector once also and I understand your position.

NO inspector should fudge or omit any item that they are hired to do.

Believe it or not, we advise ALL buyers (even though we do not represent them) to get a home Inspection.

If their is a problem with the property, we as the real estate company did not create it. Our job as a Brokerage is to negotiate a meeting of the minds for the Sellers And Buyers.

You stated it yourself, in a previous post. It seemed pretty clear to me. . .


You're putting the inspector "on notice" that he/she better not be a "deal killer."

If I "kill your deal," based on my findings and report, I should expect you to pursue me for monetary compensation. Or, at the very least, you will be investigating my findings to determine whether or not I was accurate in my reporting.

In either case, this creates an unnecessary burden on the inspector. If he/she finds a defect that could potentially "kill the deal," they must consider the fact that you will be "coming after them," regardless of their accuracy.

So what then can the inspector do? They can minimize their findings, to keep you off their back, and hope that it never comes back to bite them, or they can accurately report their findings and know there may be several months of "investigation" which could interfere with future inspections.

On several occasions, I have uncovered significant defects during an inspection, which resulted in the buyer backing out of the deal. Does this mean that I "killed the deal," or did the house simply "commit suicide?"

There have also been situations where the buyer was well aware of significant defects, and purchased the property anyway. It's all relative.

When the client receives accurate information in an appropriate fashion, they can make their own decision - an informed decision.

Jeff,
For whatever reason u will not be open minded and only negatefull. Best wishes in your inspection practice.

Nosellercost.com, I don't think there needs to be any personal interpretation of inspection standards. Just follow them here:
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/professions/homeinspector/Homeinspectionstandards.htm

And the COE:
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/professions/homeinspector/codeofethics.htm

I'm not sure I know the definition of "negatefull," but I'll assume you mean "contradictory," or something to that affect.

You posted a snippet (apparently) of what is included in your contract, which your inspectors are required to sign before they are allowed to enter the property. You've offered no other qualifying statements with regard to your contract, other than to say, "We actually do have Home Inspectors who have no problem signing this agreement."

Based on the three statements you provided. . .
. . .it is my opinion, that requiring an inspector to sign this document is a form of posturing, or putting the inspector "on notice," and as such, you are reducing the number of qualified inspectors who would be willing to inspect that property, myself being one. I'm sure I can get similar opinions from many other inspectors.

If I may ask, what exactly is your intent with such a contract?

Create a professional and unbiased transaction that all parties can abide bye.

Just like the "Realtor" ethics and values..

Exact reason why we stay a step ahead of the state.

So then, do you have similar contracts for other service providers, such as the WDO inspector, Escrow Company, Loan Company, Appraiser, etc.? Or have you singled out Home Inspectors as the only potential "deal killers?"

I'm really trying to understand your logic here, so bear with me if you don't mind.

"1-The home Inspector will be liable for all mistakes made that effect the deal in a negatively monetary way
2- The inspector agrees to pay $50 per hour to the Seller, to clean any/all mess created by the Home Inspector.
3- The inspector MUST sign/authorize this form to be allowed on the premise to do the inspection.
Guess who authorized these terms???? The Seller and Buyer."

So, this is part of a contract a buyer and seller presents to a HI to sign prior to the inspection, and they expect the inspector to sign this???
How many HI's sign this?
Get real.

That's pretty much where I've been going with this. I seriously doubt that any inspector has ever signed such a document. I can guarantee you that my insurance company would not allow me to sign this, and my attorneys would certainly have a fit.

It appears that he (noseller) is done answering my questions (even though he really only answered one). I'd say "the writing's on the wall."

If I was a home inspector i'd walk away from them terms also, that would be a "red flag".
#1 things do happen to break down the next day
#2 it is common sense that if you make a mess, you clean it up
#3 written authorization is not needed if a home inspection is agreed upon by both parties per intent.
#4 many homeowners and some agents hide things, whether intentional or not.

Not in a 100 years would I sign that B.S.

A ten year old roof that was installed incorrectly will not last nearly as long. In fact, 10 years may be the life span that particular incorrectly installed roof. I do not know because I was not there. I have yet to meet anyone, let alone a home inspector that can accurately predict the future. I do not quote repair costs but we all know that a roof is a major expense. The buyers should be able to make their own determination if it is acceptable to them.

The home inspector will always find something wrong in the house. Whether it's something small and simple like a light socket needs to be change out, batteries in a smoke detector or something big like the roof is leaking, boiler is leaking. All of these things will open the door for re-negotiations and that is where the deal may go south. You have to look for your client’s best interest in these cases and work with the other agent to get the deal done. And if that means no deal, then it’s no deal. Put yourself in your client’s position, you would want someone to be straight with you, especially your agent.

I will tell you why home inspectors get a bad rep.

When a home inspector hired & trusted by the buyer says the waste for the home is a "Cesspool" because he is too ignorant or lazy to look closer and realize that it is, indeed, a septic, just as the owner stated.

When you say "unregulated" and "unlicensed" do you mean you need no formal training or testing in order to be a home inspector?

Unfortunately, that is correct. In CA, you can call yourself a Home Inspector, with no training or testing to back it up.

Here is the law as it pertains to CA Home Inspectors;

The HI I had just hired did a very good job. He was honest about the number of things that typically go wrong in a 75-year old house, and if anything was conservative in the estimates required to repair what he found.

When something was beyond his area of expertise, he recommended we hire an expert contractor to more fully examine it.

We would have bought the home based on his report, but ended up rescinding because of more serious issues revealed by an expert roofer who was familiar with issues that could not be found in the course of a normal Home Inspection.

The Inspector did not "kill the deal" and I would gladly use him again.

Have a HI here that is licensed by the state to do HI...He is also licensed HVAC tech and sales. Guess how often HVAC systems area bad, i mean systems....see below for snipit from last home inspection...

Notice the double speak
venting marginal but satisfactory...
duct work is sufficent then it is a cheap job...

"The venting of the furnace is marginal at best. This furnace’s location within the crawl space required an extensive run of horizontal double wall vent pipe within the crawl space. The vent does function satisfactorily at this time.

The ductwork is sufficient for this size furnace and air conditioner; however, there is no trunk line, only a supply distribution box off the furnace. This results in excessive runs of flexible round supply ducts to the rooms. Better air flow, more efficient and effective operations result with systems that have properly sized supply trunk lines and minimum length of round supply runs flex duct piping. Basically this was a “cheap job” installation. "

And then the estimate to replace both systems...
Nice....By the way the deal fell through, the second home inspection and HVAC indicated it was in typical condition for it age

Any inspector offering to make repairs on a home that he/she has inspected is violating the ethics of every major HI Association in the country. Depending on where they're operating, they might also be violating state law.

"I was a Home inspector once"

I bet that makes the disclosure fun.

How do you handle defects when you see them while 'listing' the home?