I am under contract with a seller who did a pre-listing inspection and has provided me with his report and a verbal statement that everthing has been fixed.

I am having a second inspection done, purposely by a different inspector. Partly to get a different perspective. Partly to inspect the seller's repairs.

Which would you recommend: Provide a copy of the first inspection to my inspector before, during, or after the inspection? My concern is: I am looking for a fresh perspective... I don't want him to bias him towards just the original findings. But, I also want to make sure the repairs get extra scrutiny to ensure they were done properly.

I would tell him what needed to be fixed to make sure that he checks out the repairs thoroughly. You are paying him so tell him exactly what your objectives are. You want to make sure the repairs were done properly & you want a 2nd opinion. Since he is working for you I don't think you're going to bias him.

I actually would want him to be biased in favor of the person who hired him. I'm always biased in favor of my Clients; I couldn't go to sleep at night if I were not.

A lot of home inspectors don't care what was fixed previously or what the problems were. I believe that I'm going to find everything that the previous inspector found, perhaps even more (that's where I'm biased in my Client's favor), and if the repairs were done right, then there would be nothing there for me to note as being of concern.

If I were in your position, I would simply hire another inspector, let him do his job, and then, at the end of the inspection while everyone still is on the property, provide him with the list of everything that was made right and verify with him that everything was okay. I would not provide it in advance or any time during the inspection because then you could cause him to lose his focus on doing his best job for you.

Most experience home inspectors have a standard procedure that they go through during an inspection, their inspection protocol. Some ask in advance, "Do you have any concerns?" Some ask at the end. Some ask, "Have I answered all your questions?" Etc. So let him go through his inspection protocol, whatever it might be, and then address the issues that the seller said were repaired after the inspector is finished.

Thanks Russ, you answered my question.

I am not concerned about the inspector's ethics. I just don't want him to see a report saying "electrical is OK, plumbing has issues" and unintentionally disrupt his standard protocol.

It is definately a good idea to have your inspector check the work which has been done. I would want to know that the work was done right. A lot of times a repair will be made, and the seller has made the repair themselves, but it is not done correctly. Thats great that the repairs are completed, but are they completed correctly. Your home inspector should be able to verify this. If there are questions as to the validity of the repairs ask the seller who completed the work and if the work will be warrantied. I have seen it where two inspections were done on the same house and both inspectors had totally different findings. Good idea though to have your own inspection. The inspector you hired should be working in your best interest and will do his best to find everything he can.

I would bet that the repairs were done correctly since the seller went to the time and expense to uncover potential problems before there was an offer on the table. I recommend pre-listing inspections on all my listings as problems are cheaper to fix before a buyer is wanting to purchase the property.

Definately get another inspection. It is not always necessary to to use a different inspector. I have seen several of my pre-listing inspection homes reinspected by the same inspector. The inspector will be just as vigiliant for you as he was for the sellers when they hired him to do the initial inspection.

Paul has two very good points:

1 - "The repairs probably were done correctly since the seller went to the time and expense to uncover potential problems before there was an offer on the table." However, the caveat there is that home inspectors often find problems even in new construction. The reason is because everyone had to start somewhere, so there is the possibility that a new [insert name of professional] did the work and wasn't quite sure of the correct process, or someone interrupted him while he was focused on his work and he missed something. Since we all are human, occasionally something will be missed or not done correctly. That's why it is valuable to have the second inspection done.

When I buy a house, I actually hope there are three inspections: a pre-listing inspection, a standard inspection, and a walk-through inspection. The standard inspection, unfortunately, typically occurs when the house is still furnished, making it difficult for inspectors to see everything, test everything, have access to everything. If it is furnished, I have that third inspection at the final walk-through or the day after escrow closes. In a best-case scenario, a home inspection would never occur when there are furnishings in the house.

2 - "It is not always necessary to use a different inspector." I do many pre-listing inspections, and about 75% of the time, I do a standard inspection for the buyers on the same property. I do provide a discount to the buyers if they have an "update" done within 60 days of the original inspection. The reason I do that is because at the second inspection, I don't have to note that the house is a wood-frame house on a slab foundation with stucco exterior walls, a hip and valley roof, and composition asphalt roof covering, etc. The descriptive process has already been completed once, and it's highly unlikely that the house has changed. Of course, I know the original problems, so if the roof covering was an original problem, then the descriptive process for the roof would change.


Home inspectors are quite adamant about working diligently for the person who hires them and pays them, which is where home inspectors and Realtors clash. Some Realtors think that because they referred the Client to the home inspector, the home inspector should toe the line as far as helping the Realtor close the sale. Nothing could be further from the truth although there are some home inspectors who buy into that. For the ones who don't, they often lose the referrals from the Realtors. At one of yesterday's inspections, I remembered the listing agent and said it was good to see him again. Once I was out of ear shot, the listing agent asked my Client's agent if he chose us to do the inspection. He said yes, to which the listing agent said that he had used us once and that we were so picky that we almost cost him the deal. Home inspectors don't cost anyone deals; they simply document the condition of the property at a certain point in time and leave it up to to the buyers to determine if the cost of repairs that the seller won't do significantly impacts their pocketbook and to Realtors to re-sell the property (either to the same buyer or to new buyers if the first buyer backs out of the purchase).

With all that said, make sure you check the qualifications of the inspector, including the one who originally did the pre-listing inspection. It is possible that he was a new inspector or one who had a reputation for not finding too many problems. Also make sure that your home inspector has errors and omissions insurance. Home inspectors pay anywhere from $2,500 a year to a verified high of $17,600 a year. Because of that extraordinary cost, about half of all home inspectors do not carry such insurance. That is to the consumer's disadvantage. Ask your home inspector to provide the coverage page for his errors and omissions policy; that's why the insurance companies provide a coverage page. If he is unwilling to provide it, move on to another home inspector. I don't know what state you are in, MACD, but I would recommend $1 million incident/$1 million aggregate (the highest that is provided to us) for highly litigious states such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, etc., and/or states or areas where the cost of real estate is very high, such as California, Miami, Hawaii, D.C., New York City, etc.

Good discussion. Good replies.

Thanks MACD and all who have participated here.

I have just one more thing to add to Russel Ray's comments from above.

He said: "With all that said, make sure you check the qualifications of the inspector, including the one who originally did the pre-listing inspection. It is possible that he was a new inspector or one who had a reputation for not finding too many problems."

I have a friend who decided to try and go about the house-buying process by themselves and avoid paying a Realtor. They had an appraiser come in and value a FSBO they had selected, and then they hired an inspector to check things out internally. Unfortunately, they stuck with their "cheap" tactics and lost out big time on the quality. This guy missed nearly a dozen appointments, missed several items on the report, and never provided a full and complete report on the condition of the home! Come to find out he's only a part-timer that does this to supplement income from some other job he does. Now they are stuck in the middle of the negotiation process and have to pay someone else a whole new fee to come and complete the inspection so they can value the house properly. In a nutshell: know who is working for you, their credentials, and their availability. If they are competent, they should have no problem providing references of past clients/Realtors that can tell you about their service.

This is still a pre-purchase inspection?
Why not go with the original inspection and buy the house?
Lastly, you will have the pre-inspection, the seller disclosure form and the post inspection report when you purchase the house.