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.
With all due respect here Brandon, I think the buyer should be handling the inspections, rather than the agent. It's the buyer's property of interest, and it's ultimately on the buyer if anything comes up after the sale.
If I were an agent, I'd pound this down my buyer's throat, give them a phone number, and tell them to get familiar with the process. Yes, I'd be there to help make sure there were no red flags going off, but not to play middleman between the buyer and his/her inspector.
A good inspector can explain things to a buyer, and likely doesn't want someone else to miscommunicate what the buyer needs to know as the property's new owner.
If the buyer agent doesn't offer assistance in areas the buyer lacks knowledge, why even have one?
If the buyer agent doesn't offer assistance in areas the buyer lacks knowledge, why even have one?
Would giving the buyer the phone number of a qualified inspector whom you trust not be considered assistance? The knowledge which the buyer may lack would soon be granted, if indeed a good inspector is working with them.
If a good inspector can't give the buyer the knowledge they need in order to feel comfortable moving forward with the purchase of the property, then why even have an inspector?
I would also think it would be of great assistance to the buyer by explaining to them the importance of familiarizing themselves with the inspection process.
A helpful link could be provided to the buyer that gives them a nutshell of the process, and what mostly can be expected. That would also be of helpful assistance.
Could you show me anywhere within your RE board's pamphlets, regarding standards of practice, that imply or explicitly state that it is in the buyer's best interest to have the buyer's agent set up and handle the inspections?
I'd like to know what benefits the buyer would get by not handling the inspections themselves. I can certainly think of the many risks that a buyer would face by allowing their agent to handle the process. And conversely, I can think of substantial risks the realtor would be facing by allowing the agent to handle the inspections, rather than the buyer.
Wouldn't it also remove liability to the agent if the buyer handles that process themselves?
Would giving the buyer the phone number of a qualified inspector whom you trust not be considered assistance?
Yes. Is it not a higher level of service to provide qualified referrals and then coordinate inspections on behalf of the buyer with their approval to do so? Or, alternatively, should the agent just provide a phone number and step out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggy_house
The knowledge which the buyer may lack would soon be granted, if indeed a good inspector is working with them.
They get said knowledge at or after the inspection. If there are questions prior to they could also be covered by the agent usually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggy_house
...
If a good inspector can't give the buyer the knowledge they need in order to feel comfortable moving forward with the purchase of the property, then why even have an inspector?
It's not an inspectors job to make a buyer feel comfortable about the purchase. It's the inspectors job to point things that are in need of repair or attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggy_house
I would also think it would be of great assistance to the buyer by explaining to them the importance of familiarizing themselves with the inspection process.
Why does the buyer need to be familiar with the process of inspections?
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggy_house
A helpful link could be provided to the buyer that gives them a nutshell of the process, and what mostly can be expected. That would also be of helpful assistance.
Of course that could be helpful. But so could a verbal or a flier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggy_house
Could you show me anywhere within your RE board's pamphlets, regarding standards of practice, that imply or explicitly state that it is in the buyer's best interest to have the buyer's agent set up and handle the inspections?
Implicitly - no, but if you covered the minutia of an agent responsibilities in a transaction you would run into many problems. It doesn't implicitly say we are to make recommendations or provide links explaining inspection processes either so your own suggestions wouldn't even fly if you hang your hat on that point.
Not strictly defined, but it's covered under what we owe our clients -obedience, loyalty, confidentiality, disclosure, accounting, reasonable care and skill, and advice/counsel/ and assistance with negotiations. I would say that if the buyer wants the service it could fall under obedience. Certainly under reasonable care and skill. If a buyer wanted to schedule their own inspections I wouldn't fight them on it. At the same time most of buyers appreciate our assistance with scheduling things ranging from letting the appraiser in to scheduling the closing with the attorney to scheduling inspections with the different vendors. I ask you-why does it matter who schedules as long as the buyer picks the vendors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggy_house
I'd like to know what benefits the buyer would get by not handling the inspections themselves.
You can't think of any benefits at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggy_house
I can certainly think of the many risks that a buyer would face by allowing their agent to handle the process. And conversely, I can think of substantial risks the realtor would be facing by allowing the agent to handle the inspections, rather than the buyer.
Such as?
Quote:
Originally Posted by riggy_house
Wouldn't it also remove liability to the agent if the buyer handles that process themselves?
Why would it? If I'm to provide counsel and advice and I shirk that duty by refusing to suggest qualified inspectors (and attorneys/contractors/lenders/etc) have I met my obligations as defined by the REC Agency guidelines? If I wanted to have a job without liability I'd go into another profession. I'd much rather assume liability in exchange for improving my clients experience.
Last edited by Brandon Hoffman; 09-29-2017 at 12:00 PM..
If I'm to provide counsel and advice and I shirk that duty by refusing to suggest qualified inspectors (and attorneys/contractors/lenders/etc) have I met my obligations as defined by the REC Agency guidelines? If I wanted to have a job without liability I'd go into another profession. I'd much rather assume liability in exchange for improving my clients experience.
we are perfectly allowed to turn the entire process over to the Buyer - they can choose any inspectors, lenders, attorneys/title company they desire. They can take inspection findings and tell us what they want typed up to ask for. they can determine by themselves which items they'll accept, and which ones would be "must fix". They can handle all the back and forth with the closing agent. I think we DO have to review their Closing Disclosure, when provided (maybe there's our liability-limiting "out"). And we can wait by the pool for our fat commission check to get delivered by US Mail.
In some consumers' minds or worlds, this is a perfectly acceptable way to go - it meets the letter of the law. And these are the folks who see us as getting fat checks for minimal work, and the business model of ala carte pay as you go will work splendidly for them.
For 95% of the Buying population, they know they want the agent to continue providing their expertise, advice, and guidance until the transaction ends, and then keep in touch in the years to come. And a professional understands and willingly accepts the extra potential liability in order to serve their clients to their best abilities.
we are perfectly allowed to turn the entire process over to the Buyer - they can choose any inspectors, lenders, attorneys/title company they desire. They can take inspection findings and tell us what they want typed up to ask for. they can determine by themselves which items they'll accept, and which ones would be "must fix". They can handle all the back and forth with the closing agent. I think we DO have to review their Closing Disclosure, when provided (maybe there's our liability-limiting "out"). And we can wait by the pool for our fat commission check to get delivered by US Mail.
In some consumers' minds or worlds, this is a perfectly acceptable way to go - it meets the letter of the law. And these are the folks who see us as getting fat checks for minimal work, and the business model of ala carte pay as you go will work splendidly for them.
For 95% of the Buying population, they know they want the agent to continue providing their expertise, advice, and guidance until the transaction ends, and then keep in touch in the years to come. And a professional understands and willingly accepts the extra potential liability in order to serve their clients to their best abilities.
I agree 100% with you. For clarification Riggy was talking about scheduling inspections so I spoke only of scheduling inspections and nothing about selecting the inspectors. I never said the I was picking the inspectors because I don't. I never pick the inspectors. I make a recommendation, buyer selects inspectors, we schedule. I had this in an earlier paragraph not quoted in your shortened version: If a buyer wanted to schedule their own inspections I wouldn't fight them on it.
Again, I'm just talking the scheduling because Riggy was, not the selecting of inspectors, not which repairs should be made...literally just the scheduling. I thought it was really bizarre that Riggy is taking umbrage with an agent scheduling appointments but I see people take umbrage with many things that I can't explain.
Would giving the buyer the phone number of a qualified inspector whom you trust not be considered assistance? The knowledge which the buyer may lack would soon be granted, if indeed a good inspector is working with them.
If a good inspector can't give the buyer the knowledge they need in order to feel comfortable moving forward with the purchase of the property, then why even have an inspector?
I would also think it would be of great assistance to the buyer by explaining to them the importance of familiarizing themselves with the inspection process.
A helpful link could be provided to the buyer that gives them a nutshell of the process, and what mostly can be expected. That would also be of helpful assistance.
Could you show me anywhere within your RE board's pamphlets, regarding standards of practice, that imply or explicitly state that it is in the buyer's best interest to have the buyer's agent set up and handle the inspections?
I'd like to know what benefits the buyer would get by not handling the inspections themselves. I can certainly think of the many risks that a buyer would face by allowing their agent to handle the process. And conversely, I can think of substantial risks the realtor would be facing by allowing the agent to handle the inspections, rather than the buyer.
Wouldn't it also remove liability to the agent if the buyer handles that process themselves?
Bo, I highlighted Riggy's comments here to bring focus to them.
I read what I could the first time before my eyes glazed over under the pall of "the buyer's agent just cares about getting the deal done so he can earn his commission" implicit in the comments of a few people.
I completely agree with you that it would be MUCH easier for us to rely on the letter of representation rather than using our experience and desire to assist our clients, but yet so many real professionals undertake the real liability, responsibility, and additional days of work.
Yes. Is it not a higher level of service to provide qualified referrals and then coordinate inspections on behalf of the buyer with their approval to do so? Or, alternatively, should the agent just provide a phone number and step out?
I already agreed that is a good service to provide qualified referrals. I also can see where coordinating the inspections can be of good and genuine service as well. But as I will explain further, when regarding your questions, you will see that this service should not be assumed, nor should it be pushed by the agent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
They get said knowledge at or after the inspection. If there are questions prior to they could also be covered by the agent usually.
Sorry, but by default the agent admittedly is never to be considered an expert in the other fields of real estate, other than the process of buying and selling. So the questions regarding inspections are usually best left to the inspector, who is being paid to answer such questions.
However, I do understand that many real estate agents can be and are in fact experts in many of the other fields of RE besides buying and selling. This should just never ever be assumed by the buyer; not without the agent providing substantial background to prove the integrity of their extended skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
It's not an inspectors job to make a buyer feel comfortable about the purchase. It's the inspectors job to point things that are in need of repair or attention.
I never implied it was the inspectors job to make the buyer feel comfortable about the purchase. That would not be an inspector who is doing their job, imo.
A good inspector will instead provide the knowledge that may allow the buyer to feel comfortable moving forward with the purchase.
The knowledge may also motivate the buyer to bow out, or ask for repercussions, but the knowledge is usually best conveyed by the inspector. Why? Well, because the inspector IS an expert in the other fields of real estate, separate from buying and selling. Ultimately it's up to the buyer to take the info that has been given and determine what is best for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
Why does the buyer need to be familiar with the process of inspections?
Why should a car buyer familiarize themselves with a car inspection process?
Why should an NFL club owner familiarize themselves with the process of stadium inspections?
Maybe they shouldn't familiarize themselves if it's in their agent's best interest to keep their buyers in the dark, regarding how the process works.
I will grant you too, that maybe some buyers have so much money they can sustain multiple "big ticket item" issues, and don't have a need to understand the inspection process. But if we are speaking solely of the buyer's best interest, who can really argue that it wouldn't be in their best interest to familiarize themselves with the process?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
Of course that could be helpful. But so could a verbal or a flier.
Implicitly - no, but if you covered the minutia of an agent responsibilities in a transaction you would run into many problems. It doesn't implicitly say we are to make recommendations or provide links explaining inspection processes either so your own suggestions wouldn't even fly if you hang your hat on that point.
I get that such things are a judgement call. I'm only saying it's usually in the best interest of the buyer to take responsibility for their own inspections. It's their property after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
Not strictly defined, but it's covered under what we owe our clients -obedience, loyalty, confidentiality, disclosure, accounting, reasonable care and skill, and advice/counsel/ and assistance with negotiations.
I would agree that having the buyer's agent schedule inspections is allowed, but certainly shouldn't be assumed by the agent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
I would say that if the buyer wants the service it could fall under obedience. Certainly under reasonable care and skill.
I would agree with reasonable care and skill, but not necessarily obedience. What if the buyer never ordered the agent to schedule the inspections, or even suggested that the agent schedule the inspections?
Offering to schedule the inspections certainly would not fall under the obedience category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
If a buyer wanted to schedule their own inspections I wouldn't fight them on it.
At the same time most of buyers appreciate our assistance with scheduling things ranging from letting the appraiser in to scheduling the closing with the attorney to scheduling inspections with the different vendors. I ask you-why does it matter who schedules as long as the buyer picks the vendors?
Scheduling and "handling" the inspections are two different matters entirely. Why not just let the buyer call the inspector, and the agent just be there for assistance if needed?
If a buyer insisted that the agent do the scheduling, well that is another matter entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
[regarding benefits to the buyer] You can't think of any benefits at all?
Sure. The buyer can save themselves the time and stress of making a phone call by allowing the agent to do it for them. That's one benefit,
Another benefit is...err... hmmm......I guess I may be stumped here. What other benefits are there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
[regarding liability to the broker] Such as?
Well, imagine that the buyer's agent "handles" the inspections, then doesn't provide the buyer with all of the information that the inspector had to say.
Later, after closing, the buyer realizes the septic has failed, yet never saw the report, or IF they did, they didn't notice the little box that indicated the septic had signs of failure.
Maybe the buyer didn't even know what the word "septic" meant, or thought maybe it had something to do with the toilets. I could see this happening, especially if the buyer hadn't taken the time to familiarize themselves with the inspection process.
Also, had the buyer been in direct contact with the inspector throughout, then a good inspector would have surely grabbed the buyer by the collar and said, "LOOK! The septic is showing signs of failure, and that's a pretty big deal."
But had the buyer's agent failed to stress the importance of the failed septic, and the buyer was later remorseful because they hadn't familiarized themselves with the inspection process and therefor didn't understand what had been presented, Who do you think the buyer is coming back to sue for reconciliation?
But if the judge asks, "Who handled the inspections?", then you don't think that is a liability for the broker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
Why would it? If I'm to provide counsel and advice and I shirk that duty by refusing to suggest qualified inspectors (and attorneys/contractors/lenders/etc) have I met my obligations as defined by the REC Agency guidelines?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you must be mistaken. Who suggested anything about refusing to suggest qualified inspectors/attorneys etc. until you just did right now?
If you re-read my earlier post #12, you will see that I had already clearly implied suggesting a qualified inspector that you trust would be of genuine service to the buyer. i.e. : "Would giving the buyer the phone number of a qualified inspector whom you trust not be considered assistance? "
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
If I wanted to have a job without liability I'd go into another profession. I'd much rather assume liability in exchange for improving my clients experience.
If this is the case, then certainly you must agree with me when I say that listing the correct sf (within reasonable allowance) should definitely improve your clients' experience, as opposed to listing the wrong sf.
Yet so many agents are saying listing proper sf shouldn't matter. Yet so many clients are suing their realtors for misrepresented sf in the MLS.
Presumably, as active of a Buyer as you are, you know that the Buyer signs a contract with the inspector, and that this is completely outside the agent's review and influence. If the Buyer chooses to take the time to read the inspection contract, then they'll understand the inspection process - what IS inspected, and what is NOT.
I didn't see Brandon say "buyers don't need to be at the inspection/shouldn't be at the inspection/don't need to review the inspection."
Surely you know the inspection report goes directly from the inspector to the Buyer, not through the agent in any way. Do Buyers approve of the inspector also sending a copy to the agent? Of course, almost always, or they forward it to the agent themselves.
I can't really go further until you go find one of your inspection contracts, and spell out what the inspector does and doesn't do.
Presumably, as active of a Buyer as you are, you know that the Buyer signs a contract with the inspector, and that this is completely outside the agent's review and influence. If the Buyer chooses to take the time to read the inspection contract, then they'll understand the inspection process - what IS inspected, and what is NOT.
I didn't see Brandon say "buyers don't need to be at the inspection/shouldn't be at the inspection/don't need to review the inspection."
Surely you know the inspection report goes directly from the inspector to the Buyer, not through the agent in any way. Do Buyers approve of the inspector also sending a copy to the agent? Of course, almost always, or they forward it to the agent themselves.
I can't really go further until you go find one of your inspection contracts, and spell out what the inspector does and doesn't do.
Thank you for saving me from having to type this out. Somehow Riggy jumped from the agent coordinating inspections to the buyer being kept in the dark about inspections. I don't get it - I never said anything of the sort..
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.
...I guess I may be stumped here. What other benefits are there?
