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 past few days I've been reading through some old threads on here about House Inspections. It seems to me that the original purpose of house inspections has somehow been compromised and changed into a tool to trip up sellers and to extract monetary concessions from these sellers either in the form of additional "repairs" or in the form of a price reduction from what was originally agreed to in the contract.
I'll admit to having played the game myself in the last house I bought because I was able to extract a sizeable reduction in price to repair/replace things that I planned to do anyway.
After all, if an inspector can't go through a house and find dozens of "deficiencies" that don't fully comply with some arbitrary "standard", then they're probably not trying very hard. Of course, this provides plenty of work for house inspectors, repair contractors, and lawyers, and likely a lot of gray hair for realtors and homeowners, but do you think the "house inspection" system is really working the way it should?
Concerned sellers should have a thorough inspection prior to putting the house up for sale.
Then, they should repair what they care to, and disclose repairs made to buyers.
Generally, sellers hope that a buyer will miss stuff that has been developing for years, or even decades, in a few hours of inspection, while the sellers have lived there.
Concerned sellers should have a thorough inspection prior to putting the house up for sale.
Then, they should repair what they care to, and disclose repairs made to buyers.
Generally, sellers hope that a buyer will miss stuff that has been developing for years, or even decades, in a few hours of inspection, while the sellers have lived there.
But wouldn't that just DOUBLE the number of house inspections being done? Few buyers would go along with an "inspection" done by someone that the seller hired. Even if that inspector is honest to a fault, most buyers wouldn't know that and wouldn't trust that he is. Just my opinion.
Also, if the seller "repair(s) what he care(s) to", that means that he didn't repair other things which then leaves him in the position of having to explain why he didn't think other things were important enough to repair. And the game goes on and on.
The past few days I've been reading through some old threads on here about House Inspections. It seems to me that the original purpose of house inspections has somehow been compromised and changed into a tool to trip up sellers and to extract monetary concessions from these sellers either in the form of additional "repairs" or in the form of a price reduction from what was originally agreed to in the contract.
I'll admit to having played the game myself in the last house I bought because I was able to extract a sizeable reduction in price to repair/replace things that I planned to do anyway.
After all, if an inspector can't go through a house and find dozens of "deficiencies" that don't fully comply with some arbitrary "standard", then they're probably not trying very hard. Of course, this provides plenty of work for house inspectors, repair contractors, and lawyers, and likely a lot of gray hair for realtors and homeowners, but do you think the "house inspection" system is really working the way it should?
1) The standards aren't arbitrary.
2) The level of professionalism depends on the inspector. In my experience, some will point out every teeny tiny thing they see, and some will only note the big stuff.
Buyers need to have reasonable expectations about what is truly a problem and what is merely something that comes with buying a used house.
Status:
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Ocala, FL
6,486 posts, read 10,360,322 times
Reputation: 7940
Quote:
do you think the "house inspection" system is really working the way it should?
Yes, I do completely. The buyer needs to go into such a large purchase with eyes wide open and not eyes shut.
The home inspection can be used as a negotiation tool between the buyer and seller in home price, but ultimately it is invaluable for the peace of mind of the buyer before the closing.
For instance, when I was a Realtor, I represented a buyer who was strongly considering purchasing a home. After the inspection, it was determined that there a major issue in the roof (failing roof truss I believe) that would be very expensive to correct. The defect was not easily noticed until an inspection was done from the inside of the attic. The seller was unwilling to renegotiate the price nor to pay to fix the problem. Bottom line was that my buyer rescinded the offer and closed on a different home.
From my experience as both a Realtor and prior to that as a home buyer myself, the inspector goes through a large checklist of items and indicates whether these items are of minor or major importance, provides documentation with or without photos which is invaluable. There will always be differing opinions, but that is mine.
Last edited by dontaskwhy; 01-16-2020 at 10:19 AM..
Very few buyers are able to go through a house and completely and competently assess its condition during a showing. There's just too much to take in.
Defects you can see before you make the offer, should be accounted for in the offer. IMHO, the purpose of the inspection is for the buyer to become aware of important conditions they would not normally have been able to see or understand before making the offer. Once they know about those conditions, they have a choice.... go forward, back out, or ask if the seller will fix it.
That shouldn't mean buyers asking for a brand new house or a windfall price reduction... but sometimes they do. Sometimes they get it.... sometimes they don't. Often, the choice is about more than just the money.
The important outcome though, is that buyers hopefully know more about what they're buying and buyer and seller are able to make a truly fair deal.
Last edited by Diana Holbrook; 01-16-2020 at 11:23 AM..
Sellers who "front load" (have inspections done prior to putting the property on the market) are smart. Having a binder of reports on the table for the open house (and available via email) protects the seller (as far as disclosures are concerned) - and makes pricing much easier.
Buyers should get their own inspections as part of their due diligence.
The only times buyers can use reports as fodder to lower the price of the house is in markets where that would be tolerated - the market dictates pricing and pricing strategies.
Of course standards are "arbitrary" by their very nature of how they come about. God didn't cast it in stone that floor joists be on 16" centers or that a shingle roof should have a certain minimum pitch, or that a floor be level to plus or minus 1/8" or whatever. Someone, or a group of people, has to make an arbitrary determination of what their "standard" will be for everything that is built or done.
Even if something is built or done that doesn't conform to this standard, that doesn't mean it is going to fail. It simply means that it doesn't comply with the "standard"... which is the very definition of arbitrary.
Few buyers would go along with an "inspection" done by someone that the seller hired. Even if that inspector is honest to a fault, most buyers wouldn't know that and wouldn't trust that he is.
That's not the point of doing it.
It's to inform the seller so there are no surprises that foul up the selling process. Sellers can educate themselves too and fix things that need it before listing.
The past few days I've been reading through some old threads on here about House Inspections. It seems to me that the original purpose of house inspections has somehow been compromised and changed into a tool to trip up sellers and to extract monetary concessions from these sellers either in the form of additional "repairs" or in the form of a price reduction from what was originally agreed to in the contract.
So, what if it's true?
If you're buying a used car that's in need of tires or brakes, that is a reason to negotiate a downward price with the seller, whether it's a private owner or a dealer.
Why should we not do the same for a house?
It's a house, not a cup of coffee. It's not something you buy every day, and it costs a helluva lot more than $1.
I want to know exactly what I'm buying. If you can't see the difference between a $150,000 house that doesn't need a new roof and a $150,000 house that does need a new roof, you probably need to REDO FROM START.
I'm not paying $150,000 for a house and then paying $50,000 in repairs to make it liveable because that makes me think you're selling the house because you don't have $50,000 for repairs.
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.
