Originally Posted by
Eric Barker
There are quite a few inspector who decline re-inspections because they don't want the liability. I don't understand the reasoning. It is still a visual inspection, just as was the initial inspection. If one were concerned about what could not be seen in the re-inspection then why would the first one be any different?
I agree that having the receipts is golden - those alone can tell you a lot about the contractor's work. They're often vague, don't address what you had in your report and the re-inspection can often determine that the work indicated on the receipt was simply not done. In fact, when I do re-inspections, rarely was all the work done correctly.
Eric and Russel,
I'll answer your statements and questions with this example:
Home inspector goes out and finds three leaks in a 10 year old shingle roof. The homeowner has the repairs done by a handyman working under a GCs license. The home inspector comes back and says all the repairs were done after viewing the invoice.
First rain storm comes along and the new homeowner has several roof leaks. The contractor did not give any warranty.
A licensed roofer comes out and says that all of the repairs were done improperly which explains the leaks and now, in order to do the proper repairs, the roofer says that the entire roof will have to be replaced at a cost of $15,000.00.
I would imagine that when this gets to court, the home inspector will have to pay.
For minor items, leaky drains and such, I tell my clients that they don't need me to come hold their hands at $350.00 per hour to see if a drain line is leaking or if a GFI trips.
Major items such as roofs, a/c systems, and structural items are to be repaired by licensed contractors with warranties. NO exceptions. Also, I tell my clients that you want to see proposals and warranties before you buy the home. The other option is like Jerry said, take the money and hire your own contractors.