I don't know if it is a California thing, or if I am just lucky. Maybe Jerry Mc, Russel, Joe or any of the other CA inspectors can chime in on their experiences with agents. I read a lot of negative comments on this board about real estate agents in other parts of the country. The vast majority of agents that I end up working with are genuinely interested in doing a good job for their clients. They do not gloss over or try to minimize my statements. Most will ask specific and probing questions as to how something might be corrected and if it can be corrected in a cost effective way. They want the buyer to be aware of the problems and to understand their significance. Around here, nearly every home needs some corrective work and it all comes down to one basic thing. Money. Is the seller willing to reduce the price and/or make the corrections or is the buyer willing to accept an imperfect house and pay for the corrections themselves?


I know that many of the local inspectors (including myself) have worked to educate the agents as to what the benefits of inspections are to their clients as well as themselves. Needless to say, a big incentive is that an inspection helps to insulate the agent from litigation when a problem or defect is found after closing. However locally, the agents have turned the inspection process into a positive thing, echoing our request that the client be present for, and a part of, the inspection.

__________________
The apostrophe troll.