Bruce Breedlove
08-17-2007, 02:43 PM
When the Home Inspection Kills a Sale (http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpages/20050811_homeinspection.htm)
A colleague passed along a complaint about a home inspection that went awry and succeeded in torpedoing a sale.
Although the consumer insisted that the house wasn't as bad as the home inspector said it was, it seems odd that this situation would even exist in a market where many buyers are choosing not to have inspections for fear of losing out to someone else.
The homeowner said that there were minor problems and those were disclosed fully on the state-mandated form that was supplied not only to prospective buyers but to the home inspector as well.
The homeowner also said that the inspector was "rude." Unfortunately, in this era of road rage, talk radio and abrupt sales clerks, rudeness has, unfortunately, become a key element of every day life.
If rudeness were a crime, most of us would be behind bars.
In states where home inspectors are licensed and the industry regulated, there are procedures in place to complain about individuals and inspection companies. In the homeowner's state, however, the requirement is simply that the inspector be a member of one of the major inspection organizations -- the American Society of Home Inspectors or the National Association of Home Inspectors, to name the two largest.
The organizations maintain professional standards and require a high level of expertise and field experience to join. Still, organizations are only as good as their best members, and, as with every field of endeavor, there are bad apples that give the barrels a bad name.
The homeowner could sue, but on what grounds? The inspector wasn't hired to kill the deal, he was hired to inspect the house within the period specified by the agreement of sale. He apparently found things in the two hours he was in the house that didn't meet acceptable standards or required repair.
I'm only hearing one side of the conversation -- the homeowner is spending a lot of time talking about rudeness -- but there are a couple of things in this story that bother me.
The first is that the homeowner was present during the inspection and made an effort to become involved in it. There are no hard and fast rules, but unless the homeowner is selling the house without a real estate agent, only the listing agent should be present during the inspection. {Now that's an odd bit of advice.}
One of the ways the agent earns a commission is by representing the client's business throughout the entire transaction. Therefore, the listing agent's presence necessary to act as an intermediary, to write down questions that could be passed on to the seller, and to negotiate repairs or reductions in the sale price to compensate the buyer for needed repairs once the report was available.
The listing agent wasn't present. The buyer's agent wasn't present. One of the buyers was there at the start of the inspection, but had to leave for a business meeting.
So we have the home inspector and the homeowner. In other words, someone who was working for the buyer and someone who probably got overly defensive and may, in the inspector's opinion, have been trying to influence the report.
The inspector works for the buyer, not the seller. This seller insists that the inspector should work for both. It's obvious he doesn't understand why the home inspector is there in the first place, so no amount of explaining would work.
First, if I were the buyer, I would have remained for the entire inspection, scheduling it when that could be arranged. I know people are in a hurry and everyone is busy, but buying a house is the most expensive transaction in a person's life.
I've had three inspections on three houses since 1982, and I was there the entire time for each. Most of what appears on the reports requires explanation. A lot of what looks bad isn't really as bad as it looks if the inspector has a chance to explain as he or she proceeds during the tour.
The inspection company was not completely blameless. It should have provided a copy of the inspection report to the listing agent before the buyers pulled out so that the agent could have pushed for negotiation. {Another odd opinion. Didn't the writer say earlier that the inspector works for the buyer, not the seller? Strange.}
The homeowner said that the report was illegible, and correctly argues that, in this day of computers, how difficult would have been for the report to have been typed. The inspection firm was a franchise that should have employed someone to type up the inspector's report as soon as it was completed.
So what recourse does the homeowner have? First, having the inspection provides the homeowner and listing agent with valuable information about buyers and what they are looking for. They are now aware of potential problems, and should develop a negotiating strategy to address those problems with the next buyer.
And then, simply, the seller should wait for the next buyer.
A colleague passed along a complaint about a home inspection that went awry and succeeded in torpedoing a sale.
Although the consumer insisted that the house wasn't as bad as the home inspector said it was, it seems odd that this situation would even exist in a market where many buyers are choosing not to have inspections for fear of losing out to someone else.
The homeowner said that there were minor problems and those were disclosed fully on the state-mandated form that was supplied not only to prospective buyers but to the home inspector as well.
The homeowner also said that the inspector was "rude." Unfortunately, in this era of road rage, talk radio and abrupt sales clerks, rudeness has, unfortunately, become a key element of every day life.
If rudeness were a crime, most of us would be behind bars.
In states where home inspectors are licensed and the industry regulated, there are procedures in place to complain about individuals and inspection companies. In the homeowner's state, however, the requirement is simply that the inspector be a member of one of the major inspection organizations -- the American Society of Home Inspectors or the National Association of Home Inspectors, to name the two largest.
The organizations maintain professional standards and require a high level of expertise and field experience to join. Still, organizations are only as good as their best members, and, as with every field of endeavor, there are bad apples that give the barrels a bad name.
The homeowner could sue, but on what grounds? The inspector wasn't hired to kill the deal, he was hired to inspect the house within the period specified by the agreement of sale. He apparently found things in the two hours he was in the house that didn't meet acceptable standards or required repair.
I'm only hearing one side of the conversation -- the homeowner is spending a lot of time talking about rudeness -- but there are a couple of things in this story that bother me.
The first is that the homeowner was present during the inspection and made an effort to become involved in it. There are no hard and fast rules, but unless the homeowner is selling the house without a real estate agent, only the listing agent should be present during the inspection. {Now that's an odd bit of advice.}
One of the ways the agent earns a commission is by representing the client's business throughout the entire transaction. Therefore, the listing agent's presence necessary to act as an intermediary, to write down questions that could be passed on to the seller, and to negotiate repairs or reductions in the sale price to compensate the buyer for needed repairs once the report was available.
The listing agent wasn't present. The buyer's agent wasn't present. One of the buyers was there at the start of the inspection, but had to leave for a business meeting.
So we have the home inspector and the homeowner. In other words, someone who was working for the buyer and someone who probably got overly defensive and may, in the inspector's opinion, have been trying to influence the report.
The inspector works for the buyer, not the seller. This seller insists that the inspector should work for both. It's obvious he doesn't understand why the home inspector is there in the first place, so no amount of explaining would work.
First, if I were the buyer, I would have remained for the entire inspection, scheduling it when that could be arranged. I know people are in a hurry and everyone is busy, but buying a house is the most expensive transaction in a person's life.
I've had three inspections on three houses since 1982, and I was there the entire time for each. Most of what appears on the reports requires explanation. A lot of what looks bad isn't really as bad as it looks if the inspector has a chance to explain as he or she proceeds during the tour.
The inspection company was not completely blameless. It should have provided a copy of the inspection report to the listing agent before the buyers pulled out so that the agent could have pushed for negotiation. {Another odd opinion. Didn't the writer say earlier that the inspector works for the buyer, not the seller? Strange.}
The homeowner said that the report was illegible, and correctly argues that, in this day of computers, how difficult would have been for the report to have been typed. The inspection firm was a franchise that should have employed someone to type up the inspector's report as soon as it was completed.
So what recourse does the homeowner have? First, having the inspection provides the homeowner and listing agent with valuable information about buyers and what they are looking for. They are now aware of potential problems, and should develop a negotiating strategy to address those problems with the next buyer.
And then, simply, the seller should wait for the next buyer.