Thread: No report inspection request

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And "home inspections" is always defined within the statute, and that definition of "home inspection" is what applies.

"Home inspector" is also defined within the statutes, and that definition of what a "home inspector" is and does is what applies.

Typically, "home inspector" and "home inspection" are used in one or more of the definitions, so what one needs to do is to put the meaning of each in with where the term is used. That will answer many questions.

Aaron even posted where TREC allows oral opinions:
- Section 1102.001 (9) "Real estate inspection" means a written or oral opinion as to the condition of the improvements to real property, including structural items, electrical items, mechanical systems, plumbing systems, or equipment.

I suspect that there is a lot more to the Texas requirements and which will allow for those oral opinions.

You're absolutely right. Some people want to look at that one line and define an inspection, but plumbers look at jobs all the time they don't get and give the home owner an opinion and then an estimate which may even in written form define the condition. Are they now under home inspection regulation scrutiny? No!

By the way, these pre-listing consultations do nothing for me- if anything they are actually taking away from my bottom line because none of the purchaser-based products from the Inspector Services Group make sense with these deals, so if anything I have the opposite of a conflict of interest, I just don't like to see laws and regulations misinterpreted. Kind of a pet peeve.

- Section 1102.001 (9) "Real estate inspection" means a written or oral opinion as to the condition of the improvements to real property, including structural items, electrical items, mechanical systems, plumbing systems, or equipment.

Quoting my post out of context will not promote your argument. I have poured over the regulations in my state longer than most folks on this board have been in business. An oral opinion must still be converted to a written report on the TREC-promulgated form, as my post stated. Any house that is even being considered for sale or purchase applies. Additionally, if doing an inspection for the seller, the results of that inspection must be disclosed by the seller to all future prospective buyers. While it may seem pleasant to think that one can just flaunt the rules and pretend that and inspection is merely a "consultation", that is not how pie is made. If you have a written opinion from the TREC General Counsel or its equivalent, let's see it. Otherwise, save the hot air for the upcoming winter . . .

Originally Posted by Nathan Thornberry

You're absolutely right. Some people want to look at that one line and define an inspection ...

Like it or not, when it comes to what is, and is not, an "home inspection" that is statutory language and technically defines "home inspection" and what it is, or is not, within the eyes of the law.

By the way, these pre-listing consultations do nothing for me- if anything they are actually taking away from my bottom line because none of the purchaser-based products from the Inspector Services Group make sense with these deals, so if anything I have the opposite of a conflict of interest, I just don't like to see laws and regulations misinterpreted. Kind of a pet peeve.

Same there when I did inspections - no seller in their right mind (or their left mind) would want a person telling them that all this stuff needs to be replaced or re-done with permits ... I tried to offer pre-listing inspections but, after explaining to the sellers that they would now need to correct everything I showed them or disclose it on the seller disclosure form ... they would say thank you and hang up. Gosh, I wonder why.

Like you, my inspections were not for the weak-kneed, and sellers are weak-kneed as they do not really want to know what is wrong ... they want the house inspected and then they want to hear 'It's all okie-dokie.'

"I just don't like to see laws and regulations misinterpreted. Kind of a pet peeve."

I don't like to see laws and regulations misinterpreted either, a pet peeve of mine too, that is why I am pointing out that, unless the Texas law states something the other laws do not, and you have not yet pointed out that it does, or does not, then there are big loop holes through it.

That is why I ask, yet again, for you to post the law here or to post the section which gives clients the option to 'opt out' of some part of the inspection, or to state that there is NO 'opt out' part and that EVERYONE gets stuck with the same inspection and nothing allows them to change anything.

But you have not done that either.

That is why I ask, yet again, for you to post the law here or to post the section which gives clients the option to 'opt out' of some part of the inspection, or to state that there is NO 'opt out' part and that EVERYONE gets stuck with the same inspection and nothing allows them to change anything.

In Texas:

(5) Departure.
(A) An inspector may depart from the standards of practice only if the requirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph are met, and:
(i) the inspector and client agree the item is not to be inspected;

AND

(B) If a part, component, or system required for inspection is not inspected, the inspector shall:
(ii) make an appropriate notation on the inspection report form, clearly stating the reason the part, component, or system was not inspected.

So, JP, there is your departure wording for Texas. Let's hear your phantasmagoric kludge for that, given that all inspections must be committed to a written report.

TREC rules are clear: report is to be writen, and the TREC form is to be used.

For inspectors that like to find and exploit "loop-hole" conditions, it doesn't state that you have to use "visible ink", nor does it require you to write reports in your client's native tongue.

So whip out you spy-store magic pen, or learn Cantonese.

Otherwise, play by the rules.

Aaron,
Not knowing the Texas law, but for argument sake, if the HI also holds a contractor license (if there is one in Texas). It would make sense that the HI would just put his Contractor Hat on and not have to be concerned with the HI Law about a written report.

This would also possibly apply to other stated that require a licensed HI performing an inspection, by law, must have a contract and provide a written report. It is about the act not the renaming of the act being preformed.

The real answer to a seller not wanting a written report is to have a contractor explain what is wrong under that contracting license.....

A contractor can come in and tell the seller what is wrong and what it may cost orally without consequence other than the seller being put on notice of the items that need repair or correction. Putting the seller on the hook to disclose if required in the contract of sale.

Billing the seller on the Contractor's stationary would make the determination as to which license was being used.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

TREC rules are clear: report is to be writen, and the TREC form is to be used.

For inspectors that like to find and exploit "loop-hole" conditions, it doesn't state that you have to use "visible ink", nor does it require you to write reports in your client's native tongue.

So whip out you spy-store magic pen, or learn Cantonese.

Otherwise, play by the rules.

Finally, someone who is actually paying attention.

Not knowing the Texas law, but for argument sake, if the HI also holds a contractor license (if there is one in Texas). It would make sense that the HI would just put his Contractor Hat on and not have to be concerned with the HI Law about a written report.

Moot point. Texas does not license general contractors. Why can't everyone just stop with the lame workarounds and be professional? Oh yes, I forgot. This is the HI "profession". What on Earth was I thinking?

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

In Texas:

(5) Departure.
(A) An inspector may depart from the standards of practice only if the requirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph are met, and:
(i) the inspector and client agree the item is not to be inspected;

AND

(B) If a part, component, or system required for inspection is not inspected, the inspector shall:
(ii) make an appropriate notation on the inspection report form, clearly stating the reason the part, component, or system was not inspected.

So, JP, there is your departure wording for Texas. Let's hear your phantasmagoric kludge for that, given that all inspections must be committed to a written report.

Like I said way back when - the client states that they do not want any systems inspected - (adding the following part for Texas, would not hurt for other areas either) - write that in the report, .... then do the walk and talk.

Jeeze, Aaron, you are trying soooooo hard to try to limit yourself into having to write a report where you tell them the house needs to be torn down.

Write the friggin' report, state that the client insisted that all systems be excluded, have client initial each section, hand THAT report to the seller, keep your copy, then ... THEN do the "walk and talk" consultation as you *are no longer* doing a "home inspection" by definition.

You are fighting to keep the box nailed shut, I'm outside your box trying to pry off those boards and let some daylight shine in, but you need to stop pulling the boards back in place so it is dark and you can't see.

You are fighting to keep the box nailed shut, I'm outside your box trying to pry off those boards and let some daylight shine in, but you need to stop pulling the boards back in place so it is dark and you can't see.

JP:

I suppose you mean Pandora's box. The TREC has finally reached its goal of becoming a semi-autonomous commission. This means that they get a little less oversight from the state, and a bit less money. That deficit has to be made up. In order to offset the loss of funds they have implemented what anyone with an IQ above that of flat grey primer would consider to be draconian. This is reminiscent of the things one reads in murder mysteries or watches on TV crime shows where the law enforcement agency in question is much better at crucifying its own members than it is at actually enforcing the law or protecting the public.

The investigators at TREC are fair enough, but the attorneys they must work with are, how shall I say? - well, I had better not say here on this forum. Let us just state that they seem to take a lot of liberties in defining the English language as it pertains to their standards and regulations.

Now, let's consider this hypothetical scenario. An HI in any state does the JP Shuffle and pretends not to be a home inspector while not inspecting a house for a seller who claims to not want it inspected (WTF?). Let us just pretend, as you have been doing all along, that this is not just outright lying. Said pretending-not-to-be-an-inspector produces no written report. This miserable skank reports orally to the low-life seller just how distraught his house is. Mr. low-life sells the house to Mr. too-stupid-or-cheap-to-hire-a-competent-inspector. After moving in, Mr. too stupid finds a laundry list of defects. He later proves that Mr. pretending-not-to-be-an-inspector told Mr. low-life about all of these items. Mr.s low-life and pretending-not-an-inspector now have a very real problem that will certainly be announced to them by lawyers acting as lawyers and reporting to them in writing. Shortly thereafter, Mr. pretending-not-to-be-an-inspector will no longer have to pretend.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

JP:

I suppose you mean Pandora's box. The TREC has finally reached its goal of becoming a semi-autonomous commission. This means that they get a little less oversight from the state, and a bit less money. That deficit has to be made up. In order to offset the loss of funds they have implemented what anyone with an IQ above that of flat grey primer would consider to be draconian. This is reminiscent of the things one reads in murder mysteries or watches on TV crime shows where the law enforcement agency in question is much better at crucifying its own members than it is at actually enforcing the law or protecting the public.

The investigators at TREC are fair enough, but the attorneys they must work with are, how shall I say? - well, I had better not say here on this forum. Let us just state that they seem to take a lot of liberties in defining the English language as it pertains to their standards and regulations.

Now, let's consider this hypothetical scenario. An HI in any state does the JP Shuffle and pretends not to be a home inspector while not inspecting a house for a seller who claims to not want it inspected (WTF?). Let us just pretend, as you have been doing all along, that this is not just outright lying. Said pretending-not-to-be-an-inspector produces no written report. This miserable skank reports orally to the low-life seller just how distraught his house is. Mr. low-life sells the house to Mr. too-stupid-or-cheap-to-hire-a-competent-inspector. After moving in, Mr. too stupid finds a laundry list of defects. He later proves that Mr. pretending-not-to-be-an-inspector told Mr. low-life about all of these items. Mr.s low-life and pretending-not-an-inspector now have a very real problem that will certainly be announced to them by lawyers acting as lawyers and reporting to them in writing. Shortly thereafter, Mr. pretending-not-to-be-an-inspector will no longer have to pretend.

That's an interesting theory, but it's never happened and these things take place all the time, so the legal hypothesis from the non-practicing non-licensed attorney is a moot point. I'm not sure if anyone else has actually hired an attorney they paid to look into this, I did, and I did so in preparation to speak on this topic in the state of Texas. The holes are big enough to drive a truck through, even the stuff you've posted gives anyone reading this thread more than enough to know they'll be fine- all they have to do is agree to exclude parts of the inspection as you wrote above even if they take the most conservative view on this topic.

If I read your posts correctly, you've gone from "illegal" to "very illegal" to "illegal unless the client is okay with it" to "fine, but you're going to get sued and go out of business." Is that a fair assessment of the timeline? All you had to do was pick up the phone and call TREC and they'd tell you the same thing they told the last guy...

If I read your posts correctly, you've gone from "illegal" to "very illegal" to "illegal unless the client is okay with it" to "fine, but you're going to get sued and go out of business." Is that a fair assessment of the timeline?

Just goes to show that you can lead a man to write a book, but you can't make him think.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Mr.s low-life and pretending-not-an-inspector now have a very real problem that will certainly be announced to them by lawyers acting as lawyers and reporting to them in writing. Shortly thereafter, Mr. pretending-not-to-be-an-inspector will no longer have to pretend.

Aaron,

As can be seen by some respected inspectors in the posts above who do these 'walk and talk' inspections, your hypothetical is quite hypothetical and no more likely, even less likely, to result in the "fat letter" from an attorney than, say, um, a REGULAR WITH WRITTEN REPORT home inspection is.

The 'walk and talk', in the case presented above for Texas, has a written contract, a written report the client (seller) initialed stating that each and every system and component listed in the SoP is excluded from the inspection. The inspector doing the 'walk and talk' for their client (seller) has only two people to be concerned with: the inspector; the client. Sound familiar? Same goes for a standard home inspection and its report.

The 'walk and talk' 'inspection report' was given at the time of the inspection, it is not up to the consultant doing the 'walk and talk' to write down what was 'talked about' during the 'walk and talk' "walkthrough review".

If said buyer, Mr. too-stupid-or-cheap-to-hire-a-competent-inspector, and has their lawyer contact the consultant regarding the 'walk and talk' review, the consultant provides a copy of the inspection report and says: 'Yes, I did a "home inspection" on this property on this date and this is a copy of it. By the way, my client, the seller, EXCLUDED EVERYTHING from the inspection and the report shows that, and my client, the seller, initialed next to each request to EXCLUDE THAT ITEM. I then did a 'walk and talk' review with my client, the seller, and my client said he was taking notes. Contact the seller for a copy of those notes.

And, of course, no notes exist because the seller was doing a 'walk and listen' while the consultant did the 'walk and talk'.

Aaron, your continued arguments simply do not hold water, you are trying too hard to empty a lake by throwing water from the lake onto the shoreline, besides, you are using a sieve*.

*Martha Stewart Collection 3-Piece Sieve Set - Kitchen Gadgets - Kitchen - Macy's ... and don't believe the ad copy writer either ... "you'll never be left without the right tool for the job" ... that ain't gonna work for emptying the lake.

@ JP and Wonder Boy: Once the two of you graduate from mere rhetoric and provide the members of the forum something in writing from a person of substance at the TREC supporting your specious theories, I will bow to your superior knowledge. But, until then . . . it is just so much hot air balloon filling. Or, as HG once noted - bilge water.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

But, until then . . . it is just so much hot air balloon filling. Or, as HG once noted - bilge water.

As are your claims that it is not allowed.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Moot point. Texas does not license general contractors. Why can't everyone just stop with the lame workarounds and be professional? Oh yes, I forgot. This is the HI "profession". What on Earth was I thinking?

Did not know Texas does not license contractors. From some of the things posted it should.

Not a lame work around but a point in that if a state requires a contract and a written report to be done by law and all the person has is a license for HI then there is no option under their license but to write a report. If the person also holds a contracting license then they can operate under either license. In MD a contractor can not do a Home Inspection by name, but they can inspect a home for repairs. A Home Inspector can not perform work on a home without a contracting license. The contractor is not obligated to furnish any thing in writing if they are not doing any work on the property. Something of a dichotomy isn't it.

The OP was in Washington state. You are Texas with it set of laws. The interesting thing is how the sates differ.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

@ JP and Wonder Boy: Once the two of you graduate from mere rhetoric and provide the members of the forum something in writing from a person of substance at the TREC supporting your specious theories, I will bow to your superior knowledge. But, until then . . . it is just so much hot air balloon filling. Or, as HG once noted - bilge water.

You don't seem to know how TREC works...they only issue something in writing when there is a violation. This is the same with many government agencies, you go to your attorney for a compliance statement.

They're aware of it, they're not issuing anything, because there's not a violation. If you read your own posts you can see this isn't a violation of anything- but if you feel it is, don't offer it.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Did not know Texas does not license contractors. From some of the things posted it should.

Not a lame work around but a point in that if a state requires a contract and a written report to be done by law and all the person has is a license for HI then there is no option under their license but to write a report. If the person also holds a contracting license then they can operate under either license. In MD a contractor can not do a Home Inspection by name, but they can inspect a home for repairs. A Home Inspector can not perform work on a home without a contracting license. The contractor is not obligated to furnish any thing in writing if they are not doing any work on the property. Something of a dichotomy isn't it.

The OP was in Washington state. You are Texas with it set of laws. The interesting thing is how the sates differ.

Yet another thinking individual. Hope springs eternal!

Originally Posted by Luc V. L.

Just received this message today from a stranger (referral from ex-client):

"We are going to be selling our current home and we were thinking of having someone do a pre-inspection for us. That is, go through the property as you would with a home inspection, but not do the report - just walk us through the elements that you see that may be red flags when the buyer does a home inspection. Is that something you'd be able to do?"

What comes to my mind when I translate this is "we want to unofficially know what is wrong with the place and have no paper trail to prove what we know/don't know before selling".

Does anyone have experience with this kind of request? It seems like a verbal consultation would insert a whole lot of strange grey areas for liability down the road. I've always kept it linear: Contract - Inspection - Verbal Report - Written Report. Just interested in how y'all might respond.

To keep things simple, I never do any work for Sellers, period. Don't trust them to do what is right after giving them the info - kinda like some Realtors !!!

Originally Posted by Jim Hintz

To keep things simple, I never do any work for Sellers, period. Don't trust them to do what is right after giving them the info - kinda like some Realtors !!!

Meaning that you do trust all of the Buyers you perform inspections for to do "what is right" for the property (instead of just pocketing the cash they were paid to repair the deficiencies)?

Wow--you're a far better judge of character than I will ever be.

Originally Posted by Jim Hintz

To keep things simple, I never do any work for Sellers, period.

Agreed. And, if you perform an in-depth inspection which identify lots of issues on a pre-sale you will not gain a client, but rather an enemy.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Agreed. And, if you perform an in-depth inspection which identify lots of issues on a pre-sale you will not gain a client, but rather an enemy.

Not so. Maybe in your world, but not in mine.

John,

That has been my experience as well. But, then again we are in Canada, eh?

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Agreed. And, if you perform an in-depth inspection which identify lots of issues on a pre-sale you will not gain a client, but rather an enemy.

Well maybe not an enemy but a THOROUGH report can at least spoil their day. I typically talk more folks out of having a pre-sale inspection rather than "closing the deal."
It takes a really honest person bent on FULL disclosure to appreciate the process.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Well maybe not an enemy but a THOROUGH report can at least spoil their day. I typically talk more folks out of having a pre-sale inspection rather than "closing the deal."
It takes a really honest person bent on FULL disclosure to appreciate the process.

Yes. I have talked many sellers out of pre-inspections. It is just a stupid idea. Why do the buyer's job for them? WTF are they thinking?

And yes, it takes a really honest inspector to admit that too.

Originally Posted by BridgeMan

Meaning that you do trust all of the Buyers you perform inspections for to do "what is right" for the property (instead of just pocketing the cash they were paid to repair the deficiencies)?

Wow--you're a far better judge of character than I will ever be.

I don't care what a buyer does, I did my job, got paid, end of story...Buyers are rarely "paid" anything in lieu of repairs. 99.999% of the time, the price gets reduced or the seller fixes the issues or, the buyers walk because there's a $hitload of problems and the seller won't budge. What does a buyer have to gain by lying, and, how could they "invent" more issues than what is in the report?

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Yes. I have talked many sellers out of pre-inspections. It is just a stupid idea. Why do the buyer's job for them? WTF are they thinking?

And yes, it takes a really honest inspector to admit that too.

You're a smart man Aaron - I talk people out of a pre-sale inspection everytime I'm asked to do one.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Yes. I have talked many sellers out of pre-inspections. It is just a stupid idea. Why do the buyer's job for them? WTF are they thinking?

And yes, it takes a really honest inspector to admit that too.

That is just your opinion, in my really honest opinion. And any fool can nod and agree if they feel so inclined.

I have helped many home owners sell their homes by doing an Honest pre-listing inspection for them.
It tells them how the place will show to a buyer and His inspector.
They can repair or they can disclose or they can ignore, it is up to them.
When they list the property, it is priced according to what was found in the inspection. No surprises, so no under-cutting of the price.
If there is a repair, they can have it done at their price or do it themselves before the buyers even get involved.
Or they can get an estimate and use that to counter the buyer's inflated estimate.
If there is a hazard, or a serious problem, they can deal with it before it becomes a deal-breaker.
With information at hand, the seller can keep the buyer from stalling the sale, which could turn other potential buyers away.

Pre-listing, Seller's Home Inspection in Victoria BC

Originally Posted by John Kogel

That is just your opinion, in my really honest opinion. And any fool can nod and agree if they feel so inclined.

I have helped many home owners sell their homes by doing an Honest pre-listing inspection for them.
It tells them how the place will show to a buyer and His inspector.
They can repair or they can disclose or they can ignore, it is up to them.
When they list the property, it is priced according to what was found in the inspection. No surprises, so no under-cutting of the price.
f there is a repair, they can have it done at their price or do it themselves before the buyers even get involved.
If there is a hazard, or a serious problem they can deal with it before it becomes a deal-breaker.

Pre-listing, Seller's Home Inspection in Victoria BC, For Sale By Owner, FSBO home inspector, Southern Vancouver Island

Far be it from me to rain on Aaron's parade by stealing the argument; but I don't question the honesty of the inspector or the client doing the pre-listing inspection. I just find when I explain the process of the report, and the sellers choice to fix or disclose every defect I find, then the glow comes off the pumpkin and the reality sets in for the seller. Yes, I have had several pre-listing inspections that were successful for my clients and helped them sell their homes with no surprises BUT it is not for the faint of heart. It is my opinion sellers need to be forewarned of the ramifications before I show up and tell them about all the defects of which they were blissfully ignorant.
It is impossible to un-ring the bell.

No problem, Jim. I can see the point, but Aaron's dishonesty remark ruffled my feathers.

Disclose everything. An open inspection report on the table can help sell the house. The buyer doesn't feel a need to bring in his own inspector. And it gives first home buyers confidence to go ahead.

Aaron's dishonesty remark ruffled my feathers

Whenever opinions differ, as they always do here, feathers will get ruffled. So what? That's just part of having discussions. Buck up and move on. No one will ever agree with everything another says.

What's honest and what's ethical is a very gray area. Everyone has their own ideas regarding this. I have stated mine. Agree or don't agree, I could not care less. I am not attempting to convince you otherwise.

I can argue the other side of this, or any other, issue just as well. I just don't happen to agree with doing pre-sale inspections. In my experience it accomplishes nothing constructive for the seller of the property, is a waste of his money, and puts the seller in an uncomfortable position in more ways than one.

Additionally, the inspector who performs these types of inspections had damn well better be at the very top of his game. If an extremely thorough inspector follows him as the buyer's inspector he might find himself in very hot water. This I have personally experienced on many occasions.

One persons inspection methods or business decisions are going to fit others inspections methods or business decisions.

Its no different then someone suggesting not to post prices on your website, or not to mention repair costs, or do prelisting inspections, unless of course state licencing dictates otherwise.

What works for someone may not work for me, Curly, Larry or Moe.

An open inspection report on the table can help sell the house. The buyer doesn't feel a need to bring in his own inspector. And it gives first home buyers confidence to go ahead.

Any buyer who would rely on a seller's inspector's report is a fool.

And, did it occur to you that you are espousing the opinion that we need only half as many inspections and inspectors in this market?

[quote=Aaron Miller;209100]Any buyer who would rely on a seller's inspector's report is a fool.

Exactly Aaron. You never know which inspectors are in the proverbial "back-pocket" of a Realtor !

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Any buyer who would rely on a seller's inspector's report is a fool.

And, did it occur to you that you are espousing the opinion that we need only half as many inspections and inspectors in this market?

[quote=Jim Hintz;209106]

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Any buyer who would rely on a seller's inspector's report is a fool.

Exactly Aaron. You never know which inspectors are in the proverbial "back-pocket" of a Realtor !

My contact info is in the report. The buyer can phone me and ask questions if they wish. They rarely do, but it is an option they can choose. On occasion, when too much time has gone by, and from asking questions, it sounded like repairs were not made, I have advised the buyer to have their own inspection done. Not by me.

I'm not afraid of any inspector coming behind me. I provide an honest portrayal of the house with pictures of the hidden areas. Maybe the housing stock is in better shape in my area. Don't be so quick to judge all from your own bad experiences.

And as far as half as many inspectors go, it is you saying that the seller's inspections are redundant.
Seller's pre-listing inspections provide information that makes the sale of a property less stressful for both sides.

Seller's pre-listing inspections provide information that makes the sale of a property less stressful for both sides

Take another puff.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

snide remark

Who made you the go-to guy for real estate transactions? What do you know about my market area, and what have you done to promote the home inspection profession in general anywhere?

Pre-listing inspections are not for you, fine, we've established that. Step aside, then.

Step aside, then.

Consider yourself side-stepped.

Any purchaser who relies solely on a pre-listing inspection done for the vendor is not exercising due diligence if they go through with the purchase.

No two reports will ever be the same whether its a pre-sale inspection or pre-listing inspection.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Any purchaser who relies solely on a pre-listing inspection done for the vendor is not exercising due diligence if they go through with the purchase.

No two reports will ever be the same whether its a pre-sale inspection or pre-listing inspection.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Agreed.

Me too.

The problem with a buyer accepting the sellers inspection report boils down to who and how good that report is. I ran across something that exemplifies one problem with who does the report. The veracity of the inspector is ultimately at issue. By example. There is someone that promotes marketing strategies and methods. Here is a quote from him.

"If a consumer calls and tells you that the home they are looking to buy is 95 years old... you should tell the caller that you specialize in historic ("heritage for you Canadians) homes and that you'd like to email them your brochure on older homes."

One question that comes to mind is this an exaggeration by the inspector ?
Since the idea is to push the marketing process to the limit. It will cause those with zeal to hedge a lie to get a job.

Anyone who claims to be an expert and upon further investigation is not, is falsely advertising in my view. They are leaving themselves wide open on the litigation avenue.

There are also ethical inspectors who don't promote false advertising to gain inspections.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Anyone who claims to be an expert and upon further investigation is not, is falsely advertising in my view. They are leaving themselves wide open on the litigation avenue.

There are also ethical inspectors who don't promote false advertising to gain inspections.

Amen.