Thread: Re-inspections

I would like to re-address re-inspections. I know we have covered this before.

You would think that after 18+ years in this business, I would have it all figured out. But just can't get this worked out.

Used to do re-inspections all the time. Charged a minimum fee to do it.

Still tell clients (and Realtors) to get professionals to do the work, get receipts etc and all that. Some do, but many don't and lots of times the homeowner or his contractor buddy will do some of the repairs.

I also tell clients that they don't really need me to come back for a lot of repairs that they can see for themselves. That fogged window? The rotted wood trim around the windows? They can see that.

Tried to make the policy of NOT doing re-inspections. That just didn't work out well, in fact it created some ill will with agents that have used us a long time, and know that I used to re-inspect all the time.

Many times during the re-inspection I found, like many others here, that some or all of the work was NOT done properly or at all. That meant ANOTHER trip out, etc.

I struggle with trying to provide my clients with the best possible service and still turn a profit at the end of the day. I also struggle knowing that my insurance will not cover me for re-inspections. I have covered that with a contract that says I am not responsible for the repairs, but not sure how that would end up in court should something happen.

I am asking how others handle this and what has worked, and what is not working (kind of like where I am).

I have found that saying WE DON'T is just not working.

And doing them and trying to charge what is reasonable for my client and profitable for me is something I can't seem to get worked out. My clients are not in the same class as Jerry's, so money IS an issue with almost every one of them.

I look forward to comments form others.
JF

Similar Threads:

• Re-Inspections
• Code of ethics planned for property inspections - Stuff.co.nz
• Pre-Listing Inspections
• Home inspections key to helping buyers make sound decision - Chicago Daily Southtown

I will do them for at lest 60% of the inspection fee.

I have to have in writing what was agreed to be fixed. Along with the paper work from the repair persons.

There is a lot of clients thank you should do them for free.

I do them, reluctantly, but don't let them interfer with an inspection slot and charge appropriate for my time. Usually done early morning or late afternoon.

Yes, money is an issue for a lot of my clients too, but it is also an issue for ME! I don't often feel like working for free. (Though I sometimes do because I want to but it is not generally inspection related.)

Sometimes, there's not any one else for the client to rely on, i.e. out of state clients.

I also offer re-inspections. The % of people asking for re-inspections are low and most of my jobs are 15 minutes or less from my house. I have my prices set so I average $50.00 per hour for my time, $25.00 for material and add $25.00 on top of that to cover re-inspections (if asked for).

I have experienced in this area that people will pay a little more if you offer services that others do not (I'm still not the most expensive). It makes my company stand out because (as far as I know) everyone else does not offer re-inspections or they charge $100.00 (I make sure the buyers know this). I found that people don't mind paying once, twice they feel you are trying to nickel and dime them.

When it comes to informing your client or their Realtor that you do not provide this service, the insurance comment would be the best thing to use. The Realtors that refer you will get use to it.

Jack,

Re-inspections do not bother me and my carrier does cover them. By not doing re-inspections I think that the inspector has left their client high and dry. As I have said in previous posts, if we can understand when something is wrong then it stands to reason we understand when it's right. Since the limitations that we have (visual only) on the first inspection are going to be the same for the follow up visit, I don't understand the reluctance.

Since I don't like to see clients having to send more money for a second inspection I ask if they can get receipts for repairs from the seller. As already mentioned, repairs are often wrong as are receipts.

I attached one receipt (of 4 that were provided) as an example. Note that there's no contractor info. #1 - I reported drain line separation in mbath shower (picture), not the hall bath. #2 - he got that right. #3 - Heating bubba's repairs were a joke and he ignored the rusted through vents so this guy replaced them. #4 - Missing mortar was in the smoke chamber and firebox, not outside. Of the other three receipts, each listed work that was done wrong or simply not done at all.

To be honest, if we decline re-inspections we have abandoned our client and their agent and left them to the irresponsibility of others. I can understand their dis-satisfaction with an inspector who will not provide such follow up.

BTW - collecting these receipts has become a hobby of mine, it's amazing what crap is written.

Jack and others who perform re-inspections; I recommend thoroughly reading your local real estate contracts. Most have a section dealing with repairs and it would be a good thing to know exactly what that section states. California real estate sales contracts are very clear on this issue and put the ball squarely into the home seller’s court. A re-inspection performed for a fee or even free is nothing more than the inspector guaranteeing whoever did what to fix something they reported needing fixin did it correctly. So how long is your guarantee good for? If the fix fails do you think the client will call the person who fixed it or the guy who put in writing that the fix was acceptable? Will your re-inspection fee cover the cost of any potential damage resulting from a less than perfect repair? As Jack said, your E&O insurance is not going to cover you for that type of inspection. Would you drive your car without insurance and feel that the money you saved would be enough to pay for any claims from any possible accident no matter who was a fault? I think not so why make such a truly bad business decision? I’d much rather have a few disappointed clients than stick my neck into that type of noose. Sorry for the rant, but I feel you fellows are walking the plank on this issue.

I fully second West Cost Jerry's post.

... but ...

... if you are going to do re-inspections, you will want to have your client ...
- provide you with the written quotes for the work to be done,
- provide you with the written work order stating what was done,
- provide you with the written invoice marked "Paid In Full",
- provide you with the company name, address and phone number and the person who is licensed license number,
- provide you with that company's in$urance certificate,
- provide you with that company's guarantee covering the work which was supposed to have been done (whether or not they did it, if you wrote it up and they did not do it, that means they felt it did not need doing, which means there is nothing wrong with it, which means they should guaranty that not-done work too),
... and last but not least ...
- provide with a reason your client still needs you to do a re-inspection.

If they provide all of that to your satisfaction, and you still want to do a re-inspection, then stipulate, and have them sign, a simple contract for services which states that they, the client, will hold you harmless for any and all items related to the original inspection and the re-inspection, that you are not verifying 'what was done where' or 'was it done properly', only that "something" was done "here".

If your client still wants you to do a re-inspection, well ... a person representing themselves as their own attorney has a fool for a client ... and your client fits right there with that fool.

I can't say about other states, but *in Florida*, the seller is *obligated* to have ALL repairs done by licensed contractors ... PERIOD. There are no exceptions. Not only is that in the real estate contract, it is in state statute too.

I couldn't agree more with the OP... I've struggles with those exact issues. Flat out not doing them is just too unfriendly. Also, it's a regional thing and if guys in your area are doing them you can't be the only one not.

I've tried just raising the price to ridiculous levels and that's really same as just refusing to do them... almost worse because your clients are almost insulted sometimes.

In the end the best thing I've found is to do as some other say.... Get receipts and an addendum prior to heading out. That alone seems to eliminate over half of them. We also have a big blurb on our report that recommends all work be done by lic/bond contratcors so if/when we ask for receipts and there are none we can basically refuse to go.

The funny thing is the times we do re-insp are the times they're really not needed.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

A re-inspection performed for a fee or even free is nothing more than the inspector guaranteeing whoever did what to fix something they reported needing fixin did it correctly. So how long is your guarantee good for?

How long will you guarantee an item that you inspected during the original inspection? Example: The sellers put the house on the market, a storm comes through and causes damage to the roof. The sellers fix the problem and inform the buyers, the buyers inform the home inspector that damage to roof had occurred a couple of weeks ago and they fixed it two days ago. For a home inspector that does not inspect other peoples repairs because of the liability factor, do you ignore that area of the roof and write it up as a limitation?

If the fix fails do you think the client will call the person who fixed it or the guy who put in writing that the fix was acceptable?

If the report is written up correctly, then I did my job. The person that "so called" fixed it needs to go back.

Will your re-inspection fee cover the cost of any potential damage resulting from a less than perfect repair?

That's what you get for not inspecting and reporting properly.

As Jack said, your E&O insurance is not going to cover you for that type of inspection.

Through Allen Insurance, re-inspections are covered. If the insurance he carries does not include re-inspections, then that is a no brainer. Don't do it or get different insurance.

Would you drive your car without insurance and feel that the money you saved would be enough to pay for any claims from any possible accident no matter who was a fault?

Different subject. I don't think the price of the insurance to cover re-inspections is the issue.

Sorry for the rant, but I feel you fellows are walking the plank on this issue.

I disagree about the plank. We provide a service by looking at a component or components and reporting on our visual finding. The only difference is during a home inspection, we are looking at many more components than during a re-inspection.

If a home inspector wants to do re-inspection or not, that's his decision. If he wants to charge extra or not is still his decision. But to say that he is walking the plank, is not correct.

How many houses do we inspect where the liability is higher than other houses we inspect, but yet we inspect them anyways.

How about lenders in your areas? One of the main reasons I do re-inspections is that major local lenders require an inspection and re-inspection before they will approve the loan. I assume this is to protect the lenders interests in case of default. Home inspections are not pushed by most local agents so many times the only reason the buyer ends up having a home inspection is to satisfy their lenders. I am in a quite isolated area and this may be only a local quirk but I wonder if this happens in other areas as well.

Hey Eric B...Who is your carrier? I would like to find one that covers re-inspections. Thanks.

Through Allen Insurance, re-inspections are covered. If the insurance he carries does not include re-inspections, then that is a no brainer. Don't do it or get different insurance.
Kevin

Kevin. I have Allen Insurance and here is statement by Bob Pearson on re-inspections I just got with my renewal for 2008.
"I would like to share my thoughts in re-inspections. For example if you call out for a roofing contractor to further evaluate and repair problems you observed DO NOT go back and re-inspect the work. If you do so you are assuming the liability exposure of the repairs. You did not do the repairs so how do you know the work was performed correctly and/or solved the problem.
Do not perform re-inspections unless you like to write checks or call your E&O carrier with claims"
Now this does not say you are not covered but the insinuation is dire enough for me to stay away.

I think Erik Baker said this in another post, but if we inspect the first time why can't we inspect the second after a fix? Clear expectations to the client is key...CALL THE CONTRACTOR who performed the work if something goes awry. Have the language about no guarantee in the re-inspection document and if you can't verify a repair then say so. When a work invoice says a heat exchanger was visually inspected, how do you confirm that? The work invoice supplied to the client, the lender and appraiser seems to work to get a loan approved with no liability resting with the lender or appraiser for accepting it when a re-inspection is not done, why should it be different when a re-inspection is performed? Dave

Sorry,... Eric Barker!

Sounds like your E&O will cover you.
"...Do not perform re-inspections unless you like to write checks or call your E&O carrier with claims"

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Sounds like your E&O will cover you.
"...Do not perform re-inspections unless you like to write checks or call your E&O carrier with claims"

Here is the last line in my statement. "Now this does not say you are not covered but the insinuation is dire enough for me to stay away"
I agree we are covered but Insurance does not recommend re-inspections.

The Jerrys have it. I might add to the long list of things that Peck suggests that, if you are looney enough to do reinspections, then you should require that all repairpersons provide you with digital photos of before, during and after the repair.

Aaron

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

The Jerrys have it. I might add to the long list of things that Peck suggests that, if you are looney enough to do reinspections, then you should require that all repairpersons provide you with digital photos of before, during and after the repair.

Aaron

I'm totally on board with this and what the Jerrys say..... but, how do I pull this kind of stuff off without my clients and realtors just thinking I'm being ridiculous... I know, I know.... it's my business and I can run it how I like but there's an element of customer service in here somewhere that I try to maintain.

If I called my HI for a re-inspection and was given a list like this thread contains I'd be insulted.... I'd rather just be told 'No'. And, if I were a realtor and had referred a guy several times and got that list when the next guy in the phonebook IS doing re-inspections? Well, I'd probably shop elsewhere next time.

No matter how you slice it, it's a tough road to navigate.... There's your liabiliy vs providing a service your clients want/need (or at least think they need).

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

If I called my HI for a re-inspection and was given a list like this thread contains I'd be insulted.... I'd rather just be told 'No'.

Which is what we said first, and the list is only for those not paying attention.

The list is there with items *YOU* *SHOULD* *HAVE* in your possession before doing a re-inspection. Now, how are you going to get those items if not through your client?

The side benefit to getting that list of items from your client is that you are making your client aware of who-did-what-to-what-*AND*-who-is-guaranteeing-what-for-how-long. Now, really, once your client has that ... do they really need a re-inspection?

Of course not. The service you just provided to your client is to have them gather up all that information FROM THE SELLER and put it in one package for your clients FUTURE USE - all at "no charge ma'am, that information and advice was free ... call me if you need anything else"

Why one earth would *YOU* (the HI) do a re-inspection WITHOUT that stuff? Boggles me mind, it do.

And, if you got that stuff ... why on earth would your client *need you* to do a re-inspection? Again - boggles me mind, it do.

See, you have, for no charge, provided a service which has greater value than a re-inspection would, and, was much cheaper (unless you do re-inspections for free).

Nonetheless, though, the most important thing I'm trying to get across is ... Why one earth would *YOU* (the HI) do a re-inspection WITHOUT that stuff? And get Aaron's "then you should require that all repair persons provide you with digital photos of before, during and after the repair." too.

After reading the current posts, it came to me that you have two sides, the home inspectors that offer re-inspections and the home inspectors that do not. The one thing I have not heard is the ones that used to offer re-inspection but do not anymore due to being sued too many times. You would think that these people would have spoken up by now.

How about completion inspections vs. re-inspections? Things like there was a huge dresser in front of the attic access or a big dog in the backyard?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this 'grand list' concepts..... I understand the reason but can someone actually admit to reading that entire thing to a client? Especially the whole thing about the pictures?

That's just over the top

Please allow me to attempt to explain my opinion a bit further.
Case in Point: You go to your regular GP. He/she after probing, listening, peering, and evaluating your lab tests tells you he/she is referring you to a proctologist because of some irregularity and/or blockage of your lower GI. After you’re examined by the proctologist he/she sets up a surgical procedure in the hospital and repairs your problem.
Question: Do you go back to the GP and ask him/her to examine the repairs and give his/her blessing to whatever the proctologist did?

Matthew, My carrier is State Farm Insurance.

Jerry M, Why would I be concerned with the real estate contract? I'm not a party to it. I couldn't care less what it says. Also, where does the idea that an inspector's reinspection is a guarantee come from? I think that if you reread Jack's first post you'll see that he said HIS insurance did not cover reinspections. I would not assume that no carrier will cover these inspections since State Farm and apparently Allen do provide such coverage.

I have checked with State Farm's Specialty Products division in Chicago and they see no difference between the initial inspection and any follow up inspection and have no reservations about my performing either. Neither my attorney or State Farm see any reason for anyone to assume that my reinspections are a guarantee of any kind.

Sorry guys, I tried but can't find any reason to worry over reinspections.

Thanks for the posts. Some interesting thoughts and opinions.

I have tried to get the documentation prior to going out - even just a list of the things they asked for. Probably 90% of the time, the list never makes it. Out of the times it does make it, the invoices and all that stuff make it maybe 5% of the time. AS far as having license numbers and insurance - my gosh this is east TN.

I think charging them 50 - 60% of the original fee just would not fly, and would probably piss off most of my clients. Most re-inspections take about an hour including driving in most cases. I charge $75 - 100 usually.

One of the problems is scheduling. It is very difficult to try to schedule an hour or so during a regular work day. Obviously we would like to do it either before the morning job, between jobs, or after the afternoon job. I have found that if I tell them it will cost more if I have to schedule it on THEIR time, they decide that MY time slot is just fine. However, I still have to fit it in.

I guess I was looking for some revelation that would allow me to take control of this part of my business and do away with the "problem" or at least manage it better.

What I tried before was to inform the agents that I wasn't able to do re-inspections and after some pleading and knashing of teeth, I gave in and did it "just this one time". This has worked in some cases, but not all - which is obvious or I wouldn't have started this post.

I need to ponder the thoughts of the wise men that post here, and maybe try tomake a decision that I can live with, and still provide my clients with a service they will be happy to tell their friends about.

JF

Jack, even though you know this already, I'll say it anyways. You can't make everyone happy and sometime that mean you. It sounds like you don't want to offer this service but some clients/Realtors want it and you know in your heart that when you do a re-inspection, you are providing the buyer a great service.

For everyone around the Lake county, Indiana area; if your client wants a re-inspection and you don't provide that service, tell them to give me a call. Things have gotten slow around here .

Earlier in this thread I asked if anyone else worked in an area where lenders demand re-inspections in order to approve mortgage loans. No one has responded so I assume that Alaska is unique in this requirement. If so, I will be attempting to convince them to stop demanding re-inspections. It also means that we are expected to supply a list of "required" correction items prior to closing.

Seller has a pre-listing inspection and has some stuff repaired. It's "no longer a problem" so they don't disclose the problem or the repair.

You inspect for the buyer. Are you "guaranteeing that the repairs were done right because you didn't see anything wrong?"

Sometimes you know a little bit about the repairs: Re-inspection.

Sometimes you don't even know a repair was made: Inspection.

In the end, each of us has to do what we are comfortable with.

Kind like getting on the roof, or not.

Insurance or no insurance, guarantee or no guarantee, full price or discounted price, re-inspections are a trap that you set for yourself. If baiting yourself for a lawsuit is your idea of entertainment, then by all means do it.

Hypothetical scenario 1: You note previous termite damage in an exterior wall and call for further investigation and repair (perhaps also treatment if no signs of previous treatment and you are licensed and doing a WDI). Now, how will you do a visual re-inspection of this circumstance with even a shred of a degree of accuracy? Did they repair or replace the damaged framing? Was their also mold in the stud cavities from the moisture that attracted the termites in the first place? Do you have a means of verifying chemical or other treatment for the insects? Was the insulation replaced? Etc, etc. You can't know for sure. You were not there.

Hypothetical scenario 2: You note damaged shingles on a roof from tree limb abrasion and call for a licensed roofer to make the necessary repairs. Was the underlayment also damaged? How about the decking beneath? Was the repair made according to the shingle manufacturer's installation and/or repair instructions? You cannot know that for sure. You were not there.

I can go on like this until this site runs out of band width. And it gets worse. Even if you actually attend each repair session along with the contractor performing it, are you competent in all areas of construction, and under every circumstance, to be the final arbiter of how the repairs should be made? I think not.

Yes, of course, it is a matter of choice. Why would you choose to shoot yourself in the ass?

Aaron

"Yes, of course, it is a matter of choice. Why would you choose to shoot yourself in the ass?"


That's the million dollar question...are we shooting ourselves by doing re-inspections? Is the increased liability worth the $100? The liability increases when you don't set expectations for your clients and you end up in court later. Yes, there are clients who take you to court regardless and I think you'd end up in court with that client if you did a re-inspection for them or not. Providing re-inspections is par-for-the-course in Alaska, not doing them would greatly increase the chances of not earning sufficient income. Talk about shooting yourself in the pocketbook. Until lenders agree not to receive re-inspection reports from the clients we don't have much choice in the matter. Dave

Dave:

Of course, if it is a lender or legal requirement, then you have no choice in the matter. I was only referring to those of us who do (for the time being) have that choice.

Aaron

Eric, you should be concerned with the real estate contract so that you are at the very least familiar with what your clients whether buyers or sellers are legally required to abide by in the area of repairing defects related to what your inspection may have disclosed and your recommendations regarding such. The RE contract varies from state to state and just because you are not party to the contract does not protect you from potential litigation when things go sour. Personally I don’t care if inspectors bless repair work or not as I’m no longer a player in that game, but my EW work has repeatedly shown that the legal exposure connected to property inspections grows significantly larger for those who feel compelled to “please” their clients by inspecting corrective work just because their competition provides such a service. Home inspectors are generalists by design and expecting them to review the work of a state licensed contractor in whatever their specialty is an unrealistic reach in my opinion besides being dangerous. In California the RE sales contract calls for all repairs to be performed by the appropriate state licensed contractor and the seller to provide copies of their invoices to the buyers after the work is completed including any and all local inspections by the local AHJ.

I have read many of Jack’s postings over the years and consider him a consummate pro in the real estate inspection profession, but cringe that he has found himself in this so called “rock and hard place” situation. Across the country there are different levels of experience and methodology in performing residential dwelling home inspections, but they all share the commonality of legal exposure by clients filing law suits when they feel they have been mislead, lied to, got a really bad inspection or in some cases an attempt to use the home inspector as their personal ATM.

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Dave:

Of course, if it is a lender or legal requirement, then you have no choice in the matter. I was only referring to those of us who do (for the time being) have that choice.

Aaron

Over the last few months I've seen a run of 'lender lists' that they want prior to closing. The strange part is the items don't follow any pattern. It used to be pest/dry rot stuff but then before the loaning craze of the last 5 years that went away. Now, it's just a list of stuff that some bank exec thinks is important.

I think it's a product of the home loan biz being in total chaos right now. They'll require a cracked pane of glass be replaced but are fine with a totally messed up electrical system.

The whole 'lender requriment' thing puts an interesting twist on this re-inspection thing. If I'm understanding this right it's okay to go back and do a re-inspection if the lender requires it but not otherwise?

[quote=Jerry McCarthy;27485]Home inspectors are generalists by design and expecting them to review the work of a state licensed contractor in whatever their specialty is an unrealistic reach in my opinion besides being dangerous. [quote]

We are generalist and when we do re-inspection we are still generalists. Who is telling these people any different? The limitation are still the same. You can only inspect what you see and nothing more. Inform the clients verbally and in writing just like we should be doing for a first time home inspection.

We review the work of a state licensed contractor all the time. Who do you think installed that electrical panel, house structure, heating system, plumbing system, etc. It doesn't matter if that state licensed contractor installed that system in a new house or if the house is a 100 years old.

We review the work of a state licensed contractor all the time. Who do you think installed that electrical panel, house structure, heating system, plumbing system, etc. It doesn't matter if that state licensed contractor installed that system in a new house or if the house is a 100 years old.[/quote]

Kevin:

Does the term "the last man in" mean anything to you? If not, contact your attorney and have him explain it to you. We are just veterans attempting to pass along some words of wisdom. Our opinions are free and you can either agree or disagree with them. Your lawyer's opinion, because he'll be charging you for it, will likely mean more to you.

Aaron

I have never heard this example answered so I'll bring it up again.

You and the buyer are at the house they are looking at purchasing and the buyer informs you the furnace, water heater and roof are only 2 weeks old. How would you write this up since you do not inspect/review a state licensed contractors work?

How do you handle new construction or do you not do new construction?

I would personally like to know because this would make my inspection shorter and writing the report easier; and yes, there would be no liability on my part for that component of the house.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I can't say about other states, but *in Florida*, the seller is *obligated* to have ALL repairs done by licensed contractors ... PERIOD. There are no exceptions. Not only is that in the real estate contract, it is in state statute too.

I would think pre-listing home inspection would be wanted in Florida to find out what is wrong with the house and still have the option to fix it themselves before being restricted by a state law/real estate contract.

Do you think the request for pre-listing inspections in Florida is much higher than other states?

Kevin:

On existing construction I do not address the ages of systems or materials unless, in the case of your hypothetical water heater, I can ascertain this with the highest degree degree of certainty (i.e. by the manufacturer's label). And even then I only will venture an educated opinion on the age of something if specifically asked that question. It will never be committed to writing in my report.

I do hundreds of new construction inspections each year, because I carry the full complement of IRC and other certifications, am a registered builder, have built several hundred houses, and therefore consider myself an expert in the field. Phase construction inspections are somewhat different in that you can do re-inspections prior to things being covered with drywall, brick veneer, insulation, etc. If I can see it and understand it I will inspect it. My fee for new construction re-inspections is $250 per hour without a written report. I simply use the old report and check off what has been repaired and what has not. If a report is required then the fee is exactly the same as the prior phase fee.

Providing unnecessarily excessive information for your existing home clients is not the prudent route to take under all circumstances. I am a firm believer in providing the best service for my client while simultaneously protecting myself from the local underfed attorneys and their clients. This way I can live to inspect another day.

Aaron

Originally Posted by Kevin Luce

I would think pre-listing home inspection would be wanted in Florida to find out what is wrong with the house

The sellers, for good reason, do not want to know what is wrong with the house.

With so many real estate agent friendly inspectors around, they've got an excellent chance at getting a 'good report'.

The less the seller knows, the less there is to disclose.

and still have the option to fix it themselves before being restricted by a state law/real estate contract.

Does not work that way. Once the house is offered for sale or lease, the requirement for licensed contractors only doing the work goes back one full year. If the house is offered for sale or lease within one year, it is prima facie evidence that the seller worked as an unlicensed contractor. There is no one policing that, but if there were a problem and it was 'seller repaired within the previous year', that seller 'could be' on the hook for all kinds of things, not the least of which 'could be' a fine of $5,000 per incident - and how many things did they repair? Each would be its own "incident" as would each day of a multiple day repair.

Far fetched that it would happen? Sure.

Could it happen? You betcha. Especially if the seller tried to screw the buyer by 'covering something up'. And especially in this market.