Here is my problem. I have some Realtors that like to help there clients out by suggesting splitting the cost of the inspection between the buyer and seller. I have found that there are sometimes problems with this such as the seller wanting a copy of the report after the buyer has walked, making two invoices etc. I really don't want to loose business over this, but I feel it is time to put my foot down. Does anyone else have this problem, and if so how do you handle it.

Like everything is this biz... it's come in waves. I object for the same reasons you mention. I've avoided it by explaining that my state SoP's require a contract between one person and I. If you really pick apart the standards it's debatable but I've never had anyone question me.

I have not had this situation come up but I would not go along with it. My agreement is with the buyer and the buyer only (pre-listing inspections excepted). If the Realtor wants to arrange some deal where the seller pays for part of the inspection fee she can work it out as a side agreement between the buyer and seller. I'm not getting involved in any of that stuff. Too much room for something to go wrong so I don't get paid.

If the Realtors in your area insist that you abide by their wishes for dual billing you could always challenge them to a duel.

__________________
"Baseball is like church. Many attend but few understand." Leo Durocher
Bruce Breedlove
www.avaloninspection.com

Must be a North West thing. I've never heard of that here on the east cost. I as well would want nothing to do with it and could see a whole new area of liability opening if you were to accept checks from two different parties for one inspection. If the seller wants to reimburse the buyer for a portion of the inspection fee, that's between them. As far as I'm concerned, something like that shouldn't involve us. One inspection, one check.

If you have E&O Trent, you may want to check with your carrier and see if there are any negative ramifications to this duel billing. The way I see it, you are doing the same amount of work but opening yourself to twice the liability if you accept payment from both parties and get signed agreements from both of them.

First off, I think it's DUAL, and not duel. DUEL is when two people fight.

I'm not sure how your Oregon SOP reads, but ASHI and State of TN are pretty clear. It is OK to accept payment from more than one party if all parties agree to it.

My contract is with my client, even if someone else is paying part of the fee. I have had agents pay part, parents pay part, and significant others pay part. Inspection goes to MY client (person that signs the contract and whose name is on the report). If they want to share the password with anyone else, it is up to them.
JF

Regardless ...

Make *one* invoice, give it to *your client*, let *them* copy it (or give it to their agent to copy) and give to whomever they want to give it to.

Once you give out one invoice, you have no control how many copies they make, why not just let them make the copies anyway?

That way, you have your relationship with *your client* ... and no one else.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )

What Jack said and I will add this; On my contract I have a space that my client signs that allows or instructs me to provide a copy of the report to whoever they want. I have had many agents over the years pay for the inspection or to split the cost with the buyer. It has never been a problem.

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

There is some case law that suggests that if you contract with the realtor for the inspection, it voids the 1 party portion of the contract because it is reasonable to expect that the realtor is going to share it with several buyers. This means that you could be sued by whomever buys the house even though they were not a party to or paid for the inspection.

I would avoid the dual pay, to avoid this liability.