Having a Home Inspection Friday
Lexus
me that my home will be inspected on Friday
He also mentioned that it will take a couple of hours. How long
is the typical home inspection? A couple of hours sounds
like a long time for a single level, 1056 sq ft. ranch style home.
I am really anxious about the inspection. I don't believe
there is anything of major consequence that will be found
but still feel stressed about it. Can't wait til it is over with
so we know where we stand!
Speedy Jim
3 hours is much more likely. Take a pill and stay at the neighbor's
till the inspector is done. He doesn't want you hovering. The Realtor
will be there (presumably) and can call you if you are needed.
Jim
Lexus
I am planning on not being here. I would go nuts with someone picking on my
house. We've gone to great pains to take care of our home but also realize
it is a 34 year old house.
Geez I hate this process! Our realtor said once the Inspection is done it
should be smooth sailing. I hope so.
"Speedy Jim" <vo...@nls.net> wrote in message news:3E9B51...@nls.net...
Polar
wrote:
You're better off with a thorough inspection, even if it reveals
problems you didn't know about.
The real horror is selling in good faith, then having the buyer come
at you with a big, fat lawsuit for major "undisclosed" flaws.
Be glad it is taking several hours, rather than a sloppy job that
isn't in your long-term interest.
Hope it goes well. Relax; this, too shall pass.
--
Polar
Leather Furniture Lover
From my experience, most home inspectors are pretty
sloppy with their checking and, because they are routinely
hired by *selling* real estate agents, would rather look
the other way instead of saying something that would
blow the deal. Any home inspector known as a "deal blower"
won't get many referrals from realtors.
Lexus wrote in message <3e9b4b8e$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>...
Polar
<catscr...@toomuch.ca> wrote:
>Nothing to worry about.
>
>From my experience, most home inspectors are pretty
>sloppy with their checking and, because they are routinely
>hired by *selling* real estate agents, would rather look
>the other way instead of saying something that would
>blow the deal. Any home inspector known as a "deal blower"
>won't get many referrals from realtors.
But is that a good idea? It might afford temporary relief to a
homeowner who knows they have flaws. Down the line, might
not the buyerbring suit against both the seller and the inspector?
I am aware of the nasty "deal blower" aspect you cite,
and dearly wish it weren't so.
Perhaps the solution is to seek out one's own inspector rather than
rely on referrals from realtors. I believe there are organizations of
inspectors? Open to corrrections.
>
>Lexus wrote in message <3e9b4b8e$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>...
>>I am a home seller. My realtor called and told
>>me that my home will be inspected on Friday
>>He also mentioned that it will take a couple of hours. How long
>>is the typical home inspection? A couple of hours sounds
>>like a long time for a single level, 1056 sq ft. ranch style home.
>>I am really anxious about the inspection. I don't believe
>>there is anything of major consequence that will be found
>>but still feel stressed about it. Can't wait til it is over with
>>so we know where we stand!
>>
>>
>
--
Polar
Noal McDonald
> Perhaps the solution is to seek out one's own inspector rather than
> rely on referrals from realtors. I believe there are organizations of
> inspectors? Open to corrrections.
Allow me to provide a counterpoint.
As a buyer, I had a building inspection done on Friday by an inspector
that was recommended to me by my real estate agent. My father is a
building contractor (but unfortunately lives 7 hours away), so I'm
passingly familiar with most aspects of home construction. While I'm
not an expert, nor do I pretend to be, he seemed to be happy that he
didn't have to dumb it down for me.
The house needing to be reshingled (and probably some minor roof
repair) was already obvious to me, but what wasn't obvious were the
serious foundation concerns. Also, the house had been listed as build
in 1981, but once we got in the crawl space under the majority of the
house, he pointed out (in addition to the aforementioned foundation
concerns) construction techniques that hadn't been used since the 40s.
The only thing that may actually have been built in 1981 was an
addition with a basement. Nice.
Anyway, the guy recommended to me by my real estate agent was
perfectly straight with me and didn't gloss anything over to encourage
me to continue with buying the house. As a result, I would have no
problem recommending him to any of my friends currently house hunting.
I even plan on using him again when we find another house that we're
interested in.
Regards,
Noal
NetNewbie
arranging/paying for the inspection, then it is likely part of a home
warranty program. This is the kind of inspection where they *will*
find anything wrong with the property, as their money and reputation
are on the line.
The home inspector hired by/referred by the buyers agent is to be
avoided, and they are essentially blind. It really might be in ones
best interests to hire a friend/aquaintance who is a
contractor/tradesperson to look over the house instead, since they
really have no interests to protect other than those of the person
buying the house.
In renovating my place, I've learned quite a bit and am willing to go
with friends to look at houses they are seriously interested in. Can
I tell you how unenthusiastic their realtors are when I am around.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:07:07 -0400, "Leather Furniture Lover"
<catscr...@toomuch.ca> wrote:
JsWalker LazenbyJr
aspect of the home inspector field. The motives that are
contrary to either the buyer's or the seller's interests
include, future business referrals from the real estate
professionals or mortgage companies or nefarious building
contractors or direct or indirect sales of warranty
programs. Some of these motivated practices are outlawed.
Even more frightening, however, is the home inspection
typical practitioners' ignorance and practices to obviate
that ignorance (previous experience to the contrary cited by
a respondent in this thread not withstanding). Also, their
CYA practices are wholly self-serving and obscure
information useful to a buyer or seller.
If you want evidence: have the same property (one that
involves more than surface wear and tear apparent to most
anyone, especially an older home that has had restoration,
etc.) inspected by four inspectors from four different
companies . . . each representing the buyer (not the seller,
and don't otherwise 'mix' them. Compare the written
reports. Don't worry too much about paying for four
reports. Odds are in your favor that you will not have to
pay for a single one. They will be that much disparity
between them and between each one and the actual house.
In my experience, either a home seller or buyer would be
risking significant value in disposing of or acquiring their
respective, most likely, most valuable asset. Risking it to
the dubious talents, motives, experience and/or education of
the typical, even prevailing, home inspector.
This is not in my humble opinion. It is from frustrating
and alarming experience, first, second and third hand, in
dealing with that nefarious industry . . . affiliated with
some national association or not.
(Incidentally: my example above of four inspections is not
hypothetical. It is actual. Done in my presence and in the
presence of all principals and the contractor involved. In
this instance, there were no real estate brokers involved,
and we can rule out that element of inspector motivation.
The buyer, who hired the inspectors, was ready to sue each
of them, but he still had the entire buying experience
soured by the inspectors . . . not to mention his faith in
others. Each of the four were 'reputable' inspection
companies, each members of some 'professional' association,
and none with any known association with a warranty program.
This is not an isolated experience. It is more typical than
isolated.)
I could go on. Don't tempt me, please.
Jim
MHO"NetNewbie" <slu...@nospa.ohsu.edu> wrote in message
news:3e9c918b...@news-west.newscene.com...
Douglas Miller
>Now this could be a different type of deal. If the selling agent is
>arranging/paying for the inspection, then it is likely part of a home
>warranty program. This is the kind of inspection where they *will*
>find anything wrong with the property, as their money and reputation
>are on the line.
You've got to be kidding.
Unless the listing explicitly states the presence of a home warranty, there is
*no* reason to suppose that one exists. And in the absence of a home warranty,
an inspector paid by the selling agent has *no* incentive to find *anything*
wrong.
*Never* use an inspector with *any* connection to the seller. That's just
begging to get screwed.
>
>The home inspector hired by/referred by the buyers agent is to be
>avoided, and they are essentially blind. It really might be in ones
>best interests to hire a friend/aquaintance who is a
>contractor/tradesperson to look over the house instead, since they
>really have no interests to protect other than those of the person
>buying the house.
>
IMO, it's a much better idea to hire a professional. That way, if the
inspection misses something major, (a) there's some hope of recourse, and (b)
you haven't jeopardized a friendship.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Lyle B. Harwood
Miller <wood...@milmac.com> wrote:
€ IMO, it's a much better idea to hire a professional. That way, if the
€ inspection misses something major, (a) there's some hope of recourse, and (b)
€ you haven't jeopardized a friendship.
Using a ASHI or NSHI inspector will limit your recourse to recovering
the fee you paid for the inspection.
They teach home inspectors exactly how to do that, and it's in their
inspection agreement.
It's one of the two objections I have to the home inspection
"associations".
--
Lyle B. Harwood, President
Phoenix Homes, Inc.
(206) 523-9500 www.phoenixhomesinc.com
Gary
8hr inspection. Normally 2-3 hours. I personally would be there for
the inspection. That way you can correct any errors the inspector or
buyers might have about an issue. It will take some tough skin to
listen to them berating your home but its worth it.
"Lexus" <nikki...@dsl-only.net> wrote in message news:<3e9b4b8e$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>...
Jim Sullivan
"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:bb705c59.03041...@posting.google.com...
> Polar wrote:
> > Perhaps the solution is to seek out one's own inspector rather than
> > rely on referrals from realtors. I believe there are organizations of
> > inspectors? Open to corrrections.
>
> Allow me to provide a counterpoint.
>
> As a buyer, I had a building inspection done on Friday by an inspector
> that was recommended to me by my real estate agent. My father is a
> building contractor (but unfortunately lives 7 hours away), so I'm
> passingly familiar with most aspects of home construction. While I'm
> not an expert, nor do I pretend to be, he seemed to be happy that he
> didn't have to dumb it down for me.
>
> The house needing to be reshingled (and probably some minor roof
> repair) was already obvious to me, but what wasn't obvious were the
> serious foundation concerns. Also, the house had been listed as build
> in 1981, but once we got in the crawl space under the majority of the
> house, he pointed out (in addition to the aforementioned foundation
> concerns) construction techniques that hadn't been used since the 40s.
> The only thing that may actually have been built in 1981 was an
> addition with a basement. Nice.
I think the operative word here is "we". I've had a couple of home
inspections in my life and for both of them, I've been an active participant
in the process. Following the guy around, asking questions, getting
clarifications. The inspectors have been recommended by my agent in both
cases and I had no problem with their professionalism or integrity. One
recommended that a Home Warrantee was a good purchase, and we pushed that
back on the seller. In hindsight, it was exactly the right purchase, since
we got the water heater, furnace, dish washer and garbage disposal all fixed
under that warrantee!
My only recommendation is to get your own home inspector and not one from
the seller agent. While all real estate agents are in conflict of interest
(IMHO), the seller has no fidicuary duty to you.
--
Jim Sullivan
seattl...@comcast.net
gb4me
inspection of your own. You will find out if there are any flaws in your
property and be able to fix them before showing it. That way you can demand
top dollar for your property and sell it more quickly, not to mention the
peace of mind knowing you are selling a quality product.
Dan
Gary
everything, Testing outlets, testing A/C, furnace, checking
electrical, looking in attic and crawl spaces, looking in garages.
Checking plumbing for leaks. IT all takes time.
Gary
If the inspector find problems then the selling agent doesnt recomend
him again. They want someone who will look over the place and say its
ok. The buyers agent has the same goal, sell the house. Since most
home inspectors have a pile of paperwork for you to sign before they
do the inspection they are usually protected from law suits as are
agents.
The one the looses is the one with the house with problems.
"Leather Furniture Lover" <catscr...@toomuch.ca> wrote in message news:<4LRma.553$qh....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
NetNewbie
check.
Another question is raised here. Does the inspector treat you
differently if you are somewhat educated. One tends to back off the
BS if one is going to get called on it.
I followed my guy around and asked questions as well. But he was
really out of touch with costs. He pointed out that main water line
inside the house was rotted to the point of small drops working their
way out, and said that the main pipe was probably in similar
condition. I asked how much to repair, and he said $500, which was
considerably below the $1475-2400 quotes I got from plumbers. I have
that number in writing so it wasn't just me hearing it wrong.
Lyle B. Harwood
<slu...@nospa.ohsu.edu> wrote:
€ Does the inspector treat you differently if you are somewhat
€ educated. One tends to back off the BS if one is going to get called
€ on it.
Yes, they will treat you differently - but not better. They will figure
that if you're not from the trades, you won't know anything about what
they're telling you.
€ I followed my guy around and asked questions as well. But he was
€ really out of touch with costs.
Inspecting a home and then working on it is a conflict of interests.
Therefore, those who inspect are the ones who don't contract, and
therefore they have no idea about costs.
I make my living in the trenches, and live and die by the firm bid. I
know costs. If I didn't, I wouldn't still be here. Because I know
costs, I can make more money remodeling than I ever could inspecting,
and there's the catch.
If they knew enough about costs to contract, they wouldn't inspect, and
so those who inspect don't know enough about costs to give reasonable
answers.
Frank
> know costs. If I didn't, I wouldn't still be here. Because I know
> costs, I can make more money remodeling than I ever could inspecting,
> and there's the catch.
>
Lyle, you talk big, but how many homes have you ACTUALLY built? If you are
such a stud builder, why not showcase some of these QUALITY homes on your
site, instead of showing off your tree houses? I say you are a fraud.
John Willis
<ly...@invalid.phoenixhomesinc.com> scribbled this interesting note:
>If they knew enough about costs to contract, they wouldn't inspect, and
>so those who inspect don't know enough about costs to give reasonable
>answers.
Which begs the question...do the Home Inspectors, in general, know
enough to make accurate determinations about the homes they, as
"experts", have been called on to inspect??? I gotta' wonder. I know a
person currently studying to be a home inspector...this person should
know enough to light the pilot on a gas water heater-or at least one
would think. I was called in to light the heater as she sat at the
table studying her texts, which apparently don't cover the workings of
a conventional natural gas water heater.
--
John Willis
v
>>If they knew enough about costs to contract, they wouldn't inspect, and
>>so those who inspect don't know enough about costs to give reasonable
>>answers.
>
>Which begs the question...do the Home Inspectors, in general, know
>enough to make accurate determinations about the homes they, as
>"experts", have been called on to inspect???
No, it is a *separate* question. A person could conceivably have a
knowledgeable eye for spotting defects, without having an accurate
current knowledge of *prices* to repair that defect.
Thinking further, I'd say it is even *likely*, if we expect one person
to generally inspect for all types of defects. Contracting trades are
specialized. A roofer will be expected to give an accurate bid on a
roof, but would not venture an opinion on a heating system, he'd tell
you to get an HVAC guy, who in turn would not price carpentry.
So yeah, it would be nice to have an inspector with some ballpark
knowledge, but not to be expected that they could precisely price all
trades. I don't think that is their function. You want the inspector
to spot that rotted sill, and they are not a bad inspector because
they can't precisely price the cost of jacking up the house, cutting
it out, and repairing it. Is is enough that they spot the problem and
then you get an estimate from a contractor if you are still
considering the place.
>... I know a
>person currently studying to be a home inspector...this person should
>know enough to light the pilot on a gas water heater-or at least one
>would think...
>
The average person should know that, whether they are planning to be a
home inspector or not.
> I was called in to light the heater as she sat at the
>table studying her texts, which apparently don't cover the workings of
>a conventional natural gas water heater.
>
Maybe she hadn't gotten to that chapter yet! While it is not the
inspector's job to light pilots (but rather to observe if the heater
is working or leaking), I'd say that it had better be one thorough
course, to turn that person into a decent inspector! More likely she
has been scammed by a mail order course purporting to be able to
qualify anyone for a supposedly lucrative profession.
-v.
Lyle B. Harwood
<A1D586A3E060D8D0.5BA61089...@lp.airnews.net>,
John Willis <jdwi...@airmail.net> wrote:
€ Which begs the question...do the Home Inspectors, in general, know
€ enough to make accurate determinations about the homes they, as
€ "experts", have been called on to inspect??? I gotta' wonder.
The only answer I have is anecdotal.
When I was selling real estate, I sold a house to a good friend. It was
his first home. He hired a home inspector, who have a good reputation
here in Seattle. They're actually a large company, who have several
inspectors as employees.
When all the paper signin', check cashin', flashlight pointin', and
TUMs eatin' action was over, and he finally had the keys, he made an
interesting statement.
He said that out of everyone involved, out of all the commissions and
fees paid, to everyone who had touched, blessed, or signed the papers,
the person who had done the least for his money and taken the smallest
risk for it was the home inspector. He went on to say that if the house
fell over, he would get his inspection fee back, and it would be as if
he had never hired them: he didn't see the flaw, they didn't see the
flaw, so oh, gee, here's your money back.
At that point, we looked at each other, and said, at the same time, "We
should be home inspectors!"
Polar
>A long time? A good home inspection will really be an inspection of
>everything, Testing outlets, testing A/C, furnace, checking
>electrical, looking in attic and crawl spaces, looking in garages.
>Checking plumbing for leaks. IT all takes time.
When I bought my (So Calif stucco) house years ago, I did have an
inspection, but they said they couldn't get into the crawl space.
I was too new & naive to contest that statement. I've been up there
quite a few times over the years. You'd have to be an elephant to
fail entry. Live & learn!
>
>> Lexus wrote in message <3e9b4b8e$1...@nntp0.pdx.net>...
>> >I am a home seller. My realtor called and told
>> >me that my home will be inspected on Friday
>> >He also mentioned that it will take a couple of hours. How long
>> >is the typical home inspection? A couple of hours sounds
>> >like a long time for a single level, 1056 sq ft. ranch style home.
>> >I am really anxious about the inspection. I don't believe
>> >there is anything of major consequence that will be found
>> >but still feel stressed about it. Can't wait til it is over with
>> >so we know where we stand!
>> >
>> >
--
Polar
Rich-in-WA
inspectors that have me pretty turned off to their whole racket. Two
years ago my brother and I inherited a very run-down rental house when
my Dad passed away. We spent six months of long weekends and about
forty grand getting this place in better than new condition. The
house had LP siding on it that was failing badly in places. We hired
a contractor to remove and replace with vinyl. After installing a
solid layer of 3/4 inch sheathing, he installed house wrap followed by
the vinyl. I've been around a lot of tradesmen, and this guy was very
conscientious, detail oriented, and proud of his work.
The house was located in an area of our state where the market
was extremely slow. It took six months and several price drops before
we finally found a buyer. This was in January, a very wet and cold
time in Washington State. We were dismayed and perplexed when the
inspector reported that there was water leaking from behind the new
siding. A number of go-arounds ensued. We had our vinyl contractor
out, but he couldn't reproduce the leaks with two hours of spraying
with a hose. Even though we saw no problems, we recaulked anything
that looked suspicious and improved a number of flashing details. The
inspector was back out and again reported "massive leaking". In
hindsight we should have met him at the house, but logistics made this
nearly impossible.
This process drug on for weeks, and the inspector got $75 every
time he came back out. The buyers were about to walk out of fear and
the need to find a place to move into. Out of desperation we agreed
to replace the perfectly fine six-year-old roof, as this is where the
inspector believed the "leak" must have been originating. This move
cost us seven grand. Sadly this did not fix the "leak". In a final
bid to save the deal, the buyers, sellers, agents, broker, inspector,
and siding contractor met at the house on a cold foggy February
morning. It had been raining hard just the night before. This
brilliant "certified" inspector took everyone over to one of the spots
he claimed was leaking and proceeded to rub the siding vigorously as
if he were painting the wall with a roller. Eventually several drops
of water appeared at a couple of the weep holes in the siding. Our
contractor pointed out this was condensation, normal on a cold damp
morning, and that's what the weep holes are there for. He even
managed to produce an installation guide from his truck that repeated
this very same information. When we carefully peeled back the siding
in a number of areas, you could see a fine film of condensate on the
inside of the siding, but the Tyvek was bone dry in all instances.
Not good enough for this idiot who just had to be right. He insisted
there should never be a drop of moisture behind the siding. The
contractor then asked him why the weep holes and the comment in the
installation guide? He had no answer but refused to sign off on his
inspection. The broker finally stepped in and cooked up a compromise
where the inspector signed off, but waved anything to do with the
siding. I later found out he's not allowed to do this, but evidently
he didn't know that either. The contractor then graciously agreed to
sign a guarantee that his work would not cause "undue rot" for ten
years. I still can't believe he agreed to sign this, but he was damn
proud of his work and willing to stand behind it. When the inspector
shirked out of there, the conversation between all the parties about
his inability to admit he was wrong was not the least bit flattering.
I stayed out of the fray, not wanting to come off as vindictive. I'd
say it's safe to say he'll not be getting much work from two of the
agencies in this very small county.
My second experience occurred just this spring. My mom bought a
three-year old house in a subdivision. Her inspector noted small
amounts of standing water in the crawl space, which led to the
installation of a network of french drains and a sump pump. What she
failed to notice was the entire yard on all four sides of the flattish
lot was equally saturated. I'm kicking myself for not going out there
to help my Mom size up the situation. The day we moved her in, the
entire yard was one giant mud bog. When the agent pulled the 4x4 sign
post out of the front yard, the hole quickly filled to the surface
with water. My Mom insists it was much drier than this the previous
times she'd been out there. What pissed me off the most was the
8-foot-long, 6-inch-deep puddle I found behind her garden shed. This
thing had algae growing in it and obviously had not been dry in
months. Wouldn't this have given a reasonably competent inspector a
clue that there might be drainage issues? The upshot is five grand
later my mom is having a second system of french drains installed that
we hope will make the yard at least usable and help take the load off
the drains in the crawlspace. I'm sure there are some good ones out
there. It just seems a bit too easy for any schmuck to throw out a
shingle and call themselves a house inspector. Buyer beware and
seller your just screwed.
Richard Johnson
Camano Island, WA
NetNewbie
decision to buy is based on knowing what is wrong and what it should
cost to rectify the problem. He was off by 3-5X on one thing.
Suppose there had been several things that needed repair on which he
was equally off? I am paying for his expertise and cost should be
part of the expertise. But, consistent with my original assertion, as
an inspector referred by a buyers agent, I suspect that his estimate
may have been low on purpose, so as not to jeopardize the deal, and
the likelyhood of future referrals.
The electric was not an issue as I knew from my first trip through the
house that it needed a major upgrade and I had already contacted an
electrician to estimate the job. But the main water line was a last
minute thing where our go-nogo on the house was due in 24 hrs. Have
you ever tried getting a plumber to do an estimate in 24 hrs? It took
most in my town several calls and a week to respond, but then again,
the Salmon were running at that time.
I also know that there are some rules in place about inspectors not
doing the subsequent work, but it has been awhile so I'm fuzzy on what
they are.
>
>If they knew enough about costs to contract, they wouldn't inspect, and
>so those who inspect don't know enough about costs to give reasonable
>answers.
Those who can't do, teach; those who can't teach, inspect. ;-)
Goedjn
> I disagree. Knowing costs should be part of their education. My
> decision to buy is based on knowing what is wrong and what it should
> cost to rectify the problem. He was off by 3-5X on one thing.
> Suppose there had been several things that needed repair on which he
> was equally off? I am paying for his expertise and cost should be
I agree that you have cause for complaint, but I don't think it's
what you claim it is. The problem isn't that the inspector wasn't
able to make a reasonable cost-estimate, it's that he made one
anyway. If he'd just note the problem and admitted that he had
no idea what it would take to fix it, *I* would have been
satisfied.
--Goedjn
Lyle B. Harwood
<slu...@nospa.ohsu.edu> wrote:
€ I disagree. Knowing costs should be part of their education. My
€ decision to buy is based on knowing what is wrong and what it should
€ cost to rectify the problem. He was off by 3-5X on one thing.
€ Suppose there had been several things that needed repair on which he
€ was equally off? I am paying for his expertise and cost should be
€ part of the expertise.
Not according to ASHI.
They have a rule that their members can't say anything about price.
Given their level of knowledge, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
Frank
"Lyle B. Harwood" <ly...@invalid.phoenixhomesinc.com> wrote in message
news:b7p5qb$jfp$0...@216.39.146.232...
> When I was selling real estate, I sold a house to a good friend. It was
> his first home. He hired a home inspector, who have a good reputation
> here in Seattle. They're actually a large company, who have several
> inspectors as employees.
Hey Lyle, have you ever actually owned a home, or do you still live with
your mom?
wf...@ptnosm.com
wrote:
>
>Anyway, the guy recommended to me by my real estate agent was
>perfectly straight with me and didn't gloss anything over to encourage
>me to continue with buying the house. As a result, I would have no
>problem recommending him to any of my friends currently house hunting.
>I even plan on using him again when we find another house that we're
>interested in.
>
>Regards,
>Noal
was my experience as well. guy found a bacteria problem with the well
water that had to be corrected by the seller. the cost paid for the
home inspection.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
wf...@ptnosm.com
<seattl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I think the operative word here is "we". I've had a couple of home
>inspections in my life and for both of them, I've been an active participant
>in the process. Following the guy around, asking questions, getting
>clarifications.
yep...brought a friend along who built his own magnficent house with
his own hands...basically came to the same conclusions the home
inspector did.
think it's a liability thing. although you sign an agreement that his
liability is limited to refund of the inspection fee, if there's fraud
or negligence involved, that's a different ballgame. if there's
something he SHOULD have seen, but looked the other way...it's not
worth a career for a few hundred bux.
Jeff Cochran
wrote:
Inspectors vary, as do contractors. I know contractors who would have
a tough time inspecting the HVAC system. That's because they are
masons.
First, get recommendations and quotes. You would for a contractor, wy
not for an inspector? Second, many inspectors are bonded and insured,
and in some states must be licensed. Choose them first.
FWIW I've only had phenomenally good inspectors. Both of them were
professional, knew what they were doing, made excellent
recommendations as to what needed fixing, what could wait and what
might be a bargaining point with the sellers. They pointed out
potential upgrades that would make the houses more efficient (more
insulation, replacing the old heat pump, etc.). Both also took the
time to thoroughly explain the maintenance of various portions of the
property, the operations of heating equipment, appliances and so on.
One was the home inspection arm of a major local contractor, the other
a building inspector from the next jurisdiction.
Jeff
Bruce
You sound like one of those people that, when something goes wrong,
wants to pin the blame on somebody else.
Example #1 - Why did you replace the roof before getting an opinion
from a roofing expert? A home inspector is a generalist much as your
family doctor is a generalist. If your family doctor found a heart
murmur during a routine check-up he would refer you to a heart
specialist. Don't you think you should have consulted a roofing expert
before you replaced the roof? Or at a minimum maybe you should have
pulled back a piece or two of the siding to try to determine the
origin of the "leak". The inspector may have gone out on a limb by
guessing the source of the leak (if I read your description
correctly). The inspector's job is to observe and report. A home
inspection is a visual, non-invasive inspection. You have the luxury
of 20-20 hindsight so it is easy to criticize the inspector. But I
think you had some responsibility to investigate the leak further
rather than simply replace the roof and then blame it all on the
inspector.
Example #2 - Did your home inspection include the entire premises?
Should the inspection really have included the yard "behind her garden
shed"? I think you are being unreasonable. What were the weather
conditions leading up to the date of the inspection and what were the
weather conditions leading up to the situation you described? If the
inspection was conducted after a prolonged dry spell the "saturated"
conditions would not have existed on the day of the inspection. I am
curious; when you said "What she failed to notice was the entire yard
on all four sides of the flattish lot was equally saturated." does
that mean that you DID notice that condition? If you did know of the
saturated yard then why did you wait until after the closing to
complain? You should have been able to see that the lot was "flattish"
and you should have been able to foresee drainage problems with all
the information available to you. The home inspector (I suspect) was
hired to inspect the home and not the entire lot. The inspector will
give you his/her opinion of the conditions found at the time of the
inspection and you the need to use that information, along with the
other information available to you, to make your own decision about
buying the property. You have to assume some responsibility here.
And where were you when these inspections were conducted? I quote you
... (example #1) "In hindsight we should have met him at the house,
but logistics made this nearly impossible." and (example #2) "I'm
kicking myself for not going out there to help my Mom size up the
It appears to me that you hired an inspector for a few hundred dollars
to inspect the HOUSE and now want him/her to be responsible for
anything that goes wrong anywhere on the property. A home inspection
is NOT a warranty or a guarantee. Read the limitations spelled out in
the Home Inspection Agreement.
Bruce
Bruce
but logistics made this nearly impossible." and (example #2) "I'm
kicking myself for not going out there to help my Mom size up the
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
news:A1D586A3E060D8D0.5BA61089...@lp.airnews.net...
What I see too often is a fairly inexperienced inspector telling a
prospective homeowner about all of the code violations. What the inspector
appears to not know is once a building is built to that code, it remains
under that code until alterations are made. For instance, GFCI in kitchens
and bathrooms, sump discharges into sanitary piping, etc., in a 40 year old
home are OK today as it was in 1960 unless an alteration was made.
Sincerely,
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
Worthington Engineering, Inc.
145 Greenglade Avenue
Worthington, OH 43085-2264
dphi...@worthingtonNSengineering.com
(remove NS to use the address)
614.937.0463 voice
208.975.1011 fax
http://worthingtonengineering.com
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
news:b7p5qb$jfp$0...@216.39.146.232...
> <A1D586A3E060D8D0.5BA61089...@lp.airnews.net>,
> John Willis <jdwi...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> ? enough to make accurate determinations about the homes they, as
> ? "experts", have been called on to inspect??? I gotta' wonder.
>
> The only answer I have is anecdotal.
>
> When I was selling real estate, I sold a house to a good friend. It was
> his first home. He hired a home inspector, who have a good reputation
> here in Seattle. They're actually a large company, who have several
> inspectors as employees.
>
> When all the paper signin', check cashin', flashlight pointin', and
> TUMs eatin' action was over, and he finally had the keys, he made an
> interesting statement.
>
> He said that out of everyone involved, out of all the commissions and
> fees paid, to everyone who had touched, blessed, or signed the papers,
> the person who had done the least for his money and taken the smallest
> risk for it was the home inspector. He went on to say that if the house
> fell over, he would get his inspection fee back, and it would be as if
> he had never hired them: he didn't see the flaw, they didn't see the
> flaw, so oh, gee, here's your money back.
>
> At that point, we looked at each other, and said, at the same time, "We
> should be home inspectors!"
Why would a home inspector be responsible for someone else's defect? The
fee was to find the defect. If the defect was not found, a full refund
seems appropriate.
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
news:3ea04025...@news-west.newscene.com...
Remember, you get what you paid for. If you want your $300 inspection to
cost $500, look for an inspection company with the expertise to offer cost
estimates. Personally, I would not want the cost estimate. I would prefer
to get a couple of estimates from contractors that the seller will more
likely accept as we negotiate a price. I were selling, I would not accept
an estimate from an inspection company.
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
> ? decision to buy is based on knowing what is wrong and what it should
> ? cost to rectify the problem. He was off by 3-5X on one thing.
> ? Suppose there had been several things that needed repair on which he
> ? was equally off? I am paying for his expertise and cost should be
> ? part of the expertise.
>
> Not according to ASHI.
>
> They have a rule that their members can't say anything about price.
>
> Given their level of knowledge, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
A few companies I have worked with - commercial properties - follow the ASTM
standard for property assessment and cost estimates are part of the
evaluation. If anyone is interested, I can post of the standard. But you
would expect to pay about $750 for one of those inspections for residential
construction and the report you get makes an appraisal document look
amateurish.
Sincerely,
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
Worthington Engineering, Inc.
145 Greenglade Avenue
Worthington, OH 43085-2264
dphi...@worthingtonNSengineering.com
(remove NS to use the address)
614.937.0463 voice
208.975.1011 fax
Rich-in-WA
Your tone is pretty defensive. Are you by any chance a home
inspector? As far as example #1 goes, there were many factors that
went into the decision to replace the roof. For the sake of brevity,
I tried to keep the post concise, but I failed to include some
important considerations. As I mentioned, we tried for several weeks
to locate this phantom leak, and even after calling in our siding
contractor we could not simulate the leaks the inspector was claiming
to see. Nonetheless, we removed and replaced the flashing around two
windows in the area he said was leaking, extending the drip edge
further from the siding for added insurance. We also re-caulked a
number of joints, again as added insurance. The day after we did this
work, I soaked the area for several hours with two sprinklers placed
on the roof and a nearby awning. Careful inspection showed no sign of
water from the weep holes. I felt confident there were no problems in
this area, and called out the inspector (for the third time). I was
not present for the initial inspection, because as the seller, I was
asked not to be there. The reason we didn't meet for the next couple
follow-on inspections was partially due to the remote location of the
property - two hours from my home and an hour from the inspector's.
He also typically refused to give me an appointment for these
follow-ups, preferring to show up whenever his schedule allowed
(typical of his professionalism). He was hesitant to even guarantee a
day he'd be out much less a time. My schedule didn't allow me to camp
out indefinitely waiting for him to show.
When he did make it back out, he once again reported "massive
leaking". He commented on the quality of the siding and flashing job
and deduced it must be the roof because it was the only thing that was
not brand new. Our siding guy also thought if there was indeed a
leak, it might be the roof, because many people (including himself)
had been walking on this portion of the roof as it was the most
convenient access point to the upper section of the house. The agents
involved told us the buyers were getting very antsy about our
inability to fix the problem and the delays to their schedule. They
felt we needed to send a message that we were willing to do whatever
it took to get the problem worked. Actually, both agents discussed
about bringing in a second inspector, but they finally concluded this
would spook the already nervous buyers too much. Agreeing to a new
roof was the only course of action left to us.
At this point it had taken seven months to find a suitable buyer.
We were spending about $1100/mo to keep this place so the prospect of
putting it back on the market entailed it's own expense. As far as
consulting a "roofing expert", how many roofing contractors are going
to look at a potential job and say "no you don't have any problems,
call me in ten years?" I'd wager it's hardly worth making the phone
call. As far as peeling back the siding, we did. Our siding man
suspected condensation from the word go and the end he turned out to
be right. The problem is you can't simulate condensation with a hose.
The inspector said he was able to get it to leak with a hose, but it
turns out all his visits to the site had been first thing on a cold
morning. With no alternatives left to improve the situation, we
agreed to a new roof to keep the deal moving forward.
What blew me away was our final meeting at the site when we were
finally able to bring all the parties together. At this point the
house had a new guaranteed roof, new siding (later guaranteed as
well), and all new flashing. The cold damp morning allowed us to
demonstrate clearly that condensation was the source of the moisture.
The inspector still insisted there must be a leak coming from
somewhere. He made the ludicrous assertion that under no circumstance
whatsoever should even one drop of water ever come out of the weep
holes in the vinyl. He said this while holding in his hand documents
from the vinyl siding institute and the siding manufacturer saying
that the inner surface of the vinyl is the intended to be a condensing
surface and that's the express purpose of the weep holes. Our siding
man who had just provided these documents stood there in utter
disbelief. At this point, the buyers stepped up and told their
inspector that they thought he had good intentions but he was wrong
about the situation. They told him they wanted the house and were
convinced that the problem had been taken care of. They asked him to
please sign the pest and rot so that they could get their loan. He
refused. This is when the broker stepped in and came up with the
final compromise.
Concerning example #2, the inspection did in fact encompass the
whole site. Comments were made on the condition of perimeter fences,
the garden shed, and a small retaining wall. The puddle I referred to
was clearly visible from almost any point in the yard. I was not
present on the day of the inspection, but it was after a period of
rain. The soil was saturated enough that several puddles were noted
on top of the vapor barrier in the crawlspace. This was three weeks
prior to my first visit to the site, but judging by the algae growth
in the puddle, it was not a new development. I take responsibility
for not going out in person prior to closing, but this property too
was about two hours from my home. I did review the plan for draining
the crawl space (done prior to closing) and talked directly with the
contactor to try and ensure this work was done appropriately. For the
rest of the property, I relied on the professionalism of the inspector
to identify any glaring problems. In hindsight this was a bad call on
my part. I will mention that I was up there this weekend, and the new
system of french drains seems to have pretty well taken care of the
situation.
I'll admit I'm not an impartial witness to either of these
situations, so perhaps my perspective is somewhat skewed.
Nonetheless, the facts speak for themselves. Both of these inspectors
blew it. I'd go so far as saying they blew it badly enough that they
might want to consider another line of work. I know they're human and
humans make errors, but that doesn't fix the damage done. It didn't
help either when in the case of the first guy I mentioned, his
personal need to be "right" became more important than getting to the
right answer. I'm also not trying to brand all inspectors as
incompetent. I used to live next door to a fellow who was an
extremely conscientious and capable residential inspector. He
actually did the inspection on the last place my Mom bought, five
years back. When we called him back this time around, he was no
longer in the business. Seems that giving his honest and competent
opinion didn't sit well with a number of realtors. There's that old
conflict of interest inherent to this business.
Regards
Richard Johnson
Camano Island, WA
P.S. Posting your message twice failed to make it twice as
persuasive... :~)
Rich-in-WA
Regards
Richard Johnson
Camano Island, WA
P.S. Posting your message twice failed to make it twice as
persuasive... :~)
Bruce
In retrospect I was a bit rough on you. Your response gave me
information I did not have before I responded to your original post.
Yes, you pegged me when you asked if I were a home inspector myself.
Perhaps I made it a bit too easy for you.
I still hold the opinion that your inspector in Example #1 (weeping
siding) stuck his neck out by trying to identify the origin of the
moisture behind the siding. He found water coming out of the weep
holes and should have simply reported it and left it there. For some
reason he felt compelled to identify the origin of this moisture and
by doing so may have opened himself up to some liability. Lord knows
why he employed the methods he did in producing the weeping. Again, he
would have been wise to simply report the moisture and recommend that
you either get an “expert” to investigate it further or
simply monitor the situation. Tracking down the causes of problems is
not the responsibility of a home inspector.
I understand your predicament in that situation a bit better now but
I don’t think it is fair to blame all your problems on the
inspector. (Granted he did overstep his bounds in my opinion and that
does open him up to your unkind words.) The need to resolve the
problem quickly was not created by the inspector but rather by your
potential buyer; without the time constraint he quite possibly could
have correctly identified the culprit. I think having the siding guy
check things out was a good idea. Running a sprinkler on the roof to
try to duplicate the leak was also a good idea. But when the roof did
not leak after running the sprinklers I don’t understand why you
decided your only option was to replace the roof.
Finding the source of a leak can be extremely difficult. (Boy, do I
know.) Didn’t you say your siding guy suspected condensation all
along? Why did you not explore that avenue further before replacing
the roof? Hindsight is 20-20 but I would have looked into condensation
much further before replacing the roof.
In Example #2 you complain about the home inspector not reporting
drainage problems with the lot. I don’t have your inspection
agreement to see exactly what was and was not included in your
inspection but a standard home inspection does not include an
inspection of the drainage characteristics of the entire lot. Rather
the inspector will typically ensure that there is adequate drainage
away from the foundation out to six feet or so. A situation where a
driveway slopes down to the house will warrant a closer look to ensure
that runoff will not flow into the garage. With a house that sits in a
draw or a low spot an inspector should point out this condition and
possibly suggest a specialist investigate. From your description of
this property the lot is flat and not in a draw or a low spot.
Did your inspection agreement specifically include drainage of the
entire lot or did you decide that since the inspector inspected the
perimeter fencing then everything inside the fence must be included?
A typical home inspection will last 2 ½ to 3 hours, not nearly long
enough to observe the house (and lot) under every possible condition
of use or weather. And, unless your home inspection included a soils
test (the purview of a soils engineer) the most a home inspector could
competently comment on is the slope of the lot. If the property was
composed of soils that drained very well the fact that the lot was
relatively flat would be less of an issue but the home inspector most
likely did not have knowledge of the underlying soil conditions.
One last thing I am curious about is whether the seller in Example #2
disclosed the drainage problems or if you even asked him about it.
Obviously you knew of the moisture problem in the crawl space before
closing and you could plainly see the lot was flat (or did you not go
to the property before your mother bought it?). Do you place any
responsibility on the seller to disclose known conditions or do you
simply hire a home inspector and expect him to find EVERYTHING that
either is a problem or could be a problem at some time in the future?
One area where many home inspectors could do a better job is in
explaining to the client the limitations of the home inspection. A
well-written contract will spell out the limitations but the inspector
should also explain the limitations to the client so there are no
disappointments (or worse) later. As an example a home inspector will
inspect the furnace and fire it up to make sure it is operating
properly BUT this is not a complete evaluation of the heat exchanger.
Another example is a shower stall inspection; the inspector will
inspect the shower pan, tiles, drain, etc. and run water in the shower
(I use a device that allows water to build up 2” in the pan
while still draining) to see if there are any obvious leaks. While
this is a good inspection of the shower the real test is when someone
stands in the shower and takes a 20-minute shower; a hairline crack in
the pan or drain piping that did not manifest itself during the
limited inspection by the home inspector may become readily apparent.
Is this a problem the inspector should have discovered? You must take
into consideration the limits of the inspection. For $250 or $300 you
are getting a 2 ½ to 3-hour inspection and the written report. If you
expect every component and system to be thoroughly inspected by
qualified experts then you should expect to pay closer to $4,000 for a
structural engineer, soils engineer, environmental engineer, furnace
technician, electrical expert, plumbing expert, etc. for an inspection
process that may take a couple of weeks. The point I am trying to make
is that in hiring a home inspector you are hiring a generalist that
should be able to identify the major components and systems that need
to be repaired or replaced, are nearing the end of their useful life
or safety issues during a limited, non-destructive review of the
components and systems that are visible at the time of the inspection.
If your expectations are higher then you should either resolve this
before hiring the inspector or bring in the necessary engineers and
experts.
You brought up an interesting and often misunderstood aspect of the
home inspection business. Most home inspectors depend on real estate
agents for a portion of their business. The real estate agent and
especially the home inspector must be careful not to establish a
conflict of interest. Typically an agent will provide her client with
a list of three or four home inspectors so that the agent is not
steering clients to one particular inspector. The homebuyer is free to
interview each inspector and select the one they want OR they can find
an inspector that is not on the list. Some real estate agents view
home inspectors as “deal killers”. The agent has a signed
contract on a property and has probably put in a good deal of time and
energy to get the deal to this point. But there is one last hurdle to
clear to get to closing and collect that commission and there is one
guy who can wreck the whole deal – the home inspector. If
problems are identified by the inspector and the buyer bolts the agent
usually blames the inspector for killing the deal. The reality is that
the house killed the deal, not the home inspector. If the agent really
wanted to protect her client’s best interest then she should be
glad the client didn’t end up buying a problem. But many agents
are primarily concerned about the commission that they did not get
after all that hard work so the inspector gets the blame for
“killing the deal”. (As a side note, when that agent or a
member of her family buys a house you can bet that she wants the "deal
killer" to do the inspection.)
On the other hand the home inspector must remain impartial and
remember the duty owed to his client. You must understand that in the
typical situation it is the homebuyer and NOT the real estate agent
that hires the home inspector. Many people have the impression that a
home inspector must “go easy” on a house by not reporting
all the defects that he discovers for fear of causing the buyer to
decide not to purchase the home thereby resulting in the involved
agents removing the inspector from their list of home inspectors that
they “refer” their clients to. I am sure that this
situation exists but it is far from universal and is against the Code
of Ethics of the major home inspection associations.
Think about this – if a home inspector knows of a major defect
and does not report it and the client buys the property who is the
client going to sue? Answer: the home inspector. How long do you think
a home inspector will remain in business when he routinely fails to
identify known defects just so he can get more referrals from the
agents?
A good home inspector will report the problems and defects he finds
and will also put them in perspective so the homebuyer is not scared
off by a relatively small problem but is made aware the problem
exists. A broken truss can be repaired, a crack in the foundation is
not necessarily a structural problem, an aging furnace may be nearing
the end of its useful life but it may last another winter or two, etc.
In closing, think about what a home inspector provides for his fee
($250 or $300 typically as compared to $12,000 in real estate
commissions on a $200k house) and what you get for it in return. You
get a thorough review of the major components and systems of your
prospective property and probably some advice on the maintenance and
upkeep of these items. If the inspector identifies one defect that
would cost $500 to repair and you are able to get the seller to either
make the repair or reduce the price of the house accordingly then you
have more than paid for the inspection. Remember, a home inspection is
not a guarantee or a warranty (unless specifically stated otherwise).
Components will wear out and things will break, even the day after the
inspection; you cannot reasonably blame your home inspector for your
14-year-old water heater dying or your 18-year-old roof leaking during
a monsoon. If you want someone that will stand behind the house and
pay for items that go wrong after you buy it then you should
investigate purchasing a home warranty as well as flood insurance.
Bruce
PS - Thank you for posting your response twice so I wouldn’t
feel foolish alone for doing the same.
Meyer
When it takes that many words to say what could be said in two
sentences, that is certainly over-kill.
And why does a person have to write in code, such as ’? If you
are too sheepish to swear, don't pretend to swear. You probably are as
honest with your customers and to the spirit of what you posted above.
Bruce
> And why does a person have to write in code, such as ’? If you
> are too sheepish to swear, don't pretend to swear. You probably are as
> honest with your customers and to the spirit of what you posted above.
I was not writing in code. I wrote the post in MS Word and then copied
and pasted it to post it. (This way I don't lose the message if the
post fails.) For some strange reason all my quotation marks were
replaced by ’. Give it a try and see for yourself.
Have a nice day.
Meyer
I had no trouble writing this in MS Word and pasting using "quotes".
Now let's see if Google changes it. I do notice the font is different.
Hail
oscar....@spamgourmet.com (Meyer) wrote:
Did you write that with sexed quote marks? Those are the ones that
usually end up with the code.
Bruce
> Did you write that with sexed quote marks? Those are the ones that
> usually end up with the code.
No. Just plain quotation marks.
Tom of Bunyon
"Hail" <stro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:strom_go-2C7B96...@newssvr10-ext.news.prodigy.com...
There's a setting in MS Word where you can tell it not to use sexed quote
marks.
WebsterSteve
> When it takes that many words to say what could be said in two
> sentences, that is certainly over-kill.
> And why does a person have to write in code, such as ’? If you
> are too sheepish to swear, don't pretend to swear. You probably are as
> honest with your customers and to the spirit of what you posted above.
Any particular reason you saw fit to quote the entire message to post
your response? BTW, some programs will replace ASCII characters with
nonsense such as "’?". It also depends upon how the keyboard is
set up.