Pre-Sale Home Inspection

[njoracle]

I may be selling my home in the next year or so. I am therefore thinking
of getting a home inspection report to see what needs to be fixed before
putting the house on the market. Any pro cons to hiring someone to do
this? When I Google, I find a number of companies advertising to do this
in my area but have no idea how to judge their level of competence.

[dpb]

'Bout only thing you can do is ask for references and see if folks have
been happy w/ services rendered unless you're competent-enough in
various aspects of Codes, construction, etc., that you don't have any
need for them, anyway.

$0.02, imo, ymmv, etc., etc., etc., ...

--

[DerbyDad03]

Call 3 or 4 or more of the companies and ask for references.

Call a couple of real estate agents in your area and ask them who they
trust for inspections. They'll be glad to give you some names
especially if you mention nicely that you'll contact them (the agent)
and give them a shot to compete for the listing when you are ready.
"Please don't contact me, I'll call when I'm ready" Any decent agent
will honor your wish.

The one con I can think of is that you might have to pay for the
inspection twice. There's the one you'll pay for now and the one you
might pay for when you actually list the house. You may not pay for
the buyer's inspection directly, but it's possible (only possible)
that somewhere in the negotiations, the cost will be absorbed somehow.
Obviously that will all depend on the housing market in your area at
the time you list the house.

Good luck!

[Oren]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:24:33 -0400, njoracle <njor...@invalid.domain>
wrote:

You can ask the inspectors what their trade background is and how many
years they were in the trade. Some may be retired general contractors.

If a guy takes a course online, skip him.

[tra...@optonline.net]

There is one big downside. If you hire an inspector and he finds
something material that isn't right, now under NJ law you would
know about it and have to disclose it to future buyers or fix it.
And many buyers will hire their own home inspector anyway. I wouldn't trust
one hired by the home seller. So now you have the opportunity for
two inspections to find stuff that you need to fix.

I would fix the obvious things, things that you know are broken
and that you legally are required to disclose. I wouldn't hire
an inspector.

[DerbyDad03]

On Jun 19, 1:56 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:

t-4,

I see your point, but I'd like to offer a counter point. No argument,
just a discussion.

I'm the type of guy that would rather know upfront if there was an
issue that might impact the sale, especially if I have a year to take
care of it. I guess I could wait and hope that the buyer's inspector
wouldn't find it, but if I assume that they will hire someone just as
competent as I would, then the issue is going to be found and it could
cause any number of issues related to the sale.

e.g. The buyer's inspector finds a bad sewer pipe. They buyer could
run like hell, and I'd have to disclose it (anyway) to anyone else
that puts in an offer. Or I could be in a time crunch to get out and
into my next house, and I'd have to sweeten the pot with the current
buyer to cover the cost of the repair, plus landscaping, etc. or the
buyer could say, fix it right now or I walk. Now I'm in emergency mode
with no time to shop around for a contractor. I'm sure it will end up
costing me more in the long run than if I have a year to get the pipe
fixed then take care of my own landscaping, etc.

That's just one example, but I assume you see my point. If we assume
that anything my inspector finds is going to be found anyway, I think
I'd rather know now than later when it might be the difference between
be able to move or not or to at least get the price I thought I could.
In general, less stress in an already stressful time.

[The Daring Dufas]

On 6/19/2013 12:24 PM, njoracle wrote:

The only recommendation I could give you is to hire an independent home
inspector. Don't get one who works for the buyer or real estate company.
You want to make sure an inspector has the license and certifications
required by your state and local government. ^_^

TDD

[njoracle]

tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:24:33 PM UTC-4, njoracle wrote:
>> I may be selling my home in the next year or so. I am therefore thinking
>>
>> of getting a home inspection report to see what needs to be fixed before
>>
>> putting the house on the market. Any pro cons to hiring someone to do
>>
>> this? When I Google, I find a number of companies advertising to do this
>>
>> in my area but have no idea how to judge their level of competence.
>
>
> There is one big downside. If you hire an inspector and he finds
> something material that isn't right, now under NJ law you would
> know about it and have to disclose it to future buyers or fix it.

Good point. I think I heard somewhere that if an inspector found Radon,
the inspector was required to report it to the state. Do you know
anything about that?

[Red Green]

njoracle <njor...@invalid.domain> wrote in
news:kpsp75$ibn$1...@dont-email.me:

The buyers inspector is going to find things no matter how deep he/she
has to look. Reason: Justify his job/fee.

If you were a buyer and hired an inspector and they found nothing that
justified his fee, the buyer is gonna think home inpections are a waste
of money. Bad for inspectors' future business.

You could argue you had an inspection and "the item" was not flagged.
Buyer says that's nice but I'm going with the inspector I paid for
advice. I'd be stupid not to listen to them.

In another reply you said:

I'd have to disclose it (anyway) to anyone else that puts in
an offer.

Depends. If someone is not certified you can ignore it. In some states,
literally, you don't even need a flashlight to be an inspector. Self
declared home inspector. Ignore them.

State requirements:
http://www.nahi.org/legislative/legislative-map

[Oren]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:33:23 +0000 (UTC), Red Green
<postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>The buyers inspector is going to find things no matter how deep he/she
>has to look. Reason: Justify his job/fee.

True. A buyer inspection sheet said the PSI in the curb to home was
to high. >85 PSI

I tested it myself, with my hose bib PSI gauge - AND refuted the
inspectors report.

Nothing fixed, as the buyer accepted my position that there was
nothing wrong with the pressure. <X PSI pressure.

(the inspector's PSI gauge was not calibrated :-\)

[DerbyDad03]

You snipped out a key point of my response:

"I guess I could wait and hope that the buyer's inspector

wouldn't find it, but *if I assume that they will hire someone just as
competent as I would*, then the issue is going to be found and it could

cause any number of issues related to the sale."

I know that any inspector I would use would be certified and the entire
premise of my response was based on the theory that I am dealing with an
intelligent buyer who is also going to use a certified inspector.

[Oren]

P.S. During a move on transfer / promotion I opted to have the
government buy my house in lieu of a private sale.

Talking with the company contracted to do the paper work, it was
mentioned about my "septic problem and it needed to be fixed."

I challenged that comment. The company had the inspection report from
another house and not mine. In my file.

It was fixed, because I explained to the company representative that
their contract could be voided with the government.

Snap Crackle Pop...

[gregz]

njoracle <njor...@invalid.domain> wrote:
> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:24:33 PM UTC-4, njoracle wrote:
>>> I may be selling my home in the next year or so. I am therefore thinking
>>>
>>> of getting a home inspection report to see what needs to be fixed before
>>>
>>> putting the house on the market. Any pro cons to hiring someone to do
>>>
>>> this? When I Google, I find a number of companies advertising to do this
>>>
>>> in my area but have no idea how to judge their level of competence.
>>
>>
>> There is one big downside. If you hire an inspector and he finds
>> something material that isn't right, now under NJ law you would
>> know about it and have to disclose it to future buyers or fix it.
>
> Good point. I think I heard somewhere that if an inspector found Radon,
> the inspector was required to report it to the state. Do you know
> anything about that?

Radon testing is done separately here, and not cheap. You can pretest cheap
with canisters. Proper test must be yearly measurement. 4 seasons.

Greg

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:24:33 -0400, njoracle <njor...@invalid.domain>
wrote:

Nor does anybody else. They are a crap-shoot at best.

[hrho...@sbcglobal.net]

On Jun 19, 7:06 pm, DerbyDad03 <DerbyDa...@notateznet.net> wrote:
> On 6/19/2013 7:33 PM, Red Green wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > njoracle <njora...@invalid.domain> wrote in

> intelligent buyer who is also going to use a certified inspector.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I second all of Derby Dad's comments!!!!

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:24:33 -0400, njoracle <njor...@invalid.domain>
wrote:

Do you live in this home? If so, don't you know what's broken and
needs fixing? I wouldn't waste my time or money paying someone to do
a pre-inspection. When you are ready to sell clean the place up and
put it on the market. Disclose anything you know about it's
condition. If the buyer cares they will ask for a home inspection as
a condition of the sale. You'll find out the same things from that as
you will find out now and you can negotiate with the buyer about what
to fix and what to leave alone as you negotiate the price. It's not
going to cost any more to fix things then than it will now. But at
least then the buyer will be paying for the inspection (around $400 in
my neck of the woods) instead of you paying for it.

[jamesgang]

I agree. When I sold our last house I went ahead and fixed the stuff that was going to be a pain. I left the little bs stuff alone. The inspector is going to find something or it looks like he didn't do his job. He found a laundry list of small stuff and I went through the list and fixed it while the buyer was waiting for financing..

[tra...@optonline.net]

I don't think your assumption is valid. There are all kinds
of home inspectors out there and plenty of them are incompetent.
I'm sure you've seen buyers here complaining over the years
about major items an inspector missed.

>
>
>
> e.g. The buyer's inspector finds a bad sewer pipe.
> They buyer could
>
> run like hell, and I'd have to disclose it (anyway) to anyone else
>
> that puts in an offer. Or I could be in a time crunch to get out and
>
> into my next house, and I'd have to sweeten the pot with the current
>
> buyer to cover the cost of the repair, plus landscaping, etc. or the
>
> buyer could say, fix it right now or I walk.

Not a very good example. There is almost zero chance of
a home inspector finding a bad sewer line runnning from
the house to the street or septic. Unless there is
obvious sewage water coming out of the ground. Or
when he flushes a toilet, it doesn't go down. And
you would already know that. That's the extent of
their "inspection", they aren't sending cameras
down drain lines, not for a normal house inspection.

Now I'm in emergency mode
>
> with no time to shop around for a contractor. I'm sure it will end up
>
> costing me more in the long run than if I have a year to get the pipe
>
> fixed then take care of my own landscaping, etc.

While I think the sewer line example isn't a good one,
I do agree that if the buyer's inspector finds something,
it could cost more if you have to get someone to do all
the work, versus DIY. On the other hand, depending on what it is,
you can still DIY part of it. For the landscape repair, for
example, you could hire some day laborers, buy some
shrubs and in a morning, it's done. It's kind of what
a lot of DIY folks would do if they were making the
repair themselves at any time, no?

>
>
>
> That's just one example, but I assume you see my point. If we assume
>
> that anything my inspector finds is going to be found anyway,

That's the very big assumption. And i don't see the compelling
advantage of shelling out $500 to hire an inspector and take
the chance.

I think
>
> I'd rather know now than later when it might be the difference between
>
> be able to move or not or to at least get the price I thought I could.
>
> In general, less stress in an already stressful time.

The way I see it, you're likely to pay for some stuff your inspector
finds, then pay again for some stuff the other inspector finds.
Hopefully there would be a lot of overlap. Why can't you just do the
"inspection" yourself? The vast majority of this is simple stuff...
Leaking pipes under sinks, leaking water heater, GFCI not working,
obviously open electrical junction boxes, spots of rotted siding, etc.
I just take care of that myself. I can find those. And if there is
some $10,000 pig in a poke that I don't know about, I don't want 2 chances
to find it with me paying $500 for the first chance.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:08:38 PM UTC-4, njoracle wrote:
> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:24:33 PM UTC-4, njoracle wrote:
>
> >> I may be selling my home in the next year or so. I am therefore thinking
>
> >>
>
> >> of getting a home inspection report to see what needs to be fixed before
>
> >>
>
> >> putting the house on the market. Any pro cons to hiring someone to do
>
> >>
>
> >> this? When I Google, I find a number of companies advertising to do this
>
> >>
>
> >> in my area but have no idea how to judge their level of competence.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > There is one big downside. If you hire an inspector and he finds
>
> > something material that isn't right, now under NJ law you would
>
> > know about it and have to disclose it to future buyers or fix it.
>
>
>
> Good point. I think I heard somewhere that if an inspector found Radon,
>
> the inspector was required to report it to the state. Do you know
>
> anything about that?
>

No, I'm in NJ and have not heard that, but can't say for sure
it's not true either.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:33:23 PM UTC-4, Red Green wrote:
> njoracle <njor...@invalid.domain> wrote in
>
> news:kpsp75$ibn$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>
> > I may be selling my home in the next year or so. I am therefore
>
> > thinking of getting a home inspection report to see what needs to be
>
> > fixed before putting the house on the market. Any pro cons to hiring
>
> > someone to do this? When I Google, I find a number of companies
>
> > advertising to do this in my area but have no idea how to judge their
>
> > level of competence.
>
>
>
> The buyers inspector is going to find things no matter how deep he/she
>
> has to look. Reason: Justify his job/fee.
>
>
>
> If you were a buyer and hired an inspector and they found nothing that
>
> justified his fee, the buyer is gonna think home inpections are a waste
>
> of money. Bad for inspectors' future business.
>
>
>
> You could argue you had an inspection and "the item" was not flagged.
>
> Buyer says that's nice but I'm going with the inspector I paid for
>
> advice. I'd be stupid not to listen to them.
>
>
>
> In another reply you said:
>
>
>
> I'd have to disclose it (anyway) to anyone else that puts in
>
> an offer.
>
>
>
> Depends. If someone is not certified you can ignore it.

It would seem if you're hiring a home inspector that you
would certainly get one that has whatever certification is
required in the state you live in. Otherwise, paying $500
to some hack makes no sense. And there are states
where home inspectors are not licensed. So, if you live in
one of those states, and a home inspector tells you that
the rear deck has no foundation, you think you can just
ignore it? Even in states where certification is required,
I would think it's highly questionable that you could just
ignore it under the disclosure laws. If you have case law
examples that show what you say, I'm sure we'd all like to
see them.....

[tra...@optonline.net]

That's an example of what I was talking about. If a seller hires
that inspector, now he has a "problem" that he knows about.
A "problem" that a different inspector for the buyer probably
would not have found. But that inspector might in turn find
some other BS or quetionable stuff, in part to justify his fee.

So, IMO, if as a seller you hire an inspector of your own,
and then the seller hires one, you get to go through the above
example twice....

[TomR]

tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:24:33 PM UTC-4, njoracle wrote:
>> I may be selling my home in the next year or so. I am therefore
>> thinking
>>
>> of getting a home inspection report to see what needs to be fixed
>> before
>>
>> putting the house on the market. Any pro cons to hiring someone to do
>>
>> this? When I Google, I find a number of companies advertising to do
>> this
>>
>> in my area but have no idea how to judge their level of competence.

> There is one big downside. If you hire an inspector and he finds
> something material that isn't right, now under NJ law you would
> know about it and have to disclose it to future buyers or fix it.
> And many buyers will hire their own home inspector anyway. I
> wouldn't trust one hired by the home seller. So now you have the
> opportunity for
> two inspections to find stuff that you need to fix.

I agree. Let the homebuyer do (and pay for) any home inspections that they
may want. And, not all homebuyers decide to have a home inspection done, so
leave it up to them.

> I would fix the obvious things, things that you know are broken
> and that you legally are required to disclose. I wouldn't hire
> an inspector.

Also agreed.

[bob haller]

On Jun 20, 11:23 am, "TomR" <T...@tomrljp5.lhd> wrote:

I disagree, both around here and in phoenix where I have family
problems found by a inspector REQUIRE all repairs done by a licensed
professional once your in the sales process.....

look your probably selling a home worth 100 thousands bucks or more.
500 bucks for a home inspection so you can do the repairs yourself,
you will likely save enough on repairs to pay for the inspection.....

and getting the home all set to sell before putting it on the market
is just smart planning....

you will be amazed at how many troubles a home inspector finds

[Red Green]

"tra...@optonline.net" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:573dfdc9-0e68-49f0...@googlegroups.com:

Hey Trader:

Just as a point of discussion and not argument....

So you live next door to me. We're buds <just how bad can this get :-)
>.

I'm always doin' stuff from zappping weeds to replacing a roof, windows,
whatever and things seem so go smooth from your POV. Suddenly you see me
with a van and logo Red's Home Inspections. Self declared premitted in
the state. One day you invite me over for a cheap chicken burned hot dog
and an O'Doul's. After all we're buds. As we're solving the problems of
the world I happen to mention "Your rear deck has no foundation.".

You didn't hire me to do an inspection but you now have knowledge of it.
You must now disclose this? Remember, I am a home inspector by trade,
you have knowledge of it and I wasn't f*d up on O'Doul's.

Your bud,
Red...


<let's see what kind of chatter this reply generates. Heck, maybe 25
replies down the road we'll have it at the District Court level.>

[Red Green]

jamesgang <james...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bf620c18-6d5a-4349...@googlegroups.com:

Same thing on the last house I restored for sale. Buyers inspector came
up with like 12 Mickey Mouse things - This isn't fastened within x inches
of that, insulation above shower should be thicker, foundation vent
screen handle sticky, etc. But to buyer "He found these 12, a whole dozen
mind you, things. We would have never known about and been totally f*d
over."

Then, get this, buyer paid inspector $100 reinspection fee to inspect the
punch list items that were flagged and I submitted as "Brought to
inspectors sugggested level."

[Ashton Crusher]

I should have added a similar comment to my statements.... fix what
you know needs fixing and that any buyer will definitely have a
problem with. The Inspectors NEED to find something so you WANT to
have a few little things that need fixing, just like you said. Leave
em a few crumbs, a broken switch plate, leaking faucet, etc.

[tra...@optonline.net]

This is only possible one of two ways:

1 - There is a state or local law that says all repairs must
be done be a licensed professional.

2 - You, as seller, chose to sign a contract that specifically
stated that a licensed professional must be used.

I'm betting that if it's true, then it has to be option
two. Because no state is going to require a licensed
contractor to install a piece of trim molding, tack
down some loose wall to wall carpet, paint a ceiling in
a bathroom, etc....

>
>
>
> look your probably selling a home worth 100 thousands bucks or more.
>
> 500 bucks for a home inspection so you can do the repairs yourself,
>
> you will likely save enough on repairs to pay for the inspection.....

Most home inspectors aren't all that good. They can see what
I can see. I can probably see more. And if they do happen to
find a $5000 problem that I had no idea existed and that the
buyer's inspector might not have found, then what?

>
>
>
> and getting the home all set to sell before putting it on the market
>
> is just smart planning....
>

That's true.

>
> you will be amazed at how many troubles a home inspector finds

Yes, especially the second one, who finds new stuff, after you've
paid $500 for the first one. And the second one probably would have
missed some of the stuff guy #1 found.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Your above scenario is a big step removed from the discussion
thread. In the discussion, the home inspector is being hired
and paid by the seller. I say in states where no licensing is
required, as long as the inspector pointed out a material defect,
if you fail to disclose it to a buyer and later the buyer finds
out about it, the seller is very likely going to be liable.
It's going to be hard to argue that the inspector was incompetent
and could be ignored, when the buyer has other experts who now
concur, isn't it?

In your case of having a friend over who is in the business
of doing home inspections and is doing so legally in the state,
it's one step further removed. For one thing, there isn't a
report as possible evidence, you didn't pay the guy, it wasn't
a formal inspection, etc. But I would say that in states with
strict disclosure laws, the seller might still be liable, but
clearly it's more iffy. The guy is in the business of doing
inspections, he did point out a major material defect, you now
know about it....

From a practical standpoint, you new scenario is going to
be much, much harder to prove. There is no written evidence,
presumably no witnesses, etc. In the original scenario, there
is a written report, probably a check trail to the inspector, etc.
Even that case though is usually hard to prove.

My main point in all this was to be aware that if you do
go get a real inspection report, if he finds something major,
you could be in for a disclosure problem. Don't go looking for
what you don't know and you have no duty to disclose.

[Red Green]

"tra...@optonline.net" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:0e26ad04-d64e-48e0...@googlegroups.com:

Perfect post closing.

[Lee B]

I think the correct answer varies with the situation. For example, I am
a woman who isn't particularly handy, so it's less likely that I'd
automatically know what needs fixing. (Same thing with my car, where I
sometimes wonder if something is wrong but I'm just too used to it to
notice).

The other thing is it might depend on how well houses are selling in
your area, and if you want to risk giving the buyers a way to ask for
reductions or even to back out. In that case, there may be something to
be said for finding out ahead of time if there is anything major that an
inspector will hone in on and just get it out of the way. (Then again,
my perspective is skewed because an inspector did find something when I
sold my last house and the buyers backed out, and it was an
uncomfortably long time before I got another decent offer).

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:15:45 -0400, Lee B <not_my_r...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

And how serious WAS what he found??? Was it as bad as he said? Half
the time they find things that are not really a problem at all, and
miss the big things.

They say "no gfi in the bathroom" in a 50 year old house and completey
miss the fact you can almost see through the valley of the roof.

[Lee B]

In my case, it was mold. Sump pump had died a number of years earlier
and backed up during a hurricane. I had a 1950's knotty pine "clubroom"
with a built in, attached to the floor, wet bar. I never used the bar or
the enclosed cabinets, and apparently the water had gotten into there
and remained puddled in there for way too long. Of course, all the
buyers needed to hear was the M word and they bailed. And yeah, it was
more than the "clean it with bleach" type and took a real live
remediator several passes to get air levels back to normal. The second
buyer's inspector found the usual GFI, cracks in tiles etc.