Lately, I have been recommending to most sellers that they pre-inspect their home prior to putting it on the market. This often comes with resistance because at first, it doesn't seem like the expense will be recouped on the sale. I advise that this is a good strategy and could net a seller more in a slow market. Here are some reasons:
- a pre-inspection catches what the buyer may find during their own inspection so that the seller can repair and/or price the house accordingly from the outset
- by making necessary repairs in advance, the seller can better manage the repairs on their own terms and there is no time constraint to having the job done; the seller can shop around for estimates
- the pre-inspection report can be offered to potential buyers to provide disclosure and evidence of repairs and/or defects that a seller may choose not to repair
- a report gives nervous buyers more confidence to submit an offer, especially if the home is older and competes with new construction
- it is less likely that the buyer will "renegotiate" the offer after their own inspection because it is less likely they will find a surprise or a "new" deal breaker; the buyer will likely submit their highest offer at the outset
- a pre-inspection can uncover a huge potential "deal breaker" like toxic mold, termite damage, code violations, etc. If a buyer discovers this after submitting an offer they are more likely to back out, rather than adjust the price or ask for repairs
- if the first buyer backs out due to a large defect, the seller still has to do the repairs for the next buyer while the house remains on the market longer; possibly needing a further price reduction
I'm sure my colleagues can add more good reasons here....and maybe add any reason why this would not be a good idea?
- making the repairs after the buyer discovers them does not "add value" after the fact, it only prolongs the sale process
Comments(168)