Realtors, Do You Challenge or Disagree With the Home Inspector?

NOW, WE'RE GETTING SOMEWHERE.  Your assumption about my statement being revealing is so off base, it's comical.  I'm a buyer's agent with full fiduciary to my buyer/client.  I have, as far as I know, a 100% success record in getting defects repaired or the contract cancelled.  That said, when a buyer selects a home inspector that writes maintenance, replacement of operating systems, etc., in a report that is not covered by the home inspection contingency in the contract, we have serious problems.  Our contract says "operating condition".  That, to me, means "as the manufacturer intended".  Anything less means that the system is replaced or my buyer is compensated for the cost of a new system, what ever it is. 

Too often, home inspectors give buyers the impression that "if I write it, the seller must fix it".  That is absolutely not true and all it does is create confusion in the buyer's mind about the purpose of a home inspection, which, I believe is two fold:  (1) to cite "defects" which are covered by the home inspection contingency in the contract, and (2) make the buyer aware of the need for future maintenance needs, which are not covered by the contract.  Too often, inspectors don't make the distinction.

In the case of the defect that you discovered in the home inspection, I would clearly have written the plumbing matter as a material defect and, either the seller would have repaired, or my Home Inspection Notice would have cited the lack of disclosure of the defect as a violation of the disclosure laws.  Further, if they didn't make the repairs for my buyer, they had the duty to disclose this material defect to future prospective buyer and their agent carried the same responsibility. 

Agents are too often too willing to let serious defects pass to the buyer.  That's a serious problem.  The other serious problem that we have is home inspectors who write future maintenance as a defect. 

I absolutely worship the ground my favorite home inspector walks on and will pay for any inspection he does because I know he is experienced, knows his business and doesn't write stuff isn't important.  On the other hand, since he is very experienced and knows our contract, he can write a home inspection report that helps my buyer focus on the real defects, if there are any.  Then I take over and write a report that gets the job done.   Every time.

 

 

Home inspectors don't know everything.  In Texas, they are only "visual" inspectors which means if they can't figure something out, they mark it as "in need of repair" even if it works just fine.

Nobody knows everything!  Yes, Texas has some peculiar reporting requirements but this goes back to their mandated report format that was basically designed by the TX real estate profession.  TX is always used as an example of what not to do when a legislature brings up "Standardized" reporting as part of a home inspector license law.

On the other hand, since he is very experienced and knows our contract, he can write a home inspection report that helps my buyer focus on the real defects, if there are any.  Then I take over and write a report that gets the job done.   Every time.

DO WHAT!!  What in the heck does it matter that a home inspector knows what is in a Sales Contract.  I really don't want to know what is in the sales contract, I have not agreed to anything in it nor have I signed anything that has to do with the sale.

YOU WRITE A REPORT!!!  You have to be kidding me!  You take the home inspectors report and then write another report in your own words?  Why not just list the items of concern that your buyer wants corrected.  A summary of sorts.  As an expert witness in construction and home inspections, I must caution everyone on rewriting a home inspection report so that it is in their own words.  The report should not be transcribed by anyone unless you are willing to assume the responsibility of such an action.

Well.  I don't want to hijack James's blog, and I responded privately to Mr. Patterson. 

If I am out of order, please just delete this. 

Hi Scott.

Yep.  In MD, we do write a Home Inspection Notice.  We write a list of repairs requested and back it up with a copy of that page of the report where the home inspector described the defect. 

The reason my notices are so effective is because I quote the home inspector ver batim and cite back to the Maryland Property Condition Disclosure Statement where the defect isn't disclosed.

These reports relate directly to the contract and the home inspection contingency because those documents themselves limit the scope of the inspection. 

You're attacking the wrong person.  I advocate for the repairs and get them.  The home inspectors that I recommend are maticulous.  I worship the ground they walk on.

 

I think Lenn is NOT referring to rewriting the home inspection report.  I'd bet she is referring to writing up the repair request based on the home inspection report.  That's the document the buyer and agent give to the seller listing what they want repaired.  As far as I'm aware, that's pretty much what's done all over.

We do the inspection.  The buyer decides what they want the seller to fix.  The agent writes it up and gives it to the seller or seller agent so they can make their decision.

Looks Lenn does what I recommend in one of the many paragraphs my report:

"IF your purchase offer allows you to ask for repairs, you should provide the seller or contractor (at a minimum) a copy of the pictures and commentary regarding that item in this summary of the report.  The pictures and commentary will help them better understand the need for repairs and what exactly is being asked of them.  It can also eliminate unnecessary phone calls and explanations.  Your real estate agent functions as your negotiator and can better advise you on the terms of your purchase offer and what is considered normal and customary repairs in this area."

-

 

I can't say about other inspectors, but my report lists items based on 4 criteria: Major defects, Items that Warrent Further Investigation by a specially trained expert in that field, items that are Recommended for Upgrade and general maintenance issues.  I make sure my client understands the difference in the classifications, and I make sure they understand that my report is meant to be an evaluation of the condition at the time of the property. 

I have had a few instances where the buyers agent reworded items in my report both to a client and/or the seller.  When I get called in a case like that, I express very clearly that what I wrote is not what the caller just read to me.  I refuse to allow anyone to increase my liability by changing my wording; I use the wording I use to protect my client.

As far as maintanence issues, I report what I see.  If a furnace is 20 years old, and the life expectancy is 12 years, I report that the unit is functioning properly, but is past it's designed life expectancy.  That is an issue that the client needs to know.  If an agent has an issue with that, I'm sorry, but I'm paid to protect the client.

It's all about presentation. If a home inspector finds a defect, it can either be presented rationally, or irrationally. I've seen mountains out of mole hills many times. Especially for a first time buyer who isn't house savy, that is the kiss of death to a deal.

I have to say, home inspectors AREN'T created equally. I've worked with Jim, and know he's very reasonable. He wouldn't cite something that wasn't a fact.

This 'team' of agents is obviously worried about lining their pockets.

Your reporting style is wrong.

You forgot how to use the enter key to break up long paragraphs and they are very hard to read.

I gave up after the third page.

Unfortunately, there's no smiley icons available here.  I was just doing what he asked!!

I didn't bother to struggle thru the long paragraphs to get to the good parts you mention.

It was bertter than some I've seen.

James- in response to your question on my blog... At times I wish I had questioned a home inspector, not necessarily in front of my client, but behind the scenes.  I've had instances where an inspector has misidentified something, the particular issue I'm thinking of is knob and tube wiring, and my client has taken his word on it.  We did not call an electrician in to verify prior to inspection negotiations because of time constraints.  Given the vintage of the house (late 1930s) we should have questioned his judgment.  Turns out it was not knob and tube, but some type of bell wire.  Knowing that insurance companies do not issue insurance on knob and tube anymore (in almost all cases) we estimated a credit to be given to have the work performed.  Turned out to be less because the scope of work was less.

So, I would never disparage or openly question an inspector in front of my client, however I now know that I do have the right to question.  And I will never be using this particular inspector again, and if he's on the other side of a report I will scrutinize his findings even more.

Well, I don't know about Maryland, but in most states with HI licensing, the contingency contract has absolutely nothing to do with the home inspection.  Home Inspectors in licensing states are bound foremost by that state's SOP.  The scope of an inspection is defined therein, and no contingency contract can be in dispute and be valid.  Further, the inspector is not a party to the contingency contract, nor is the agent a party to the inspection contract.  As long as there are agents and inspectors, these differences in perspective and interests will continue to exist.  But one thing I've learned is this: true professionals rarely allow such differences to stand in the way, and disagreements will be rare.  Another thing that I can say with surety is that knowledgeable inspectors tend to learn a whole lot more about agents than vice-versa. I got pooh-poohed recently for calling out lack of underlayment on a roof because I didn't "understand that that (underlayment) wasn't required" in the jurisdiction in question.  The implication was that I didn't know what I was talking about, and that everything was really just hunky-dory.  That's the kind of stuff to which James is referring, and will evoke disgust on the part of the home inspector every time.  It should be obvious that there is someone else in the process who either 1) is motivated by selfish interest, or 2) doesn't know what they're talking about.  Further reasoning given for "my" ignorance was that, if the roof hadn't leaked in over 2 years (the age of the home), there must not be a problem.  Never mind that the implications were explained in the report.

Good morning, James, and good to hear from you also.  Before I leave out this morning for my appointments, there is another thought that I wish to express concerning realtor/inspector relations.  I want to preface it by saying that I am talking about a small minority of realtors when I make the following comment.  But some of that small minority have been in business for years and are quite successful.  The comment is this:

Some realtors apparently have the impression that home inspectors are merely roughneck hammer swingers turned pseudo professional.  Their judgment of inspectors and reports is clouded by that quite arrogant and very often misguided perception, and it makes them look like fools to those inspectors among us who are, quite often, far better educated than the average agent.  Compounding the problem, such agents are always convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right, even when it can be definitively proven otherwise, simply because he or she is the real professional while the upstart inspector is, of course, in need of professional guidance.

I'm sure that most agents have their (legitimate) stories of the deal-killing, alarmist, inarticulate inspector who thinks the cavity left by that stump that was ground in the back yard is going to swallow up somebody's kids.  Such inspectors certainly exist.  We, the competent inspectors and reasonable realtors, do not pass blanket judgment.