^ What are you considering these potential damages to be, if it was already a problem so there is no returning it to the prior state?
A safety issue is that of the home, not something the inspector did. We're not talking about rambo with a sledge hammer, just a thorough inspection.
Yes, there should be a disagreement if there is a problem found that causes the home to not sell until it's corrected. That's the whole point of uncovering problems, that the home does not sell until it's either corrected or price adjusted to reflect it.
Yes a buyer should back out of the deal if the homeowner is trying to price it as if there weren't problems, and should walk away if the home owner is trying to attach a lot of bullshit to the mere process of a thorough inspection. Cash account? Lawyer? Big warning sign to walk away, owner trying to hide something. If an inspector does damage, sue him like you would anyone else. S/he should be insured.
The flaw with your argument is you are forgetting who contracted the inspector in the first place: The buyer: for the purpose inspecting an asset that
does not belong to him. The buyer can't authorize what amounts to alterations done on the property. He cant, he doesn't own it. The inspector has no contract with the homeowner so how can he do what amounts to work?
If something goes south and damages are assessed, I will have some immediate questions. Who is going to pay for this? Who authorized this work on my property? And to the guy who did the damage, what are your credentials? Never mind the fact that electrical work in this example requires a permit. Your inspection that took wires apart has placed me in non-compliance with the city, putting me at risk for fines etc... If I were the homeowner whose house was damaged by a buyer's inspector, I'd sue both of them. The inspector for damaging the house and the potential buyer for contracting the inspector. Inspectors know they walk a fine line and for that reason will not dive into territory a contractor normally would.
Yes a buyer should back out of the deal if the homeowner is trying to price it as if there weren't problems, and should walk away if the home owner is trying to attach a lot of bullshit to the mere process of a thorough inspection. Cash account? Lawyer? Big warning sign to walk away, owner trying to hide something. If an inspector does damage, sue him like you would anyone else. S/he should be insured.
Insurance for what? The inspector is not a contractor. An inspector is not supposed to be altering a property and doesnt carry contractor's insurance. The only insurance the inspector is likely to carry is on himself if he gets injured on the job.
There is NOT "too much liability" of they poke and disassemble. This is the point of having someone qualified for their profession, that they know what they're doing. If something crumbles apart from a mere inspection, it was in severe decay and should be considered a loss by the homeowner trying to screw the buyer either deliberately or through ignorance.
There is PLENTY of liability. If you demand an inspector messes around with wiring and disassembles components, he is no longer an inspector. At this point he becomes an electrician with a whole different pay rate. And technically in my city (and probably many other jurisdictions) you need a permit for all this aforementioned work. The inspector is not a tradesman and not qualified to do what amounts to electrical work. Its one thing to remove a breaker panel cover but its a whole other story to begin fiddling with wires etc... Every inspector I have dealt with removes the panel cover, looks for anything blatantly obvious and goes no deeper than this. Regarding ground issues etc... at the outlets, testers that allow for a quick diagnosis of GFCI issues, no grounds, reverse polarity etc... are allowed.
For instance, the breaker panel in the house I was considering had more than a few breakers with 2 separate hot wires screwed into the terminal. Illegal for that particular style of breaker that is only designed for one hot wire per circuit. And hidden until you plucked the breaker out to look at it. The point is that it is easy to temporarily remove a breaker but the inspector wasn't going to do it because that amounts to alteration and electrician work.
You should not have to go along with them and babysit their work. That's what you do if you payed a rent a kid instead of a pro at a premium rate. You can't expect them to be fortune tellers but you should expect them to do the amount of work worthy of their fee.
Completely disagree. Maybe that is because I am more hands on and want to know what I am getting into. I might be paying the inspector but I want to know what he is thinking. What he is concerned about. I also have eyes and can ask him to look closely into something I see that he might miss. My inspector and I chatted the entire time as we moved throughout the house. As far as I am concerned, the inspector has an assistant in me and we inspect the property together.
Hell, even if I am selling a house, I am still present for the buyer's home inspection so I can hear what their concerns are. I wont interfere in the buyer's inspection unless he starts doing something he is not supposed to.
Facebook
Twitter