OK, not a house building question, but everyone here knows somethin’ ’bout somethin’…
Selling my house, buyer wants us to fix the roof because inspector said it needs repair. There are no leaks inside. We couldn’t come to terms so the deal looks off. My agent tells me now that we are relisting, we’ll have to disclose the roof needs repair because it’s old. What the….
Am I being pressured here? This sounds so bogus to me. There are no leaks anywhere! What the @@&^%#%$# do I have to disclose?
Replies
tuf.... couple things... shame on you for not closing the deal over a roof
damn , man... this is not a seller's market anymore.. if that's all the guy wanted.. i would have got it done
as for the disclosure.. sounds like your agent is correct.. it has been brought to your attention, and your agent kows about it.. so if you want to err on the side of caution, you would disclose it
and .. prospective buyers will probably want a new roof.. or they will use it as a negotiation.. but in any case ...you might as well disclose it.. the next buyer is going to get an inspection.. and that inspector is going to list your roof condition.. and you're going to get the same reaction
i think your agent is giving you good advice
He should get the roof done first then relist without the need to disclose any roof problems.
Having it already done will make it sell better.
Prob. be cheaper in the long run.
If having a low wage work force was good for a country's economy then why hasn't Mexico built a fence?
Not a seller's market anymore? Where do you live? The Yukon?
Oh no, he's picking on Mike now.
Does this hat make my butt look big?
http://grantlogan.net/
I see a pattern here.
"Enjoy every sandwich." Warren Zevon.
The problem posting here is there are always cogent arguments for each side...makes it hard to decide. But...We will de-list, fix the roof, then re-list. The other items on the list were really small nitt-picky stuff. In my particular case, we had other opinions that the roof is at end of life. If there were dissenting opinions, I'd have a hard time with this disclosure bidness. I mean, should I disclose the house is old and there may be foundation problems even though I can't see it?As for what to lose a deal over, I CAN see trying to salvage a deal when we are talking about a couple of percentage points, but at nearly 5% on a house we are selling for what we purchased it for, furgetaboudit.Thanks to all.
do ... a seller's market existed two years ago... this is not a seller's market
.. i've seen deals on $400K homes get blown over $400 doors..
my point was: keep your eye on the goal.. and don't let the little fishy off the hook just because of an old roofMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I'm constantly amazed at what some people will tank a deal over
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Real estate is different everywhere! I live in the middle of nothingness and my accessed value has gone up twice in six months. Neighbors house sold six months ago for $249,000, now listed for 309,000 nd they will get it. It is different everywhere.
I don't know the market from whence teh original poster posted. ??? Seller's market? Buyer's market? I don't know and he did not say.
"my point was: keep your eye on the goal.. and don't let the little fishy off the hook just because of an old roof"
Agreed!
Just having fun with the real estate market with my remarks. School girls aside.
I'm a retired Realtor. You may have just lost the best offer you will get. Sounds like you have another house being built; if so, don't get yourself into a time bind. You do have options. One, keep the house and fix the roof when it starts leaking. Two, put a new roof on now and relist at whatever price you choose. Market conditions vary across the country, value depends on where the house is. Three, lean on your present agent to renegotiate with the buyer through the buyer's agent. Four, cancel the listing and relist with another Realtor. If you do not disclose what you have been told about the roof you will set yourself up for a lawsuit. Like it or don't--depends on whose ox is being gored--home inspections are here to stay and the name of the game is disclose, disclose, disclose. Lots of eager lawyers out there.
74796.37it was tufendle you should have adressed to , he has already decided to fix and relist. Doright is just another horn in the fog here
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
ROAR!be three points and a swish
Beware. RFID is coming.
"You may have just lost the best offer you will get"Why?
Because generally first offers are the best- KatrinaIf Blodgett says, Tipi tipi tipi it must be so!
TipiFest 06~~> Send me your email addy for a Paypal invoice to the greatest show on earth~~>[email protected]
n
Edited 6/11/2006 8:26 pm ET by HammerHarry
To Katrina:
Because generally first offers are the best
For whom, all concerned or the realtors??
Is the first offer best because no more time searching for and showing homes is needed or is it truely going to be the highest offer/best settlement $$$ for the buyers and/or vendor? I've been inspecting houses for over 22 years now and wonder about the honesty and sincerity of many to most realtors.
I do a very thorough and hence longer inspection than any other HI in my area. Most realtors in the area I've worked in now for 5+ years had never seen an inspection take as long as 4.5-5 hours (1.5-2 hours would be a very small house for me; average about 3.5 hrs) as opposed to 1.5 to 2.0-2.5 hours by others. (note: I've never been sued and over the years have given $807 back to buyers for a variety of reasons- $705 of that was for a recent real missed item- loose tile in a shower stall. I let a realtor rush me in a long inspection of 4.5 hours already)
It's gotten to the point some realtors hire me when they are buying properties for themselves, family or friends but I never get referrals when they have "arm's length" clients!!! Is this fair to their other clients?
I have one realtor (who actually sold me my home and has since recommended my services) who goes way beyond. He's found easements on properties that have sold twice previously with no mention of them. He's told younger, inexperienced clients to walk from the house when after inspection they still wanted to buy a poor house but didn't recognize this (irrationally wanted this first home). A one man operation who's always busy with little to no advertising- wish there were a lot more like him!
"You may have just lost the best offer you will get"
Why?
I said that because thirty-five years of experience as a Realtor showed me that. There are various possible reasons why this may be true including time on market being a signal to potential buyers' agents. Realtors have buyers looking for houses with certain features. When a new listing appears on the MLS they call their buyers and get them out to look at it as fast as possible because other agents are doing the same thing. So there is more motivation at first. As the listing becomes older, everyone, Realtors and buyers, figure the seller will be more amenable to lowering the price or making other concessions.
I don't think having one item in a house to haggle over is a bad thing anyway. You are either going to have a buyer try to beat you up over a none issue or a real issue, your pick. So let is be a real issue and then give the buyer a bone.
But upfront disclosure? Forget about it. If it is an obvious problem, then so be it. It will become the haggle point. If you get a rich CA to buy sight unseen, all the better.
Just my real estate experience, buying and selling. Others look at it differently.
back in the old days real estate was sold as-is where is,buyer beware. not anymore. i'd send my agent back to the first buyer and try and work something out,because as already mentioned the next guy will want it fixed. i'd go back to the first buyer and say you offered xxx$ knowing the roof wasn't new.lets put on a new 30 year roof and i will pay half .that said as a seller you have a bottom dollar and if your there ,your there!any chance you put the roof on since you owned it? if so you might dispute the insp. with ,it's a 25 yr roof, it's 13 years old,1/2 of it's life.not new but not ready to replace either. good luck larry
hand me the chainsaw, i need to trim the casing just a hair.
Sorta, maybe.
The laws vary from state to state, but basically you have to disclose any KNOWN problems with the house.
Now, I don't know what the inspectors report says or what his creditials are.
But if he does not have some specific, verifable details of the roof condition I don't see how that is a "known" problem.
And I don't know what kind of disclosure forms that are using. Some that I have see have a million check marks and blanks on them. They will ask questions such as Age of Roof and if there are any leaks.
A statement like that would be accurate.
LOL. Not like you can sweep the roof under teh rug. It is pretty much out there for all to see. And like you say, if it anit leaking it is "NOT A PROBLEM" only old, and so is the siding, and the driveway, and the foundation, and the kitchen cabinets, and the plumbing, and .....
Tufenhundel,
It all depends on your market, and your pricing. I bought my house for $13,000 over the asking price, and the roof was shot. We had the house inspected, and bought it as it was. Despite seeming high at the time, the price was actually reasonable for this area. Markets vary a lot.
How about offering an allowance to cover some of the reroof cost? That way they can do it when, how, and the color they want.
Bill
I know some inspectors that list ANY little thing they find even if it can't be fixed or does not need to be fixed, alwaysover is right, dispute with the facts eg age of your roof or get another inspector to come through and give a second opinion. Some buyers can never be satisfied though, they want brand new house conditions in an old house. I just witnessed a house where the buyer's inspector listed a settling fracture in the foundation of a 35 year old tract house, the crack had been sealed with epoxy 10 years ago, along with several other minor issues. Well the buyer demanded that the whole list be fixed including the foundation be dug out and replaced on that corner (not kidding) at a cost of $10,000. We are talking a $110,000 house, cheap with a low margin already, seller said they would fix all but the foundation and come down $2 grand, not surprisingly the deal fell through, good riddance to people like that I say, let them go buy their overpriced new subdivision 30 year then fall down houses and be done with them. Some buyer just can't be pleased and the deal is a royal PITA to close without any major problems as it is anyway.
Good luck selling,
day
In general, you have to disclose all problems you know about. Presumably you have a copy of the inspector's report. You should provide copies to anyone interested, along with your comments. Let the buyer decide whether the first inspector was nuts. This is what I've done and I've never had any problems. (And I've disclosed some scary things -- lead contamination; perc in groundwater).
Suppose the roof starts leaking as soon as you move out. The buyer is going to smell a rat and if somehow he finds out that your first deal fell through (and he probably will because nobody blabs as much as real estate people) he will probably want a copy of the inspection report and then you are looking at a lawsuit. It will be your word that roof didn't leak against new buyer and 1st buyer's inspector. I wouldn't bet a nickel on your chances in that lawsuit.
I wouldn't let some flybynight home inspector cause me to say something I'm not in agreement with.
We had a home inspector tell us that our septic wasn't to code be cause it was one run short and too close to the lot line along with a lot of other idiotic stuff. He was 100% wrong. He was such a freaking idiot that when I saw him poking around again, I threw him off the property along with some very intense comments. The last I saw him he was sprinting for his car.
I can't stop inspections, but I don't have to listen to what they "discovered", nor do I have to cave in to their extortions. I say "f em". When a realtor talks to me about those inspection clauses, I just tell them that the sellers can have their inspections, but if they spot any fixes that need to be done, I'll do the fixes, and up the price because the house will be worth more.
Everything is negotiable, including what I charge to do the fixes.
blue
I would encourage you to go back to the table and get the house sold with the Buyer you had. The Buyer is out some money he paid for the insepction and maybe you guys could split the difference on the cost of a new roof. The Buyer probably wants the home pretty badly.Your house went under contract with these Buyers and they then have an opportunity to get any inspections done within a week or two, and ideally, prior to incurring the expense of an appraisal.I have nothing against home inspectors but I'm guessing what happened is as follows:The home inspector walked the roof of your home and probably stated to the Buyer: "This is an old roof and it has exceeded or is nearing the end of it's life expectancy". I don't have any problem with the above recommendation.I disagree with the home inspector when he takes things one step further.In the above scenario the Buyer responds to the HI by saying "I'm glad you told me about the roof -- how much is it going to cost for a new roof?"The home inspector says "it will cost __$$$____ and Mr. Seller should pay for it".The Buyer says "oh the Seller should pay the entire cost of the new roof?"The Home Inspector says "yes either provide you with a new roof or reduce the price of the home by the above amount". I guess my concern is when Home Inspectors assume the role of an Appraisers or Realtors and state the value of any particular home. Does a home isnpector really have the background, training, and experience to know what a home is worth? Just my opinion.
^^^^^^
"The Older We Get, The Better We Were"
Remember: the agent's job is to make commission. If agent gets the deal closed, and it costs you $5000 in a lower selling price, it doesn't hurt the agent as much. (At 5%, costs you $5000, only costs the agent $250.) If they can get you to foot the roof costs and still close the deal, it doesn't hurt the agent much. When we sold our house, the buyers dicked around over $500 worth of chimney repairs. We told our agent to forget it - we weren't moving any more; if the buyers wouldn't come up the $500, the deal was off. The agent "took pity on us" and agreed to take the $500 out of her commission, so we ended up with the same cash in pocket at the end of the day.
"(At 5%, costs you $5000, only costs the agent $250.) "Actually much less than that.First there is a 50/50 split between the sellers and buyers agent.Then depending on the agency the agent either splits with the broker and/or has fixed fee.
I had similar prob selling my house, actually did have a leak...agent negotiated deal to split cost of new roof 50/50 between me and buyer. Try to save the deal likewise.
No leaks - no need to disclose. A buyer can see the condition of the roof it is not hidden.
Get a different real estate agent.
All good responses that I wish I could reply individually, but I gotta head out the door to make sure the new house is being finished up right.Here's more: Out of a list of 10 items the buyer wanted us to address (one being the roof), we agreed to 9. The roof was estimated at $5000 to redo (tear-off). This is roughly about 5% of selling price. We offered to split the cost. No deal, all 10 items or furgetaboudit. This is a 40 year old home.We accepted their first offer, maybe that was a mistake. But I really feel like we are doing more than others would in our situation. At least others that I've dealt with when buying a house.
Based on your details, you were right to walk. Some people will push and push and push, and you have to have a bottom line. Screw them, can your agent (if you can), start fresh. If the agent insists on the roof issue, then fix the roof and raise the asking price by $10K. Don't be afraid to ask the agent who they are working for, you or the buyer?
get a new agent, put a new roof on, and raise the price, simple
How old is the existing roof?
What type of roof is it? Asphalt shingles? Cedar shingles? Metal?
Before you signed with the listing realtor did he/she explain that a house inspection would be done and the results would probably cost you in repairs or a lower selling price?
Building inspectors are usually thorough and fair or soon out of business. I've attended pre sale inspections and have been very impressed with their work. They can't afford to play games when their reputations are their biggest assets.
Did you talk with the inspector? Did you see a written report?
My experience with a very experienced and highly recommended house inspector is that he knew just enough to be dangerous, although I didn't learn that until it was too late. He said that the appliances were in good shape, not that the dishwasher was already beyond help. Said that there was plenty of insulation and ventilation in the attic, not that the attic was over ventilated and the insulation was extensive but shot.
Worst of all, said that the heating system was fine, not that it would cost us $800 per month in oil until we found an independent contractor and got it fixed. Next house I buy I'll forego the house inspector and have each aspect of the house inspected by an expert in hisher field. It may cost more, but not as much as the misleading inspection cost me. This is my longwinded way of suggesting that you have a reputable roofing contractor take a look. Tell them that you have no intention of replacing it now, you're just looking for an evaluation. Pay for it if you need to - the contractor will probably deduct the evaluation price from the work if you decide to do it.
>>He said that the appliances were in good shape, not that the dishwasher was already beyond help. Did he run it? Did it run? Did it have obvious signs of damage?>>Said that there was plenty of insulation and ventilation in the attic, not that the attic was over ventilated and the insulation was extensive but shot.Over ventilated? How so? Who said that? While I personally believe it is possible to "over-ventilate" an attic, which, in typical construction could then cause pressure zone imbalances, I do not know of any way of determining if an attic is "over-ventilated" (other than using manometers or draft gauges.) And I have never seen that "condition" discussed in anything I have read over the years.
What kind of insulation? How was it "shot?">>Worst of all, said that the heating system was fine, not that it would cost us $800 per month in oil until we found an independent contractor and got it fixed. Did you pay him to do a combustion analysis? I charge extra for the extra work and costs involved in making that kind of determination.Did he recommend a service call for the unit?Based on the general description, it seems to me that the biggest "mistake" he made was in not effectively communicating to you what a home inspection is -- and isn't.For example, there's no way a visual inspection of an oil burner can determine the combustion efficiency.And efficiency of such components just isn't part of a "standard" home inspection. See, e.g., http://www.ashi.org/inspectors/standards/standards.asp>>Next house I buy I'll forego the house inspector and have each aspect of the house inspected by an expert in hisher field.Good idea. But don't forget to include a home inspector, because many "systems experts" aren't trained or experienced in analysis as to how the systems interact as a whole.And, if you're in NW Ohio, give me a call, I'll give you the names of certain "systems experts" to avoid.And watch out if your planned purchase is more than a few years old. Many tradesmen will call out "problems" based on work/components not meeting current codes. Their frame of reference is doing work in compliance with current codes, and sometimes (often?) they misapply current standards to older construction.I'm not saying all HI's are good or even competent, far too many aren't.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
>>He said that the appliances were in good shape, not that the dishwasher was already beyond help.
>>Did he run it? Did it run? Did it have obvious signs of damage?He ran it. It ran. No obvious signs of damage. I could have done that, though. It didn't clean the dishes. The appliance repair guy charged $60 to come out and look at it and tell me that it would cost $400 to repair and should be replaced. >>Said that there was plenty of insulation and ventilation in the attic, not that the attic was over ventilated and the insulation was extensive but shot.
>>Over ventilated? How so? Who said that?
>>What kind of insulation? How was it "shot?"All of the above from the energy efficiency expert, who charged $300 for a general evaluation of the house. (He couldn't do a blower test, as we had a room gutted). The house is a converted 1850 carriage house with 3 2'x3' gable vents. >>Worst of all, said that the heating system was fine, not that it would cost us $800 per month in oil until we found an independent contractor and got it fixed. >>Did you pay him to do a combustion analysis? I charge extra for the >>extra work and costs involved in making that kind of determination.
>>Did he recommend a service call for the unit?Pay him to do a combustion analysis? At the time I didn't even know what a combustion analysis was! Yes, he recommended a service call for the unit. The oil company came out and did a tune up and assured me the system was in fine shape and suggested we replace the windows. While charging me $800 per month for oil. (That's a separate rant, though). He didn't suggest that a combustion analysis should be done or tell me what one was. The above mentioned energy efficiency expert did a combustion analysis and told me that there was something very wrong. That's what lead us to find an independent heating contractor to service the system. It cost us $700 to have the burner and controller replaced, but we haven't bought oil since then. >>Based on the general description, it seems to me that the biggest "mistake" he made was in not effectively communicating to you what a home inspection is -- and isn't.>>For example, there's no way a visual inspection of an oil burner can determine the combustion efficiency.Absolutely true! What I've come to believe a home inspection is is a general overview of the condition of the house. After reviewing the material that he left with us and having the experience of owning a house for a year I find that the house inspector is providing me no information that I can't now provide myself, with the advice of some experts. I don't think I would trust another home inspector. Since none of my friends who bought houses know any better their recommendations are worthless. I do know that my realtor couldn't recommend one. Now if a realtor hasn't got a home inspector that they think is worth a damn, then I have to be concerned about the quality of the inspectors in the area!The slate roofing contractor is going to charge me $300 to give me an evaluation of the roof. The exterminator would do the analysis for free. The heatinghvac contractor said he would have charged $200 to do the analysis of the heating and hvac systems. Total up the above and it would have cost me $860 to get a comprehensive analysis done, vs the $500 that the home inspection cost.
This is one of the most frustrating threads I have ever seen here.Look, your agent is doing the right thing by wanting to disclose the report. All they have to do, if somebody asks, is hand them a copy of the inspection report. To deny that an inspector found anything to fault after a fail sale is a license-threatening offense for your agent.Let the buyer decide how big of a deal it really is. Tell him what you think, and work it out. To fire your agent, hire another, and pretend you never had an inspection with the previous contract is highly unethical and you should have bigger concerns with agents who are willing to break ethics rules.
Look, your agent is doing the right thing by wanting to disclose the report. All they have to do, if somebody asks, is hand them a copy of the inspection report.
Is that okay to do? Didn't the potential buyers pay for the inspection and so don't they own it? Wouldn't they need to give permission to the agent to give out free copies of what they paid for?
I'm not taking sides in the ethics of "disclosure". I'm just interested in how home inspections work and who owns the report.
-Don
>>The oil company came out and did a tune up and assured me the system was in fine shape and suggested we replace the windows. While charging me $800 per month for oil.So one expert told you it was OK and you're pizzed at the HI?>>The slate roofing contractor is going to charge me $300 to give me an evaluation of the roof. The exterminator would do the analysis for free. The heatinghvac contractor said he would have charged $200 to do the analysis of the heating and hvac systems. Total up the above and it would have cost me $860 to get a comprehensive analysis done, vs the $500 that the home inspection cost.And the electrician? And plumber? And appliance repairman? And the window evaluator? And the structural engineer? And the person to look at the interaction of all of the component systems?Everything you said demonstrates that the problem was that your HI didn't do an effective job of getting you to understand what a home inspection is and isn't.Maybe he didn't get into the subject (many HI's don't) or maybe something else happened.Finally, did your weatherization expert explain what "over-ventilation" is and what effect it has on the house? As I said, I have never heard of that condition. Perhapos a hole in my knowledge, perhaps an opinion of an "expert" based on some esoteric information.>>He ran it. It ran. No obvious signs of damage. I could have done that, though. It didn't clean the dishes. The appliance repair guy charged $60 to come out and look at it and tell me that it would cost $400 to repair and should be replaced.On that one, he went past the standards of practice for home inspections. Did you expect him to bring a load of dirty dishes toi wash? Should the remaining food on the dishes be fresh? Or dried on? Should it be leftover lasagne? Or a delicate bechmele sauce?Again, it looks to me like you expected more than what HI's do.As to combustion analysis, it is a relatriovely unkown protocol within residential heating; very few HVAC contractors in my area even know what one is, much less how to do one, and even fewer have the necessary equipment.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Okay, let's not get our panties in a bunch. I'm not actually blaming the home inspector. I don't think what he did was worth the money that I paid, but I think that he did what he was supposed to. Which, in my opinion, is all but worthless. I am curious - are you actually suggesting that the home inspector is qualified to comment on all of the items you listed?
>>I am curious - are you actually suggesting that the home inspector is qualified to comment on all of the items you listed?At a generalist level, based on visual examination only, s/he should be.Sorry you thought I was getting my "panties in a bunch." As an HI, I deal with people with the wrong expectation of what an home inspection is day in and day out. Avoiding that misunderstanding is continually important to me, and there are a lot of people who read these threads.So, when someone expresses unrealistic expectations, it is worthwhile to me to "set the record straight."I'm sorry if you don't like having additional views and information posted.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
What I don't like is someone going on the attack because they disagree with me. I think you made some very valid points. I just happen to disagree with your basic contention. That doesn't make you wrong or give you cause to be antagonistic. I just disagree.
>>to be antagonisticI forget, who was it who used the term "get your panties in a knot?"
Did you consider my asking you questions to be "antagonistic? Do you think you weren't expressing antagonism towards home inspectors?
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Edited 6/10/2006 7:05 pm ET by rjw
As to combustion analysis, it is a relatriovely unkown protocol within residential heating; very few HVAC contractors in my area even know what one is, much less how to do one, and even fewer have the necessary equipment.
Geez.........been offering efficiency testing since 1985 and is part of my standard home inspection now!!!
Excellant. Which protocol do you use?
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Have 99%+ oil in my area. Used to have a Dwyer manual kit-temp, CO2, draft and smoke. Now have electronic Bacharach Fyrite- O2, CO2, excess air, efficiency, multi fuel. Haven't been doing the draft and smoke since I now don't charge for the test. Doing the test to check up on service types, especially those that also sell oil........liking having the fox in with the chickens, ain't it???
In the last year have had one complaint go against an oil + service supplier. Furnace had been serviced but they didn't do a test after service as required.
Another is now becoming an action for fraud!!! I tested the approximately 20 year boiler with a retrofit high efficiency flame retention head burner. Should have tested in the low 80's % but found it was in the low 70's. Checked the service chart label and it was marked as having been serviced within the past month but no test figures on label. Thought it was a bit strange and mentioned it to clients.
The house sale took a bit of time to complete as the vendor questioned just about everything I had mentioned in my report as a deficiency and eventually had "friends" - none of them professionals- come in to do work that needed to be done!!!
With the oil service records: the service company had not done a servicing on the boiler as marked on their label- the homeopwner had marked a "service date" on it when he listed the house, knowing that it would most likely be looked at by a home inspector. What he didn't know was that I would test the unit!!! Also found a zone control valve stuck in "closed" postion.
According to Jim Davis, you can't believe the efficiency scale on the Fyrite.I have to admit, he blew through that part of the class a bit too quickly for my taste, and his "argument/explanation" never jelled in my mind. But I figure the readout number as an absolute isn't that important - I think it is more important to get the maximum efficiency, staying within the unit's parameters than to hit a specified efficiency."I've been impressed with how much info you can get with a fyrite and dwyer gauge. Sounds like testing is the norm/required after service in your area.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Jim Davis presented here about 10 years ago at one of regular our "Enerhouse" conferences. I only caught part of his talk since as a sponsor I was working, organizing, etc. The guy knows a lot about oil combustion, efficiency and heating. I'll have to see if I can find his handouts I picked up and never got around to reading.(Enerhouse has been put on every second year by my old Gov dept since 1984; Joe Lstiburek {since 1984}, Don Fugler are regular presenters; John Straube has been here for the last two sessions).
I'm quite a bit a consumer advocate type (you know, work on stuff with possibly no direct financial return- like the false P2000 insulation claims over the past 2 weeks!). I feel that with so many oil vendors offering service and insurance plans (high customer uptake; quite convenient for the homeowner), someone has got to keep'em on the up and up!! Also, it's good PR as no other HI offers the service in my area.
Edited 6/11/2006 9:10 am ET by experienced
I haven't finished all the replies, so forgive me if you heard this one already...$300 for a slate roof inspection seems excessive to me, but if they are really good, it might be worth it. I have a slate roof and I don't believe anything any of the "pros" tell me about it anymore. They are trying to sell slate shingles. So if you get an expensive inspection, it should include photos and/or a video tape identifying all the trouble spots.And the most important part of the inspection is flashing, not shingles. Old house typically have several chimneys (in cold climates) and may also have dormers. Add to that plumbing and ventilation flashing and you have many possible problems. Chimney flashing in particular can be a problem if the design is such that water flows down the roof and hits the back side of the chimney square on.Believe me. I have a slate roof with four chimneys, four dormers, several vent stacks, a skylight and one ventilation penetration for the exhaust fan. All the inspections wanted to sell me slates. Even when I specifically requested that they check the chimney flashing, they missed a leak. And this was after paying $800 to repair the plaster from the previous leak.
I have no dog in this fight and can't dispute what you say, other than "how much are you willing to pay for several searches from several experts". No way could one person catch the depth of every particular problem.
You and I might have enough experience to ask the seller for records of furnace maintenance and fuel consumption, to ask for the ages of appliances and various other questions that need to be asked. I would miss many.
I've gone through houses with people, as a friend who has had building and ownership experience, but I always reccommend a house inspection by a professional. And if something like the roof problem came up I'd recommend a pro in that field too.
A good house inspector should catch "most" of the problems. I'm sure there are not-so-good inspectors, but so far I've been impressed with their work. ( Ask three different mechanics to evaluate a ten year old truck and see what you get.)
For a while some brokerages were selling insurance to cover unforseen problems after the house sale. Don't know a thing about them or whether or not they still sell the product. Interesting concept though.
>>For a while some brokerages were selling insurance to cover unforseen problems after the house sale. Don't know a thing about them or whether or not they still sell the product. Interesting concept though.There are several one year warranty programs out there.I get the impression (although remember, I'm not going to get calls from clients saying "Wow, that warranty co took good care of me!) that the automatic response is: "That was a pre-existing condition and isn't covered."I spoke to some adjusters for one of the companies and their stated view was "if it didn't work when the new homeowner first tired it, it was already broken."And I wonder what kind of coverage you get for replacement. Pro-rated over the "life" of the appliance?
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Yeah, I didn't have the experience then, but I have a lot more now. I think that paying .25% of the cost of the house to get a really thorough evaluation is worth the money. In our case it wouldn't have had any impact on the deal. The seller was unwilling to even repair the 15 or 20 broken window panes in the house, so she certainly wouldn't have replaced the dishwasher or repaired the heating system. But it would have informed my decision. Would I have bought it anyway? Yes - we got it for $28,000 under market value. She wanted to sell, we wanted to buy. But I would have known that I needed to spend $600 on a new dishwasher and $700 getting the heating system repaired. That last piece of information would have saved me about $2500 by itself. Didn't mean to hijack this thread. Back to the op's issue, I wouldn't spend a penny based on the buyer's home inspector's comment. I would get a roofing expert to do an evaluation. The difficulty there, of course, is finding someone with no vested interest in selling you a new roof. (That's why I will never rely on an oil company again to service my system. I want someone with no vested interest in selling me oil). That's why I would tell them that I don't intend to replace the roof, I just want an evaluation for negotiating with the potential buyers.
Retired Realtor here again. Home warranty policies are a good idea on any house beyond builder warranty. The HW companies give a low price for the first year to get you hooked. During that first year most problems will become apparent and the policy will cover them to some extent, often full replacement at no extra cost if not fixable.
My experience with Home Warranties leaves me with a different opinion than yours. I think they suck!
I.E., I bought a house that I found had a cracked heat exchanger about four months after I moved in. That $350 the warranty company paid me towards a new furnace (5K) just didn't seem right. They refused to discuss the issue. As well as turned down many other problems with the place.
I believe all they are is a marketing device to allow a handicapped realtor to pass off a POS on an unsuspecting and uneducated homebuyer.
When I sell a house, I do NOT provide a warranty at all. There's no need to. Everything is fully functional and completely maintained. And fully disclosed.
To be sure, I hire my own HI before I list. My instructions to him are: Nitpick. Find anything and everything that a buyers HI could or would find. And then I fix it before the For Sale sign goes up.
Then I know what kind of crap a potential buyer is trying to feed me.
>>I believe all they are is a marketing device to allow a handicapped realtor to pass off a POS on an unsuspecting and uneducated homebuyer.While agree with your opinion on home warranties, I think they are offered more because the market has come to expect them. At least in my areaI see no relationship between the quality of the houses I inspect (and I see from great to terrible) and the existence of ####home warranty.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
My apologies to anyone tracking this thread. I don't usually waste time and bandwidth on pointless arguments. I'm tired and cranky and don't feel like working on the tedious part of my current project so it doesn't take much to distract me. Mea culpa.______________________________________________________"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig."
I thought it was pretty good.
I think HI's are most helpful for those average home buyers which have no experience or clue about most aspects of how a home is constructed and how it works.Most mechanics would probably think it was rediculous to pay someone to install spark plugs or change your oil.In my case, my HI (in 1998) didn't have a ladder with him and his flashlight didn't work. If I was doing a job and my drill was not charged or didn't work I would be an idiot (you always check your tools and have some means of backup) - in my opinion my HI was not that good because he was not prepared.And, the water sheeting down the side of the house that he said was just gutters needing work was really an actual hole in the roof above the porch that required rebuilding of the roof framing, brick work, new shingles and trim work to fix.I would not use a HI now if I was buying a house because I am much more knowledgable in houses and building, but for the average buyer they serve a purpose. Harder to be objective when they are inspecting your own home for a possible buyer.
I agree with GHR... it really depends on the condition of the roof. In MI, the seller's disclosure has a line for estimated age of roof. If your roof is old but no leaks, take a good and fair guess. If your roof leaks, then you should disclose it or try to reliably patch the leaks.
Or... if you're looking to off-load the house quickly, be willing to compromise with a potention buyer. 50-50 split on the cost, etc.
As for the agent... sounds like he/she is covering his/her butt. He/she most likely has the most to lose, because if there were to be a lawsuit the salesperson and broker would be named in the suit, and also there could be complaints filed against them. And of course the broker has the "deep pockets" and is responsible for the salesperson. In MI (not sure about other states) a salesperson MUST work under a broker... so the salesperson (if he/she is not a broker), is merely representing the broker in the transaction.
he didn't say there's no leaks.He said that no leaks show on the inside. It is very possible that these shingl;es are leaking just enough to wet the sheathing each time it rains. happens all the time.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
The point is he has no knowlege of leaks. It is not his obligation to look for leaks.
Maybe no legal obligation...but he is the owner. Are you honestly telling me that an owner should not be aware of the conditions of his home and how they threaten his financial health?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>The point is he has no knowlege of leaks. It is not his obligation to look for leaks.The point is the inspector said it needs repair.He said "there are no leaks."First, there might well be leaks that he can't see.Second, even if there are no leaks, that doesn't mean it doesn't need repair.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
>>There are no leaks inside.
There can be leaks inside the walls that you can't see.
Without further details as tyo what the inspector called out and the details he gave and his qualifications, no specific advice can be given.
As a general rule, you now have to disclose what you have been told, and your agent will probably require it, or else put his/her license in jeopardy.
A second opinion might be worth it, call around to some home inspectores and find out what partials on a roof will run in your area.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Fire agent. Fix roof. Sell yourself. Make the same amount of money.
Depending on what kind of roof, maybe paint it with some of that white Henry's glop. It'll look nice to the next inspector.
As a buyer, I don't bother with them any more. The last one I had spent his time on burned out light bulbs, and missed the leaks and water damage.
-- J.S.
how old is this roof?
what kind of shingles?
do they show any objective signs of aging?
most roofs when they hit they expected life span, they do start leaking through the shingles and the tarpaper under is saving the interior from major renovation costs.
Let it go a couple yeras and you not only have to pay for a new roof, you have to pay for the replacement of rotted sheathing and maybe some framing.
Let's not even talk about mold - you let that get started and it might be impossible to get insurance on the house
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Have you considered selling your home "by owner". I have sold a number of homes and never used a realtor. I refuse to pay their outlandish commissions. Also, unless the roof leaks, you do not have to list aproblem that does not exists.
Sounds like a good idea to me, of course I have never tried it. On the last four houses that I sold I have sold them by auction.
The auctioneer was paid between 1-4% and we spent a few hundred on advertising. The paperwork was handled by a family member who does it all of the time.
The houses were sold "As Is" Inspections were allowed and everyone understood that they going to need updating over the years. We had a flyer with what had been done over the years, bills, taxes, age of roof & anything else that we could think of.
In each case we had a dozen bidders with 3-4 of them being serious. People do not like to loose, emotion gets the best of them. We always ended up with a bid that exceeded what equivalent houses had sold for during that period by about 25%.
This is Katrina (Andy's wife). I'm a Real Estate Broker. As far as disclosures on Long Island (my market) gp, when I take a listing the seller is presented w/ a property conditions disclosure. They have the option of filling it out. If they choose not to they must pay the purchaser $500 at the closing. Interesting enough most people pay the $500 because their attorneys suggest that the $500 is less expensive than defending a potential lawsuit. That being said in my 26 years of doing this I always thought that it behooved the seller to disclose any known issues. The reason being- they always come up anyway. Even better it is even more advantageous to a seller to fix any known problems prior to putting their homes on the market so that there are no issues, period. If something costs $500 to fix, buyers always seem to have this way of asking for 2 or 3 times that off the price. I understand how frustrating it is when a buyer keeps asking for more & more- you said you did 9 out of 10 things, but you have to look at the big picture. I don't have any idea what your market is like- rather or not their are other buyers waiting in the wings, but usually a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. On the other hand if you think you can get more $ from the next buyer then by all means let him walk. Who knows what the next buyer will want? They may come up w/ a completely different laundry list- who knows? Better to try & work it out w/ the buyer you have- or is it too late? He may have walked. Usually first offers are the best. If you have to start over my advice is to fix anything the engineer suggested to do- providing it is legitimate. If you think it is not- if you think the roof is perfectly wonderful- you can always get a letter from a roofing expert saying so. If you really do need a new roof but do not want to spend the $5000 to get it done why don't you consider stating the condition of the roof on the listing such as "roof is x yrs old but does not leak" rather than have it come up as an issue again. Good luck!!!
If Blodgett says, Tipi tipi tipi it must be so!
TipiFest 06~~> Send me your email addy for a Paypal invoice to the greatest show on earth~~>[email protected]
Edited 6/10/2006 6:20 pm ET by andybuildz
All good info, I did not read all of the responses, but you can always get the roof inspected by a differant home inspector or a roofing contractor to either A) refute the existing inspection, ro B) confirm it . In prepping my house for sale, I noted that there was some mosshere and there under/lifting some of the shingles. I got a couple of metal putty knives, got up there and cleaned off all of the moss ( 1 week job, and the putty knives had rounded ends when I was done ). The inspector gave the roof a clean bill with an estimated remaining life of 5-7yrs ( when we had bought it 6 yrs prior, we were given a 3-5 yrs estimated remaining life )
If it is confirmed, you will likely have to disclose the known issue - that might vary state to state, but I believe most states have such laws. At that you can either replace the roof, split the cost of replacing the roof, lower the sale price or play hard to get and insist that there is nothing wrong and that it does not leak (yet).
When I sold my house last year, the inspector dinged us for, among a few real but minor issues, not having a fan/vent in the bathroom. We had a window above the shower and so refused that item and they did not press it.