Buying with previous buidling and pest inspection
- Thread starter seank
- Start date
The owners did prior to auction, for any potential buyers to see on the day. I rang the guy who did it, his a licensed builder and all seemed legit
The thing to keep in mind, is although the building inspector probably did act with integrity, the vendors would have been able to control what the inspector had access to on the day. If it was an inspection you paid for yourself, you'd be told where the limitations of the inspection are (ie he couldnt access the roof space), but with one hired by someone else, you may not know that information.
And of course the vendors would been keen to keep a building inspector away from any troubled areas. Not saying this has occured, but it is definitely something to consider.
I would pay for another inspection. It's better to have another pair of eyes look over the place. As mentioned above, you'd hope nothing unscrupulous happened, but you just don't know.
I wouldn't want to be in a position where I'm up for thousands dollars, when this could have been avoided by paying a fraction of that.
You might also want to look at the date the inspection was completed. If you discover something when you take ownership, who is liable? Could they argue the damage/pests (whatever it may be) happened after the inspection date?
I wouldn't want to be in a position where I'm up for thousands dollars, when this could have been avoided by paying a fraction of that.
You might also want to look at the date the inspection was completed. If you discover something when you take ownership, who is liable? Could they argue the damage/pests (whatever it may be) happened after the inspection date?
I will go against the grain and say I would be happy with the old one. I have never heard of a builder being kept from any part of the house and, in fact, have never seen a building inspection report that doesn't sound like the house has problems. Even a report on a house that has no problems lists any potential problems. I have seen reports saying what area (sub-floor etc) could not be accessed and excluding that area from the report.
I find it interesting to see how many people (on many threadts -not just this one) believe that "who paid" for a report can influence the contents. I have never seen this as being the case.
I find it interesting to see how many people (on many threadts -not just this one) believe that "who paid" for a report can influence the contents. I have never seen this as being the case.
I agree with you that it's not likely to influence the contents.
What does make a difference is that if the report is done negligently - say there are inadequate structural supports or something, and the inspector should have found it but didn't, and the house falls down or otherwise suffers major damage - then it's likely that only the person who paid for the report would have any recourse against the building inspector for their negligence. i.e. The vendor, who's sold the property and is history.
So if you're serious about purchasing, and it's important to you to feel that you have recourse against the inspector, then you need to pay for a report.
I don't think it's that big a deal, as those reports usually have so many disclaimers in them, anyway, that it's pretty rare to have any success with such a claim in any case.
For those who want the peace of mind, my building inspector will prepare a report pre-auction for prospective purchasers, and is willing to re-sell it, with the prospective purchaser's name on it, at a greatly reduced fee. Win-win!
I don't think it's that big a deal, as those reports usually have so many disclaimers in them, anyway, that it's pretty rare to have any success with such a claim in any case.
^ ^ what she said.
Termites can be not seen on inspection and then seen 1 week later, for example.
