Agent advised not to hire a home inspector
Q: We recently purchased a bank-owned home that had been repossessed. When we made our offer, our agent advised us not to get a home inspection because the bank wouldn't make repairs anyway. Now we realize we should have had an inspection because the roof leaks and we get standing water around the foundation during wet weather. Do we have recourse or did we just make a huge mistake by not getting an inspection?
A: Any real estate agent who advises clients not to have a home inspection, regardless of the circumstances, should be placed in stocks, as was common practice for disgraceful behavior in colonial America.
Suggesting a client forego a home inspection is an inexcusable breach of professional ethics, practiced primarily by those who are either "slick" or naive.
The purpose of a home inspection is not to produce a repair list for the seller. Rather, it is to inform you, the buyer, of the condition of the property you are buying. A home inspector doesn't merely report defects the seller might be persuaded to repair, but conditions that you yourself might have to repair, or safety violations that could have life-threatening consequences.
Your agent is clearly in need of re-education as to the meaning and intent of real estate disclosure. Whether you have recourse is a legal question that can only be answered by a real estate attorney. In the meantime, it would be wise to have an after-purchase home inspection now, to learn what additional defects await discovery. So be sure to find a highly experienced home inspector with a reputation for comprehensive thoroughness.
Q: We bought our home six months ago and had it professionally inspected. At that time, there were no apparent problems with the swimming pool. But two weeks after moving in, we could tell the pool was losing water. Sure enough, a leak detection company discovered leakage in the underground piping, a condition no home inspector could have discovered. The sellers reimbursed the $200 leak detection fee but refused to pay for repairs. They claim to have had no knowledge of previous leakage, but this does not seem plausible to us. Do we have any recourse?
A: It seems unlikely the water level in the pool began to recede just when you took possession of the property. The sellers, it would seem, must have known the pool was losing water, because periodic refilling would have been necessary to provide a full pool at the close of escrow. If they did know, it was their responsibility to provide disclosure before you purchased the property.
Depending upon the cost of repairs, you might try testing this case in small claims court. In preparing your case, you should ask the neighbors if they were aware of any problems with the pool. Additionally, you should call as many pool maintenance companies as are listed in your phone book to see if any have worked on your pool and if their records show this problem was previously diagnosed and disclosed to the sellers.
• Email questions to barry@housedetective.com.
© 2023, Action Coast Publishing