Pre-Inspection Red Flag?

[Anonymous]

On several properties we have recently looked at, listing agent makes it clear that information learned during a pre-inspection is for our purposes only and should not be shared with the listing agent.

I understand that in this market, pre-inspection findings are not usually points of negotiation but solely information for potential buyers. But this reeks to me of "knowing" there is something wrong, but wanting plausible deniability (la la la, holding my ears) if they never 'actually' learn it is an issue.

In one of these houses, we scheduled a pre-inspection and within 5 mins, the inspector found a huge crack in the foundation that seemed to span the length of the house. It was obvious there were several previous attempts to patch (cover) the crack but it re-emerged. Inspector's opinion was to walk away from the house, and we did - no regrets. But I have to believe both the seller and listing agent "know" about this and are trying to sell the house without having to disclose.

My lesson in all of this -- a pre-inspection is money WELL-spent. Major bullet dodged.

Anyone else think this is completely unethical of the agent/seller? Are you at all concerned if a listing agent writes this about a property you are considering?

[Anonymous]

The crack in the foundation definitely sounds crazy! But at the same time, inspectors will come up with some super random wacky stuff and it’s such a mixed bag. The standards for being an inspector are really low, and I wouldn’t want to have an additive list of all of the ridiculous junk that half trained “inspectors” came up with when I myself did not get to choose the quality of the inspector. Imagine you had 10 people doing pre-inspections. Are you really supposed to present the 11th person with a list of all the crap that the first 10 came up with? Particularly when you know some of it is ridiculous and just wrong? The point of inspections is for everyone to have their trusted representative. You probably wouldn’t trust an inspection report that the seller gave you, you’d want your own. Why would you expect sellers to trust yours?

[Anonymous]

OP, can you please give the name of your inspector? I want to use him/her also! Or at least can you let us know how a layperson might be able to spot something like a huge crack in the foundation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The crack in the foundation definitely sounds crazy! But at the same time, inspectors will come up with some super random wacky stuff and it’s such a mixed bag. The standards for being an inspector are really low, and I wouldn’t want to have an additive list of all of the ridiculous junk that half trained “inspectors” came up with when I myself did not get to choose the quality of the inspector. Imagine you had 10 people doing pre-inspections. Are you really supposed to present the 11th person with a list of all the crap that the first 10 came up with? Particularly when you know some of it is ridiculous and just wrong? The point of inspections is for everyone to have their trusted representative. You probably wouldn’t trust an inspection report that the seller gave you, you’d want your own. Why would you expect sellers to trust yours?

OP here. I'm not suggesting a seller should provide an inspection, but they are supposed to disclose any known issues with the house (and I think a foundational issue is a BIG one, not just something silly or trivial). In this specific situation, it appears as though there was knowledge of the issue (based on the attempts to cover it), which they did not list in the disclosures combined with a "don't tell us anything from your inspection!" requirement. This is fishy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The crack in the foundation definitely sounds crazy! But at the same time, inspectors will come up with some super random wacky stuff and it’s such a mixed bag. The standards for being an inspector are really low, and I wouldn’t want to have an additive list of all of the ridiculous junk that half trained “inspectors” came up with when I myself did not get to choose the quality of the inspector. Imagine you had 10 people doing pre-inspections. Are you really supposed to present the 11th person with a list of all the crap that the first 10 came up with? Particularly when you know some of it is ridiculous and just wrong? The point of inspections is for everyone to have their trusted representative. You probably wouldn’t trust an inspection report that the seller gave you, you’d want your own. Why would you expect sellers to trust yours?

OP here. I'm not suggesting a seller should provide an inspection, but they are supposed to disclose any known issues with the house (and I think a foundational issue is a BIG one, not just something silly or trivial). In this specific situation, it appears as though there was knowledge of the issue (based on the attempts to cover it), which they did not list in the disclosures combined with a "don't tell us anything from your inspection!" requirement. This is fishy to me.

You're obviously not in Virginia. There is no disclosure requirement here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you please give the name of your inspector? I want to use him/her also! Or at least can you let us know how a layperson might be able to spot something like a huge crack in the foundation?

Our inspector is great, but if I blast his name on here, then I'll never be able to get another pre-inspection scheduled (we are still looking after losing a bid this weekend on a different house).

One thing I truly appreciate is that he teaches as he goes around the house with us, so I always end up learning a lot and being able to spot things in future houses even if he isn't with us (although we still use him if we are seriously considering an offer). At least then I feel like spending $$ on all these inspections without a house to show for it still has value (aside from finding foundational cracks and running in the other direction!).

In this case, he pointed out a horizontal crack through the cinderblock in the basement that I might have just assumed was settling or not that important. I think the giveaway was that you could see it was caulked/patched/etc and the crack was still there, showing it was active and not just settling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The crack in the foundation definitely sounds crazy! But at the same time, inspectors will come up with some super random wacky stuff and it’s such a mixed bag. The standards for being an inspector are really low, and I wouldn’t want to have an additive list of all of the ridiculous junk that half trained “inspectors” came up with when I myself did not get to choose the quality of the inspector. Imagine you had 10 people doing pre-inspections. Are you really supposed to present the 11th person with a list of all the crap that the first 10 came up with? Particularly when you know some of it is ridiculous and just wrong? The point of inspections is for everyone to have their trusted representative. You probably wouldn’t trust an inspection report that the seller gave you, you’d want your own. Why would you expect sellers to trust yours?

OP here. I'm not suggesting a seller should provide an inspection, but they are supposed to disclose any known issues with the house (and I think a foundational issue is a BIG one, not just something silly or trivial). In this specific situation, it appears as though there was knowledge of the issue (based on the attempts to cover it), which they did not list in the disclosures combined with a "don't tell us anything from your inspection!" requirement. This is fishy to me.

You're obviously not in Virginia. There is no disclosure requirement here.

This house is in MD. I'm not familiar with VA law, but that seems crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On several properties we have recently looked at, listing agent makes it clear that information learned during a pre-inspection is for our purposes only and should not be shared with the listing agent.

I understand that in this market, pre-inspection findings are not usually points of negotiation but solely information for potential buyers. But this reeks to me of "knowing" there is something wrong, but wanting plausible deniability (la la la, holding my ears) if they never 'actually' learn it is an issue.

In one of these houses, we scheduled a pre-inspection and within 5 mins, the inspector found a huge crack in the foundation that seemed to span the length of the house. It was obvious there were several previous attempts to patch (cover) the crack but it re-emerged. Inspector's opinion was to walk away from the house, and we did - no regrets. But I have to believe both the seller and listing agent "know" about this and are trying to sell the house without having to disclose.

My lesson in all of this -- a pre-inspection is money WELL-spent. Major bullet dodged.

Anyone else think this is completely unethical of the agent/seller? Are you at all concerned if a listing agent writes this about a property you are considering?

Did the sellers disclose or disclaim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you please give the name of your inspector? I want to use him/her also! Or at least can you let us know how a layperson might be able to spot something like a huge crack in the foundation?

Our inspector is great, but if I blast his name on here, then I'll never be able to get another pre-inspection scheduled (we are still looking after losing a bid this weekend on a different house).

One thing I truly appreciate is that he teaches as he goes around the house with us, so I always end up learning a lot and being able to spot things in future houses even if he isn't with us (although we still use him if we are seriously considering an offer). At least then I feel like spending $$ on all these inspections without a house to show for it still has value (aside from finding foundational cracks and running in the other direction!).

In this case, he pointed out a horizontal crack through the cinderblock in the basement that I might have just assumed was settling or not that important. I think the giveaway was that you could see it was caulked/patched/etc and the crack was still there, showing it was active and not just settling.

How do you know if the current owners did the patching?
At any rate, you are talking about two different things. If the owners know and are not disclosing (if required to do so by law) the pre inspection is irrelevant. If it’s something they legitimately don’t know or an issue that comes up in a pre-inspection (which may or may not be accurate, remember), then It would be ridiculous to open yourself up to disclosure or liability by welcoming information from pre-inspections that you then have to disclose. And there’s no way to tell before receiving the information if it’s accurate or really an issue. Better just to have a blanket policy not to get information from someone else’s inspection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you please give the name of your inspector? I want to use him/her also! Or at least can you let us know how a layperson might be able to spot something like a huge crack in the foundation?

Our inspector is great, but if I blast his name on here, then I'll never be able to get another pre-inspection scheduled (we are still looking after losing a bid this weekend on a different house).

One thing I truly appreciate is that he teaches as he goes around the house with us, so I always end up learning a lot and being able to spot things in future houses even if he isn't with us (although we still use him if we are seriously considering an offer). At least then I feel like spending $$ on all these inspections without a house to show for it still has value (aside from finding foundational cracks and running in the other direction!).

In this case, he pointed out a horizontal crack through the cinderblock in the basement that I might have just assumed was settling or not that important. I think the giveaway was that you could see it was caulked/patched/etc and the crack was still there, showing it was active and not just settling.

We have a crack in our slab, multiple actually and bought the house- its a concrete slab house too!. 2 years later to further reduce anxiety we actually got a structural inspection. We couldnt find someone to do it at the time, our normal inspection was almost too late. The structural engineer cleared our house. Cracks themselves are not 100% evidence of a bad foundation nor are popping nails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On several properties we have recently looked at, listing agent makes it clear that information learned during a pre-inspection is for our purposes only and should not be shared with the listing agent.

I understand that in this market, pre-inspection findings are not usually points of negotiation but solely information for potential buyers. But this reeks to me of "knowing" there is something wrong, but wanting plausible deniability (la la la, holding my ears) if they never 'actually' learn it is an issue.

In one of these houses, we scheduled a pre-inspection and within 5 mins, the inspector found a huge crack in the foundation that seemed to span the length of the house. It was obvious there were several previous attempts to patch (cover) the crack but it re-emerged. Inspector's opinion was to walk away from the house, and we did - no regrets. But I have to believe both the seller and listing agent "know" about this and are trying to sell the house without having to disclose.

My lesson in all of this -- a pre-inspection is money WELL-spent. Major bullet dodged.

Anyone else think this is completely unethical of the agent/seller? Are you at all concerned if a listing agent writes this about a property you are considering?

Did the sellers disclose or disclaim?

I think they left a copy of the disclosures at the house and almost positive they did not disclaim. Either way, it seems like they knew about it but were trying to avoid having to acknowledge it based on an inspection (like they knew it would come up and just didn't want to hear it or have to share once made aware of the issue.

For comparison purposes, we looked a house in CCDC not that long ago (so still during a crazy housing market) where there was a slant in the floor. When we asked the listing agent about it, they told us that there was some sinking in the foundation and had a report to review which discussed the issue and the estimated cost to fix. This seems like a much more above-board way to handle a similar situation. You would obviously want to assess the situation with your own inspector/information, but they weren't trying to hide it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you please give the name of your inspector? I want to use him/her also! Or at least can you let us know how a layperson might be able to spot something like a huge crack in the foundation?

Our inspector is great, but if I blast his name on here, then I'll never be able to get another pre-inspection scheduled (we are still looking after losing a bid this weekend on a different house).

One thing I truly appreciate is that he teaches as he goes around the house with us, so I always end up learning a lot and being able to spot things in future houses even if he isn't with us (although we still use him if we are seriously considering an offer). At least then I feel like spending $$ on all these inspections without a house to show for it still has value (aside from finding foundational cracks and running in the other direction!).

In this case, he pointed out a horizontal crack through the cinderblock in the basement that I might have just assumed was settling or not that important. I think the giveaway was that you could see it was caulked/patched/etc and the crack was still there, showing it was active and not just settling.

How do you know if the current owners did the patching?
At any rate, you are talking about two different things. If the owners know and are not disclosing (if required to do so by law) the pre inspection is irrelevant. If it’s something they legitimately don’t know or an issue that comes up in a pre-inspection (which may or may not be accurate, remember), then It would be ridiculous to open yourself up to disclosure or liability by welcoming information from pre-inspections that you then have to disclose. And there’s no way to tell before receiving the information if it’s accurate or really an issue. Better just to have a blanket policy not to get information from someone else’s inspection.

This is a fair point. The last time this house sold was in 1992. I don't know if the sellers legitimately know about it or not, but it seems a bit suspicious to me based on how the listing agent was handling it. I sure hope buyers did their own due diligence and didn't forego a pre-inspection on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, can you please give the name of your inspector? I want to use him/her also! Or at least can you let us know how a layperson might be able to spot something like a huge crack in the foundation?

Our inspector is great, but if I blast his name on here, then I'll never be able to get another pre-inspection scheduled (we are still looking after losing a bid this weekend on a different house).

One thing I truly appreciate is that he teaches as he goes around the house with us, so I always end up learning a lot and being able to spot things in future houses even if he isn't with us (although we still use him if we are seriously considering an offer). At least then I feel like spending $$ on all these inspections without a house to show for it still has value (aside from finding foundational cracks and running in the other direction!).

In this case, he pointed out a horizontal crack through the cinderblock in the basement that I might have just assumed was settling or not that important. I think the giveaway was that you could see it was caulked/patched/etc and the crack was still there, showing it was active and not just settling.

Fair enough! If you win on a house, please come back and revive this thread and post his/her name! I am just beginning my search so I don't have an inspector lined up, but just curious, how much does each pre-inspection cost you?

[Anonymous]

I sold my house in a non disclosure state and happily took buyers inspection report. He backed out. But I picked off all the cheap easy to do things before next inspection.

But in a disclosure state why would I want to see it? I say 90 percent of stuff on Report was nonsense.

And cracks you never know.

[Anonymous]

If they know about it, and they’re not disclosing it, that is one thing and definitely unethical.

But since they have to disclose whatever you tell them, asking to not be told seems like the obvious ethical thing for the agent to do. If they don’t hear about it, they don’t have to disclose it.