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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?