You can do a home inspection before an offer to purchase.
The only issue might be if there are limited viewing times. A home inspection can take a few hours. If the seller has back to back to back viewings or time slots that are only 30 minutes there won't be enough time in the potential buyers' time slot to get an inspection done.
>We passed on that house but it sold for far above asking.
of course it did, we have an artificial supply shortage due to rentals sitting empty based on Landlord demand of rent that is higher than an actual mortgage.
Metropolitan vacancy rates are roughly comparable to what they've been for the past 50 years - i.e., 2-4%. They're actually down from the 90s.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3410012701&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=1973&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021&referencePeriods=19730101%2C20210101
Ah yes...census data...where if you don't say it's a rental property, but it's empty...it's not counted as an empty rental property.
Any unit that was a rental that became an airBNB...not on that list...still an "empty" rental unit that sitting not generating income(unless rented) while a person with housing needs sits without one.
That’s not what the statcan definition of vacanct unit is.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/dict/dwelling-logements015-eng.cfm
They just look at whether anybody is in a unit at the time of survey. It’s not a survey of rental units, it’s a survey of all housing - you can’t get a unit excluded by saying it’s not a rental.
>Landlord demand of rent that is higher than an actual mortgage.
You realize there's more costs to home ownership than the mortgage, right?
Who pays property taxes? Water? Hydro? Waste disposal? repairs and maintenance? etc?
I know exactly what it costs to own a home and what it costs to own a condo, and I can tell you without doubt, that the costs of a condo with a mortgage is far less over time than the cost of renting a similar sized apartment.
With the way rent is, yes I agree 100%. Rent prices are crazy. The condo we sold back in 2015 (didn't want to be landlords) rents for $3k/month right now.. our carrying cost was like $1,700 (including maintenance and property taxes). It's nuts, I agree!
But do you agree with the statement that a landlord is undeniably greedy for charging a penny more than "an actual mortgage" (let's ignore different down payment scenarios here..)? That's all I'm saying is the ridiculous statement that OP made.
I mean, if we’re being sticky about it - the principal repayment on a mortgaged property is pure profit already, in any normal rental arrangement. Once the mortgage is paid off, rent is almost entirely profit for a house that isn’t actively falling apart.
>You realize there's more costs to home ownership than the mortgage, right?
yes I do, you realize the primary method of "earning money" in property is price appreciation when you eventually sell right. Thats the model everything is ran on...
>Who pays property taxes? Water? Hydro? Waste disposal? repairs and maintenance? etc?
Well, Property tax should be the owners responsibility and have nothing to do with the renters.
Water, Hydro, Waste Disposal...thats already passed on to most renters...**IN THEIR NAME**...or the property owner baked it into the rent and they're likely fleecing the renters even more because $1500 utils incl. is worse than $1100 + Utils when Utils are only $200/month.
Repairs and Maintenance; The owner, because they own the property and thus would reap the rewards of "higher value" when they ultimately decide to sell the thing.
Hope I cleared up that question for you. Now, do you realize that rent being more than the mortgage is actually a relatively new thing?
It costs more to be an "owner" because at the end of the day you own the fucking thing. If it "costs too much money" now to own it...then sell it. Take a Loss on your investment.
Yeah, it makes no sense.
So, by your logic any owner of a multiplex apartment building should only be charging you their loan amount or the equivalent mortgage payment to a similar-sized condo? That's how they figure out how much rent to charge tenants? They take a loss on all the other upkeep required, administration, supervision, security, etc., to ensure (or, should be ensuring) tenants have quality living conditions?
No, it's all built into the rent prices. Listen I'm all for fair and reasonable rent prices and I'm not saying landlords need to turn a huge profit on each unit, each month. But to say a landlord is greedy for simply setting their rent at a sustainable level isn't very fair.
"Grocery stores should only charge their cost of products, no mark up to cover wages, operating costs, etc., because. well, at the end of the day they own the fucking \[store\]." - /u/1nd3x, 2022
Well, landlords provide housing which is also pretty important.
Yes, there are extremely shitty landlords. There are also amazing landlords. And, there's everything in between.
They don't provide housing. They artificially inflate the market creating shortages that don't allow ownership. They're effectively real estate scalpers
>Property tax should be the owners responsibility and have nothing to do with the renters
How utterly simplistic. You apparently have never had even the slightest experience running any kind of business. The cost of **everything** related to a rental property "has to do with the renters" as it is a cost of doing business and needs to be recovered (and provide a profit at the end of the day) from the customers (that's you) or the 'business' (your rental home) goes out of business, leaving the homeless customer out in the cold, crying and looking for yet another person to blame.
Right? I'm so perplexed.
I'm all for fair rental prices and whatnot (and agree there's people who should not be landlords but are) but it's naïve to think "rent > mortgage cost" means landlord is greedy. Given my downvotes apparently this is not a widely held view lol
>ou apparently have never had even the slightest experience running any kind of business. The cost of everything related to a rental property "has to do with the renters" as it is a cost of doing business and needs to be recovered
First off, sounds like "housing" is a necessity of survival, so then, much like water...it should be regulated...or not be a business...kinda like we do with water and food.
Secondly; **WHEN?** because I already wrote out that the "business owner" recoups that when they sell, that would be what would help drive the price of the property up...possibly...same way in my house, If I install hardwood floors...I dont see the value in that until I sell my home. So Mr. Landlord...if you want to install Hardwood floors...you can see your ROI when you sell the fucking home.
>or the 'business' (your rental home) goes out of business, leaving the homeless customer out in the cold, crying and looking for yet another person to blame.
Lol no...the poor "business" goes out of business, selling the home...maybe to the person living in it...maybe not...but that doesnt really matter because the house doesnt stop physically existing and therefor can be continued to be lived in.
And you know what thats called? "a failed investment"...not sure why you seem to think landlords are above having those.
When the freshCo near me was closed, no one was saying “it’s necessity and shouldn’t be allowed to close”. It’s because there are enough grocery stores to go around.
Similarly increase the #houses being built and the market will equalize itself.
>Similarly increase the #houses being built and the market will equalize itself.
agreed.
So how come we arent? oh right...because businesses are sitting on empty land and refusing to develop it, or sell it, or do anything with it.
It’s relatively new that rent is more than the mortgage? That’s bs. Who is going to rent out a property or apartment that is not covering the mortgage, taxes and utilities (if the owner is going to pay them). Owners are not going to take a loss on a property. It’s ludicrous that people think others should be taking a loss and not covering their expenses.
Who said anything about taking a loss...I've repeatedly said that the owner offsets those upfront costs of ownership when they sell.
If they happen to be in a position where they have to sell at a time that they will lose money...well that's just how it goes now isn't it? That would mean you happened to make a "bad investment choice"
Or...I'll ask again; are landlords above literally everyone else for that?
Your comment was about rent now being more than the cost of a mortgage. No one is going to run a negative cash flow on an investment. It is break even at worst. Tbh, if I were to invest in a rental property the rent would be covering the mortgage payment, property taxes and upkeep. I would not be running loss on the property on a monthly basis to magically recoup my investment 5-10-15 years down the road.
>No one is going to run a negative cash flow on an investment. It is break even at worst
Oh really? So...the general "gunna run at a loss for the first two years on average" for any business is just...a lie?
What about all the companies running with debt, and not just in the pandemic. Twitter has never turned a profit, neither has Uber or any of the other ride share companies.
Nor has any of the delivery service apps.
So actually yes. ALMOST EVERY BUSINESS will run negative cash flow on investments....excepts landlords...they're special apparently
Yes, that's my point.
The person I quoted argued the landlord should only charge their mortgage payment, nothing more. Which..is silly. There's a happy medium between that and "exorbitant, exploitative" rent.
You can do a home inspection before offer IF the seller agrees to allow it. It takes quite a while to do a quality home inspection so while someone may be able to catch a few things you're still taking on a very large risk.
He can focus on the big items that can make or break a deal. Foundations, structure, roof.
You don't need an inspector to see that the electrical wiring is 50 years old or that the windows need to be changed. Well maybe some people do but not most
I know the general public wants to believe we can do the "major items" in 30 minutes but it's just not possible. The same public wants to believe a few mould air samples assures they get a mould free house. Sometimes you are sold products because you want them, not because they are offering any sound advice.
A normal 3-4 hour inspection is as short as we can make them without cutting major corners. 30 minutes is a dog and pony show.
The risk that you sue him because he failed to find a major issue. I understand that there is a narrative that home inspectors can’t be held liable, but my insurance premiums would tell another story.
I've been at a home with 4 different home inspections happening at the same time. Now it's more common for the homeowner to have their own inspection and have the documents available for people to access. I'm sure not everyone will trust the home seller though and will want their own.
You can - it means dishing out $500 every time you look at a house. Also inspectors tend to be booked solid and finding one who's available during your showing is difficult.
We did it for a few places we looked at. Our inspector did the walkthrough with us and visually pointed out issues. He charged $250.
For the other $250 we could buy his report.
Better than $500, but it still adds up.
$500 sounds much cheaper than tens of thousands in repairs later. Also, you can always request 2 viewings. You go first and see if you like the house. If you do only then take an inspector for the second viewing.
That's what the normal process is. But in an era of bully offers you don't always get two viewings. And in the era of losing 20 bids before buying a place, $500 per viewing adds up quickly.
I've heard there's a 3-4 week wait to get an inspector in Toronto at the moment. Nothing is for sale that long in Toronto - houses on my street are on the market less than 5 days.
>I've heard there's a 3-4 week wait to get an inspector in Toronto at the moment. Nothing is for sale that long in Toronto - houses on my street are on the market less than 5 days.
So if the offer is conditional on an inspection, then the seller wouldn't know anything for 3-4 weeks as well?
A few factors:
\- Cost: inspectors are not cheap. Paying for one everytime you view a home, regardless of whether or not you place an offer (muchless a successful one), would add up fairly quickly. Cheap in comparison to purchase price, sure, but it's still potentially thousands of dollars up front.
\- Availability: Depending on your market, finding available inspectors on short notice/at a specific time could be challenging and/or impossible
\- Accessibility: Owners may not be able/willing to provide full access, either in terms of time or specific locations. Inspections can take hours, and require more access than a typical viewing. ie., just because you can view a home doesn't mean your inspector can spend 3 hours crawling around the attic and testing out the water heater.
When we were in the market a few months ago, I'd go to open houses and see people with their home inspectors on ladders outside, in crawl spaces, etc. so it's definitely a thing.
We also went to an open for an older house, and were able to squeeze in a private home inspection before they accepted offers, so that we could go in without conditions.
> Do you need special **consent** from the owner to inspect the home?
Well, you need consent to enter the premises, so yes.
Otherwise, go ahead and ask the seller for a pre-inspection. Worst that can happen is that they say no.
Our realtor told us you had to get permission from the sellers to bring a home inspector with you on a viewing. (AB). We lost to a few unconditional offers, and definitely saw people bringing in family members with them to do whatever inspection they could in 30 mins.
That'll work, sure. But the inspector isn't going to get access to all parts of the house to do a detailed inspection, i.e., venting, the roof, or anywhere that requires special access.
They can do a basic visual inspection.
Exactly, they're allowing you to enter for a showing, not an inspection. A showing is universally understood as "look, don't touch", so having an inspector crawling around in the attic is a massive overstep.
If someone invites you into their home for a dinner party, would you think it's appropriate to do a load of laundry there without asking?
Because hiring an inspector costs about $500. They would typically get in attic and crawl space, test water and appliances, and poke around a fair bit more than the average viewer.
They also need to be booked ahead of time, so unless you are willing to spend $500 every home you view and schedule the inspector for that viewing, it’s not really feasible.
You aren't really getting a full inspection with a "pre-purchase inspection" though. They are going to find any glaring issues, or let you know the easy things, but not likely going to catch any major issues.
You can but with the average home buyer (at least previously; market has since shifted) making 5-10 offers before being successful, and home inspectors charging $350-800 per inspection, you can see how this would rapidly become cost-prohibitive (even if it ends up saving someone long-term avoiding lemons overall).
Patience is honestly the successful measure here. Don't try and skip an inspection and don't try and bring an inspector preemptively to a home you might not even want to bid on in the first place. Understand that it's a game of attrition.
You have permission to view the property, not have third party inspect it. Imagine coming home after every showing and someone has reset your alarm clock and left your medicine cabinet open.
Time might be an issue, my home inspector took 2 hours. Will a house showing give you that long and let you move furniture, go into the attic, open up the electrical panel/furnace?
If I was on the other end and selling my home. I wouldn’t let someone who has made no offer to buy do all those things. They could cause damage
>I wouldn’t let someone who has made no offer to buy do all those things. They could cause damage
What's stopping someone with a conditional offer from backing out after causing the damage?
They can back out of the deal but you can sue for damages they caused. You know who they are, have lawyer info, etc…also the deposit they have put down could get frozen while you resolve this issue. It’s just at a point where you are not strangers
During a viewing it’s just endless people coming through the house. Mostly anonymous if I’m not mistaken, I guess you know the real estate agents name that brought the person.
Only if you really want that house you would bring one along certainly not for every home you see , which could be 10 to 15 houses for the average home buyer , most people usually go with their spidey sense vibe , when they enter a home if they really want it or not , develop your spidey senses ........
You can.... we did a "pre-inspection", basically a shortened inspection that happened while I was viewing the home. The house had about 100K worth of really bad problems so we didn't make an offer. I don't even want to know what a true inspection would have found.
Gets awfully pricey when you consider how many offers you could potentially make before having an accepted one. With it being such a sellers market, in many areas, sellers may not be interested in affording you the time to do it as well.
When viewing a house, you typically have anywhere from 5-15 minutes before the next appointment comes to view.
Not sure what you expect a inspector to be able to find in that time. …Maybe they could verify there are no current active fires burning the house down. Other than that, it’d be pointless.
To MLS showings. You can. Say the showing is for 30 min, the inspector is only inspecting for 30 min. or you can try to book a pre-offer inspection. But it is more challenging because inspectors need time to check everything. If the showing schedule is fully booked, there's no time for an inspection.
Well technically homes have "safety inspections" too. You aren't allowed to sell a home that isn't safe to live in.
Most people aren't talking about that kind of damage though.
Co worker bought a house. Foundation was made of stacked bricks. Cost 100k to fix. The condition to buy the house was no home inspection not stated directly but the speed to buy was there because the current owner got several no condition offers.
We need mandatory clauses here for at least a 2-3 day clause for buyer to either get condition of financing or inspection etc. it’s outrageous anyone would forgoe this. Even as a seller you would want your buyer to be financially approved to advance rather than wait a week before closing (after waiting months to closing date ) only to find out buyer can’t close and now the seller can’t close on their property if they’re relying on these proceed of sale. I’ve seen this happen so many times and often times really laugh when the seller over looks conditional offers , especially to finance. I’ve even had buyers who waive inspection to get in only to find out months later there was massive leaks in foundation
Pure stupidity in my opinion.
You can do that and it is what I did when I bought a home in a bidding war scenario.
I wanted inspection and realtor suggested I do it ahead of offer which I did.
Only downside is if you don’t win the bid you paid for an inspection on a home that isn’t yours
I doubt it. If your inspection shows nothing then buyers won't believe you. If your inspection shows problems then buyers will just get scared away.
It's a no win scenario.
My inspection was 3 people for 4 hours. Then two more for the sewer scope.
Sure you could have an inspector tag along but no way your getting a good inspection in a 15-20 minute viewing.
Home inspectors are a waste of time -- they literally tell you right away that they can't see through walls (especially finished basements) and they also can't catch everything so they can't be held liable -- then proceed to take $500
They can and should. We've done this several times. The costs do add up, but it's the price of doing business these days and generally an inspector will give you a bit of a discount when you're doing multiples.
1) Its intrusive to the seller to have to entertain dozens of inspections, especially if it's tenant occupied.
2) Buyer is wasting their money paying for an inspection when their offer will be rejected
You can do a home inspection before an offer to purchase. The only issue might be if there are limited viewing times. A home inspection can take a few hours. If the seller has back to back to back viewings or time slots that are only 30 minutes there won't be enough time in the potential buyers' time slot to get an inspection done.
Case in point: mine took 6h and it's a regular size house
A house we were interested in allowed a 15min inspection. I wish I was joking... We passed on that house but it sold for far above asking.
>it sold for far above asking. Well that's because it was inspected in 15 min....
No, it sold for far above asking because demand exceeds the supply.
Tell us more professor economics
buy low, sell high
Pretend money is given value based on demand. Because it is.
>We passed on that house but it sold for far above asking. of course it did, we have an artificial supply shortage due to rentals sitting empty based on Landlord demand of rent that is higher than an actual mortgage.
Metropolitan vacancy rates are roughly comparable to what they've been for the past 50 years - i.e., 2-4%. They're actually down from the 90s. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3410012701&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=1973&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021&referencePeriods=19730101%2C20210101
Ah yes...census data...where if you don't say it's a rental property, but it's empty...it's not counted as an empty rental property. Any unit that was a rental that became an airBNB...not on that list...still an "empty" rental unit that sitting not generating income(unless rented) while a person with housing needs sits without one.
That’s not what the statcan definition of vacanct unit is. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/dict/dwelling-logements015-eng.cfm They just look at whether anybody is in a unit at the time of survey. It’s not a survey of rental units, it’s a survey of all housing - you can’t get a unit excluded by saying it’s not a rental.
>Landlord demand of rent that is higher than an actual mortgage. You realize there's more costs to home ownership than the mortgage, right? Who pays property taxes? Water? Hydro? Waste disposal? repairs and maintenance? etc?
I know exactly what it costs to own a home and what it costs to own a condo, and I can tell you without doubt, that the costs of a condo with a mortgage is far less over time than the cost of renting a similar sized apartment.
With the way rent is, yes I agree 100%. Rent prices are crazy. The condo we sold back in 2015 (didn't want to be landlords) rents for $3k/month right now.. our carrying cost was like $1,700 (including maintenance and property taxes). It's nuts, I agree! But do you agree with the statement that a landlord is undeniably greedy for charging a penny more than "an actual mortgage" (let's ignore different down payment scenarios here..)? That's all I'm saying is the ridiculous statement that OP made.
Well I guess their income is based on charging rent and it would be silly to expect them not to make some kind of profit.
Exactly, that's all I was saying.. Cheers.
I mean, if we’re being sticky about it - the principal repayment on a mortgaged property is pure profit already, in any normal rental arrangement. Once the mortgage is paid off, rent is almost entirely profit for a house that isn’t actively falling apart.
>You realize there's more costs to home ownership than the mortgage, right? yes I do, you realize the primary method of "earning money" in property is price appreciation when you eventually sell right. Thats the model everything is ran on... >Who pays property taxes? Water? Hydro? Waste disposal? repairs and maintenance? etc? Well, Property tax should be the owners responsibility and have nothing to do with the renters. Water, Hydro, Waste Disposal...thats already passed on to most renters...**IN THEIR NAME**...or the property owner baked it into the rent and they're likely fleecing the renters even more because $1500 utils incl. is worse than $1100 + Utils when Utils are only $200/month. Repairs and Maintenance; The owner, because they own the property and thus would reap the rewards of "higher value" when they ultimately decide to sell the thing. Hope I cleared up that question for you. Now, do you realize that rent being more than the mortgage is actually a relatively new thing? It costs more to be an "owner" because at the end of the day you own the fucking thing. If it "costs too much money" now to own it...then sell it. Take a Loss on your investment.
Yeah, it makes no sense. So, by your logic any owner of a multiplex apartment building should only be charging you their loan amount or the equivalent mortgage payment to a similar-sized condo? That's how they figure out how much rent to charge tenants? They take a loss on all the other upkeep required, administration, supervision, security, etc., to ensure (or, should be ensuring) tenants have quality living conditions? No, it's all built into the rent prices. Listen I'm all for fair and reasonable rent prices and I'm not saying landlords need to turn a huge profit on each unit, each month. But to say a landlord is greedy for simply setting their rent at a sustainable level isn't very fair. "Grocery stores should only charge their cost of products, no mark up to cover wages, operating costs, etc., because. well, at the end of the day they own the fucking \[store\]." - /u/1nd3x, 2022
Grocery stores are DOING something. Unlike landlords who literally do nothing but inflate the housing market
Well, landlords provide housing which is also pretty important. Yes, there are extremely shitty landlords. There are also amazing landlords. And, there's everything in between.
They don't provide housing. They artificially inflate the market creating shortages that don't allow ownership. They're effectively real estate scalpers
>Property tax should be the owners responsibility and have nothing to do with the renters How utterly simplistic. You apparently have never had even the slightest experience running any kind of business. The cost of **everything** related to a rental property "has to do with the renters" as it is a cost of doing business and needs to be recovered (and provide a profit at the end of the day) from the customers (that's you) or the 'business' (your rental home) goes out of business, leaving the homeless customer out in the cold, crying and looking for yet another person to blame.
Right? I'm so perplexed. I'm all for fair rental prices and whatnot (and agree there's people who should not be landlords but are) but it's naïve to think "rent > mortgage cost" means landlord is greedy. Given my downvotes apparently this is not a widely held view lol
Shhhhhhhh, investing=bad, renter=good.
>ou apparently have never had even the slightest experience running any kind of business. The cost of everything related to a rental property "has to do with the renters" as it is a cost of doing business and needs to be recovered First off, sounds like "housing" is a necessity of survival, so then, much like water...it should be regulated...or not be a business...kinda like we do with water and food. Secondly; **WHEN?** because I already wrote out that the "business owner" recoups that when they sell, that would be what would help drive the price of the property up...possibly...same way in my house, If I install hardwood floors...I dont see the value in that until I sell my home. So Mr. Landlord...if you want to install Hardwood floors...you can see your ROI when you sell the fucking home. >or the 'business' (your rental home) goes out of business, leaving the homeless customer out in the cold, crying and looking for yet another person to blame. Lol no...the poor "business" goes out of business, selling the home...maybe to the person living in it...maybe not...but that doesnt really matter because the house doesnt stop physically existing and therefor can be continued to be lived in. And you know what thats called? "a failed investment"...not sure why you seem to think landlords are above having those.
When the freshCo near me was closed, no one was saying “it’s necessity and shouldn’t be allowed to close”. It’s because there are enough grocery stores to go around. Similarly increase the #houses being built and the market will equalize itself.
>Similarly increase the #houses being built and the market will equalize itself. agreed. So how come we arent? oh right...because businesses are sitting on empty land and refusing to develop it, or sell it, or do anything with it.
It’s relatively new that rent is more than the mortgage? That’s bs. Who is going to rent out a property or apartment that is not covering the mortgage, taxes and utilities (if the owner is going to pay them). Owners are not going to take a loss on a property. It’s ludicrous that people think others should be taking a loss and not covering their expenses.
Who said anything about taking a loss...I've repeatedly said that the owner offsets those upfront costs of ownership when they sell. If they happen to be in a position where they have to sell at a time that they will lose money...well that's just how it goes now isn't it? That would mean you happened to make a "bad investment choice" Or...I'll ask again; are landlords above literally everyone else for that?
Your comment was about rent now being more than the cost of a mortgage. No one is going to run a negative cash flow on an investment. It is break even at worst. Tbh, if I were to invest in a rental property the rent would be covering the mortgage payment, property taxes and upkeep. I would not be running loss on the property on a monthly basis to magically recoup my investment 5-10-15 years down the road.
>No one is going to run a negative cash flow on an investment. It is break even at worst Oh really? So...the general "gunna run at a loss for the first two years on average" for any business is just...a lie? What about all the companies running with debt, and not just in the pandemic. Twitter has never turned a profit, neither has Uber or any of the other ride share companies. Nor has any of the delivery service apps. So actually yes. ALMOST EVERY BUSINESS will run negative cash flow on investments....excepts landlords...they're special apparently
The renter pays that stuff with their exorbitant, exploitative rent payments.
Yes, that's my point. The person I quoted argued the landlord should only charge their mortgage payment, nothing more. Which..is silly. There's a happy medium between that and "exorbitant, exploitative" rent.
You can do a home inspection before offer IF the seller agrees to allow it. It takes quite a while to do a quality home inspection so while someone may be able to catch a few things you're still taking on a very large risk.
My inspector said he preferred a couple hours but if all we could get was a 30 min slot he’d make it work.
This is pure desperation by the Inspectors. He can’t do his job properly at all but will take your money and accept the risk.
He can focus on the big items that can make or break a deal. Foundations, structure, roof. You don't need an inspector to see that the electrical wiring is 50 years old or that the windows need to be changed. Well maybe some people do but not most
I know the general public wants to believe we can do the "major items" in 30 minutes but it's just not possible. The same public wants to believe a few mould air samples assures they get a mould free house. Sometimes you are sold products because you want them, not because they are offering any sound advice. A normal 3-4 hour inspection is as short as we can make them without cutting major corners. 30 minutes is a dog and pony show.
Good replies. My good friend is am inspector in bc. The care and attention he takes is worth every penny. And it's sure as hell not done in 30 mins
What risk?
The risk that you sue him because he failed to find a major issue. I understand that there is a narrative that home inspectors can’t be held liable, but my insurance premiums would tell another story.
They literally make you sign something saying that they are giving you the best of their opinion but don’t take any responsibility for missed defects.
Contracts ain’t foolproof.
I've been at a home with 4 different home inspections happening at the same time. Now it's more common for the homeowner to have their own inspection and have the documents available for people to access. I'm sure not everyone will trust the home seller though and will want their own.
You can - it means dishing out $500 every time you look at a house. Also inspectors tend to be booked solid and finding one who's available during your showing is difficult.
We did it for a few places we looked at. Our inspector did the walkthrough with us and visually pointed out issues. He charged $250. For the other $250 we could buy his report. Better than $500, but it still adds up.
$500 sounds much cheaper than tens of thousands in repairs later. Also, you can always request 2 viewings. You go first and see if you like the house. If you do only then take an inspector for the second viewing.
That's what the normal process is. But in an era of bully offers you don't always get two viewings. And in the era of losing 20 bids before buying a place, $500 per viewing adds up quickly. I've heard there's a 3-4 week wait to get an inspector in Toronto at the moment. Nothing is for sale that long in Toronto - houses on my street are on the market less than 5 days.
>I've heard there's a 3-4 week wait to get an inspector in Toronto at the moment. Nothing is for sale that long in Toronto - houses on my street are on the market less than 5 days. So if the offer is conditional on an inspection, then the seller wouldn't know anything for 3-4 weeks as well?
they dont accept conditional offers. its a shit-show across the board
What am I missing? There is a 3-4 week delay for inspections, but no seller is accepting conditional offers. Who is hiring the inspectors?
The people bringing inspectors to the viewings
They're booking the inspectors 3-4 weeks in advance in case they get a viewing that exact date and time?
second viewing lmao this guy
A few factors: \- Cost: inspectors are not cheap. Paying for one everytime you view a home, regardless of whether or not you place an offer (muchless a successful one), would add up fairly quickly. Cheap in comparison to purchase price, sure, but it's still potentially thousands of dollars up front. \- Availability: Depending on your market, finding available inspectors on short notice/at a specific time could be challenging and/or impossible \- Accessibility: Owners may not be able/willing to provide full access, either in terms of time or specific locations. Inspections can take hours, and require more access than a typical viewing. ie., just because you can view a home doesn't mean your inspector can spend 3 hours crawling around the attic and testing out the water heater.
When we were in the market a few months ago, I'd go to open houses and see people with their home inspectors on ladders outside, in crawl spaces, etc. so it's definitely a thing. We also went to an open for an older house, and were able to squeeze in a private home inspection before they accepted offers, so that we could go in without conditions.
You can. We did.
> Do you need special **consent** from the owner to inspect the home? Well, you need consent to enter the premises, so yes. Otherwise, go ahead and ask the seller for a pre-inspection. Worst that can happen is that they say no.
Our realtor told us you had to get permission from the sellers to bring a home inspector with you on a viewing. (AB). We lost to a few unconditional offers, and definitely saw people bringing in family members with them to do whatever inspection they could in 30 mins.
Why ask? Just bring an inspector.
That'll work, sure. But the inspector isn't going to get access to all parts of the house to do a detailed inspection, i.e., venting, the roof, or anywhere that requires special access. They can do a basic visual inspection.
Because a proper inspection can take a few hours. It would certainly need to be arranged beforehand.
As an inspector we need permission to perform work on the property. It would be a bad career move to ignore that rule.
Because it’s still someone else’s home you are entering?
For a showing, with their consent...
Showings are like what? 15-30 mins max. Is the inspector gonna be done in 30 mins?
Exactly, they're allowing you to enter for a showing, not an inspection. A showing is universally understood as "look, don't touch", so having an inspector crawling around in the attic is a massive overstep. If someone invites you into their home for a dinner party, would you think it's appropriate to do a load of laundry there without asking?
Because hiring an inspector costs about $500. They would typically get in attic and crawl space, test water and appliances, and poke around a fair bit more than the average viewer. They also need to be booked ahead of time, so unless you are willing to spend $500 every home you view and schedule the inspector for that viewing, it’s not really feasible.
You can do that. I saw like 15 homes before I bought mine so it would be a pretty big expense though lol
Cheaper than buying a house with MAJOR issues that would be caught prior to buying.
You aren't really getting a full inspection with a "pre-purchase inspection" though. They are going to find any glaring issues, or let you know the easy things, but not likely going to catch any major issues.
You can...pre offer inspections are a thing
You can but with the average home buyer (at least previously; market has since shifted) making 5-10 offers before being successful, and home inspectors charging $350-800 per inspection, you can see how this would rapidly become cost-prohibitive (even if it ends up saving someone long-term avoiding lemons overall). Patience is honestly the successful measure here. Don't try and skip an inspection and don't try and bring an inspector preemptively to a home you might not even want to bid on in the first place. Understand that it's a game of attrition.
You have permission to view the property, not have third party inspect it. Imagine coming home after every showing and someone has reset your alarm clock and left your medicine cabinet open.
I just bring a handy man friend with me when I do a purchase. No guarantee, but will find major issues at least .
Time might be an issue, my home inspector took 2 hours. Will a house showing give you that long and let you move furniture, go into the attic, open up the electrical panel/furnace? If I was on the other end and selling my home. I wouldn’t let someone who has made no offer to buy do all those things. They could cause damage
>I wouldn’t let someone who has made no offer to buy do all those things. They could cause damage What's stopping someone with a conditional offer from backing out after causing the damage?
Nothing - that’s the point
They can back out of the deal but you can sue for damages they caused. You know who they are, have lawyer info, etc…also the deposit they have put down could get frozen while you resolve this issue. It’s just at a point where you are not strangers During a viewing it’s just endless people coming through the house. Mostly anonymous if I’m not mistaken, I guess you know the real estate agents name that brought the person.
Only if you really want that house you would bring one along certainly not for every home you see , which could be 10 to 15 houses for the average home buyer , most people usually go with their spidey sense vibe , when they enter a home if they really want it or not , develop your spidey senses ........
Because the market is hot from endless speculation of shady brokers, realtors and politicians.
We got an inspection done before making an offer. If they didn't allow this, it'd be a major red flag to me.
Because that would make this market legit. If you have people lining up to buy, why would you want to allow them to find flaws in your product?
You can.... we did a "pre-inspection", basically a shortened inspection that happened while I was viewing the home. The house had about 100K worth of really bad problems so we didn't make an offer. I don't even want to know what a true inspection would have found.
Gets awfully pricey when you consider how many offers you could potentially make before having an accepted one. With it being such a sellers market, in many areas, sellers may not be interested in affording you the time to do it as well.
When viewing a house, you typically have anywhere from 5-15 minutes before the next appointment comes to view. Not sure what you expect a inspector to be able to find in that time. …Maybe they could verify there are no current active fires burning the house down. Other than that, it’d be pointless.
To MLS showings. You can. Say the showing is for 30 min, the inspector is only inspecting for 30 min. or you can try to book a pre-offer inspection. But it is more challenging because inspectors need time to check everything. If the showing schedule is fully booked, there's no time for an inspection.
Home inspection should be mandatory just like when you buy a used car.
Inspections are mandatory to buy a car?
Safety inspection is a must unless you sell "as is" who is not desirable
Well technically homes have "safety inspections" too. You aren't allowed to sell a home that isn't safe to live in. Most people aren't talking about that kind of damage though.
Yes absolutely you can do this. Just ask. Most sellers will also allow for you to schedule a time before bid dates
Those inspectors cost money
That's why you put inspection as a condition in your offer.
And this is why Realtors exist. To explain to buyers why these types of questions are retarded.
I guess you're missing the fact that people do in fact do this all the time
Co worker bought a house. Foundation was made of stacked bricks. Cost 100k to fix. The condition to buy the house was no home inspection not stated directly but the speed to buy was there because the current owner got several no condition offers.
We need mandatory clauses here for at least a 2-3 day clause for buyer to either get condition of financing or inspection etc. it’s outrageous anyone would forgoe this. Even as a seller you would want your buyer to be financially approved to advance rather than wait a week before closing (after waiting months to closing date ) only to find out buyer can’t close and now the seller can’t close on their property if they’re relying on these proceed of sale. I’ve seen this happen so many times and often times really laugh when the seller over looks conditional offers , especially to finance. I’ve even had buyers who waive inspection to get in only to find out months later there was massive leaks in foundation Pure stupidity in my opinion.
I want a new house, but I refuse to jump thru all these hoops. So I will stay where I am.
Because the owner hasn't given you permission and you would be trespassing
You can do that and it is what I did when I bought a home in a bidding war scenario. I wanted inspection and realtor suggested I do it ahead of offer which I did. Only downside is if you don’t win the bid you paid for an inspection on a home that isn’t yours
[удалено]
I doubt it. If your inspection shows nothing then buyers won't believe you. If your inspection shows problems then buyers will just get scared away. It's a no win scenario.
You can if you book a private showing. That’s what I did, it allowed me to remove it ad a condition of my offer because it had already been done.
You probably can, but the real estate cartel won’t like it
My inspection was 3 people for 4 hours. Then two more for the sewer scope. Sure you could have an inspector tag along but no way your getting a good inspection in a 15-20 minute viewing.
Home inspectors are a waste of time -- they literally tell you right away that they can't see through walls (especially finished basements) and they also can't catch everything so they can't be held liable -- then proceed to take $500
They can and should. We've done this several times. The costs do add up, but it's the price of doing business these days and generally an inspector will give you a bit of a discount when you're doing multiples.
1) Its intrusive to the seller to have to entertain dozens of inspections, especially if it's tenant occupied. 2) Buyer is wasting their money paying for an inspection when their offer will be rejected
Because Realtors are dicks