What to do when an inspector misses stuff? (1 Viewer)

[St. Widge]

That's what you were insinuating.

No, it isn't. You jumped to an unwarranted conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of what I said.

 

[St. Geezy]

Duh! The fact he neglected to look into it is what makes it unreasonable. At minimum he should get a refund from this ***** not knowing what the hell's wrong with roofs. What else did he miss if he can discount this?

It's not his job to "look into" a roof. An inspector can't start removing shingles and digging into issues like that in order to see rotted wood. That's a roof contractor's job.

The inspector can only look at immediately visible things.

The inspector should have recommened a licensed roofer to come look at it. But in his opinion of the damage was that it did not appear to be a major issue from what he could see.

As I've stated a couple of times before, what the buyers do with that info is up to them. But me, I wouldn't take an inspectors word on something like this. He did his job once he pointed out/acknowledged that there was a roof stain and that it could have been caused by water. The recommendation of a roofer would have been nice, but ultimately, that's the buyers decision and responsibility. Home inspections are not home warranties.

 

[wizard1183]

What you are talking about is an issue of Equity, not law. Law very rarely cares about Equity and the OP asked a question about law, not Equity.

Yea I guess right....

 

[wizard1183]

It's not his job to "look into" a roof. An inspector can't start removing shingles and digging into issues like that in order to see rotted wood. That's a roof contractor's job.

The inspector can only look at immediately visible things.

The inspector should have recommened a licensed roofer to come look at it. But in his opinion of the damage was that it did not appear to be a major issue from what he could see.

As I've stated a couple of times before, what the buyers do with that info is up to them. But me, I wouldn't take an inspectors word on something like this. He did his job once he pointed out/acknowledged that there was a roof stain and that it could have been caused by water.

Did I mention getting on the roof? Lmao. What's wrong with going into the attic? That would determine if indeed the roof is sagging no? And as a home inspector it's their job to go through every component of the house to assure there's no significant damage.

OP post pics of this sag so we can tell you if this is something easily missed or if it was neglible.

Here's a thing though. The home inspector was there, wife pointed out a flaw. He said no worries. Before you closed on it, why didn't you look into it further?

 

[superchuck500]

Duh! The fact he neglected to look into it is what makes it unreasonable. At minimum he should get a refund from this ***** not knowing what the hell's wrong with roofs. What else did he miss if he can discount this?

What you are talking about is an issue of Equity, not law. Law very rarely cares about Equity and the OP asked a question about law, not Equity.

I don't think that's necessarily an exclusively equitable question. It really comes down to the legal standard of performance - which I'm sure varies by state.

 

[St. Geezy]

Did I mention getting on the roof? Lmao. What's wrong with going into the attic? That would determine if indeed the roof is sagging no? And as a home inspector it's their job to go through every component of the house to assure there's no significant damage.

OP post pics of this sag so we can tell you if this is something easily missed or if it was neglible.

Here's a thing though. The home inspector was there, wife pointed out a flaw. He said no worries. Before you closed on it, why didn't you look into it further?

I asked the question about the attic and never got an answer from the OP. So I just figured that the damage wasn't over attic space.

With that said, you're not 100% right about an inspector's job. Yes, it is his job to go through every component of a home, the caveat is that it is every "immediately visible" component (in Louisiana). They literally aren't even supposed to pick up a door mat to see if there are any cracks in a floor.

I think you're mistaken on the value/expectations of a mere $400 or so home inspection. If they did everything you seem to expect and were liable for the things you seem to expect, the cost would be significantly greater.

 

[St. Widge]

I don't think that's necessarily an exclusively equitable question. It really comes down to the legal standard of performance - which I'm sure varies by state.

I was talking about the idea that he should get a refund because he could have missed other stuff. I'm not aware of any laws anywhere that would allow for that. It seems to be a request for Equity not law since if the inspector is liable by falling below the standard of care, the remedy would be to pay for damages, not to have the cost of the inspection refunded. That is unless the claim was for breach of contract.

And it also comes down to what he waived in any waiver that he likely signed.

 

[St. Widge]

Did I mention getting on the roof? Lmao. What's wrong with going into the attic? That would determine if indeed the roof is sagging no? And as a home inspector it's their job to go through every component of the house to assure there's no significant damage.

No, they only have to go to accessible portions of the house and I think, at least in Louisiana, that there is no requirement that they get on the roof. Although, the better inspectors do that.

And, the truth is that although the home inspection has some use to the seller in negotiating the price of the house or getting closing costs paid by the seller, he is really there to protect the lender. And, what the lender really cares about is that there isn't some huge problem with the house that would drop the value of the house below the amount of the mortgage.

And, the reason that Inspectors get so much protection is because if they didn't, nobody would become an inspector because they would constantly be sued.

 

[wizard1183]

I asked the question about the attic and never got an answer from the OP. So I just figured that the damage wasn't over attic space.

With that said, you're not 100% right about an inspector's job. Yes, it is his job to go through every component of a home, the caveat is that it is every "immediately visible" component (in Louisiana). They literally aren't even supposed to pick up a door mat to see if there are any cracks in a floor.

I think you're mistaken on the value/expectations of a mere $400 or so home inspection. If they did everything you seem to expect and were liable for the things you seem to expect, the cost would be significantly greater.

May be I am mistaken. Ill note it that when I buy or build a home, ill do my own inspection rather than hire some jack leg who could careless about the home since its minimal responsibility for him and I can save myself the $3-500 for one.

 

[St. Geezy]

May be I am mistaken. Ill note it that when I buy or build a home, ill do my own inspection rather than hire some jack leg who could careless about the home since its minimal responsibility for him and I can save myself the $3-500 for one.

I wouldn't do that, but that's up to you. They're a pretty valuable tool. There's plenty of stuff that even a subpar home inspector would find that you wouldn't find, especially in regards to electrical components.They're also very good for creating some last minute leverage for the home buyer to renegotiate or ask for repairs. And a home inspection is definitely good for some peace of mind in that there wasn't something significant found (something that's easily visible to a trained inspector).

Keep in mind, something "easily visible to a trained inspector" isn't something that is easily visible to the average home buyer.

And depending on the type of loan product you go for, the inspection by a licensed professional may be required. I know the government backed-FHA loans not only require inspections, but they also have a list of mandatory items that must pass inspection.

 

[superchuck500]

I was talking about the idea that he should get a refund because he could have missed other stuff. I'm not aware of any laws anywhere that would allow for that. It seems to be a request for Equity not law since if the inspector is liable by falling below the standard of care, the remedy would be to pay for damages, not to have the cost of the inspection refunded. That is unless the claim was for breach of contract.

And it also comes down to what he waived in any waiver that he likely signed.

I think it all sounds in contract. But I see what you meant by equity.

 

[El Caliente]

So the damage is on the roof. Maybe the wood is rotten. I am going to have a roofer come and take a look at it ASAP, and if I find out that its just a piece of wood that needs to be replaced then fine, I can suck up a couple $100, but if I am told that I need a new roof...courthouse away!

 

[Galbreath34]

It really seems like title insurance or homeowners should take care of the suing. Have you contacted either?

 

[superchuck500]

It really seems like title insurance or homeowners should take care of the suing. Have you contacted either?

I doubt it. Title insurance is for defects related to the legal title and all that goes with that - and homeowners is typically a casualty policy, meaning that there has to be some injury to the roof caused by an accident or covered event during the insured period.

Roof replacement due to decay or craftsmanship is typically not covered. Of course policies vary.