Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Home Inspector Ordered to Pay

A BC home inspector was ordered to pay close to $200 000 to couple in Vancouver for a faulty home inspection. I am happy to see this happen as there seems to be no accountability for home inspectors. Mike Holmes has a new TV show called "Holmes Inspection" about faulty home inspections in the Toronto area.

In our case the man we used, recommended to us, was a nice enough guy and seemed moderately through, but in retrospect I am amazed what he missed:

  • The basement was not permitted
  • The basement was not a legal living space
  • The attic was not permitted
  • The stairs up and down were not built to code
  • The kitchen door was not to code
  • He did not do any manner of thermal inspection to see what state the insulation was in
  • He missed the problems with the sewer connection
  • He missed the lack of venting for the downstairs bathroom
  • He missed the incorrect drain pipes and improper connection between the downstairs bathroom and kitchen plumbing
  • He missed a main support joist having been cut in two and no shoring up on either side
We bought a house that was advertised as being 3400 square feet in space but only has 1450 square feet of legal living space. Part of me thinks we should have sued the home inspector and selling realtor for not telling us that most of the house was not only not legal, but according to the City of Victoria did not exist.
An older local realtor once let me in on the reasons he uses home inspectors. The only purpose he saw for them was to use the report as a negotiating tool. He was very cynical about them and said that all home inspectors take their direction from realtors because that is where the business comes from.

I would like to see some changes to to liability on home purchases:
  • Home inspectors should be held accountible for the reports they issue - certainly the home inspector should be able to point all the work that was done without a permit and make a note of it. The home inspector should be responsible for detailing everything in a house that is not up to the building code.
  • Realtors should be held responsible for the state and condition of a property - if you are listing a house, you are responsible for finding and advertising all major defects. The selling realtor should be the one responsible for doing the home inspection and then making it available to everyone.
Realtors make a lot of money from selling houses, they need to held more accountable for what they sell. Liabilty has to lie with them for not revealing things. I feel very strongly about this because a house is the single biggest purchase most people will ever make. I am very glad to have seen this lawsuit succeed against Imre Toth the home inspector, I just wish they had also gone after the selling realtor.
at

2 comments:

  1. Joe Farsetta12:01 pm

    I challenge Mr. Holmes to a public debate on the home inspection industry. He lacks experience as an inspector, and likes to play Monday Morning Quarterback, booting the interest in his TV show at the expense of good inspectors around the world. What Mr. Holmes continues to forget to tell the world is that he would likely be sued off the planet in the way in which he "discovers" defects.

    Remember, at the time you had the home inspected, did you own it? If the answer is "no", then please try and remember that you could not have disturbed a single item in it. Imagine someone inspecting a home you owned, and breaking something, then deciding they didn’t want to purchase the dwelling from you. Would you expect the damage to be repaired?

    The other thing Mr. Holmes continues to crow about are things "not built to code". That's nice, except for the fact that a home inspection is NOT a building code inspection. Mr. Holmes is NOT the authority having jurisdiction, and legally cannot determine where code issues exist. In fact, many older homes do not conform to modern code requirements, known to the inspector at the time of the inspection. These items do not constitute a defect in all cases, however, in that the codes in effect at the time the home or renovation was constructed would be the measure of code compliance. One may recommend an upgrade in the report, but not characterize the deficiency as a defect in the report.

    Also,the article mentions "not legal" or "not living space”. Again, this is nice, but it is the responsibility of the attorney and realtor to ensure that valid certificated of occupancy exist for all spaces in the home. This is not a part of the home inspection.

    Again, I challenge Mr. Holmes to debate me on a neutral television show (not his own). While I recognize that defective inspections are performed by inspectors who are either bad at what they do, or make an honest mistake... there is a difference between recognizing what an inspection is all about, and using a situation to sensationalize things in a self-serving manner. Is it no coincidence that Holmes is trying to launch an inspection company of his own? I wonder if, when the shoe is on the other foot, if Holmes will be as cocky.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cindy Stephenson10:21 pm

    I agree that it's very much buyer beware. Home inspectors need to be made more accountable. I certainly empathize with the home owner who ended up taking the inspector to court, and applaud him for doing so. It'll help shake things up.

    We've been lucky with the two houses we have bought, in that we've had no major problems. But as you say, others have not been so lucky.

    Cindy

    ReplyDelete