Home Inspections

[mandm]

Personally for investment purposes I think it makes sense to avoid basements because frankly they all leak, they cause utility bills to be higher and they are just another pain to deal with.

I have a property with a roof issue, that the seller hid and the home inspector and agent colluded together to say the roof is fine. It’s probably the only property that I’m going to have to replace the entire roof, which is annoying. Maybe I could sue them but really I have little faith in the legal system, I don’t really want to waste any time with personal appearances or stress of an ongoing case and questions on a sore topic, and even if I did win, the guy moved out of state and I don’t think he has much money anyway - not sure if I could collect. I did have to use the legal system previously and the lawyers did things wrongly that basically yes I won but I would have to go back to court again and pay retainers again (that are more money than the initial case) and again no guarantee on collection.

When you sued and won, did the person pay up right away or was that a process? And did they pay it themselves or would their homeowners insurance cover that?

 

[DaleB]

Personally for investment purposes I think it makes sense to avoid basements because frankly they all leak, they cause utility bills to be higher and they are just another pain to deal with.

As we live in an area with tornadoes, and where all but the cheapest 1960s vintage cracker boxes have basements, and having owned a couple of houses that do NOT leak, I disagree.

I have a property with a roof issue, that the seller hid and the home inspector and agent colluded together to say the roof is fine. It’s probably the only property that I’m going to have to replace the entire roof, which is annoying. Maybe I could sue them but really I have little faith in the legal system, I don’t really want to waste any time with personal appearances or stress of an ongoing case and questions on a sore topic, and even if I did win, the guy moved out of state and I don’t think he has much money anyway - not sure if I could collect. I did have to use the legal system previously and the lawyers did things wrongly that basically yes I won but I would have to go back to court again and pay retainers again (that are more money than the initial case) and again no guarantee on collection.

When you sued and won, did the person pay up right away or was that a process? And did they pay it themselves or would their homeowners insurance cover that?

I do share your skepticism of the legal system. We’ve had a few instances since where we probably could have sued successfully, but didn’t because of the cost, the hassle, and/or the likelihood that the other party simply wouldn’t pay. In the case of our first house, they did pay promptly. I don’t know, nor did I care, from whose pocket the money came. I just knew that the attorney got paid well for her time, and I was out there with a shovel and buckets of tar for a few weeks. I was 24 years old with three kids so hiring it out was not an option, once the attorney got her cut. The money we got from the settlement was about enough to cover the materials. Let’s just say we learned many lessons from that experience.

 

[Albany Tom]

I hired an inspector when I bought my house 10+ years ago, and to me it was worthwhile. That was a different market, though. My background is EE, so I wasn't worried about the electrical, and had a friend who was a construction supervisor take a look first as well. I think inspectors are all over the place, in terms of experience, and that it also matters quite a bit what kind of house you have. For example, a retired structural engineer, or probably someone with a lot of framing experience is going to see things that an average person may not. Design problems, like spans that are too long, additions, decks, etc., that aren't built right, walls that are leaning. But an inspector with no background in the trades or engineering might just be some guy that passed a test and got a stamped license, depending on the area.

My place is a 50's era ranch, built by hand by a previous owner from plans the bought from a catalog. Well built, no surprises. I negotiated a bit on price based on the inspection, for some minor electrical problems in the service entrance, a failed radon test (required here), and a couple of minor things. I had the owner remove an outside buried oil tank and replace it with an indoor tank prior to the sale. Also had the septic system inspected. To me, good peace of mind.

A 7 hour inspection, though? If I were selling, I'd want some sort of agreement on exactly what they were going to do. As an example, if you have a well that's capable of being run dry, make sure they're not going to do that, or that they're insured if they do. You probably don't want them disassembling anything, but you are probably going to want to let them pull the covers on the electrical panel, if they're qualified to do so. If you let them walk on the roof, make sure that's safe for them to do. I wouldn't want them taking walls apart, for example.

Funny that someone mentioned not wanting a basement. I'd never buy a house that didn't have one. The caveat to that is that I'm not going to buy a house in an area that has flat land. You have a bit of elevation, not a huge amount, and proper drainage and you don't have a problem.

 

[weilke]

Had the inspector miss a bad roof on one house I bought.
Had the inspector miss a bad roof on one house I sold.
I guess that balances it out.

One inspector gave a whole write-up on a broken casement window lift spring but missed the cracked foundation (and not cosmetic shrink-cracking, the real thing with ground movement).

After expriencing them as mostly incompetent, for the last house I didn't get a 'home inspector'. Had a remodeling and roofing contractor go through with me and point out what was needed. Brought in a HVAC company, a septic and a well company to look at the items typically excluded from a 'home inspection'.

 

[mandm]

As we live in an area with tornadoes, and where all but the cheapest 1960s vintage cracker boxes have basements, and having owned a couple of houses that do NOT leak, I disagree.

I do share your skepticism of the legal system. We’ve had a few instances since where we probably could have sued successfully, but didn’t because of the cost, the hassle, and/or the likelihood that the other party simply wouldn’t pay. In the case of our first house, they did pay promptly. I don’t know, nor did I care, from whose pocket the money came. I just knew that the attorney got paid well for her time, and I was out there with a shovel and buckets of tar for a few weeks. I was 24 years old with three kids so hiring it out was not an option, once the attorney got her cut. The money we got from the settlement was about enough to cover the materials. Let’s just say we learned many lessons from that experience.

In the end, you were not made whole. The whole thing of the losing party paying attorney costs is bogus. It’s unfortunate.

Basements in my opinion are just an unnecessary risk but yes they do make the home more desirable and give a lot of extra space, but once you have a house without a basement and your electric bill drops to $50 per month, your viewpoint may change.

 

[weilke]

Basements in my opinion are just an unnecessary risk but yes they do make the home more desirable and give a lot of extra space, but once you have a house without a basement and your electric bill drops to $50 per month, your viewpoint may change.

Lose the entire basement for 50 bucks a month ? That sounds like a terrible deal.

 

[Albany Tom]

It's not about the space. If the alternative is a slab, I can't see burying the pipes below a slab, and having framing or residential flooring on the ground. A wooden framed structure over anything but a full basement doesn't make any sense to me. A commercial building, where you have tile or carpeting on the floor that you're going to replace every few years and it's just used for foot traffic, the plumbing is simple and you don't care much if the floor gets damp? Sure.

 

[DaleB]

In the end, you were not made whole. The whole thing of the losing party paying attorney costs is bogus. It’s unfortunate.

We asked for them to pay attorney fees. Although it may happen from time to time, I've never seen that work.

Basements in my opinion are just an unnecessary risk but yes they do make the home more desirable and give a lot of extra space, but once you have a house without a basement and your electric bill drops to $50 per month, your viewpoint may change.

"More desirable" is something of an understatement. I think it's a regional thing. In Charlotte basements seem to be rare, probably Chicago too. I don't think we ever saw a basement when we were looking at places in TX. In Cleveland we never saw one without, and here in the Omaha area it's rare to find a house on a slab. There were a few developments built in the 50s & 60s on slabs, but we avoid them -- there are very often structural issues apparent in the house, like large cracks in the ceiling running the entire length of the house. I'm no CE, but I suspect a lot of it depends on the type of ground you're building on.

 

[Sundancer]

Having had both, I'd rather not have a basement. Where land is cheaper I'd go with more sq ft horizontally. My last house was on a slab, with the waste lines in the concrete which did give me pause sometimes. The supply lines were not in the slab, which relieved some worry. The house was built 2014, so I told myself it was too soon to worry about it.
My last house with a walk-out basement required a French drain and sump pump to stay dry - and that worked just fine for 30+ years, except for replacing the sump pump twice.

My "new" house, built 1902, has a crawl space, lined and sealed, with dehumidifier. I'm guessing someone did that on need, not for fun. The inspector spent a LOT of time under there and came out happy. I hope he was right. Anyway, I think a crawl space is a good option - not that basements are at all common here in coastal NC.

 

[GaryM]

We asked for them to pay attorney fees. Although it may happen from time to time, I've never seen that work.

"More desirable" is something of an understatement. I think it's a regional thing. In Charlotte basements seem to be rare, probably Chicago too. I don't think we ever saw a basement when we were looking at places in TX. In Cleveland we never saw one without, and here in the Omaha area it's rare to find a house on a slab. There were a few developments built in the 50s & 60s on slabs, but we avoid them -- there are very often structural issues apparent in the house, like large cracks in the ceiling running the entire length of the house. I'm no CE, but I suspect a lot of it depends on the type of ground you're building on.

I will only look at houses with a full basement, preferable unfinished. I've done so with my last 4 houses, and it's a requirement for the one we plan to buy later this year.
I need a LOT of shop space for a number of hobbies, and I don't want to deal with running all the utilities to an outbuilding, and constantly trudging back and forth between the house and a shop building.

 

[Ventucky Red]

When you sued and won, did the person pay up right away or was that a process? And did they pay it themselves or would their homeowners insurance cover that?

Your roof situation may be a little harder to prove - I would say give it a shot... you never know.

As for getting paid right away, no, this was another chapter. We had to put a lien against his principal residence, and it took about three years to get the money. It was suggested that I do a Sheriff Sale to put the fear of God in them, but there is a downside: you have to accept the proceeds from the sale, which could be less. And even though the situation created stress in my life, karma tells me you don't kick people to the curb. I got a registered letter one day from a "Title Abstract Company" saying I needed to sign some papers regarding the lien, and they had my payment.

Sometimes the system does work, and in the end, I made out as this did increase to the value of my property.