Paying to view a completed building inspection??

I felt the need to share what I just read in an add... I am not interested in the property... I merely find it bizarre!

"Just requiring cosmetic refurbishment, an independent building inspection report has already been conducted and is available for download on the Jim's Building Inspections Website for $240.00."

This seems incredibly odd.. I would assume if an owner has commissioned a report... They can make it freely available? Isn't $240 the standard cost of a building report? Are the owners trying to recoup the cost? IS THIS NORMAL??

 

The owners would have paid much more than the $240, I imagine. No, they're not trying to recoup the cost; it's the amount that Jim's charge for having to take on a duty of care to additional people. I've heard of this before.

 

Wouldn't the agent have a copy they can show people for free. I would get my own report anyways

 

You don't own the IP in the building inspection report. You can't just make copies and show them to anybody.

 

That is the only explanation I could think of! Seems like a decent money making business

I agree... I would get my own report done!

 

What some building and pest report companies, and strata search companies in the case of units, (especially in Sydney) is take the risk upon themselves to do a report (not commissioned by the vendors or the selling agent) in the hope they can sell the report to interested parties.

Neither the vendor nor the agent get to see the report (unless they pay) but the agent does get advised who downloads the report as a 'payback' for advertising the availability of the report.

Some companies offer a partial refund if you have downloaded the report but are not the successful purchaser.

 

theres no contract between you and the builder
The contract is between owner and builder coz owner paid for report
If you pay a view fee and rely on this report and makes purchase and it later turns out the builder was negligent in missing important issues eg structural problems which would have deterred you from buying, you have no recourse

could be a moot issue ... As the disclaimers in building reports these days are longer than the findings ...

 

it would cost more to do the initial B&P report but for $240 you are purchasing an additional copy of the report. Try asking them to do a B&P for your house and ill say it would be more than $240.

 

The caselaw goes against this, actually. If the building report says "Prepared for Vendor" (as it will), and it's wrong, and purchaser relied on it, purchaser will have zero comeback.

When you pay for the report, you're paying for the exact same thing to be provided saying "Prepared for Purchaser", and then the preparer of the report does owe the purchaser a duty of care.

(There are usually so many disclaimers and exclusions as to raise the question of whether there's recourse in any case, but that's a whole different issue. It's probably worthwhile having recourse for huge issues, e.g. If report says "structurally sound" and it turns out the house is about to fall out and any building inspector should have detected that.)

 

I don't doubt you Tracy but I'm wondering how then they manage to get it done in the ACT where for a number of years now, the vendor pays for the report prior to listing for sale?
Maybe someone who knows from Canberra can shed some light?

 

I have seen this occurring more often however I would always insist on organising my own building and pest inspection. For the sake of a few hundred dollars I would hate to purchase a property and discover it had issues that could cost a fortune to fix and/or in legal fees to sue the building inspector the vendor had used.

 

I do find that a bit odd. I would just pay for my own. A building inspection without pest inspection shouldn't cost much more than that.

 

After you pay, they will add "Prepared for [Name of person who paid $240]"

Yup.

I'd imagine it's information that the purchaser can use to influence their decision, but is provided on a "no recourse" basis.

The caselaw is that they have to stand by their advice to a particular person, and owe no duty to any other person. The reason is that, otherwise, for the sake of a relatively modest fee, they would owe a duty of care to a potentially infinite number of people, and that was thought to be bad public policy.

Give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can find the relevant cases.

 

When we buy a car it has a RWC which is similar to a BI. Who pays for the RWC, the current owner. Any car I have purchased (besides new) have gotten my own inspection for (RACQ/V).

Same thing with the vendor paying for a BI, yes I could trust their one as the inspector isn't going to risk his licence to cover up something or increase his insurance each year just because he is covering up things for the vendor. However two eyes are better than one and part of my DD.

 

OK, the relevant case is Esanda v Peat Marwick Hungerfords. This case was where PMH had audited a particular company (X). Then Esanda relied on the auditor's report to lend money to X, who promptly went broke, and the audit was possibly negligent (the matter didn't need to be decided).

The High Court found that the auditor wasn't liable for Esanda's losses because an element of establishing liability in negligence for professional misstatement is that the provider of advice knew that the particular person (or entity) would be relying on that advice, otherwise providers of advice could be liable to an indeterminate class. As PMH didn't know that Esanda would be relying on the audit, there was no duty of care.

 

Not the same. A RWC is particular to the car, not to a person or entity. They are provided knowing that the class of people who rely on them is "insurers and authorities and all potential purchasers", and they are regulated by statute. Totally different kettle of fish.