selling with building and pest inspection, bad idea?

This is not "normal" in Brisbane. However, last time we sold we were advised by the agent to pay for a building and pest report and allow potential bidders to see it. Upside was that we saw what needed doing (or not bothering to do). Downside was we had no idea who really was interested enough to get one done themselves.

D.T.'s comment baffles me whenever it is raised on this forum. We are talking a legitimate building inspection company here, with insurance in place and the company's credibility on the line. A "mate" is not going to writ up a building report that is dodgy. The ramifications if that happens could mean he loses his job, and the reputation of his company (or his boss's company).

As a buyer I would trust a building inspection report, arms length, but not a report on a plain piece of paper saying the house checked out not on a letterhead and clearly a professional report. That would be easy to see as a smoke screen.

Another interesting thing brought out by the building inspection was that he noticed a certain flashing or sealer had not been installed when the new roof went on. (Roof was replaced under insurance just prior to selling). I called the roofing company who sent out a person to check the job (a second time) and wrote me a letter confirming the flashing/sealing was done, was done neatly with no "usual" blobs showing, hence our building inspector thinking it was missing.

We attached that to the inspection report. Without it, the buyer may have had a building inspection service also think something was missing, and we would very likely have had them try to negotiate us down for something they thought was missing, that was there all along.

 

That's all well and good - but I don't use just any mortgage broker, nor do I use just any conveyancer, or insurance broker, or accountant, or property manager, or buyers agent, etc.

I choose my advisors carefully and I consider the "advice" I get from a building and pest inspection to be just as important as any other advice I get when buying a property.

I'd rather know I was getting a good and thorough report from someone I trust than rely on insurance and the threat of loss of credibility from someone I have no idea about. I certainly don't assume that all building and pest inspectors are made equally or take as much pride in their work.

 

I think the difference is that "most" people, unless they are buying regularly, will pick a building and pest inspector from a referral of the agent, or from google. I would highly doubt any reputable building inspection company would be swayed by a vendor asking them to do anything remotely dodgy. They risk their reputation, livelihood and I just cannot see it happening.

I see it as very different to using a broker, accountant, property manager where you have an ongoing relationship with them, even after buying one IP. Your loan broker (for example) knows your position, your risk profile, everything about you. A building inspector is not looking for anything other than if the building is sound. It either is sound, or not.

If not, he details the problems. If he overlooks a problem deliberately, he risks his livelihood. If he simply misses a problem, he has professional insurance.

I simply find it curious that people think a professional company that does this would remotely consider doing a dodgy report for a vendor. Perhaps I'm naive?

I would not trust a bit of paper signed by "Joe the builder" that isn't from a reputable company, and who could very easily be an attempt at fudging the true situation of a house, but a report from a professional should be the same regardless of who pays for it.

 

I don't think it's so much about "dodgy" as it is about how well they do their job.

As you said - there is always professional insurance, but as I said, I would rather get someone I know will do a good job than rely on insurance to help.

Actually, the building reports I get are far more detailed than just a "sound vs not sound" tick. They list (in great detail) information about the structure and likely history of building works on the property, identifying items which are problematic now, as well as documenting likely costs involved in repairing or replacing other aspects of the property which are going to require work in the near future.

The purpose is to give you an indication of how much you are most likely going to need to spend over the next year or two (or even ongoing in some cases) on important maintenance issues - to help you judge whether the numbers still stack up.

My last building inspection produced a 9 page written report detailing the condition of all aspects of the property both inside and out - including internal fixtures.

I absolutely disagree that a building report is likely to be the same no matter who does the work or who pays for it.

 

I agree with all you've said really. I didn't mean to say any building report would simply say "sound vs not sound". In fact, I've never seen a good report. I've read two such reports for friends buying this past month. They go into great detail (as did the one we had done when we were going to sell).

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think those who believe any competent building inspector is going to listen to a vendor who tries to influence them is naive. They just will not write a report which puts their reputation at risk. If they are incompetent that is entirely different.

I do understand though that as a vendor, if I searched for an incompetent inspector, I could present that report and then it would be up to the purchaser to get one of their own. We once sold and were forced to pay for a pest report (very unusual but we were in a bit of a corner). The pest report sounded bad. We had no termites, but it was written in such a way to suggest it was only a matter of time. It read badly. It scared me, and I knew we had no termites.

Our solicitor suggested we pay for another report. This one was also factual but didn't sound so scary. As a purchaser, though both reports said the same thing "no termites present" the way each was written made a world of difference to someone reading them.

 

I'm not sure about the first point you make. What about the states where getting such a report is compulsory (I think it is compulsory in some states?). That must give the purchaser some protection, surely? Perhaps it is worded such that it protects the purchaser. I have no idea?

What building inspector would agree to not consider that termite infested deck? Really? Why would he take that risk?