More on Inspectors
The letters from first-time home buyers who had problems in spite of home inspections (“Tales From the Trenches,” May 10) suggested that buyers should have a plumber, roofer and electrician inspect instead of or in addition to a general inspector.
The reason buyers began using general inspectors--who do no work and recommend no workers, they only inspect--is because plumbers, roofers and electricians are not in the business of telling people that property is in good or even reasonable condition.
They only earn money if they convince you work needs to be done and are certainly less likely to be impartial than a professional inspector.
If a buyer has serious reservations about the inspector’s competence, he is far better off hiring a second inspector and comparing the two reports before deciding whether or not to call in a plumber, electrician, roofer, chimney man, etc.
The writer is a real estate agent.
There has been a lot written lately about referrals of home inspectors by real estate agents. One article even stated that you should not use an inspector recommended by a broker or agent.
My business relies on referrals from real estate agents and my duty is to protect them and their clients. An agent isn’t going to make a nickel off the home inspection. What the inspection does is protect the money the agent does make.
I see the inspection as a cheap insurance policy--usually paid for by the home buyer--so that earnings are not later lost on undiscovered defects and/or subsequent litigation.
For Realtors to not provide some kind of referral (several brokers list three to fiv companies or provide a comprehensive list of inspectors in a certain region) is a disservice to their clients, who usually don’t have a clue who is available and reputable in the area.
ROBERT A. CHERRY
Big Bear City