|
A professional home inspector, hired at a cost of several hundred dollars, can carefully examine parts of the property that most consumers wouldn’t think to check. Commonly found problems include cracked or broken foundations, easement issues, termite infestation, electrical or plumbing problems or code violations and more. The fee paid can turn out to be a bargain if a home that was barely affordable for a would-be buyer turns out to need tens of thousands of dollars worth of repairs before it can be comfortably occupied. So why are buyers passing on inspections?
The current housing market has brought a few changes to the traditional model of buying and selling, introducing such odd options as interest-only mortgages. Buyers, especially those who have previously lost out on other properties, are looking for any advantage they might find over other bidders. Rather than get into a bidding war, these buyers are offering to buy without an inspection. They are taking a risk by doing so, but the seller may find such an offer lucrative. Should an inspection find a problem, the seller might have to pay money to repair it prior to sale. Without such an inspection, the home is essentially sold as-is, with 100% of the liability for any potential problems transferred to the new owners.
Most people in the real estate industry point out that it is foolish to purchase this way. There are simply too many potential expensive problems for the average person to take such a risk. While some problems might be obvious enough to be noticed by even a casual observer, others, such as termite problems, might be noticed only by a pro. Anyone who offers to buy a house in this manner is risking purchasing a home that may need repairs that the buyer cannot afford to make.
There may not even be any advantage to offering to buy a house without an inspection, as most properties in hot markets sell quickly with or without one. Anyone looking for a home should be patient, take his or her time, and use common sense. It’s better to wait for another property than to spend a fortune on what may turn out to be a disaster.
|