Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I've been encountering a lot of discrepancies between listing dates and actual dates of construction lately, and as I base my fees on the combination of year built and square footage, I feel I've been getting short changed.

For example I've just inspected 2-homes that were listed as built in the mid-1980's, and yet were clearly built in the mid-1880's.

Just because a home has received renovations, it does not seem that a realtor should be able to use the renovation dates versus the actual build date.

Does anyone know - are there any rules or standards on this?

I'm heading out to inspect another one of these shortly....MLS listing photos definitely reflect an older than "1987" build date.

Has something perhaps just changed on the rules on this? I've been inspecting for about 10 years now, and have never encountered this before....and now to get 3 in a row just seems strange.

Any thoughts?

Posted

I don't know why you'd factor age into it. I base my inspection fees entirely on square footage. That way I don't have to try and keep track of age of the house. It takes me the same amount of time to inspect a 100 year old 2000 square foot house as it does to inspect a brand new 2000 square foot house. Sure, on the old house I have to deal with stuff that's worn out and obsolete but on the new one I have to deal with the fussy wife who's worrying about every little nick and scratch. In the end they balance out.

Just charge a fair (for you) price based on square footage regardless of age or whether it's built on a slab versus crawl vs. basement etc., and you won't have to fuss with that anymore.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Posted

Around here I can pull up any property in the county records to see the year built, sq footage etc. They will sometime have it listed as"

"Actual Year Built: 1929"

"Effective Year Built: 1984"

The MLS will probably have 1984. The effective year is when major renovations occured. However, I have still found active knob-n-tube wiring and other old house problems in houses with an effective year built of say 1984.

I do not usually look houses up on the county web site, but I do on occasion when it is obvious the house is older then what is being advertised. I put both dates in the report. It is also useful when somone does not know the age or size of a house.

Posted

It takes me the same amount of time to inspect a 100 year old 2000 square foot house as it does to inspect a brand new 2000 square foot house.

I don't find that that to be true at all. The older houses around here take longer, require a higher skill set to inspect and result in a higher potential liability for the inspector. Why would I NOT charge more for them? I typically add $100 to $150 for an older property.

Posted

I never take anything that the realtor tells me at face value other than the address... and sometimes that is wrong.

I always look everything up myself on zillow or whatever other site I available.

Even this is not always reliable but it gets much closer to reality than the hype in marketing brochures.

Posted

Thanks everyone.

All I can charge for is my time, and the older the home, the more time I spend. Most older homes.....anything more than 20 years old around require a lot more time for me to complete a thorough report.

I've heard of some inspectors that give discounts for new homes. Sometimes I feel I should, but I get over this fast, when I think about the many homes I have inspected, where due to deception, or home owner "improvements", I could have made a better hourly rate making milk shakes at a fast food restaurant by the time I finished writing everything up.

Lots of hours, low pay, and high liability....maybe I should just buy the big E&O policy and have my secretary pump out some 12 page reports like my competition does.....oops did I say that out loud....

Posted

Thanks everyone.

All I can charge for is my time, and the older the home, the more time I spend. Most older homes.....anything more than 20 years old around require a lot more time for me to complete a thorough report.

I've heard of some inspectors that give discounts for new homes. Sometimes I feel I should, but I get over this fast, when I think about the many homes I have inspected, where due to deception, or home owner "improvements", I could have made a better hourly rate making milk shakes at a fast food restaurant by the time I finished writing everything up.

Lots of hours, low pay, and high liability....maybe I should just buy the big E&O policy and have my secretary pump out some 12 page reports like my competition does.....oops did I say that out loud....

I inspect a good number of homes in the 100 to 150 range and I do agree that they take a little more time and as Garet noted a little different skill set. Depending on the location and type of home I tack on a little extra to cover my additional time. With log homes I tack on an automatic $75...

I do not break down my fee, I quote a single fee for the inspection. This tends to work better.

If you really feel that you have been slighted on your fee then you need to speak up and tell your client that their agent gave you the wrong information on the home when you priced the inspection. Tell them you are sorry but the fee will now be X....

Me, I would not worry about it all that much. I take the good with the bad and have found it all works out in the long run. I try to research all of the homes prior to doing the job, this helps to eleveate many of the surprises we get.

Posted

I too find older homes to be more work. There can be evidence of several previous remodeling and repair projects and it adds time to the job to sort it all out and finding out what's still in use and what's abandoned.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...