Forum Archive Index - May 2003

[Robin Benson <rob@hammerheadmedia.co.uk>]

Without wanting to sound disrespectful, did you ask these jokers to 
take responsibility for their work?

Realistically (I'm not defending obvious lack of care or people who 
don't do their jobs to a good standard), there is only so much somebody 
can do in half an hour. A serious inspection of a property might take 
three or more hours and go the whole nine yards.

If somebody offers you travel insurance for $5.20 per annum, what do 
you expect?

Now the real problem, I suspect, lies in the lack of a proper framework 
for such inspections, and the hap-hazard reliance on inspections from 
the current shambles by banks, mortgage-lenders, etc. If the 
mortgage-lenders demanded proper inspections, with guarantees, both the 
quality of inspections, and probably the cost, would increase.

Robin

On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 19:53 Europe/London, 
qwms-avib@dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> My first inspector didn't go under the house because he
> was "wearing a new suit and didn't want to get it dirty".
> The second inspector didn't go under the house because
> he "couldn't find the access hole" (an unobstructed wooden
> door on the external wall of the house!).  Hopeless.
>
> Both houses had significant problems in the sub-floor.
> If the inspectors had done a proper job, I would have
> bought neither house.  A complete waste of money.
>
> I have to laugh when I hear experts say you should get
> an inspection before buying a house. 
>  


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/