How many Seller Inspections do you perform?
I wish this would take off more around here on its own merits, as it makes sense to me. I hear guys in Denver are doing them quite regularly, but I don’t see that much action here in the Springs…
I’ve done two or three “seller” inspections, because they were savvy sellers, but most realtors I encounter just tell me “well the buyer is going to do an inspection anyways, why should the sellers?”
Its been a hard sell…
I think there are some problems with your poll:
First, it is out of order. Generally you want to make a poll incremental.
Second, there is no option for the most likely choice, that being between 10 and 100.
There’s a good article topic for you Nick. How to draft a proper MB Poll. Let’s face it, the majority of polls on the MB totally suk!
Do your own poll then
From where I sit there is a problem with the MIC Program…
I do one Seller Inspection a Year… been like that since 2003
Sellers and their Realtors do not want to know, and sure as heck do not want to pay to know.
I did three sellers inspections last year. None this year so far.
Every Realtor that I talk to says that they think it is a great idea. The problem that they see with the program are one of two issues.
- Realtors feel that a seller is not going to want to pay to have a home they are selling inspected; therefore, the Realtor will not mention it.
- Realtors will absolutly not offer to pay for a sellers inspection on behalf of the seller.
On the other side talking to potential sellers about the program I have recieved a large amount of wow that sounds great. When it comes time to sign a contract however they are not so eager.
I currently offer 2 different sellers MIC inspections.
- Standard home inspection
- Standard home inspection, MIC yard sign, free downloadable reports, 24 hour marketing.
Are you implying that sellers inspections and MIC inspection are one and the same?
I say they are different…and market them that way. They are both equally hard to sell though.
Jeff, I thought that in CA you guy’s just reported the major issues on regular inspections. Is that not what the MIC does with just some other marketing added on?
Here is the definition from the site:
MoveInCertified homes have been pre-inspected by InterNACHI certified inspectors and the sellers confirm that there are no major systems in need of immediate repair or replacement and no known safety hazards.
In NC and SC we have to report all problems with houses, period.
When the agents get tired of showing, negotiating, managing repairs etc then they will eventually wise up and make sellers get inspections during the first 30 days of a listing.
This will of course not stop any savvy buyers from getting their own inspection for two major reasons. a. Things break, conditions change. b. many seller inspections coud have been quick and incomplete or done by an inexperienced inspector.
We are not regulated so there are no state-required standards. I report all defects - big and small.
That’s the dilemma.
The concept is flawed and implies that I (the inspector) have “certified” the home, when in fact, I have simply provided an inspection.
If I have not re-inspected a property after purported repairs, I don’t want my name anywhere near their MIC “marketing.”
In addition, the reality is, the majority of defects can be translated into a “safety hazard” in some way or another. So without clearly defined parameters, this would be difficult to overcome.
The thing that is “difficult to overcome” is trying to market mere sellers inspections without the added punch or flare of “Move In Certified.”
I was a top producing REALTOR for a decade. I have hundreds of friends who are real estate brokers. All of them respond the same way to seller’s inspections: A great idea but so what? Ho hum. Wanna go get lunch?
Add Move In Certified to the mix and everything changes. The real estate agent’s eyes light up and they get it! It’s not just a practical idea… it’s a marketing tool… and they make their living marketing.
MIC also has the added benefit of drastically reducing inspector liability (but that’s just icing on the cake). The real power MIC offers is the ability to sell the whole idea. Read: http://www.moveincertified.com/agents
It all sounds good and would be good in a more perfect world but we all know that many homes sell easier when buyers act on emotion in a predesigned process that causes them to invest time and money into a house before they know the true condition.
Why don’t NACHI team up with a real estate firm to have web listings of houses that come with full disclosure of the condition? The houses would not necessarily need to have all of the repairs done but would be browsable based on what the buyer felt they were worth based on the repairs needed. This is the angle MIC should have used, not some false sense of security that a house is move in ready just because an inspector had been there. There are actually agents and buyers that think a house must be in good shape because “it has already been inspected”.
I’m seeing many houses out there now that are being offered at $40k-$50k under market price by the owners, not banks. The disclosure shows nothing but you can bet the seller knows the house is in bad shape. Buyers are coming along thinking they found a deal then realize they will have to perform the entire general contractors job and hire contractors to make all of these repairs that will still cost them $40k-$50K or $50k to
$60k+ if they hired a GC to handle it all. This gives them zero gain for all that work, stress and risk so the smart ones walk away. They are now out hundreds for appraisal and inspections. Some feel beat down and just buy the house anyway, don’t fix everything and end up with another $10k in damage due to ongoing damage the inspector warned them about. The system is designed to take advantage of buyers and whoever can put together a system as I described above to change that will make lots of money over time.
Members can already give their agents the free option of linking to their MIC reports within their MLS listings, websites and advertising via FetchReport, which is InterNACHI operated.
The informal data collected here does not support your claims Nick.
If you would like, craft your own poll and word it exactly the way you like and compare poll results.
An agent that I took to lunch told me the only way he would recommend an MIC or “seller inspection” was if I could guarantee that I could guarantee that every defect would be found…
The listing agent knows that any buyer’s agent worth salt will have their buyer get a home inspection, and that opinions vary greatly between inspectors. (read this board for proof of that) Most see no reason, regardless of any program or warranty to have the seller get an inspection and fix defects that may or may not be found during the next inspection.
My opinion and that of the agents may be jaded however, since most of the homes being sold in this area are foreclosures and short sales, and the program would be of little value with almost all homes being sold “as-is”.
Licensing is just the first step, the real thing that Realtors want is standardization with reporting limits, then buyer’s & seller’s reports should begin to align.
How about NEVER! ZERO! Its all BANK OWNED around here…banks do not want to spend $$$ on anything if they can help it…MIC is a awsome deal however when your seller is a bank and they are out to make all the $$$ they can now what…
Not exactly the same Jeff, but there are some similarities.
I worded it as “Seller” Inspections, because most of know, that pretty much No One is doing MIC Inspections.