All of youse guys need to go back and read the old threads of when Nick first presented the program. There were a handfull of us (yeah, the usual suspects you all b*tch about) that attempted to hold Nick’s feet to the flames over these exact concerns, but all of you ‘moths being attracted to the fire light’ just blindly flew into the light. IMO, you all got what you wanted. Deal with it.
Are you saying the client that decides to use the By Back offer has to pay a 6% sales commission to sell the house to Nick/Nachi? If that’s true I can’t see anyone taking advantage of the “deal”.
Now you understand why some are questioning the validity of this program when it’s claimed the issues for the Buy-Back were a GFCI or torn window screens! Can you say…??
What % do listing agents in your area charge? You do understand that the commission is typically split 4 ways between listing broker, listing agent, buyer’s broker and buyer’s agent? Agents don’t get rich at 1.5% commission, and they do a lot of work to close a deal. And most homes sold in the U.S. are listed by real estate agents. Nothing uncommon.
In any regard, InterNACHI doesn’t charge or get any of that money.
That doesn’t put the validity of the program into question. We bought 5 homes over broken GFCIs. We honor our promises. It’s the validity of the claim and the reason the consumer wants to take advantage of the program that is in question.
So you’re saying a disgrunted buyer was willing to spend $1000’s in commision fees because of a faulty GFCI that would cost less than $100 to repair?
No. Because you wouldn’t get paid. Why would you drive out to a house, sit in your truck, just to earn zero?
Nonsensical.
No, I’m saying just the reverse. The GFCI is the defect they only “claim” the inspector missed so that they can sell their home back to InterNACHI for full price. It’s not the real reason.
We’re happy to buy the home back. It beats them making up other false claims (and they do), suing the inspector, suing the agent for negligent referral, defaming the inspector on social media, filing E&O insurance claims, charging the seller with failure-to-disclose, going to the licensing board, or whatever else some consumer might do to try to get out of the house they wish they hadn’t purchased for whatever reason.
With the Buy Back program, all those negative things turn into positive things for the agents, the consumers, and the inspectors. It’s one big Win-Win-Win.
Whats the 6% part? Is the commission not already included in the full purchase price? Am I missing something? Are you talking about the client paying the commission when NACHI buys it back?
You gotta type real slow for me to understand.
It’s no different than any other typical real estate transaction involving real estate agents.
The seller pays what is typically paid by the seller (when they sell it to us).
InterNACHI pays what is typically paid by the buyer (when we buy it back).
InterNACHI pays what is typically paid by the seller (when we re-sell it).
Gotcha! I had overlooked that detail.
It’s just a typical real estate transaction involving real estate agents. No different than that which happens millions of times a year in North America.
The only three differences (advantages to the consumers) are that InterNACHI offers full price, without demanding that anything to be replaced or repaired, and we allow the consumer to stay in the home until they find a new one. Pretty awesome deal for them. And that’s why the program is so often utilized and praised.
Touche, Read and understand the fine print, I learn from ,my mistakes and the Buy back definitely was a mitstake
The home has to sell on the market, which is 6%, basically the agents get a 6% donation (of the clients $)if the transaction happens quickly, Nick has the agent put it on the market and then says maybe you will get an offer from someone else for more or less then the original price in which case why bother selling it to him or Nachi or whomever. Oh and go ahead and put it on the market and do all the paperwork without anything but a bunch of weird emails from someone that WILL NOT call you back. It is a marketing ploy, a total scam in my opinion after living through the process. Make sure when you go out marketing this program you understand the process 100%. I have lost way too much time and now inspections because of this program. I called Nick twice just to talk to a human being about it, no call back, no remorse, the clients and agent also asked to talk with him for better understanding because the flyer is deceptive. Now all my agents, marketing and conversations had about the program have to be alerted to the scam at hand! Hope that was slow enough.
I think a special advocate should be appointed to look into this further. Nick is not supplying the proper information about why the home is being bought back. No one walks from a home over a faulty GFCI.
And then the statement that it is “so often utilized”. What does that mean. How many times has it been used and how many people have lost that 6%. If you are going to buy the home back with no strings attached, why must it be listed with an agent. Not necessary. All that does is steal from the original buyer and pad the pockets of the realtors. Kind of sounds like dirty politics to me.
We are not getting the whole truth here. Someone should be appointed to go inspect those homes to see what was really wrong and the original report should be made known. OK, you can leave off the inspectors name if you want. But we really should know what is going on out there, as we are not getting the whole truth. This will also give a true indication of the kind of training the inspector is getting from this association before he is unleashed out into the real world of inspecting.
This program has finally been exposed for what it really is. The wording is ambiguous. For someone to have to pay 6% to sell the home back to the inspector association is just preposterous.
I have underlined the true issue…go back and look at some of the homes and condos Nick has bought back…there’s a strange anomaly in price.
What I am seeing here is the Agent ends up with a 12% commission if the same person is used .
My guess is being forced to pay the fees weeds out Inspectors and Buyers from colluding to intentionally overpay / use BB / split profit .
For the record: I do not oppose the program. It’s a great way to protect the client from worthless Home Inspectors, and you know I’m all about the client.
I want to make the point of the inner consequences of casting aside established HI Standards for a Marketing Ploy. Depending on a Warranty so you don’t have to do a better job.
“I’m the best Inspector on Earth, but when I miss something I have this buyback program where you won’t loose so much of your investment (which you should not have made in the first place if I really was the best inspector on earth)”.
Why does NACHI set Standards, provide educational coursed on every conceivable subject, then go out and tell you break those standards and invest in their new and improved Insurance program?
As soon as you drop a HI Standard, you rely on the Warranty. If the court decides the Warranty is not a valid defense, you threw away any protection of the established Standard.
There is nothing to preclude the buyer suing you for negligence over taking the Buy-back. Because you promoted and advertised the “Warranty” which is outside the HI Standards, do you think you can just fall back on the HI Standard?
Case in point: Yesterdays Inspection, I had a client that was very concerned about the two old HVAC units. Inspecting them I found them to be working well and well maintained. Both Condenser fans and capacitors were replaced. Client asked three time what I thought about the HVAC units. My response was that in my experience, when a condenser fan goes, the compressor frequently is soon to follow because it was stressed too much from the fan failure. I can not predict this, but I see a lot of units in the bone yard with blown compressors with brand new fan motors on them. REA chimed in “you have a Home Warranty”. That took me to my personal experiences with Home Warranty company’s and HVAC failure. My story changed the REA’s response to; “Well you didn’t have to pay for that warranty…”
This was from a very good REA. But this is how people think…
This is the point; “How people think”.
This is the danger. Providing a “Safe Place” for them to run to when they fail to make informed decisions and have reasonable expectations.
My final comment was that every time the units come on, it is one turn-on closer to significant failure. The units have R-22 which the Government is ****ing with. It will fail eventually (can’t say when), so be ready for it (and don’t blame me). And do not repair anything expensive when it can be used towards a new unit without R-22 Refrigerant.
I assure you I will not hear from him about this again…
Control of Client Expectation trumps Warranty-Guarantee.
BTW: this all goes in the Report. No canned narratives apply,
Correct. We don’t handle any Buy Back issues by phone so that no one misinterprets or misremembers what they heard. Email is a record of the conversations. Read: www.nachi.org/email for a better explanation of why we don’t use telephones.
Bill Siegel says:
We don’t know the real reason the consumer has us buy the home back, so I can’t supply any information about that because I don’t have that information. I’m not a mind reader.