No inspection To bad

Kitec plumbing in condos should be revealed: BobAaron
Buyers andowners have the right to know up front what’s in their pipes.

Bob Aaron]( law
Sat., Jan. 14,2017
[FONT=Georgia]Should condominiumcorporations disclose the existence of Kitec plumbing to potential buyers ontheir status certificates? [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]That was the question Natalie asked me after she had bought and sold acondominium townhouse on Kenneth Ave. last year. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Kitec plumbing is a type of flexiblealuminum and polyethylene piping, often orange or blue in colour]([/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]It was widely used in condominiumsbetween 1995 and 2007. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]It was marketed as a corrosion-resistantalternative to copper pipes and fittings, but was recalled around 2005 due to atendency to corrode at an accelerated rate. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]It is no longer manufactured.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]The status certificate on Natalie’spurchase made no mention of the fact that the units contain Kitec plumbing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Unfortunately, at the urging of heragent, the transaction was not conditional on a home inspection which wouldhave revealed the problem. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Although the board and property managerwere no doubt aware that Kitec was used in the building, Natalie was not toldabout it. [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia]When she resold the unit last month, the buyers learned of the potentiallydefective plumbing and Natalie had to drop the sale price by $30,000. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Natalie blames the board, the former andcurrent property managers, and both real-estate agents on her purchase forfailing to disclose the existence of Kitec. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]The Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO)is the industry regulator and, in the summer of 2015, it reminded real-estateagents of their obligation to discover and disclose material facts in theirtransactions. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]The existence of Kitec, RECO’s website advised, was one of the issues “thatare often considered to be material fact.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]As well, the Ontario Real Estate Association, whichpublishes standard form sale agreements, has yet to amend them to include awarranty that there is [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]no Kitec in the properties.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Many agents insert into offers theirown clauses representing that the homes or condos have not been used to growmarijuana or produce methamphetamines. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]But I have rarely, if ever, seen a Kitec warranty. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Patrick Greco, a condominium lawyer atMiller Thomson, notes in a condo blog that where there are signs plumbingfailure is imminent and that repairs will be[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]billed to unit owners, the existenceof Kitec and replacement efforts should be reflected in paragraph 12 of thecondo status certificate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]The situation is more difficult, Greconotes, where the condominium board knows of the existence of Kitec but there isno imminent risk of failure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]In cases like this, the board has tobalance the risk of causing undue alarm against the need to protect thebuilding from litigation for failing to disclose the Kitec. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Greco’s opinion, and I agree with it, isthat in most instances a building that contains Kitec plumbing ought todisclose this fact in status certificates. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]“A corporation cannot favour resale pricesover complying with the Condominium Act in failing to disclose circumstanceswhich may result in an increase in common expenses,” [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]he notes. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]“There are no easy answers,” he concludes. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Natalie is contemplating suing the vendors,both real-estate agents on her purchase, and the condo corporation for failureto disclose the Kitec to her. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]Litigation should not have been necessary in this case. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]My recommendation to agents and condocorporations is disclose, disclose, disclose. [/FONT]
Bob Aaron* is a Toronto real-estate lawyer. He can bereached at , on his and on Twitter @bobaaron2.*

Important points in this Roy.

Point # 1 “[FONT=Georgia]Unfortunately, at the urging of her agent, the transaction was not conditional on a home inspection which would have revealed the problem.”

It’s worth looking at the Code of Ethics for Realtors

[/FONT]Services from others 8.(1)]( A registrant shall advise a client or customer to obtain services from another person if the registrantis not able to provide the services with reasonable knowledge, skill, judgment and competence or is not authorized by law to provide the services. O. Reg. 580/05, s. 8 (1).
(2)]( A registrant **shall not discourage **a client or customer from seeking a particular kind of service if the registrantis not able to provide the service with reasonable knowledge, skill, judgment and competence or is not authorized by law to provide the service. O. Reg. 580/05, s. 8 (2).

[FONT=Georgia] Point # 2 “In the summer of 2015, it (RECO) reminded real-estate agents of their obligation to discover and disclose material facts in their transactions.”

OREA, the trade association that serves and defends Realtors (not consumers), has a set of standard forms used by the majority of Realtors in Ontario.

The main form (form 100) which is the agreement of Purchase and Sale has a set clause:

[size=2]“13. INSPECTION: Buyer acknowledges having had the opportunity to inspect the property and understands that upon acceptance of this Offer there shall be a binding agreement of purchase and sale between Buyer and Seller.
The Buyer acknowledges having the opportunity to include a requirement for a property inspection report in this Agreement and agrees that except as may be specifically provided for in this Agreement, the Buyer will not be obtaining a property inspection or property inspection report regarding the property.”

One would have thought that while the government is out to extend regulations to protect consumers, they would look at the DAA already set-up to do the same thing and have the Trade Association accentuate the need for a Home Inspection rather than have a standard clause in the agreement that allows omission.

This should be an additional clause that needs to be added to a standard contract, not one that is in there already. It presumes the client will be waiving the Inspection, but then of course that’s what is suggested when someone says to you “If you have a home inspection, you’ll likely lose the bidding process!”

Luckily, the Professional Realtors my clients work with end up having to cross this clause out.