Hi folks,

My wife and I just put an offer in our first home (which was built in the
40's) and the offer was accepted.

During the home inspection it was revealed that there was a full termite
treatment done in the past (many holes drilled in foundation wall in
basement that were sealed). The treatment must have been done sometime
after 1993 because there was treatment in the addition which was built in
1993.

The scarier part was that there was one mud tunnel found as well.

So...should we run away screaming? Should we pay for $150-$200 for a pest
inspector and get his opinion? If we took the home are we running a decent
chance of have a lot of trouble in the future?

This is in Massachusetts where termites aren't as common as they are in the
south or west. But, we absolutely love the home and are depressed at the
thought of losing it. We also don't want to take any stupid risks.

What should we do? Should we walk away?

Thanks a lot for the advice!

In article , "John Smith"
wrote:

The scarier part was that there was one mud tunnel found as well.

What is a "mud tunnel". I have never heard that term before.

As far as termites go, unless the damage is extensive, and you
still think the house is a good deal, I'd be inclined to get
the pest control report.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

I've also heard it referred to as a mud tube. It's a thin line of dirt
about 2 feet long that was along the foundation wall. The termites create
it and travel through it. If you see one, I guess it's a pretty sure sign
you have termites.

What I'm nervous about though is, even if the pest inspector comes back and
says there's no signs of active termites, how do I know that extensive
damage hasn't already been done? From what I understand, you can't know,
and there's a decent chance that it has been done. Is this correct? If so,
it sounds like we should walk away. I just don't know if termites are all
too common and we shouldn't let them get in the way. Maybe it's a small
chance there's major damage...we just don't know.

So, I guess I should change the question to: If we got a pest inspector who
says there's no signs of active termites, and no visible signs of structural
damage....would people still walk away from a house they want? On the
grounds that when they were active, they could have been in the walls and
could have done some major damage.




"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message
...
In article , "John Smith"
wrote:

The scarier part was that there was one mud tunnel found as well.

What is a "mud tunnel". I have never heard that term before.

As far as termites go, unless the damage is extensive, and you
still think the house is a good deal, I'd be inclined to get
the pest control report.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

I would get a further inspection done and if

a) The seller will pay to bring the termite treatment up to date -
which they haven't kept up with or else there wouldn't be any tubes,
and

b) No significant damage is found upon a more rigorous inspection

then I would buy it. One tube plus no real damage is not a major deal.
The key is getting a real hardnose inspector who knows what they're
doing. One key is looking for sources of dampness, from gutters or
perhaps an internal plumbing leak, termites love damp, tight,
closed-off spaces.

Get the termite inspection report. I don't think that the termite guy will
be in a position to evaluate past and present damage from termites. I would
think your regular inspector would be in a better position for that.

So - You need really two inspections...

One - termites active or not. If active, how much for eradication?

Two - Termite damage inspection. I would call some home inspectors and ask
them if they can do this type of inspection in a non-destructive way. Did
the inspector make any comments about prior damage, fixed or not?

Definitely do not run screaming of you like the house. Most things are
fixable. Just know what you are getting into. I had to replace two floor
joists in my fathers house due to termite damage. What a mess.

For a quick check yourself - Check all the wood near where you saw the mud
tunnel. Use an ice pick and poke and prod all the wood. Everything should be
solid. If the pick goes in then there is damage. If the house has vinyl
siding and the mud tube goes behind, you may need to carefully remove some
of it to follow the tube. It could be all the way to the second floor in the
tube, behind the siding. Seen it.

Good luck, let us know how you make out.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Hi folks,

My wife and I just put an offer in our first home (which was built in the
40's) and the offer was accepted.

During the home inspection it was revealed that there was a full termite
treatment done in the past (many holes drilled in foundation wall in
basement that were sealed). The treatment must have been done sometime
after 1993 because there was treatment in the addition which was built in
1993.

The scarier part was that there was one mud tunnel found as well.

So...should we run away screaming? Should we pay for $150-$200 for a pest
inspector and get his opinion? If we took the home are we running a
decent
chance of have a lot of trouble in the future?

This is in Massachusetts where termites aren't as common as they are in
the
south or west. But, we absolutely love the home and are depressed at the
thought of losing it. We also don't want to take any stupid risks.

What should we do? Should we walk away?

Thanks a lot for the advice!

IMHO pest inspections are usually a total waste of money and here is
why I think that. Have any of you ever paid the $200 or more for this
inspection and had the report say " absolutely no signs of pests"? If
you have you are one in a million. usually the reports say there was
evidence of past infestation and they recommend their $3,000 plus
treatment. Spend that money and hire a licensed structural engineer for
a whole house inspection. Most of these engineers will tell you ANY and
ALL problems there are with the home including termites. Not only that
most are bonded and if they miss something in their inspection that is
a problem later on you have recourse. It is also a good idea to have a
competent real estate attorney you are paying to inspect all your
documents. That is usually money better spent than so called pest
inspectors.

On 27 May 2005 15:42:50 -0700, in misc.consumers.house "TwoGuns"
wrote:

Have any of you ever paid the $200 or more for this
inspection and had the report say " absolutely no signs of pests"?


Yes. It might vary with geographical location. I've never seen termites in
houses here.

In article . com,
TwoGuns wrote:

IMHO pest inspections are usually a total waste of money and here is
why I think that. Have any of you ever paid the $200 or more for this
inspection and had the report say " absolutely no signs of pests"?


Yes. The reason so many inspections find pests is that most houses have
them. Mine didn't because the previous owner had a maintenance program
with a pest control company. I discontinued that, so I probably have
pests now as well.


Dimitri

In article ,
wrote:
On 27 May 2005 15:42:50 -0700, in misc.consumers.house "TwoGuns"
wrote:

Have any of you ever paid the $200 or more for this
inspection and had the report say " absolutely no signs of pests"?


Yes. It might vary with geographical location. I've never seen termites in
houses here.



Where are you? I'm guessing it is somewhere cold.


Dimitri

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:58:40 +0000 (UTC), in misc.consumers.house
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On 27 May 2005 15:42:50 -0700, in misc.consumers.house "TwoGuns"
wrote:

Have any of you ever paid the $200 or more for this
inspection and had the report say " absolutely no signs of pests"?


Yes. It might vary with geographical location. I've never seen termites in
houses here.



Where are you? I'm guessing it is somewhere cold.


Dimitri


Seattle area.

In article . com,
"TwoGuns" wrote:

IMHO pest inspections are usually a total waste of money and here is
why I think that. Have any of you ever paid the $200 or more for this
inspection and had the report say " absolutely no signs of pests"? If
you have you are one in a million. usually the reports say there was
evidence of past infestation and they recommend their $3,000 plus
treatment.

Guess I'm one in a million. I had a competent, professional termite
inspector (which BTW I think is required in my area), and he just found
some pavement ants by the garage door and said they were no big deal,
but that if we wanted to do something, they could help. No pressure, no
quote, no big deal.

Kendall

--
Kendall P. Bullen http://www.his.com/~kendall/
kendall@---^^^^^^^

Never e-mail me copies of Usenet postings, please.
I do read the groups to which I post!

In article ,
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

Yes. The reason so many inspections find pests is that most houses have
them. Mine didn't because the previous owner had a maintenance program
with a pest control company. I discontinued that, so I probably have
pests now as well.

Ours also had treated and I think some kind of maintenance...my other
half & I haven't talked about continuing it (or not). Not sure if theyy
treated for something or just as a precautionary measure...the folks we
bought from weren't the most competent homeowners, so it's hard to say.
;-)

Kendall

--
Kendall P. Bullen http://www.his.com/~kendall/
kendall@---^^^^^^^

Never e-mail me copies of Usenet postings, please.
I do read the groups to which I post!

Kendall P. Bullen wrote:
In article ,
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

Yes. The reason so many inspections find pests is that most houses have
them. Mine didn't because the previous owner had a maintenance program
with a pest control company. I discontinued that, so I probably have
pests now as well.

Ours also had treated and I think some kind of maintenance...my other
half & I haven't talked about continuing it (or not). Not sure if theyy
treated for something or just as a precautionary measure...the folks we
bought from weren't the most competent homeowners, so it's hard to say.
;-)


Our house had an infestation in the past that did cause damage
(previous homeowner did not take very good care of the property). When
the house was renovated (extensively!), the renovator fixed the damage
(don't ask me what he did exactly, but the inspector said it was done
well & right). Then the renovator signed up with a maintenance contract
before putting the property on the market.

My attorney advised me not to let the termite contract lapse. He said
the way it works is that having a contract is sorta like insurance: if
there's ever any damage in the future, as long as there's a contract
for it, the termite company is responsible for it. Of course, the
homeowner must also read the contract carefully and uphold his part of
the bargain. It is important, for example, that you do not bury or
remove any of the termite traps. We had the contract company come in
and verify that all of them were there and in their proper place, and
we have them come back at renewal time to check again. They won't tell
you if they aren't all there - they'll just keep checking the "no signs
of activity" box for the remaining traps - so you really can't be lax
about this part.

I was not keen on buying a property with any expensive potential
"gotchas" down the road. For me, my attorney advised me to walk away
from any property that had signs of damage or infestation but NO
current contract. If there was a contract, then you call back the
termite company during inspection time, and negotiate with them about
any additional damage since it's been under contract. Before you renew,
you want to make sure you're not responsible for a prior homeowner's
breach of contract.

jen

On Fri, 27 May 2005 22:57:59 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:

Yes. The reason so many inspections find pests is that most houses have
them.

Dimitri

Dim,

Where I live (Northeast), termites are relatively rare. Most pest
reports come back with no current infestations. A formality so that a
conforming loan can be sold on the secondary market. I once had a
house with some carpenter ants (which we had eradicated). I also had
one pre-colonial house (the 2nd house away from it was dismantled
removed and reconstructed at a museum) with past (like probably 100
years past) evidence of powder post beetles. But never termites in
any of mine.

Termites are found from time to time. Because it is so rare, it has a
more serious effect on marketability than in an area like yours where
as you say most houses have them or have had them. Around these
parts, usually there are plenty of other houses to buy that DON'T have
termites and never did.

If the house is going to be "a deal" because of this, the Buyer need
not run away screaming. However, when they say they "love" the house,
they should consider just what it is they love about it. Unique
waterfront location? Well yeah gotta buy that site. But many other
factors that people "love" turn out to be just decor that can be
re-created, or common features that could be found in other houses
too.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.