I recently won a bid for a HUD home. HUD appraisel was 150K. The
cheapest proeprty I actually found on the market in the same
neighborhood was 184K. I won the bid for 137K so I have room to spare.
(House needs paint, carpet, appliances, light fixtures)

Additionally, the house was built in the year 2000 so it is 5 years
old and the builder that built it claims to offer a 10 year,
transferrable warranty. Finally, understanding that HUD isn't going to
fix any problems I may find and I am reasonably confident I can perform
most common home repairs myself, why should I pay/hire a home
inspector?

Thanks.
Anthony

In article .com, wrote:
I recently won a bid for a HUD home. HUD appraisel was 150K. The
cheapest proeprty I actually found on the market in the same
neighborhood was 184K. I won the bid for 137K so I have room to spare.
(House needs paint, carpet, appliances, light fixtures)

Additionally, the house was built in the year 2000 so it is 5 years
old and the builder that built it claims to offer a 10 year,
transferrable warranty. Finally, understanding that HUD isn't going to
fix any problems I may find and I am reasonably confident I can perform
most common home repairs myself, why should I pay/hire a home
inspector?

In case there's some serious defect that you haven't spotted. If there is,
you'd want to find out about it before closing, and either re-negotiate the
price, or back out.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Unless, like John, you know exactly what you are doing, just get the
inspection. I "understand houses pretty well", but it really helps to
have an extra eye looking at things anyway. Looking back on our
inspection, I realize now that I was distracted by things (like how
nice the view is from the back window) instead of being all business
(like noticing the broken mechanism of said window).

Besides, you are spending over one hundred thousand dollars! Just spend
the $100 or so and do things right.

I read the replies but I am still not compelled. HUD performed a
termite inspection 2 months ago and I have a copy of the report.
SERIOUS problems would be covered under the 10 year builders warranty.
The average inspection fee in the area is $200~$300 which is money I
could use to actually fix problems. Because there are no appliances or
light fixtures, there is a limited amount of testing that can be
performed. Finally, I still must incur the cost/hassle of having
utilities activated, getting the test performed, and then having them
disconnected within 48 hours. Basically, HUD's rule as explained to me
is that utilities can be turned on to perform the inspection but I
incur any financial burden of doing so. Finally, someone pointed out
the fine print about disclaimers. Any home inspector has a clause that
limits his liability to the amount paid for the home inspection and no
more. Bottom line: I still don't see the benefit to me except an extra
pair of eyes to see what I didn't see... and I am a VERY critical
detail oriented person.

I guess I am not a "VERY critical detail oriented person". In that
case, just be sure to make a big list on paper, as a checklist, of
things to look at or for. These can be had online, I am sure...

In article , Mark wrote:
On 2 Mar 2005 21:28:38 -0800, wrote:

I recently won a bid for a HUD home. HUD appraisel was 150K. The
cheapest proeprty I actually found on the market in the same
neighborhood was 184K. I won the bid for 137K so I have room to spare.
(House needs paint, carpet, appliances, light fixtures)

Additionally, the house was built in the year 2000 so it is 5 years
old and the builder that built it claims to offer a 10 year,
transferrable warranty. Finally, understanding that HUD isn't going to
fix any problems I may find and I am reasonably confident I can perform
most common home repairs myself, why should I pay/hire a home
inspector?

Never waste your money on an inspector. Many states don't require licensing,
which means you can just put an ad in the paper to be a home inspector.

Just bear in mind that free advice is often worth exactly what you paid for
it.

You'd be far better off finding a friend of a friend of a friend who knows
something and have them take a look. Hell, look in the yellowpages for a
building contractor and see if they'll do it for you.

Uh-huh. Right.

Just never ever waste your money an actual "Home Inspector". Over the last 15
years or so I think everyone I know who has wasted their time has a horror
story of something that got missed.

And how many people who didn't have their homes inspected *also* have horror
stories?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Yes, get an inspection. Dont rely on HUD, the warranty, or any of that
to make a bit of difference. Also get a GOOD inspector who truly works
for you, not one that just helps real estate agents see to it that
sales go thru. That's easier said than done. As one person pointed
out, in some states inspectors aren't even licensed. The same is true
for builders. Those 10 yr warranties are mostly an illusion. And,
sometimes the reason people foreclose on a new house, (I assume that's
why HUD is selling it), is due to construction defect complaints they
couldn't get any results on, predatory lending that got them into a
house they couldn't afford, etc. Be careful you don't just pick up
where they left off, with a junky house or paying too much for it, etc.
The type of inspector you want, as a buyer, is known as a "deal
killer."


wrote:
I recently won a bid for a HUD home. HUD appraisel was 150K. The
cheapest proeprty I actually found on the market in the same
neighborhood was 184K. I won the bid for 137K so I have room to
spare.
(House needs paint, carpet, appliances, light fixtures)

Additionally, the house was built in the year 2000 so it is 5 years
old and the builder that built it claims to offer a 10 year,
transferrable warranty. Finally, understanding that HUD isn't going
to
fix any problems I may find and I am reasonably confident I can
perform
most common home repairs myself, why should I pay/hire a home
inspector?

Thanks.
Anthony

On 3 Mar 2005 11:58:28 -0800, someone wrote:

I guess I am not a "VERY critical detail oriented person". In that
case, just be sure to make a big list on paper, as a checklist, of
things to look at or for. These can be had online, I am sure...

If you know what you are doing, and besides are getting a "deal" on a
fixer, why bother. Whaddya gonna do, back out and lose your deposit
because of some little thing? Not like you're gonna be able to
renegotiate a "bid" on a HUD foreclosure.

Inspections are for: 1) people who really don't know anything so they
NEED an opinion from SOMEONE; 2) people who know a little but lack
confidence and need external validation of their decisions (so they
feel better).

Personally, I have never paid for an inspection. When I bought my
very first place at around age 22, I did have a colleague whom I'd
gone to architecture school with, come with me, he was a few years
older and had more field experience at the time. The building was a
total fixer with many many obvious and serious defects. (He concurred
that there was nothing insurmountable, I bought it, and later I made a
ton of money on it) I have never had an inspection since.

When I sell, I make clear that they can inspect all they want, but it
is take it or leave it, NO price renegotiation. I never claim that
the house is "perfect", only that it is "as-is", so there should be no
expectation of purchasing a perfect house for that price and no
further reduction is warranted for merely discovering that it is
indeed as-is. My experience is that inspectors typically try to find
enough to justify their fee.

I am not at all impressed with the abilities of the typical person
doing this type of work, but if the buyer is truly clueless, maybe the
inspector will at least have half a clue, so they do have a use.




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

IMO the inspection is worth the money and if the $300 is a problem I
don't understand why someone would be buying a house. Not to blow hot
air but I've had to fix almost every part of a house you can fix over
the years and I would still pop for the inspection. I don't know all
the building codes and haven't run into everything like a good
inspector has. In my recent house hunt the inspection found a flue
angled incorrectly, a flue too close to combustible materials, and an
electrical service line that was not at least 10' above the patio. I
never would have found those cause I didn't know they were problems.
That's 2-3 grand worth of repairs that I can go back to the seller on.
Or put another way that's 2-3 grand I'd have to pay 10 or 20 years from
now when I go to sell. My point is that I 'think' I know a lot about
houses but pride has a price, I woulda missed those things so I think
the 3 bills was a good investment.

There are a few twists to this story. On some sales, maybe yours since
it's HUD, they won't respond to the inspection anyway so having the
thing inspected does not offer you a vehicle to back at the seller like
it does in a private transaction.

In a hot market, you may not have time to inspect the house properly
before making a bid; the inspection clause and later followup enables
you to make a bid with at least some comfort that you can adjust the
deal if something is found to be wrong. In that equation, when you're
fighting with the seller, an inspection by a third party carries a lot
more weight than one you do yourself.

In a slow market if you narrow down to one house that you really think
is a winner, it can help to have the house inspected before making a
bid. This will scare the seller a bit, which helps in bargaining. If
you pop for the inspection and it finds a bunch of stuff you can then
work that into your bid, which is easier than making a bid first, then
trying to get the seller to correct a bunch of things. Again the key
in that process is that the inspection is by a 3rd party.

(I do not work for an inspection company ... )

wrote:
I read the replies but I am still not compelled. HUD performed a
termite inspection 2 months ago and I have a copy of the report.
SERIOUS problems would be covered under the 10 year builders
warranty.
The average inspection fee in the area is $200~$300 which is money I
could use to actually fix problems. Because there are no appliances
or
light fixtures, there is a limited amount of testing that can be
performed. Finally, I still must incur the cost/hassle of having
utilities activated, getting the test performed, and then having them
disconnected within 48 hours. Basically, HUD's rule as explained to
me
is that utilities can be turned on to perform the inspection but I
incur any financial burden of doing so. Finally, someone pointed out
the fine print about disclaimers. Any home inspector has a clause
that
limits his liability to the amount paid for the home inspection and
no
more. Bottom line: I still don't see the benefit to me except an
extra
pair of eyes to see what I didn't see... and I am a VERY critical
detail oriented person.

Your offer probably includes standard phrasing that enables you to get
your deposit back if the inspection turns up "major structural damage."

Would the builders' warranty cover any major structural damage? What if
that damage was caused by the previous owner and not by the way it was
constructed? Could the builder wiggle out on his liability in that
case?

For example, when you buy a car it comes with a warranty. But if you
don't take care of the car, and religiously abide by the manufacturers'
routine maintenance schedule, the manufacturer can certainly make a
claim that he is not liable should something go wrong with that car.
It's not that the car was poorly constructed - but rather, it was
poorly maintained. Right?

So that would be my concern, since this is a HUD house I'm guessing it
has been neglected by the previous owners, and that neglect could void
any builders' warranty. For example, if the house was long empty, pipes
could've frozen and you may not realize the full extent of the damage
until you turn the water and the appliances back on. That wouldn't be
the builders' fault, would it?

Or, as another example, our builder graded our property, installed a
sump pump and french drain and gave us a warranty that the basement
would never flood. But if I ever turned off that sump pump, or mucked
with the grading, and the basement flooded, you can bet that warranty
would mean absolutely nothing.

Or another property I looked at, which had major structural damage to
the garage - not all that obvious to the untrained eye - the cause: a
tree root was growing into the foundation. No builder warranty would've
covered that - it was the responsibility of the owner to cut down the
tree before it became a problem.

Or my experience with termite contracts: after being in this house over
a year, and regularly getting termite reports that said "all visible
termite stations okay," we then discovered that almost half of those
stations were missing. We didn't know (the previous owner had covered
them up while landscaping). According to the warranty, our termite
company is only responsible for checking those that are visible. If a
property owner covers them up or removes them, well, it is probable
should termites ever damage the property, the contract company might be
able to get out of its liability. I would definetly recommend meeting
with the termite company in person yourself; walk around the property
with them, and have them point out where the stations are, count them
all to make sure they are there, etc.

Of course you are going into this with eyes wide open, you see the
obvious things you'll need to fix, but if it were me, I'd still pay the
$200-300 just to ensure there are no huge Gotchas that you'd be on the
stick for. It's a huge investment. Don't be penny wise and pound
foolish.

jen

v wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 11:58:28 -0800, someone wrote:

I guess I am not a "VERY critical detail oriented person". In that
case, just be sure to make a big list on paper, as a checklist, of
things to look at or for. These can be had online, I am sure...

If you know what you are doing, and besides are getting a "deal" on a
fixer, why bother. Whaddya gonna do, back out and lose your deposit
because of some little thing? Not like you're gonna be able to
renegotiate a "bid" on a HUD foreclosure.

Inspections are for: 1) people who really don't know anything so they
NEED an opinion from SOMEONE; 2) people who know a little but lack
confidence and need external validation of their decisions (so they
feel better).

But v, what about people like the original poster who figure they can
stick the builder for any issue that comes up later? It sounds to me
like the poster is erroneously figuring that the warranty is going to
cover it all, so why bother with the inspection. I don't agree and I
think he's foolish to assume so, especially since this property is
likely to have been seriously negected. Neglect is not the builder's
fault.

jen

Just get an inspection. A good inspector will not only tell about
existing problems, but will tell when you need to address future
problems (like the roof is ten years old, look to replacing it 5-8
years). They are not that expensive. You are talking about spending
$137K for a property, and you are going to chintz on a $200 inspection
that could give some really valuable information. Don't be penny wise
and pound foolish.