Real Estate Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

The danger in dropping a home inspection…

Notify me of new replies via email
Real Estate Professional | 20 Apr 2015, 02:46 PM Agree 0
Multiple bids are no excuse, with one real estate council offering a compelling reason for agents to keep inspection clauses in place.
  • | 20 Apr 2015, 04:24 PM Agree 0
    why would an agent be responsible for false information supplied by an owner?
  • Bob P | 20 Apr 2015, 05:03 PM Agree 0
    interesting that since 1993 Canada Mortgage and Housing insured mortgages DO NOT NEED A DECLARTION under the National Housing Act
  • Cathy H | 20 Apr 2015, 08:05 PM Agree 0
    I have an opposition to the word “insist” my belief as a realtor is to guide, educate, and council on best practices so that the client makes an informed decision. This is especially true when a calculated risk is involved as in foregoing a home inspection in the case of multiple offers. As a realtor it is our duty to carry out the lawful instruction of the client - not insist that they do as you would do even if you feel they are making a decision that may not be in their best interest. Form 127 can be used to document your council with the client and ensure that it is memorialized. I don’t use this form to “cover my butt” but rather to drive home the significance of the decision the client is making and that it should not be made lightly.
  • | 20 Apr 2015, 11:31 PM Agree 0

    Food for thought.
  • jeff | 21 Apr 2015, 09:40 PM Agree 0
    interesting article from the Carson Dunlop people, very well done.

    uffi was another one of those chicken little stories about the sky falling and we are still ducking.

    interesting that the same health problems associated with uffi are also with mold.... watery irritated eyes, runny nose, couphing, fatique etc.
  • Irene Szabo | 23 Apr 2015, 11:14 AM Agree 0
    If I am going to be in multiple offer and the home is older than 10 years I recommend a home inspection before putting the offer in.
    Irene Szabo
    Royal Lepage Royal City Realty
    Guelph, ON
  • Lesley Moll | 24 Apr 2015, 09:00 AM Agree 0
    Yet again, the UFFI non-issue. Homeowners in Ontario have to warrant there is, and has never been, a safe, non-toxic insulation material in their home. When is Ontario going to catch up to other provinces and remove this real estate industry perpetuated stigma?
    Lesley Moll
    Broker of Record
    Karma Realty Inc.
  • ProperLook | 24 Apr 2015, 10:53 AM Agree 0
    How in the world do you expect a Home Inspector to find UFFI insulation? As any Home Inspector will tell you, they do NOT have X-Ray vision!
    It's impossible to determine if UFFI exists behind a wall, without removing the wall!

    Home Inspections are a "visual only", "non-destructive" inspection.

    Very Poor Article, full of miss-information. Should never have been posted, since it wasn't fact checked at all. Author, are you actually a Realtor who has ever talked to a home inspector?

  • Barry Lebow, broker | 26 Apr 2015, 03:22 PM Agree 0
    In 1981 I was retained to estimate the loss in value of a home with UFFI. At that time there were zero comparable sales, there were no "footprints in the snow." My name was bantered around in associations of UFFI homeowners and over the next 10 to 12 years I eventually prepared close to 1,000 UFFI reports with about 70 actually requiring me to testify in court. At the same time, the first Realtor was sued. I was asked by lawyers to see if there were violations of the then Act and that started me on my second specialty, agency. Since those days, I have worked on stigma cases across Canada as well as Agency and many cases involve both issues. I am highlighting this not for bragging rights to lay a foundation for my comments. I have now testified in excess of 500 trials across North America with more than half involving stigma or agency or both. The largest stigma case I have worked on is not yet in court and involves an entire village in Ontario. Here is my observation, forget, in Ontario REBBA 2002. The legislatures made a major error, they never allowed for a Statute of Limitations on disclosure. Take UFFI. Banned in late 1980. That is 35 years ago and even if removed, it must still be disclosed - what nonsense! In the States, about 33 states have strong disclosure laws but most are for the seller. Read the New York statures. The onus is on the Sellers. In Ontario, we, the real estate population must play real estate detective. Somewhere along the line the authorities forgot a basic fact - we are salespeople - period! In say, California, a murder must be reported to a buyer within the first 3 years. That's it. 3 years and then over. Not in Ontario. Let's do some wild math. With the assumption that our oldest homes still standing are from late 18th century (limited but there) and up to the present, add up every murder that has transpired in the history of Ontario. To that, add every home that had UFFI (maybe 60,000 in Ontario), then add oil spills, vermiculite, etc. Could 200,000 or more properties in Ontario be stigmatized? I may be conservative. If we look at a very small town, people recall local murders or contamination for decades. Stigma is in place but is it fair and how much investigation should a real estate agent do? REBBA 2002 does not set out the standard of care. The regulation is ambiguous. We need a Statute of Limitations in Ontario due to the sheer numbers of stigmatized houses but worse, people do not disclose because they are out and out liars or they truly do not know. Why should an agent, who has a target on their back labelled errors and omissions insurance be the fall person for a lawsuit? Bottom line, we require 1) clear instructions for the actions of investigation by an agent, 2) a Statute of Limitations on an incident and 3) the most important, laws in Ontario that clearly put the onus for disclosure with the threat of fraud and jail for lying sellers. We, the real estate community should be pushing for this reform and yes, I have tried to push OREA into action twice and have given up. In the end, I am frustrated because the laws to govern this have been clearly set out in American states and we only have to copy and change the words to be our own. Any MPPs up for a private member's bill?
  • Geoff | 27 Apr 2015, 08:12 AM Agree 0
    Thanks Cathy for your post. I did not even know about a form 127 so much appreciated.
  • Gord Haines | 27 Apr 2015, 02:24 PM Agree 0
    RECO needs to speak with some experts with regard to UFFI foam. I have, and was told that since UFFI foam hasn't been used in over 40 years .... any gas it might be likely to give off has long since occurred. While UFFI foam still has a stigma attached to it ... perpetuated largely by we Realtors I expect, the likelihood of it giving off any formaldehyde gas at this point in time is beyond unlikely. Clause 23 should be removed from form 100 .... mold and radon gas are far more of a concern these days than worn out UFFI foam.
  • Ken V | 27 Apr 2015, 03:45 PM Agree 0
    RECO still lives in the stone age on this one. Bob Aaron wrote an article in the Star on this in 2007 noting a Carson Dunlop report. Here's a snippet: "We believe that those who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes should enjoy their houses, and sleep well at night....UFFI is simply not the problem it was once feared to be." I don't believe it's realtors who are perpetuating this myth, but our overseer.
Post a reply