Comments ( 13 )

• I give Tom a lot of credit. There are many home inspectors out there who are content to test the faucet, make sure the fridge is cold, and then call it a day. We need more home inspectors getting in there and giving clients the complete picture.

  That being said, it seems the problem is not real estate agents being deceitful as much as it is an issue with communication.

  A simple extra step would for Tom to email his clients (and/or their agent) the area he expects access to. In a larger building, the agent would need to formally request access from the management office days in advance and also provide a copy of the inspector’s insurance policy.

  I also question Tom’s statement about agents telling him to come back in a few days- after the inspection period is over. He seemed to imply that agents were maliciously doing this- a sentiment I disagree with. Any competent attorney can request an extension on the home inspection because they could not access the necessary areas and very rarely would their be an issue. This leaves the buyer protected.

  Tom is completely justified in charging for a second trip out if he doesn’t have access to the areas he needs and shame on any agents that expect him to work for free for something that was no fault of his own.

  I do agree that some agents take issue with an ‘aggressive’ home inspector. (Aggressive: A home inspector who does their job thoroughly. Not a bad thing) I draw the line at the blatant sabotage Tom implies when it comes to accessing the common areas.

  I hope more inspectors adapt the thoroughness Tomacor provides and communicating explicitly to the client and their agent what they need will only make the inspection process run smoothly.

• Wow. Okay, I’ll take the bait too. This scenario can surely happen where an inspector can not get into common areas…90% of the time this happens with an inexperienced or lazy agent without malice as this post and video implies is all too common.

  Considering most times the consumer/buyer hires the inspector direct (either from several Realtor referrals or on their own referrals) and the agent has no contact with the inspector and does not know who they hired, what they charge etc…prior to the inspection date, I call B.S. on this intent to hide problems.

  If I call the inspector on behalf of the client (which I prefer to do) we describe the property to be inspected so we get a correct fee structure. This includes what the inspector will actullay do for the money including what access they need. As an agent, I often ask the inspector to “get on the roof” at the inspection.

  If the buyer, in writing, asked the agent to make sure common areas could be inspected, then it will surely happen. If not, that’s a short “shelf life” for that agent just like any other bad preformer in any profession.

  We would learn more if the subject of this interview explained how he communicates with HIS clients upon getting hired and what he includes in his fees. Secondly, I agree with “the Condoist” (okay, can’t believe I had to address some real estate agent’s online persona), that Tom can let the client know, or the Realtor directly, what he’ll need access to in a specific property.

  Easy, no drama, no deceit. Puhleeeez.

  It was nice to know that some of us Realtors are called “helpful” at the end of the segment. I’m sure this is sincere sentiment. I think we would all be better off, however, hearing concise steps to a successful inspections rather than a game of “gotcha” at the client’s expense. And, what should buyers be really keying on in a building as there is no perfect homes?

  I mean it’s disingenous to think a Realtor can get paid and sustain a career with the following scenario: representing a client on a home that the Realtor knows has a terrible three layer roof and thereby “obstructs” the inspector from inspecting the roof so their client does not get spooked. Ridiculous.

• Eric,

  Perhaps it’s because I’ve been at this business for several decades longer than you, but you seem to be describing a parallel universe, i.e. one where dishonest agents don’t “sustain a career,” rather than the one I inhabit.

  I’ve had agents who’ve sustained a “successful” career acknowledge that they’ve blatantly and repeatedly lied to clients, and cynically tell me that there are no repercussions in doing so.

  I suspect that you know as well l as I do that deceit is the business model for – and the core competency of – several mid-size firms in this town (and no, commenters, I won’t name them, other than to state that they’re not my clients). Veteran agents can name other financially successful veteran agents that they would never trust on any issue.

  I would never, as a client, allow a real estate agent to specify the scope of a home inspection – not even you, Eric, who I know and trust. I would never ask a real estate agent to recommend a home inspector (video).

  An agent should, I believe, simply take it for granted that the buyer’s home inspector is entitled to full access to all common areas and systems and make arrangements to facilitate that access. In that scenario no “gotcha” would be possible.

  Corbett’s well known in the real estate industry – and has been for several decades. Quite a few real estate offices have gone way out of their way to discourage buyers from retaining his services – pre-empting him from access to any part of a property they represent or their clients might be considering.

  There’s another part of my discussion with Tom at YouTube.

• I remember an inspection Tom did on a single family frame in North Center about 12 or 15 years ago. I was the listing agent and the buyers brought in Tom. Tom came into the house, sat the buyers down at the dinning room table and said “I can guarentee you this house has lead paint in it” He than proceeded to try and sell his clients a lead paint inspection, which I remember was an extra $300.00 on top of whatever he was charging for the “normal” inpection. I remember he was quite pushy about it and his clients were not happy. Did the house pass the inpection? Of course not, but his clients bought the house anyway. I remember they commented on his “know it all” attitude and on his treatment of me, the seller’s agent. I’m surprised he’s still in the bussiness. Oh well, there’s a sucker born every minute!

• Joe,

  Yes, yes, there are plenty of people that have been in the business longer than me… most have in fact. However, longevity in the “biz”, as your response suggests of the long- time unscrupulous but successful Realtors, does not make one right, honorable or an advocate.

  However, the point I made is this is an extended tired example of a gotcha scenario making Realtors look like an idiot or obstructionist (and I wrote that I do believe this particular scenario has happened for sure) rather than explaining what Tom does to avoid this situation as an advocate for his client. The implication in the headline that Realtors obstruct inspections is irresponsible. How can you expect me to eat that copy? I know this is a fair site, but this was a schtick for marketing to buyers.

  If the client hires Tom directly, (and you state a client should never take my referral) than Tom should make sure he can get into the common areas for the money he is charging the client before heading to the inspection. From my experience around this subject, I agree with condoist and I believe this story above by Celeste.

  How about some accountability instead of blaming the Realtor?

  Yes, a good Realtor should have the common areas availble for their listing and will also be proactive in making the whole transaction smooth.. But, if the inspector is a long time experienced advocate for THEIR client he/she can make a simple phone call to the listing agent and advise them to have certain common areas accessible for that particular property.
  It’s a two way street.

  Look, I can sit there and talk about inspectors who don’t even check if all windows lock, don’t go on the roof etc… I’d rather advise people what they want there inspector checking and they should be up front with expectations when hiring an inspector. They should know what they are paying for.

  If a first time buyer hires their own inspector from who knows where, the buyer many times has no idea what to expect…at all. The inspector can be lazy or just miss a bunch of stuff. They may not go into common areas or check all windows and outlets, attic spaces, etc… I’ve seen it, so I guess all inspectors are lazy unless a good Realtor advocates for their client and saves the day. Ha.

  If I refer several inspectors, and they miss a bunch of stuff and upset my client, how does that help me? We need good inspectors who can clearly explain issue and solutions to buyers without charging crazy prices, scaring them or creating confusion.

• Eric,

  The home inspector should call the seller’s Realtor to arrange access to the common areas? Nope. In the videos you’ll see Tom say several times that he’s asked his client to arrange access through the client’s Realtor.

  The buyer’s agent should be the one arranging access, or the seller’s agent should call the buyer’s agent to verify in advance the scope of the inspection if the buyer’s agent hasn’t specified the scope.

  You concede, above, that a good agent will have arranged access to the common areas. No Realtor should ever feel like they’re in a “gotcha” situation when a request is made to inspect part of what a buyer is buying. How can that request ever be deemed unreasonable, or come as a surprise?

  The headline, rather than being irresponsible, is an accurate statement of the main message of the video. It’s a message I’ve heard from inspectors other than Corbett.

• Agreed the agent can take accountability. I like to think my partner and I do many things proactively to prevent hiccups where avoidable and we feel our clients would agree (this goes for loans, attorneys, inspections, contractors etc…). Disagree the inspector (who is an advocate to their client) gets a pass and gets to blame Realtors if the inspector knows this is a common problem.

  Example, we grill clients on condition of the home, the condition of the condo association, any known issues, etc… when we take the home sale listing. We advise these have to be handled upfront, not later during inspection and attorney review periods.

  The copy could easily read “How to prepare for a successful home inspection”, or “Avoid obstructions/issues prior to your home inspection”, or “Make sure common areas are accessible prior to home inspection” or “Common problems with home inspections” but that’s not as sexy as “Realtors interfere”.

  You know me, and I’m not all that sensitive. But I think the antagonistic tone here is a gimmick that works to get buyer clients. Fine, I get that.

• Great video, and Tom is a great home inspector. I love the fact that he insists on having access to common areas in condo buildings. Having a home inspector go through these parts of the condo building, having the attorney and buyer and realtor review the condo board minutes (to see what is being discussed as future projects and repairs), and a 22.1 disclosure form filled out by the property manager should be standard operating procedure for all condo buyers during the attorney review and inspection period of a contract. Tom, there are still a few dilligent Brokers out there!

• I regret not having an inspection prior to purchasing a new condo. You would not expect any problems, nor would you expect outright deceit by the builder, resulting in a 38-page complaint alleging municpal and building code violations, fraudulent acquisition of permits, no occupancy permits or final inspections. I would hope that a starting point for Mr. Corbett is confirming that all permits are in place, final inspections conducted, and that the building construction matches the plans:

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/33451644/Bryton-Development-4525-N-Western-Chicago-3021-3023-N-Southport-Kevin-Bryar-Tom-Staunton-Michael-J-Coleman-Construction

• Greetings Joe,

  I do not know if you will publish my opinion of this matter but I have taken considerable time because this issue is a public concern. As a professional I am compelled to express myself.

  This interview revealed that veteran inspector Tom Corbett has not yet learned after all his years that some sales agents need to be informed that common areas will need to be accessible for a thorough inspection.

  The buyer’s agent certainly has a fiduciary responsibility to their client to help arrange a thorough property inspection. However Tom testified against himself stating the frequency of his past clients have required them to pay him an additional $400 for a second inspection. Since Tom’s past experience in conducting thorough inspections have failed, it is time he do something different. Since Tom is so close to this reoccurring experience, far more than his occasional buyer, it seems strange that Tom has not made arrangements with the Seller or the Seller’s agent to ensure he has complete access to the property. Doing so, would eliminate the need for Tom to charge his client an additional $400 for a re-inspection. The sales/purchase experience for all parties would be much more enjoyable and the public would be better served.

  My fellow veteran Realtors and Buyer Clients, after hearing this interview, might suggest a more appropriate Title:

  “How Property Inspectors Can Earn An Additional $400.”

  Let’s all work together to provide the public with the very best service.

  Bill Altier
  Licensed Real Estate Broker Since 1977

  p.s. Joe with all your real estate knowledge you should have informed Tom that most lawyer’s representing will request an extension in the event of an incomplete property inspection and without an additional charge!

• Bill,

  If you listen to what Tom had to say, and understand the business well enough, you’ll see that Tom followed the proper professional protocol.

  Tom told his client to alert his agent to notify the seller’s agent that he (Tom) would need access to the common areas for his inspection. It’s not his responsibility to contact the seller’s agent, nor would it be appropriate for him to do so. It would be a gross breach of professional etiquette for him to contact the seller directly.

  Your suggestion amounts to this: Tom shouldn’t behave like a true professional. From everything I know of Tom, he does just that despite real estate agents’ often aggressive efforts to prevent him from doing so.

  Why should I “have informed Tom” that most attorneys will request an extension “without additional charge” when that simply isn’t true in my experience?

  The only thing that strikes me as strange here is your advice, and your cheap shot at Corbett. That’s not how the professionals I know serve the public.

• Joe, I did hear Tom say he told his client to instruct his agent to arrange for access. Tom’s experience has proven to him that this has not worked.

  Therefore why is he expecting a different conclusion? I am a Realtor and not a doctor, but for him to expect a another outcome would seem to be a symptom of insanity.

  Tom calling the Listing Agent is not a breach of professional etiquette. My fellow marketing agents representing the Seller would gladly accept a courtesy call from an inspector to learn of the scope of the inspection. Please know that we would do what we can to help expedite the inspection process. My experience with a multitude of inspectors has shown the scope of their work is not boiler-plate in any way. I have reviewed a number of inspection reports from experienced inspectors for the same property and the variance is prevalent in scope and opinion.

  I did not desire to write this, and this is no reflection on Tom who I do not know, but your prejudice may have blinded you. The one who benefits financially in this situation of re-inspections is the inspector at the expense of the buyer. Such an inspector that continues to blame the Realtor for not ensuring full access to the property stands to make money not only for the initial inspection, but for the re-inspection and in some cases will find it profitable to rate a property poorly in order to obtain another fee on the second property. And all the while pointing the blame on the buyer’s Realtor.

  Your accusation that my fellow Realtors are often aggressive in preventing him from performing is offensive. In my 37 years of doing business in three major market places I have found most of my associates hoping for the best and insisting on a fair and honest inspection report.

  Tom’s answer is not professional because a true professional is a problem solver and all he brought to the table is an on-going excuse and railing accusations which do not reflect the ethical standards which are demanded and enforced by our Realtor Board.

  Our National, State and Chicago Board of Realtors has come a long way during my tenure and the inspection industry has a number of years to catch up.

  And the reason you should have informed Tom that lawyers representing the buyer will request an extension if in the event the inspection was not performed within the inspection contingency time frame, is because that is what lawyers do. And I have never known one lawyer in all my business that has ever charged our buyer/client any additional fee to request such an extension. I thought you would have known and admonish Tom for expressing the contrary.

  If you call this a cheap shot at Corbett then you do not understand the business.

• Bill,

  For someone who “didn’t desire to write this” you’re spending a lot of time running down Corbett without having given any valid reason for doing so.

  You’re suggesting that Tom’s approach doesn’t work. He cited 10 instances in the previous 4 months where it failed due to Realtor obstructionism. Do you really think that Corbett only performed 10 home inspections in those 4 months? When a Realtor obstructs a home inspector’s access to a property’s common areas that is not a home inspector fail. It’s a Realtor fail.

  You’ve noted that you’re “a Realtor not a doctor.” You need to consider that you’re also not a home inspector, and ought to accord more respect to Corbett’s view of how to conduct himself professionally as a home inspector.

  I practiced law for 5 years with a large law firm. You may be familiar with what some lawyers do, but I can guarantee you that if I’d had to spend time requesting an extension, the time would have been billed to the client. That’s what many lawyers do. And yes, I do understand that many attorneys handle real estate closings and contract negotiations on a fixed-fee basis. You need to watch that video again and pay closer attention to what was said. You’re suggesting I should have admonished Tom for saying something he simply didn’t say.

  Why would you be offended by my factual statement about Realtors obstructing home inspectors? I hope you aren’t suggesting that doesn’t happen.

  I’ve written frequently here about CAR’s pathetic record of enforcing its ethical standards. Your statement that Corbett’s expecting Realtors to behave professionally is “a symptom of insanity” is a classic illustration of just how often those ethical standards are violated.

  I’m confident I do understand the business, from a long tenure of examining it from many perspectives. And I have no doubt that readers will understand that your suggested title for the video, and your repeated suggestion that Corbett’s completely professional approach is motivated by a desire for financial gain, is a cheap shot and a misguided one.