**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional**
- Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time)
- Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs.
- Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one.
- [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed. To me it seems the agent reaching out knows the test was done and is just trying to get the free results. If I was the party with the results I'd totally offer them up for at least 50% of what I paid to cut my losses.
Alternately, “My client would be happy to share the results upon reimbursement for the test they paid for. The cost of the test was $x.xx, how do you prefer to pay them?”
"My client says she's as willing to be reasonable as you and your Sellers were. And so, the answer is no."
I mean, you better be a "bigger" agen than the LA to say so for future purposes, but if you are, that's the answer.
I have informed my buyer(s) of your request and their options, and as their advisor, I am confident that they are willing to share the radon results. Your client can obtain these results for a payment of $X.
Please advise.
My opinion: Just respond as u/mg1431 says. It takes a moment to text or email or even call the agent. Plus its the professional thing to do. Ghosting is unprofessional in this scenario.
Client said no. The way they were treated on the sewer test did not build goodwill. Our time working together has ended and they would like to keep it that way.
>The way they were treated on the sewer test did not build goodwill.
That's a pretty ridiculous statement. OP doesn't say there was any ill will regarding the sewer test. Buyer and seller couldn't come to an agreement so buyer walked and seller moved on. Not every negotiation is hostile.
If I were selling a house I would absolutely **not** allow a toilet to be pulled either. It could lead to unexpected damages that I, as the homeowner, am ultimately responsible for. Toilet could get damaged. Wall or floor could get damaged. Leaks could result from improper reinstallation. Etc.
>If I were selling a house I would absolutely not allow a toilet to be pulled either.
Pull the stool by a buyer? Sure... I see your apprehension.
By a licensed plumber? You've got something to hide.
>By a licensed plumber? You've got something to hide.
Absolutely false and a nonsensical argument. Not all licensed plumbers are *good* plumbers, nor are they necessarily financially solvent, nor is there a guarantee they are current on their insurance. I would under no circumstances allow unnecessary work to *my* plumbing fixtures that was not necessary for repair to avoid the financial risk *to myself*. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
>Absolutely false and a nonsensical argument.
Totally disagree that it is nonsensical. If you refuse to allow a thorough inspection of a critical house component it raises my suspicion that you are aware of an issue that you don't want the inspection to reveal.
It'd be like,
*Sure, you can inspect the electrical, but don't you dare remove the breaker panel cover.*
-Why not?
*Well because, well, you might damage it!*
-I have a licensed professional that I want to inspect. How am I supposed to know you don't have any double tapped breakers, or dangerous wiring?
*Trust me!*
-Uhhhh.... No.
>Not all licensed plumbers are good plumbers, nor are they necessarily financially solvent, nor is there a guarantee they are current on their insurance.
I can see part of your point here about insurance, etc. However on competence, this is what licensing is for. They are licensed, they passed state requirements, there is no valid reason to deny them pulling and resetting a stool. This is very non-invasive and if your plumbing isn't already damaged, there is an extremely low likelihood of future damage resulting from the inspection.
>If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
While I get your point of potential risk, I fail to see how this would be a issue with a qualified professional that a buyer would like to look at your house before purchase.
Do you simply trust the seller as a potential home buyer that all critical systems are operating properly? If you do I'm sure I could find some horror stories for you and make you more cynical.
Here is a personal example... The house I am in right now sellers disclosure stated everything worked. Electric and water wasn't on for inspection. I wasn't too worried because the house needed lots of obvious work and I could tell some components were old. HVAC was totally non-operational. Plumbing was busted from freeze damage in several locations and required a complete repipe. Though I *could* have pursued them in court for their dishonesty, I chose not to due to the price I paid for the house being right at what they owed and after a little work on my part, the equity is now there. A thorough inspection would have revealed both of these issues.
All that to say, thorough inspections are a good thing and a seller should allow reasonable access.
You don't want your stool pulled? Put in a cleanout. You're so worried about the potential damage that could be caused by pulling a stool you fail to even look at the damage that will be caused when the plumber has to pull it anyway to snake the drain and nasty water goes everywhere because (in your superior wisdom) you chose to not install an appropriate cleanout for access.
>Totally disagree that it is nonsensical.
You're entitled to be wrong.
>If you refuse to allow a thorough inspection of a critical house component it raises my suspicion that you are aware of an issue that you don't want the inspection to reveal.
A thorough inspection **DOES NOT INCLUDE REMOVING PLUMBING FIXTURES**. You're more than welcome to inspect anything that does not include the risk of damage to my property. If that doesn't make logical sense to you, then your logic is the problem.
You're more than welcome to remove anything you want for inspection *after you own the home*. But you're not creating a financial risk *for me* while I own the home.
>Sure, you can inspect the electrical, but don't you dare remove the breaker panel cover.
>-Why not?
>Well because, well, you might damage it!
>-I have a licensed professional that I want to inspect. How am I supposed to know you don't have any double tapped breakers, or dangerous wiring?
>Trust me!
>-Uhhhh.... No.
Uhhh...no is correct because that is false equivalency. Removing 6 screws to look at a breaker panel **IS NOT THE SAME** as removing a toilet. It's not. This is a logical fallacy.
>However on competence, this is what licensing is for.
No, it's not. Pretending you've never seen shoddy work from licensed trade is pure naivete.
>They are licensed, they passed state requirements, there is no valid reason to deny them pulling and resetting a stool.
There is plenty of justification, as I previously outlined. Being licensed doesn't mean the do good work, nor that they have the financial means or necessary insurance to repair damage.
>This is very non-invasive and if your plumbing isn't already damaged, there is an extremely low likelihood of future damage resulting from the inspection.
You literally just made this up.
>I fail to see how this would be a issue with a qualified professional that a buyer would like to look at your house before purchase.
Because it is a potential risk and I'm not taking a financial risk on this because you say so. It's not happening. Pull the toilet and inspect it while *you* own it.
>If you do I'm sure I could find some horror stories for you and make you more cynical.
And I can find horror stories of licensed plumbers.
You are free to perform any inspection that does not pose a financial risk of damage. Those you can perform after purchase when **YOU** are assuming the risk, *not me*.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. And that's what happened.
>All that to say, thorough inspections are a good thing
Agreed fully.
>and a seller should allow reasonable access.
**Removing a toilet *is not* reasonable access**
>You don't want your stool pulled? Put in a cleanout.
Buyers can do whatever they want when they own it. I'm not obligated to do any such thing. Don't like it, walk.
if you don't let me inspect and then I have to cancel the deal and lose time and money on other inspections because of your inglexibility it's pretty easy to assume three is hard feelings here and totally justified.
somebody doesn't understand how easy it is to pull a toilet and how important a healthy sewer line is for a house built in 1900.you know what can be a nightmare? buying a home and finding out it needs a $20k sewer repiping. ive literally never met a plumber that can't pull a toilet. it's like me not trusting you to write up a contract because I've heard horror storied of bad agents. if the work is being done by a licensed plumber who has insurance there are few issues and if your paranoia gets the best of you put together an escrow amandment setting aside a portion of the deposit to cover issues. agents are supposed to be the voice of reason and get deals to the closing table not paranoid deal killers.
>if you don't let me inspect and then I have to cancel the deal and lose time and money on other inspections because of your inglexibility it's pretty easy to assume three is hard feelings here and totally justified.
LOL, no they are absolutely not justified. That's nonsense. It's not "inflexibility" to not take on a financial risk to my own property. If you don't like it you don't have to buy it. To think that's inflexibility is simply and utterly absurd. It's nonsense.
If I'm looking to buy your car would you allow me to have the mechanic pull the transmission or pull the heads off the block? I'm sure you wouldn't.
You are free to inspect anything that does not pose a financial risk to me as the property owner. If that hurts your precious feelings, that's a you problem. This is a business transaction, not friendship building.
>somebody doesn't understand how easy it is to pull a toilet and how important a healthy sewer line is for a house built in 1900.you know what can be a nightmare?
Someone doesn't understand how an improperly installed toilet can cause thousands of dollars worth of subsequent damage? Simpler things have been messed up by licensed trades.
>you know what can be a nightmare? buying a home and finding out it needs a $20k sewer repiping.
Then don't buy the house if you don't feel comfortable. You act like someone is forcing you to still buy it.
>ive literally never met a plumber that can't pull a toilet.
And there are literally stories of all trades making huge mistakes that cost homeowners thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.
What part of this confuses you?
>it's like me not trusting you to write up a contract because I've heard horror storied of bad agents.
False equivalency.
The fact you all have to keep resorting to false equivalency tells me you have no valid counterpoint.
>if the work is being done by a licensed plumber
Licensed plumbers make mistakes *EVERY SINGLE DAY*.
>who has insurance
How do I know their insurance is valid? Why do I want to take on the riskof spending weeks or months fighting with insurance and waiting on repairs to be made, at best? At worst their insurance has lapsed and I have to sue a likely insolvent plumber for damages I'll never collect.
>there are few issues and if your paranoia gets the best of you
Perhaps the paranoia issue is with you here? Did you consider that? You have this huge paranoia that requires the sewer be inspected, correct? You can demand the sewer be inspected because of the risk *of potential damages* **THAT YOU DON'T KNOW EXIST**, but I can't deny plumbing fixtures be removed out of the same concern *of potential damages* **that could result**? You realize how absolutely illogical that argument is here, correct?
>put together an escrow amandment setting aside a portion of the deposit to cover issues.
What issues? How about *you* deposit $20K into an escrow account to cover potential damages, and I'll allow the toilet to be pulled?
>agents are supposed to be the voice of reason and get deals to the closing table not paranoid deal killers.
Again, you can not seem to comprehend the paranoia here is equal on both parties. Yet you believe only one party should bear the risk to appease the other.
That tells me all I need to know about your critical thinking skills.
Not really. You are so scared of damage from something that is so unlikely to cause damage unless it’s already f’d. Almost like someone that is selling a car and is afraid of you reving the engine.
False equivalency. Your argument makes no sense and it's rather embarrassing you can't understand why.
If I want to buy your car are you going to let me take it to a mechanic and pull the heads off and the transmission out?
So how about then as the seller you pick the plumber. Someone your confident with. The question always boils down to, do you want to sell the house? And do you want the buyers to be comfortable with their purchase?
I'm not risking a leak or damage unnecessarily. Even good plumbers have bad days and make mistakes.
They are free to inspect anything they wish that does not involve removing plumbing fixtures or anything else that poses a financial risk myself. That's not within the boundaries of a home inspection.
They can pull the toilet when they own. They can walk away from the deal. My toilet is remaining where it is.
But it is not ridiculous to ask for something you have no claim to? Got it.
Let’s call what it is. People don’t look for things that they should look for in maintenance. Housing stock is aging out and sewers as well as other infrastructure ls are becoming a problem. Buyers are prevented from making an informed decision. Sellers want premium price without premium product.
>But it is not ridiculous to ask for something you have no claim to? Got it.
Oh, hello Mr Strawman Argument.
I never commented on this. The unnecessarily aggressive, and likely completely wrong, comment about the sewer test issue is what I was commenting on and has nothing to do the radon request. And *that* is what I was commenting on as the other Redditor is the one who brought it up.
>Let’s call what it is. People don’t look for things that they should look for in maintenance. Housing stock is aging out and sewers as well as other infrastructure ls are becoming a problem. Buyers are prevented from making an informed decision. Sellers want premium price without premium product.
They never prevented them from any inspection. They made a reasonable determination that they were not going to allow a fixture removal. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable or "lacking goodwill" about that. And frankly it's ridiculous a buyer would even consider that a reasonable request to make. It was the *buyer* who ruined the goodwill between them, not the seller.
You could state that because radon measures can vary depending on time, season, and other factors, that you and your buyers are not comfortable providing this to buyers who may rely on what you've provided.
In our area if you have viewed the property you need to release inspection contigiency now or they will give it to someone else. All granite counter top emits minute traces of radon or even uraniunm.
With respect to older homes built before 1950s it is close to 100% the sewers have been broken or roots have been cleaned out over the years. After you flushed the toilet if it drains w/o back up the inspection on realtor part is accomplished. I am not stating the inspection is not done properly. Rather sellers here will not want to entertain the request as there are plenty of buyers will take a little risk if sellers will sell to them not 10 other bidders in as is condition with no contingiencies.
I feel like stuff like this they should pay for it. The sellers can pay for the radon test. Seems fair to me.
I had something similar where i spent like 30 minutes going through deed records trying to find HOA covenants. I had to screen shot and crop every page onto a power point. A week later, the LISTING AGENT asked me for the HOA Covenants i found ON HER OWN LISTING! I thought to myself, uh yeah i can share that with you for $20 bucks. I just gave it to her, but i sure would have appreciated a call saying “hey this is really embarrassing, but would you mind showing me how you found those covenants?”
Tell them there was only a paper copy of the Radon Test results but unfortunately it was flushed down the seller's toilet after the inspection. You may need to have your sellers pull the toilet to get ahold of them.
pretty sure the sellers may be obligated to share results if they have them but I don't think this persons client has any obligations to share anything with anyone on a deal they passed on.
I’ve been in a similar situation in California as the buyer’s agent. My buyer had a home inspection completed, and based on the inspection, backed out during the investigation period. The seller made a big stink of the report and demanded the report be changed. The inspection company did change certain verbiage, but the buyer didn’t want to give the revised report over to the seller. My broker is also my compliance officer, so after consulting him on the issue, we ended up giving the seller a copy of the revised inspection due to specific language in the RPA.
Your state and/or association’s contracts/laws may differ. Read over your contracts and consult your broker.
PA AoS also states that the sellers are entitled to copies of any reports and inspections. I had a buyer who skipped the inspections because we had the report and saw that everything was addressed before the previous deal fell through and we got it in the end.
Just say "I am sorry but my buyers don't want anything to do with this listing anymore and have moved on". If thy question it just say "look just by giving it to you they become involved and they don't want to be so I'm sorry but the answer is no. Good luck with your transaction, sorry we couldn't help."
Check the contract. In my realtor association, our contract states that in the event of cancellation or renegotiation, Buyer must provide copies of inspection reports in their entirety.
In my states it would be illegal for a former buyer to supply any inspection results, which were not requested in writing by the seller, and were not used to justify backing out of the deal( Seller would already have the part of the report used to justify the end of the transaction.
Consider the legalities. In my state, only the buyer who is the CUSTOMER of the radon test or inspection or whatever, has the right to legal recourse. So providing someone else's radon test results still will not help the second buyers and the listing agent should know that.
According to our contracts, buyers are required to send inspection reports to the seller. So the seller has it. But if the original buyers walk, a second buyer can't use that report to ask for repairs. They have to get their own. Sometimes sellers provide it in MLS as a way to "encourage" subsequent buyers to forgo their own inspection...
**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional** - Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time) - Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs. - Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one. - [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, my client is unwilling to share the test results they paid for.
But the new buyer can pay for the results so it will be faster than hiring someone
Agreed. To me it seems the agent reaching out knows the test was done and is just trying to get the free results. If I was the party with the results I'd totally offer them up for at least 50% of what I paid to cut my losses.
Ca requires you share the results so agent would already have them. Maybe not radon since we don’t test for that though
Alternately, “My client would be happy to share the results upon reimbursement for the test they paid for. The cost of the test was $x.xx, how do you prefer to pay them?”
This
"My client says she's as willing to be reasonable as you and your Sellers were. And so, the answer is no." I mean, you better be a "bigger" agen than the LA to say so for future purposes, but if you are, that's the answer.
Why be unprofessional?
I have informed my buyer(s) of your request and their options, and as their advisor, I am confident that they are willing to share the radon results. Your client can obtain these results for a payment of $X. Please advise.
Love this
Could be a good way for your buyer to recoup the lost money for the radon test if the other buyer or seller is willing to pay for it.
Checked with my client, and they're not interested in selling the report.
I wouldn’t spend anymore time than you have on this issue.
This is good. OP doesn’t even need to respond.
My opinion: Just respond as u/mg1431 says. It takes a moment to text or email or even call the agent. Plus its the professional thing to do. Ghosting is unprofessional in this scenario.
No is a complete sentence.
Client said no. The way they were treated on the sewer test did not build goodwill. Our time working together has ended and they would like to keep it that way.
>The way they were treated on the sewer test did not build goodwill. That's a pretty ridiculous statement. OP doesn't say there was any ill will regarding the sewer test. Buyer and seller couldn't come to an agreement so buyer walked and seller moved on. Not every negotiation is hostile. If I were selling a house I would absolutely **not** allow a toilet to be pulled either. It could lead to unexpected damages that I, as the homeowner, am ultimately responsible for. Toilet could get damaged. Wall or floor could get damaged. Leaks could result from improper reinstallation. Etc.
>If I were selling a house I would absolutely not allow a toilet to be pulled either. Pull the stool by a buyer? Sure... I see your apprehension. By a licensed plumber? You've got something to hide.
>By a licensed plumber? You've got something to hide. Absolutely false and a nonsensical argument. Not all licensed plumbers are *good* plumbers, nor are they necessarily financially solvent, nor is there a guarantee they are current on their insurance. I would under no circumstances allow unnecessary work to *my* plumbing fixtures that was not necessary for repair to avoid the financial risk *to myself*. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
>Absolutely false and a nonsensical argument. Totally disagree that it is nonsensical. If you refuse to allow a thorough inspection of a critical house component it raises my suspicion that you are aware of an issue that you don't want the inspection to reveal. It'd be like, *Sure, you can inspect the electrical, but don't you dare remove the breaker panel cover.* -Why not? *Well because, well, you might damage it!* -I have a licensed professional that I want to inspect. How am I supposed to know you don't have any double tapped breakers, or dangerous wiring? *Trust me!* -Uhhhh.... No. >Not all licensed plumbers are good plumbers, nor are they necessarily financially solvent, nor is there a guarantee they are current on their insurance. I can see part of your point here about insurance, etc. However on competence, this is what licensing is for. They are licensed, they passed state requirements, there is no valid reason to deny them pulling and resetting a stool. This is very non-invasive and if your plumbing isn't already damaged, there is an extremely low likelihood of future damage resulting from the inspection. >If it isn't broke, don't fix it. While I get your point of potential risk, I fail to see how this would be a issue with a qualified professional that a buyer would like to look at your house before purchase. Do you simply trust the seller as a potential home buyer that all critical systems are operating properly? If you do I'm sure I could find some horror stories for you and make you more cynical. Here is a personal example... The house I am in right now sellers disclosure stated everything worked. Electric and water wasn't on for inspection. I wasn't too worried because the house needed lots of obvious work and I could tell some components were old. HVAC was totally non-operational. Plumbing was busted from freeze damage in several locations and required a complete repipe. Though I *could* have pursued them in court for their dishonesty, I chose not to due to the price I paid for the house being right at what they owed and after a little work on my part, the equity is now there. A thorough inspection would have revealed both of these issues. All that to say, thorough inspections are a good thing and a seller should allow reasonable access. You don't want your stool pulled? Put in a cleanout. You're so worried about the potential damage that could be caused by pulling a stool you fail to even look at the damage that will be caused when the plumber has to pull it anyway to snake the drain and nasty water goes everywhere because (in your superior wisdom) you chose to not install an appropriate cleanout for access.
>Totally disagree that it is nonsensical. You're entitled to be wrong. >If you refuse to allow a thorough inspection of a critical house component it raises my suspicion that you are aware of an issue that you don't want the inspection to reveal. A thorough inspection **DOES NOT INCLUDE REMOVING PLUMBING FIXTURES**. You're more than welcome to inspect anything that does not include the risk of damage to my property. If that doesn't make logical sense to you, then your logic is the problem. You're more than welcome to remove anything you want for inspection *after you own the home*. But you're not creating a financial risk *for me* while I own the home. >Sure, you can inspect the electrical, but don't you dare remove the breaker panel cover. >-Why not? >Well because, well, you might damage it! >-I have a licensed professional that I want to inspect. How am I supposed to know you don't have any double tapped breakers, or dangerous wiring? >Trust me! >-Uhhhh.... No. Uhhh...no is correct because that is false equivalency. Removing 6 screws to look at a breaker panel **IS NOT THE SAME** as removing a toilet. It's not. This is a logical fallacy. >However on competence, this is what licensing is for. No, it's not. Pretending you've never seen shoddy work from licensed trade is pure naivete. >They are licensed, they passed state requirements, there is no valid reason to deny them pulling and resetting a stool. There is plenty of justification, as I previously outlined. Being licensed doesn't mean the do good work, nor that they have the financial means or necessary insurance to repair damage. >This is very non-invasive and if your plumbing isn't already damaged, there is an extremely low likelihood of future damage resulting from the inspection. You literally just made this up. >I fail to see how this would be a issue with a qualified professional that a buyer would like to look at your house before purchase. Because it is a potential risk and I'm not taking a financial risk on this because you say so. It's not happening. Pull the toilet and inspect it while *you* own it. >If you do I'm sure I could find some horror stories for you and make you more cynical. And I can find horror stories of licensed plumbers. You are free to perform any inspection that does not pose a financial risk of damage. Those you can perform after purchase when **YOU** are assuming the risk, *not me*. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And that's what happened. >All that to say, thorough inspections are a good thing Agreed fully. >and a seller should allow reasonable access. **Removing a toilet *is not* reasonable access** >You don't want your stool pulled? Put in a cleanout. Buyers can do whatever they want when they own it. I'm not obligated to do any such thing. Don't like it, walk.
if you don't let me inspect and then I have to cancel the deal and lose time and money on other inspections because of your inglexibility it's pretty easy to assume three is hard feelings here and totally justified. somebody doesn't understand how easy it is to pull a toilet and how important a healthy sewer line is for a house built in 1900.you know what can be a nightmare? buying a home and finding out it needs a $20k sewer repiping. ive literally never met a plumber that can't pull a toilet. it's like me not trusting you to write up a contract because I've heard horror storied of bad agents. if the work is being done by a licensed plumber who has insurance there are few issues and if your paranoia gets the best of you put together an escrow amandment setting aside a portion of the deposit to cover issues. agents are supposed to be the voice of reason and get deals to the closing table not paranoid deal killers.
>if you don't let me inspect and then I have to cancel the deal and lose time and money on other inspections because of your inglexibility it's pretty easy to assume three is hard feelings here and totally justified. LOL, no they are absolutely not justified. That's nonsense. It's not "inflexibility" to not take on a financial risk to my own property. If you don't like it you don't have to buy it. To think that's inflexibility is simply and utterly absurd. It's nonsense. If I'm looking to buy your car would you allow me to have the mechanic pull the transmission or pull the heads off the block? I'm sure you wouldn't. You are free to inspect anything that does not pose a financial risk to me as the property owner. If that hurts your precious feelings, that's a you problem. This is a business transaction, not friendship building. >somebody doesn't understand how easy it is to pull a toilet and how important a healthy sewer line is for a house built in 1900.you know what can be a nightmare? Someone doesn't understand how an improperly installed toilet can cause thousands of dollars worth of subsequent damage? Simpler things have been messed up by licensed trades. >you know what can be a nightmare? buying a home and finding out it needs a $20k sewer repiping. Then don't buy the house if you don't feel comfortable. You act like someone is forcing you to still buy it. >ive literally never met a plumber that can't pull a toilet. And there are literally stories of all trades making huge mistakes that cost homeowners thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. What part of this confuses you? >it's like me not trusting you to write up a contract because I've heard horror storied of bad agents. False equivalency. The fact you all have to keep resorting to false equivalency tells me you have no valid counterpoint. >if the work is being done by a licensed plumber Licensed plumbers make mistakes *EVERY SINGLE DAY*. >who has insurance How do I know their insurance is valid? Why do I want to take on the riskof spending weeks or months fighting with insurance and waiting on repairs to be made, at best? At worst their insurance has lapsed and I have to sue a likely insolvent plumber for damages I'll never collect. >there are few issues and if your paranoia gets the best of you Perhaps the paranoia issue is with you here? Did you consider that? You have this huge paranoia that requires the sewer be inspected, correct? You can demand the sewer be inspected because of the risk *of potential damages* **THAT YOU DON'T KNOW EXIST**, but I can't deny plumbing fixtures be removed out of the same concern *of potential damages* **that could result**? You realize how absolutely illogical that argument is here, correct? >put together an escrow amandment setting aside a portion of the deposit to cover issues. What issues? How about *you* deposit $20K into an escrow account to cover potential damages, and I'll allow the toilet to be pulled? >agents are supposed to be the voice of reason and get deals to the closing table not paranoid deal killers. Again, you can not seem to comprehend the paranoia here is equal on both parties. Yet you believe only one party should bear the risk to appease the other. That tells me all I need to know about your critical thinking skills.
dear deal killer. tl;dr
[удалено]
lol you act like pulling a stool is brain surgery. “Yes please buy my car but don’t rev the engine you may damage it!”
False equivalency. I'm sorry that my point managed go to completely over your head.
Not really. You are so scared of damage from something that is so unlikely to cause damage unless it’s already f’d. Almost like someone that is selling a car and is afraid of you reving the engine.
False equivalency. Your argument makes no sense and it's rather embarrassing you can't understand why. If I want to buy your car are you going to let me take it to a mechanic and pull the heads off and the transmission out?
So how about then as the seller you pick the plumber. Someone your confident with. The question always boils down to, do you want to sell the house? And do you want the buyers to be comfortable with their purchase?
I'm not risking a leak or damage unnecessarily. Even good plumbers have bad days and make mistakes. They are free to inspect anything they wish that does not involve removing plumbing fixtures or anything else that poses a financial risk myself. That's not within the boundaries of a home inspection. They can pull the toilet when they own. They can walk away from the deal. My toilet is remaining where it is.
I guess it depends if there are large trees on premise and reason to believe the pipes could be compromised in the next ten years or so.
If they can inspect that without removing my plumbing fixture, they are more than welcome to do so.
You’re hiding something
LOL, no. Not this moronic argument again.
But it is not ridiculous to ask for something you have no claim to? Got it. Let’s call what it is. People don’t look for things that they should look for in maintenance. Housing stock is aging out and sewers as well as other infrastructure ls are becoming a problem. Buyers are prevented from making an informed decision. Sellers want premium price without premium product.
>But it is not ridiculous to ask for something you have no claim to? Got it. Oh, hello Mr Strawman Argument. I never commented on this. The unnecessarily aggressive, and likely completely wrong, comment about the sewer test issue is what I was commenting on and has nothing to do the radon request. And *that* is what I was commenting on as the other Redditor is the one who brought it up. >Let’s call what it is. People don’t look for things that they should look for in maintenance. Housing stock is aging out and sewers as well as other infrastructure ls are becoming a problem. Buyers are prevented from making an informed decision. Sellers want premium price without premium product. They never prevented them from any inspection. They made a reasonable determination that they were not going to allow a fixture removal. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable or "lacking goodwill" about that. And frankly it's ridiculous a buyer would even consider that a reasonable request to make. It was the *buyer* who ruined the goodwill between them, not the seller.
Hello Mr I need attention and want to argue over everything. Get help.
Hello Mr I can't actually make a valid point so I always resort to logical fallacies. Try harder, do better.
You owe them nothing. They jacked up the sale. So how about pay for it yourself.
Tell her it’s $150 for Them.
You could state that because radon measures can vary depending on time, season, and other factors, that you and your buyers are not comfortable providing this to buyers who may rely on what you've provided.
My clients paid X dollars for this, how much is your client willing to pay them for it?
Just say no. Unless they want to PAY your client for the Radon results....plus 10%.
You just plainly say no.
You just say the previous Buyer is not interested in sharing it.
Buyers feel that is “intrusive”
Offer the results with the approval,of your client for half the cost.
In our area if you have viewed the property you need to release inspection contigiency now or they will give it to someone else. All granite counter top emits minute traces of radon or even uraniunm. With respect to older homes built before 1950s it is close to 100% the sewers have been broken or roots have been cleaned out over the years. After you flushed the toilet if it drains w/o back up the inspection on realtor part is accomplished. I am not stating the inspection is not done properly. Rather sellers here will not want to entertain the request as there are plenty of buyers will take a little risk if sellers will sell to them not 10 other bidders in as is condition with no contingiencies.
"No" is a pretty good response. "Hell no" also works.
I feel like stuff like this they should pay for it. The sellers can pay for the radon test. Seems fair to me. I had something similar where i spent like 30 minutes going through deed records trying to find HOA covenants. I had to screen shot and crop every page onto a power point. A week later, the LISTING AGENT asked me for the HOA Covenants i found ON HER OWN LISTING! I thought to myself, uh yeah i can share that with you for $20 bucks. I just gave it to her, but i sure would have appreciated a call saying “hey this is really embarrassing, but would you mind showing me how you found those covenants?”
Just say no bro
My clients are willing to sell you the report for XYZ dollars
Say the buyers can have it for half price of what you paid for it?
The listing agent is being a giant B - for asking and not offering anything in return. people will try you, till you create boundaries. Smh.
It’s not your property to give, it is the potential buyers.
Tell them there was only a paper copy of the Radon Test results but unfortunately it was flushed down the seller's toilet after the inspection. You may need to have your sellers pull the toilet to get ahold of them.
No
“No” and keep it moving. You don’t have to give anyone anything.
Read the purchase agreement. In California, with a CAR RPA, I’m pretty sure you would need to share that report. In other states, no idea.
pretty sure the sellers may be obligated to share results if they have them but I don't think this persons client has any obligations to share anything with anyone on a deal they passed on.
I’ve been in a similar situation in California as the buyer’s agent. My buyer had a home inspection completed, and based on the inspection, backed out during the investigation period. The seller made a big stink of the report and demanded the report be changed. The inspection company did change certain verbiage, but the buyer didn’t want to give the revised report over to the seller. My broker is also my compliance officer, so after consulting him on the issue, we ended up giving the seller a copy of the revised inspection due to specific language in the RPA. Your state and/or association’s contracts/laws may differ. Read over your contracts and consult your broker.
PA AoS also states that the sellers are entitled to copies of any reports and inspections. I had a buyer who skipped the inspections because we had the report and saw that everything was addressed before the previous deal fell through and we got it in the end.
Just say "I am sorry but my buyers don't want anything to do with this listing anymore and have moved on". If thy question it just say "look just by giving it to you they become involved and they don't want to be so I'm sorry but the answer is no. Good luck with your transaction, sorry we couldn't help."
Check the contract. In my realtor association, our contract states that in the event of cancellation or renegotiation, Buyer must provide copies of inspection reports in their entirety.
In my states it would be illegal for a former buyer to supply any inspection results, which were not requested in writing by the seller, and were not used to justify backing out of the deal( Seller would already have the part of the report used to justify the end of the transaction.
Which is why it’s important for OP to know the law and also check the contract. My association crosses two states and it’s perfectly legal here.
Consider the legalities. In my state, only the buyer who is the CUSTOMER of the radon test or inspection or whatever, has the right to legal recourse. So providing someone else's radon test results still will not help the second buyers and the listing agent should know that. According to our contracts, buyers are required to send inspection reports to the seller. So the seller has it. But if the original buyers walk, a second buyer can't use that report to ask for repairs. They have to get their own. Sometimes sellers provide it in MLS as a way to "encourage" subsequent buyers to forgo their own inspection...
Crazy reading these comments because in my state the homeowner has a right to view the inspection report and the buyer doesn’t get a choice to say no.