dbd33

Offers are usually conditional only on financing, 48 hours allowed for that. In the country it's a whole other thing.

iaink

Very odd for a buyer to accept the sellers report. I am surprised the market in Toronto really that loaded in the sellers favour. As MMC say, buyer beware.

Given the legal situation though its all a bit of a farce anyway.

Anyway, buying in the right bit of Hamilton could be just as much of a minefield (he said trying to get the thread back on topic)

alex9160

I have extensive experience back home, in the U.S. as well as here in Canada purchasing properties (in addition to elsewhere abroad). I would agree with the premise that many home inspectors are a bloody waste of money. Having said that, it would be improper to paint all professionals with the same brush stroke.

I've experienced horrid RE agents, lawyers, dentists, financial advisors and home inspectors, etc. Having said that, I can assure you that Marco Ganassini has been a tremendous asset in our real estate endeavours. I will save everyone the details, but unequivocally, I would not purchase anything without his input.

dbd33

In the cheap house (<$350,000) segment it is. If a house makes it to mls, and I think there's a case that the better ones never do, then only a buyer who can see it and make a decision the same day is in with a chance. That leaves no time for inspection, though plenty for regret.

Different in Hamilton, I imagine.

BC15

Originally Posted by dbd33
Granted but, for example, now that my daughter is selling her house, the estate agent has observed features such as "no vents in the roof" and "inadequate clearances around the furnace" that the home inspector missed at the time of purchase. She's doing what most vendors in Toronto do, having a series of inspections so she can present the most favourable one on sale day. (It's typically the vendor that gets the inspection done as, currently in that market segment, the sales cycle is usually: open house on Saturday, offers on Monday night, deal done on Wednesday, there's no time for a purchaser to have an inspection). Given this reversal of the typical home inspection relationship, the most lax inspector with a reputable name is the desirable one.

There is no reversal. A buyer can choose whether or not to accept a sellers Home Inspection report or have his own. However, Ms DBD may very well regret getting four home inspections and showing buyers only the one which showed the property as having small inconsequential problems. Especially when the other three showed major deficits requiring large amounts of money to correct (it cost a seller of a house I bought $17,000 to get rid of asbestos bound loft insulation which was found by my inspector). There was a court case where the seller who did this not only paid tens of thousands of dollars for the buyers's court costs and thousands of dollars as a punitive fine but was also ordered to pay all the costs of correcting the deficits found by the other inspectors and subsequently discovered by the buyer (tens of thousands of dollars again). Home Inspections leave paper trails, much favoured by counsel for the prosecution.
The situation being discussed is where 'multiple offers' are encouraged or just come about. As such, you put your best offer in and include as many conditions as you like (as ever). It's up to you, the buyer. If there is no time for a property inspector and you feel strongly that one is necessary, walk away from it. Personally I would never base my decision to buy on a seller's home inspection report. Happily multiple offers have died down in recent months, but normally good time is given for buyers to get inspections prior to submitting an offer.
In 23 house purchases I 'saved' $77,000-ish by using an inspector.

BC15

All MLS listings appear on the MLS - that's the whole idea of the Multiple Listing Service. Contracts are specifically with the MLS. The only ones that don't are exclusive listings which are similar to listings in England: the guy who lists also shows and sells, no other Realtors are involved.

dbd33

G'won!

dbd33

This is slightly disingenuous. The one instance where I think it makes sense to have a "buyer's agent" is in a market where multiple offers are likely to come about.

If you have a buyer's agent from the same brokerage as the seller then you're at an advantage over offerers who do not have such an agent, or have one from another brokerage, because it's in the interest of the seller's agent to make your offer the successful one. Accordingly, the can make your offer the last one and can tell you before you make it what the best previous offer is (and the same through any subsequent rounds of negotiation) this allows you to make a decision without the pressure of uncertainty the other bidders are dealing with.

Your agent can also have a frank discussion with the listing agent about the conditions under which the sale came about, including such things as the quality of the inspection report.

alex9160

I definitely agree that a "dual agent" scenario is not ideal for any of the parties involved except the dual agent. The dual agent's inherent conflict is that it would be impossible for him to represent the best interests of both buyer and seller. One wants to pay as little as possible, whilst the other wants to get paid as much as possible.

It has been my experience that RE transactions in Canada are not centric around the idea of achieving a fair market price, but rather have an "us against them" mind set, vis a vis the buyer vs. the seller.

We have also been blessed with some great RE agents that are both fair and extremely knowledgeable.

Novocastrian

Leaving aside the question of whether "centric" is actually a word; the conceivable advantage of dual agency is that s/he is acting in her/his own interest, rather than either party's.

That interest is making a deal happen so as to move the property off the books ASAP (and of course collect the commission).

dbd33

I think that, in difficult markets, dual agency provides an appropriate reward for the listing agent. In general I don't think the buyer's agent brings very much to a transaction, the potential purchaser likely finds the house, either online at propertyguys.com or on the mls or by driving by. The potential purchaser decides what to bid and effectively gifts the commission to an agent he or she knows and likes. The listing agent, otoh, has advised on what must be fixed, created a video and marketed the property through Facebook, mls, his or her own website and so on. He or she has also arranged and turned up for open houses and showings. I know that, were I a listing agent, it'd piss me off royally to do all the work and then to see half the money go to a bystander.

I don't see that a buyer's agent actually represents the interests of the buyer. It seems to me that the interest of the agent is in getting the purchaser to take something, ideally a house on the books of the brokerage that's difficult to shift, failing that anything on the books of the brokerage and, failing that, something quickly. Any argument that the agent will act to benefit the purchaser in order to establish a relationship assumes that people use the same agent twice, something I think unlikely except in small towns where there's little choice.

BC15

You demonstrate time and time again that you know sweet f.a. about how the real estate business works in Ontario.

ireland2canada

Are you a real estate agent?

Souvy

I was going to suggest rejected former/wannabe lover. Vitriol city. Hell hath no fury and all that.

ireland2canada

Lovely.

I was just wondering if BC15 is, in fact, a licensed real estate agent in the province of Ontario. Because if not, then he/she can only provide their own personal experiences and thoughts on real estate transactions. Just the same as anyone else can.

Of course, things could all be different in Hamilton.