Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
I know. Wasn't attacking you ... just giving my thoughts.
Regarding the above to me that wouldn't be really a big issue and more of a case of the home inspector pointing out the obvious. At least the issue was rectified or it was left there as an easy start option for a later add on.
The bolded part I have a problem with. These guys all pretty much claim to be ex builders. Question is, for how long, what did you do, what trades are you certified in and most importantly why aren't they still doing it?
Is being a home inspector more lucrative than being a builder?
Maybe I'm still a bit jaded and bitter at the last one I used pointing out crayon marks on the wall or telling me that the toilets flushed ok. I'm willing to bet that checking under the sink for installation (straps etc) is beyond their scope and they're more focused on obvious things as rusting at the bottom of very old sinks.
Polak, don't know if it has been asked but what does your home inspection say with reference to your sink and was it an independent inspector or one through Truman or your realtor?
|
I get it. I know the home inspection business is a little unregulated. When I bought my first house, I went with the person the realtor recommended and they didn't do a lot and seemed to be selling it to me. I suspect there were some kick-backs happening. This time, I went with someone that was recommended from someone in my firm's building science group, and the guy was very thorough. He got into everything he could (the owner was already moved out). I am not sure how much the income difference is from being a builder and a home inspector, but in a city like Kingston, there isn't constant development. If you are a builder, you will be travelling a lot. Once someone wants to settle down, it isn't always the best line of work to be in.
Building inspections are still very limited though in that they only can inspect what they can see and they can't catch everything. They are one layer of security, but not comprehensive.