Wellington builder to do an urgent walk-through inspection?

[smokedfish]

Hi all - this may be a long shot but I'm looking at buying a place and need to get a builder to walk through this weekend (25/16 September). I'm not looking for a full inspection or a report, just for a qualified person to give me their opinion on the soundness/maintenance required.
If anyone knows of a Wellington builder that would do this please let me know - happy to pay a cash fee but looking to pay about $150 for what should be a half hour job. The house is 1960s in Northland, 150sqm with double garage.

Thanks in advance

[rolla]

Hey there
you can give me a call tommorow if you want
021 156 7030
Shane

[smokedfish]

Thanks - found someone through builders crack - good system!

[Meehole]

Certified Builders have advised their members NOT to undertake building inspections. The risk of litigation is just too great these days. A few have spoiled it for the majority.

[Maccachic]

There are quite a few legal cases that have gone against inspection companies:

http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals...uses-of-action a pre-purchase inspector (Roos v Wang, Abernethy v Coughlan and Brockie Trust) see link to view them.

The biggest thing is having to defend oneself even if there is no wrong doing.

[Meehole]

Exactly, you are guilty or at fault and then have to spend money defending yourself. I know of many building inspectors that that has happened to. Not only recent inspections but inspections that were done 6 or 7 years earlier.

[rolla]

Yes i seen that come through from both certified and masterbuilders apparently
I usuly only do it for Mates for free. Was just going to help the guy out if he needed someone urgent for walk through inspection no reports. They even saying don't do them for mates. I Did a job recently for a client that had a well knowen inspection company do there report before buying and showed up all good untill water came through the ceiling.

[MS NZ]

How did you go? What consideration did you give to possible hidden contamination from meth manufacture and/or use when you looked at the property?

If you start feeling sick after moving in, you may have a problem. Check out the MethSolutions website for more information.

Good luck!

[jimO]

Check out the MethSolutions website for more information.

Good luck!

blatant self promotion

[MS NZ]

Better for people to continue in ignorance of the reality out there jimO?

[artemis]

I recently sold a house in Wellington (old villa in good nick). The building report was extremely detailed, though there were only a couple of items pinpointed as urgent and necessary [elec wiring and piles not tied]. The prospective buyers (first home) got registered tradies to quote on these. The sparky estimated under $200 to bring right up to current code, the piling company (reputable) said not a major and nowhere near as bad as building report said. Good news for the buyers, but the insurance company turned them down for insurance solely because of the report, even though quotes were supplied to them. Fortunately my current insurer took the insurance on.

My point being that it was a CYA job by the inspector. Expensive too. Not that I blame the guy, given the risks, but we are talking a 106 year old villa and it is never going to meet current code in all respects. However, it doesn't leak and is still standing up well, unlike some much more recent places. So seems like everyone - banks, inspectors, ins companies - are running scared which can only drive costs up for no or little benefit. Whatever happened to trading off risk against price?

[Maccachic]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8376081/Win-for-Wellington-leaky-home-owners

Before buying the house they paid $280 for a "quick check" from building inspector Trevor Cunningham, who told them it was sound. It was later found to be leaky and required more than $300,000 of repairs, prompting them to sue Mr Cunningham.
In a judgment from the High Court last month, Justice Williams said Mr Cunningham had failed to properly inform the Hepburns about the inherent risks of the property.

The judge said Mr Cunningham's report was misleading and he had failed to assess the building competently.
The faults would have been obvious to an "experienced and competent pre-purchase inspector undertaking a basic visual pre-purchase inspection of the building", Justice Williams said.

He ordered Mr Cunningham to pay $180,000, or 50 per cent of the total cost of repairs. He ruled the Hepburns were liable for half the cost as they did not do all the work Mr Cunningham suggested after his inspection.

[Stickman]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...ky-home-owners

Before buying the house they paid $280 for a "quick check" from building inspector Trevor Cunningham, who told them it was sound. It was later found to be leaky and required more than $300,000 of repairs, prompting them to sue Mr Cunningham.
In a judgment from the High Court last month, Justice Williams said Mr Cunningham had failed to properly inform the Hepburns about the inherent risks of the property.

The judge said Mr Cunningham's report was misleading and he had failed to assess the building competently.
The faults would have been obvious to an "experienced and competent pre-purchase inspector undertaking a basic visual pre-purchase inspection of the building", Justice Williams said.

He ordered Mr Cunningham to pay $180,000, or 50 per cent of the total cost of repairs. He ruled the Hepburns were liable for half the cost as they did not do all the work Mr Cunningham suggested after his inspection.

And that is why if you're in the building inspections game you would pay for good professional indemnity insurance and public liability insurance.

[Maccachic]

PL won't cover you, you would need PI and I would question whether many companies would provide cover for pre purchase inspections.

[motivated]

PL won't cover you, you would need PI and I would question whether many companies would provide cover for pre purchase inspections.

One fellow i know who does them uses a company (which has no assets) to do the inspections. Money comes in and money goes straight out . Nothing to sue if the s*** hits the fan.
On another note--unless you could well insure yourself, why would you do the inspections for a few hundred and risk being sued for hundreds of thousands