Sell property without estate agent?


Very true, why can't a seller's building report suffice for buyers? We have a situation in Ireland where individual buyers have to fork out up to 500 euro each for a survey. It's a money spinner for engineers especially in rural areas. Imagine a buyer commissioning an engineer who has already probably carried out one or two surveys on the same property for other interested parties. I wonder what's the situation in relation to building surveys in other countries, I think the seller should provide it and the engineer using his professional competence should be responsible for that report.
 
Completely agree with Moneybox.

I was purchasing an Apt recently, spent the €500 on a buyers report. Serious defects were reported and so I pulled out. The E/A reluctantly refunded the deposit insisting I provide him with the report. No problem there, if he handed over the cost of the report I paid out. Not a chance. The next person will pay over the same amount, for the same defects to be noted again and again.
I am lucky to be able to absorb the costs, What if I was FIRST TIME BUYER, how may reports will eat into my hard earned deposit, god knows they have it hard enough...
There should be a basic report on each property, and if the buyer wants to delve in deeper, with a more in dept report, then thats up to them.

I dont get Leo`s point about how a Qualified Engineers report is only applicable to the person who engaged him, and then to absolve them self of any duty of care to the report for another party. They are Qualified and should not look to hide behind the nearest door which I dont believe they would, and should be given more credit.
Its a very Irish view, in my opinion, looking to see how can I wriggle out of my duty of care.
 

They will sign a report based on what they were asked to check. The terms or limits of what they were asked to will likely only be clear to the person paying for the service.
 
moneybox said:
Very true, why can't a seller's building report suffice for buyers?
Click to expand...

Because no one else has any come back as to the accuracy of the report. Insurance costs alone would make it prohibitive to produce a report that would protect the interests of unspecified third parties.
 
Leo said:
Because no one else has any come back as to the accuracy of the report. Insurance costs alone would make it prohibitive to produce a report that would protect the interests of unspecified third parties.
Click to expand...

The engineer using his professional competence should stand by accuracy of his report, I can't see why he shouldn't. I have a relative, first time buyer who us going through this process at the moment, already paid 480 for one report and the sale has fallen through now having to fork out another 480 for another house. That is a a lot of money for young people down on top of the central bank deposit demand and I feel it is an issue that should be debated more widely.
I would like to know how this works in other countries, there has to be a better system else where.
 
Most engineers will have disclaimers included in their reports, regardless of who is paying for the service. In most cases, they will state that inspections are superficial in nature and that areas that are inaccessible can not be reported e.g. a dry rot, drain and chimney inspections, planning matters etc. I don't expect that any of these reports would stand up in a court of law. So I'm just wondering if there is any advantage in a vendor supplying an engineers report to potential buyers.
 
Last edited:
Leo said:
Unless you're employing them, you have little or no insight into the terms of reference of the report produced. Unless you actually hire the engineer yourself, you do not have recourse to the complaints procedures.
Click to expand...
A well written report would, in my opinion, state the terms of reference otherwise even a vendor would not know what was included in it. No sense in having a terms of reference and not stating what they are.
 
Disclaimers are thrown around like confetti, in an attempt to weasel out of a competent job. To say, Im not responsible for poor quality of my work as I was only engaged by Mr x is unacceptable.
If a vehicle had under gone extensive suspension work prior to a sale from a reputable garage and this failed causing injury due to shoddy poor work, do you really expect the garage at fault to say, tough, I wasnt engaged by you to carry out the work, and start emailing disclaimers... Its a ridiculous situation to contemplate.

As I said, why cant a basic report be supplied with a Sellers Pack. The amount of property up for sale which shouldn't be, with problems attached, ie Judgements, structural defects, planning issues etc is shocking. It should be made perfectly clear from the beginning what you are entering into.

The amount of wasted time and money spent on such projects, before it comes to an expected halt, is disgraceful.

There is no reason why this should not be implemented, it works perfectly well in other countries without the disclaimers been flung about..
 
Eddie Peters said:
However I do have a problem with a service provider who is paid to produce a report that is invalid to anyone except the person who paid for it.
Click to expand...

The only alternative then is a massive overhaul of contract law to extend duty of care to unnamed third parties. But expect the cost of surveys to rise into the thousands or more and elements covered to be reduced so as to render them of little value. Also what happens to other service providers costs? You can't just change indemnity law in respect of a small subset.

Buying a house generally involves a commitment of hundreds of thousands of Euros. Spending a few hundred (0.1% or even less of the overall outlay) to get a professional you trust to act in your interest, and only your interest is a small price to pay. Many people happily pay €1-200 getting an inspection carried out before buying a second hand car with far less potential to cripple them financially.

For those unfortunate enough to end up paying for reports on multiple properties, well, if those reports have potentially saved you from making a mistake and purchasing something that might cost you tens of thousands and untold misery down the road, consider it money well spent.
 
No Leo, Thats not good enough. What your saying there is Political Lingo. Make it so complicated, that it will make it unworkable.
If I am selling a €50k vehicle, with an engineers report of suitability, and the vehicle crashes due to worn/damaged brake pipes, which would be a noted under basic inspection, then the onus is on the Engineer for not being competent enough to see such an issue.

To start saying we would have to rewrite legislation for such matters is ludicrous. An Engineer wont ask me if this report is for me or a third party, as this will depend on the price of the report to cover extra insurance costs.
 
Because a terms of reference in the report would indicate exactly what was checked (surveyed). Otherwise, a surveyor might just not check some items and the reader of the survey will know what was checked.
 
LS400 said:
No Leo, Thats not good enough. What your saying there is Political Lingo. Make it so complicated, that it will make it unworkable.
Click to expand...

What part of it do you think is political? I don't work in this field, so have no vested interest.


You do know the person who buys the car has no entitlement to take any action based on a report the seller commissioned?
 
The point I am making is, that the buyer has had a professional in his field, report on the safety of product for sale, to its suitability for purpose. The engineer is not being asked to confirm emissions out-put, or check wear on the engine cylinders. Thats a more in-dept report and would be up to the buyer to investigate at his own cost.
The bottom line remains the same, he has had the benefit of knowing he has less chance of buying a pig in a poke, for the want of a better word.

The political remark refers to the point of the Government making a mountains out of a mole hills, who cant seem to make a cup of tea without an expert committee forming.
 
Your right, Its too complicated for us to sort out.
Lets leave it to other Countries to lead the way.

I can assure you, with a little cop-on, this could could be introduced in the near future without all the negatives.
 

But the same applies in this example, if the buyer didn't commission the report, they have no come back against the engineer if the car turns out to be a dud.

LS400 said:
The political remark refers to the point of the Government making a mountains out of a mole hills, who cant seem to make a cup of tea without an expert committee forming.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but I think the real issue preventing a simple fix is liability & insurance. I just don't know how you resolve that without professional services prices rocketing, or the content and scope of such reports being watered down to the point where they have no value.

For someone selling a house, a car, or whatever, and providing a report stating the condition of that item, how do they deal with the resulting personally liable if something goes wrong? I just think the current caveat emptor arrangement we have works better than everyone selling something having to line the pockets of the insurance companies or face potential financial ruin when it all goes wrong.
 
Hi Leo

I think Im probably sounding off due to the cost on fees which I have paid out on, and felt were very avoidable had some basic property information been made available which rendered the sale null and void on a number of occasions this year.
I did, and do see your point though, its just frustrating that there is not a simpler way.
 
A workable improvement might be putting the onus on the vendor to ensure the property was fully compliant ion terms of planning, and that they had full and clear title to the property before putting it on sale. The latter would have saved me a few thousand when buying my place!
 
Last year I intended selling my house by private sale but it wasn't put on the market at that time. However I plan to sell this year - without an estate agent (and without an engineer's report). However I've been quoted solicitor fees of €2500 plus VAT @23% plus land registry fees, contracts, queries, searches etc. - which could cost in the region of €4K. Does anyone know if this is reasonable? I always expected the purchaser to pay a solicitor for most of the work.
Thanks.
 
What do you mean by you expect the purchaser to pay a solicitor for most of the work? He'll pay his solicitor to get title to your house and whatever other fees his solicitor has. He won't be paying any of your fees, believe me. You're the one trying to sell, just make sure YOU have everything in order inc certificate of compliance, etc, etc, etc. The advice you get on this forum will guide you but won't suffice if you need maps, planning certs, reports, BER Cert, bank clearance, and all the rest. There's a reason they're qualified as engineers and lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register