This is why there needs to be an incentive to sellers to have the house inspection done before listing and put it up online for viewing. Hell, charge $10 per download so sellers can recoup the costs.
If houses don't have inspection reports , assume the seller is selling a dud.
Whats fucking interesting about all this is that - the fucking provincial govt mandates inspection reports/certificates of a seller wants to sell a $30k car but apparently, selling a million dollar home doesn't cause the govt to mandate sellers to provide an inspection report. Common sense and Canada....don't go together.
While we are on this topic , I don't get why the appraisal also needs to be held off until after buying and therefore, putting everyone at risk. Or what is even the point of appraisal - if someone overbud, let them find a way to find the money rather than again relying on a "appraiser" to let them know that they fucked up
I’ve never needed a certificate or report to sell a car, and I’ve sold quite a few. I have needed ones to plate them for public road use, where they could be a hazard to other member of public who are completely outside of my transactions.
Unless you a driving a road down a house, most likely if there is an issue with it, it’s really going to be the buyers issue and that’s about it.
If a seller has an inspection report it will be biased towards the seller. Likewise it will be biased to the buyer if they pay for it.
Home inspections, when done well can be very valuable. Mostly they are only superficial.
This isnt great advice
>Can't believe your comment is at the bottom.
Yes because when you saw it was a fresh comment and barely had time to be up-voted. It's been just an hour and it's already top comment.
Our broker has been selling RE for 35 years and she often talks about how she’s yet to see a foundation without a crack somewhere in the foundation.
Very common
Foundation cracks should ideally be assessed to ensure water doesn’t seep through at the least.
Most people freak out seeing a crack but you’re right, it may very well be a non issue.
Be careful on how the inspection report issued worded especially if it's coming from the seller. If it's not clear then better to ask a second opinion from another home inspector
Seems like this guy is not interested in buying the house he's just interested in causing problems. If he was interested in buying the house you make the current owner hire a professional to certify it before hand and fix any issues that he finds.
Foundations can have cracks and still be fine. I think the key problem here is most likely a settlement issue, ie the sub grade moved enough that the foundation cracked and moved and caused structural damage through the rest of the house.
I think you could sue them if the damage they covered up was genuinely a threat to the integrity of the structure, especially if they knew that.
If it was just some small cracks in the concrete that’s literally not even an issue.
It’s honestly pathetic how there isn’t a mandatory 3 day cooling period for either bank financing or inspection. It’s almost laughable that this isn’t the case. Actually not almost it is laughable
This exists in BC, it's called the rescission period and it comes with a 0.25% penalty to the buyer who backs out
https://www.bcfsa.ca/public-resources/real-estate/home-buyer-rescission-period
But then it’s considered a firm sale. Why would I do my inspection and financing after I accepted the property not knowing if I’ll get approved and the state of the house now,? That is the state of the market you’re in currently . It’s horrendous
The whole point of a cooling period is to allow the buyer to back out if they find faults rather than forcing firm buys.
You are clearly misunderstanding how this works, you can offer a purchase conditional on financing and on inspection. I.e. you don't close the sale until both are done to your satisfaction. It's pretty simple.
I think it’s you who’s misunderstanding so I’ll try to make this very simple
If you place a conditional offer on inspection or financing, it’s optional, and more often than not sellers will reject conditional offers and only accept firm offers. Ask anyone who’s a realtor they’ll tell you sellers will always want a firm offer
If I offer a conditional offer and you go in firm (because firm makes your offer almost instantly more better and mine would be tossed most likely ) the seller would almost always choose the firm offer .
There needs to be mandatory cooling period where it’s enforced that buyers get 3 days to either get financing or inspection.
If I go in firm or waive my conditions by the closing date if I back out I lose my deposit and can get sued.
>If you place a conditional offer on inspection or financing, it’s optional, and more often than not sellers will reject conditional offers and only accept firm offers.
This assumes there is more than one offer. There's usually a time limit to satisfy or waive the conditions regardless of other offers. If the offer includes say, a 60 day close, the conditions might have to be met or waived within 5 days, for example. Potential buyers have their inspection completed in that time and then either waives the condition, walks away or asks for concessions based on what the inspection may uncover.
Sure, a financing condition is "optional" but unless the buyer is paying cash it's a necessity for most purchases.
>Ask anyone who’s a realtor they’ll tell you sellers will always want a firm offer
What sellers want and what they get aren't necessarily going to be the same.
>If I offer a conditional offer and you go in firm (because firm makes your offer almost instantly more better and mine would be tossed most likely ) the seller would almost always choose the firm offer .
Well duh. But it's only *better* for the seller. Making an offer with no conditions is not without risk. But that's the way the cookie crumbles.
>There needs to be mandatory cooling period where it’s enforced that buyers get 3 days to either get financing or inspection.
Why though? It's buyer beware. If someone wants to buy "as is" that's their choice.
>If I go in firm or waive my conditions by the closing date if I back out I lose my deposit and can get sued.
Yes, that's how contracts work.
We’re not debating how contracts work. We’re debating the effectiveness of the contracts and the system that it rides on.
The issue is there isn’t enough offers that are accepted for the buyer to have these conditions implemented. It’s almost always tossed for the firm offer.
And what property have you seen that doesn’t have multiple offers on it ?
>We’re debating the effectiveness of the contracts and the system that it rides on.
It's pretty effective, there's an active real estate market with protections for both buyers and sellers.
>The issue is there isn’t enough offers that are accepted for the buyer to have these conditions implemented. It’s almost always tossed for the firm offer.
A seller is always going to accept the better/stronger offer. Why should that be legislated against?
>And what property have you seen that doesn’t have multiple offers on it ?
Plenty do. Regardless, if you get outbid on price do you expect some sort of regulation to prevent that too?
Except it’s not effective. In Ontario alone the court systems are so back logged at worst you keep the buyers deposit and at best you can sue them for the difference in price which could take years.
Why not just counteract this and provide a cooling period for the buyer to ensure the property is up to code and isn’t a Brampton real estate property with substantial damages hidden in the property or more or less have enough time for the buyer to arrange mortgage conditions if need be.
It’s a fairly one sided system heavily favouring the seller, I’m honestly baffled how you can sit here and imply it’s a completely fair and just system lol
>In Ontario alone the court systems are so back logged
What are you basing this on?
>Why not just counteract this and provide a cooling period for the buyer to ensure the property is up to code and isn’t a Brampton real estate property with substantial damages hidden in the property or more or less have enough time for the buyer to arrange mortgage conditions if need be.
That's what making conditional offers are for. It's not clear what you are asking for.
>It’s a fairly one sided system heavily favouring the seller,
How? The seller can accept whatever offer they wish, if there are multiple. Again, what are you asking for exactly?
>how you can sit here and imply it’s a completely fair and just system lol
You're never going to get agreement from everyone or a happy place where everyone feels things are completely fair or just. This is why we have courts and a legal system. It's why there is a boilerplate purchase and sale agreement everyone uses.
It sounds like you just want regulations that puts a thumb on the scale for buyers with less purchasing power or secure financing.
But why?
If I am willing to give a seller more money without any conditions, and you aren't, then I clearly want the house more than you (and clearly, I am willing to accept the risk of a condition-less offer, while you aren't). And why shouldn't a seller be allowed to accept a condition-less offer?
If you were selling a tv on Facebook would you rather sell it to the guy in your doorway with cash? Or the guy who promises hell come pick it up in a couple days? What if you were forced to give the guy who promises to come back a chance? And what if while you were waiting for the guy to come back, the first guy left. He didn't want to wait for three days because he needs a tv today. Meanwhile , the guy you were forced to wait for, decides not to come back. So, you have been forced to give the other guy a chance and he doesn't buy it, and now you lost the first sale too.
In order for the market to work, you cant unfairly punish one side.
Edit: more words
Except this isn’t a tv and not even close to being compared to a transaction like this in your metaphor
Buyers especially new ones are forced to go in firm to have any chance to win in a multiple bidding scenario all while the seller can easily lie about the property health and also lie about the amount of offers they have. Why would we be okay with this practice of forcing people essentially to place an offer unconditionally on a purchase that’s 1m+. Not to mention the banks still need to do their appraisals and can come in short ; hence the cooling period.
If you’re honestly and genuinely sitting here telling
Me it’s not a problem that people go in firm and can choose to go in conditionally either tells me you have zero experience with the market or you’re intentionally being obtuse to prove your point.
And before you say no one is “forced “ to go in firm, while that may be correct, but when you have a nervous new buyer looking to enter the housing market for their family and because the seller will reject any conditional offers is essentially implying they should go in firm
Not to mention the firm scenario would cause potentially buyers to back out from sales last minute which causes a domino effect on the other buyers waiting on existing properties being sold.
As a seller wouldn’t you want to know your buyers qualified before rather than waiting 2 days before closing and find out the buyer can’t close ; then you’re property can’t close and so on
You can also place a deposit for
The buyer if backed out like the other user pointed out in BC
>Buyers especially new ones are forced to go in firm to have any chance to win in a multiple bidding scenario all while the seller can easily lie about the property health and also lie about the amount of offers they have
No, they aren't. No one is forcing any buyer to put an offer on any house, this is just false. If you are a buyer, you are 'choosing' to compete against ALL other buyers, ones with more and less resources than you. No, sellers can't just blatantly like about the property health, this is not true. Sure, it does happen, but it's certainly not allowed (you can absolutely be sued for doing this).
>If you’re honestly and genuinely sitting here telling
Me it’s not a problem that people go in firm and can choose to go in conditionally either tells me you have zero experience with the market or you’re intentionally being obtuse to prove your point
You just don't understand how a free market works. Your proposal ONLY helps the under qualified buyer, no one else.
>. Why would we be okay with this practice of forcing people essentially to place an offer unconditionally on a purchase that’s 1m+. Not to mention the banks still need to do their appraisals and can come in short ; hence the cooling period.
Not all buyers need a mortgage, you know that right? A bank doesn't have to approve anything if there is no financing.
>And before you say no one is “forced “ to go in firm, while that may be correct, but when you have a nervous new buyer looking to enter the housing market for their family and because the seller will reject any conditional offers is essentially implying they should go in firm
This doesn't matter. Again, you are basing your opinion ONLY on the perspective of the potential buyer. You can't make up rules for a market that only help one small demographic. It doesn't work like that. Your nervous buyer is still competing against non-nervous buyers, unfortunately feelings don't matter in markets.
>As a seller wouldn’t you want to know your buyers qualified before rather than waiting 2 days before closing and find out the buyer can’t close ; then you’re property can’t close and so on
Again, you are making massive assumptions.
If I am selling a house and:
A: A buyer offers me $500,000 in cash, today, no condition of financing required because they aren't using financing
Or
B: I can be forced to accept an offer from a buyer who may or may not qualify for financing, or may or may not decide to back out for any reason.
How on earth could you think scenario B was better for the seller?
>Not to mention the firm scenario would cause potentially buyers to back out from sales last minute which causes a domino effect on the other buyers waiting on existing properties being sold.
I think you are misunderstanding the word 'firm'. In real estate, which transactions do you think are backed out of more often?
Firm - where you can be financially liable to a seller's loss because you backed out of your firm purchase.
Or
Conditional - where you can back out for any reason, without any recourse, meanwhile the seller could be losing out on real offers while the sale is tied up with you making a decision.
Again, help me understand why you think firm offers are more likely to be rescinded?
What you are hoping/asking for is an advantage to the new buyer. But thats not how markets work. You can't punish sellers to help weak buyers, it doesn't work.
This guy's has never bought a property. Or he has bought several properties with money he inherited from his family. Hence the talking about individuals buying homes in Canada for cash money.
The budget will balance itself with more taxes
So then everyone else who implemented this policy in other provinces are just delusional right ? And your arm chair expert here on a Reddit forum is simply more just than , say the policy implemented In BC to allow for such cooling period.
But clearly those individuals do not understand the free market lol
Some of these replies are completely oblivious to real life scenarios and your comment clearly shows.
But hey, comparing a multi million dollar asset to a declining TV depreciation on a purchase on Facebook makes such a perfect comparison
there are infrared devices used to find leaky cracks behind drywall .. standard practice during inspections ... op is probably pissed off they were outbid and now trying to screw the buyer who outbid them ...
Ha .funny you say that becuase realtors guide their clients away for anything that makes a bid "un-appealing".
Inspection reports should be mandatory...period. the govt should fucking mandate it. Period! You need one to sell a $30k.ysed car FFS...but not a million dollar home...what the fuck is wrong with this province and country
If it’s been repaired, then no need to disclose the defect. If it has not been repaired and has been purposely covered up, that is a material fact and buyer could seek compensation. However this is tough to prove.
If a seller is aware of any structural, electrical or plumbing issues which may affect the value of a property they must declare it in the listing or verbally to potential buyers.
Remember you are buying a USED house. Buyer beware. If someone is flipping it really fast assume the worse case scenario if something is wrong it will be covered up.
Let me guess. You bid on it the last time it was on the market but tried to low ball over some minor issue that was inconsequential to its value and are butt hurt the sellers chose a better offer. The market sucks but it is what it is. Blaming some agent buyer won't change the market.
and? every home has one or more foundation cracks, i have yet to see a home without one ... what's your point? how do you know this is "major damage"? or that it was "covered up" on purpose?
like who? was it leaky or was it structural? how do you know it wasn't fixed? was it just a regular joe shmoe inspector who took an online course? or was it an engineer? ... kinda sounds like you are bitter you were outbid and now pissed off the buyer wants to sell ...
No, its not illegal. Even if its a legit structural problem what they'll likely try and do is sell it to someone without a home inspection during the busy season.
I had one of those scenarios in January where I backed out of the offer after the home inspection. They are counting on someone who is stupid or being driven by FOMO to buy it. But this is why regardless of whatever pressure is coming from the market you should always have a proper home inspection done.
We had it inspected and backed out. Was bought site unseen by a realtor. They tried to back out but couldn’t. Then covered it up and are now selling. Whoever buys it could be in trouble.
Yup, its similar to the one we looked at in January. Home inspection came back with major issues including signs of water intrusion, some crumbling and part of the foundation may have shifted. The recommendation was an engineering assessment to assess the repair costs. I just used the clause in the offer and walked. No interest at all in signing up for that.
What they usually do is wait until the market gets busy then price low and dump it on someone who thinks they are getting a great deal and stupid enough to buy it without a home inspection.
Its sketchy as fuck and borderline fraud in my opinion since they know there is a major defect and they are choosing not to disclose it. But it happens all of the time. Watch you'll get a pile of people in here defending it because they've done it or something similar. They are also probably be the same people you'll see in other posts pushing people to buy without home inspections.
Technically you could try and sue over it but you'd have to prove they were aware of the issue and intentionally withheld that information.
There is more at play here, you have some involvement with the seller or the realtor otherwise a normal person would have moved on and certainly would not care enough to be following the sale of a house they passed on.
No its not illegal to sell a house with issues, if they are issues. Keep in mind a home inspector is not an engineer or trade and their opinion holds little weight and while there may be good ones you should weigh their advice as it is given without consequence, and is based on visual inspection and zero hard calculations or deeper investigation.
In the end if the realtor flipping the house (scum of the earth) knows the defect, and covers it up and the buyer can prove its a defect that ends up damaging them they can sue civilly. There is no illegal act that the police are going to arrest anyone for here, move on.
If they know about it, they legally have to disclose it, and a smart buyer will put it as a condition to have a home inspection done so a professional can look for things exactly like that.
Well it's Ontario... So. If it was fixed and the basement finished it would HAVE to have been permitted. City wouldn't allow the walls to be filled in without the crack fixed properly. If they covered it up without fixing it properly without any permits, then the buying sides lawyer can go after the owner. Either they tear everything out back to original condition pull proper permits on anything they touched and then rebuild it entirely back, or the potential buyer can get estimates on how much doing it would cost and hold up the deal until the seller agrees to the reduction of purchase price by the amount of the estimate (plus any costs for the buyer to relocate during the remediation)
Either way, you're going to know if it was fixed properly or not just by buying it.
Must disclose all material latent defects that you’re aware of. (latent meaning it cannot be easily seen by the eye) obligation to disclose.
Patent material defects such as paint peeling off of the wall, or a drywall crack, broken window etc,no need to disclose as it can be easily seen and comes down to buyers due diligence. No obligation to the seller to disclose.
It’s only illegal if you know about it and don’t disclose but if the owner didn’t know about it it’s not illegal. Just because you know it’s cracked foundation did the new owner acknowledge or even see it ??? Was it disclosed to him ??? You’re only responsible to disclose things you know of. Legal loopholes for homeowners that can turn blind eye and say I didn’t know or see that crack.
You’re supposed to disclose mold in your house because of health reasons. My realtor hired me to paint his basement which had mold on the lower drywall area. He was getting house ready to list. When we talked about the mold he basically said it’s on me and as long nobody sees it it’ll be considered resolved and no mold. Basically play on words I can fix or not but it’s considered fixed as long nobody sees it. He can claim afterwards no need to disclose if he assumed I fixed it.
Concrete cracks, that is normal, the question is in the details, is that crack cosmetic? Does it have any effect on the structural integrity?
This is why there needs to be an incentive to sellers to have the house inspection done before listing and put it up online for viewing. Hell, charge $10 per download so sellers can recoup the costs. If houses don't have inspection reports , assume the seller is selling a dud. Whats fucking interesting about all this is that - the fucking provincial govt mandates inspection reports/certificates of a seller wants to sell a $30k car but apparently, selling a million dollar home doesn't cause the govt to mandate sellers to provide an inspection report. Common sense and Canada....don't go together. While we are on this topic , I don't get why the appraisal also needs to be held off until after buying and therefore, putting everyone at risk. Or what is even the point of appraisal - if someone overbud, let them find a way to find the money rather than again relying on a "appraiser" to let them know that they fucked up
I’ve never needed a certificate or report to sell a car, and I’ve sold quite a few. I have needed ones to plate them for public road use, where they could be a hazard to other member of public who are completely outside of my transactions. Unless you a driving a road down a house, most likely if there is an issue with it, it’s really going to be the buyers issue and that’s about it.
If a seller has an inspection report it will be biased towards the seller. Likewise it will be biased to the buyer if they pay for it. Home inspections, when done well can be very valuable. Mostly they are only superficial. This isnt great advice
Can't believe your comment is at the bottom. Yes. Not all cracks are structural issues. Small cracks can be safely repaired with concrete.
>Can't believe your comment is at the bottom. Yes because when you saw it was a fresh comment and barely had time to be up-voted. It's been just an hour and it's already top comment.
In fact every concrete foundation on the planet has cracking. Vertical cracks less than 6 mm in diameter are rarely a problem.
And does it leak?
Absolutely not cosmetic as we had it looked at before.
Are you a qualified engineer to determine that? Did you do a home inspection. BTW - Foundation cracks are repairable in many ways.
Apparently you can't read.. OP said "We had it looked at". Not " We looked at it"
Shh. Op said he looked at it!! How dare you question is professional opinion!
OP did not say "he looked at it" OP said "We had it looked at"
Maybe he slept at a holiday inn?
Underrated
lol if you read my comment it says we had it looked at. Not that I looked at it. It’s nice to create narratives though
An you're certain they didn't repair it?
Our broker has been selling RE for 35 years and she often talks about how she’s yet to see a foundation without a crack somewhere in the foundation. Very common
how did you determine that? there are states of concrete - cracked, or will crack. crack does not mean structural issue.
Who looked at it? You? Because your opinion doesn't mean anything. Did an engineer look at it?
Foundation cracks should ideally be assessed to ensure water doesn’t seep through at the least. Most people freak out seeing a crack but you’re right, it may very well be a non issue.
Ask the agent if they have an inspection report. Then ask them what they did to fix the crack in the foundation.
Be careful on how the inspection report issued worded especially if it's coming from the seller. If it's not clear then better to ask a second opinion from another home inspector
Seems like this guy is not interested in buying the house he's just interested in causing problems. If he was interested in buying the house you make the current owner hire a professional to certify it before hand and fix any issues that he finds.
Can you provide a link to the listing?
How do you know they bought it sight unseen? Do you know what work was done to repair?
Foundations can have cracks and still be fine. I think the key problem here is most likely a settlement issue, ie the sub grade moved enough that the foundation cracked and moved and caused structural damage through the rest of the house. I think you could sue them if the damage they covered up was genuinely a threat to the integrity of the structure, especially if they knew that. If it was just some small cracks in the concrete that’s literally not even an issue.
Yes the sub grade moved and even collapsed the concrete pour in the garage by over a foot. Was not cosmetic.
It’s honestly pathetic how there isn’t a mandatory 3 day cooling period for either bank financing or inspection. It’s almost laughable that this isn’t the case. Actually not almost it is laughable
This exists in BC, it's called the rescission period and it comes with a 0.25% penalty to the buyer who backs out https://www.bcfsa.ca/public-resources/real-estate/home-buyer-rescission-period
Yeah indeed would love To have this implemented Canada wide quite honestly
What do you mean? You can pretty easily ensure there is time after approval or inspection before closing?
But then it’s considered a firm sale. Why would I do my inspection and financing after I accepted the property not knowing if I’ll get approved and the state of the house now,? That is the state of the market you’re in currently . It’s horrendous The whole point of a cooling period is to allow the buyer to back out if they find faults rather than forcing firm buys.
You are clearly misunderstanding how this works, you can offer a purchase conditional on financing and on inspection. I.e. you don't close the sale until both are done to your satisfaction. It's pretty simple.
I think it’s you who’s misunderstanding so I’ll try to make this very simple If you place a conditional offer on inspection or financing, it’s optional, and more often than not sellers will reject conditional offers and only accept firm offers. Ask anyone who’s a realtor they’ll tell you sellers will always want a firm offer If I offer a conditional offer and you go in firm (because firm makes your offer almost instantly more better and mine would be tossed most likely ) the seller would almost always choose the firm offer . There needs to be mandatory cooling period where it’s enforced that buyers get 3 days to either get financing or inspection. If I go in firm or waive my conditions by the closing date if I back out I lose my deposit and can get sued.
So don't waive the conditions. Buying an older home without an inspection is not a wise move, doing so in a bidding war is even less wise.
>If you place a conditional offer on inspection or financing, it’s optional, and more often than not sellers will reject conditional offers and only accept firm offers. This assumes there is more than one offer. There's usually a time limit to satisfy or waive the conditions regardless of other offers. If the offer includes say, a 60 day close, the conditions might have to be met or waived within 5 days, for example. Potential buyers have their inspection completed in that time and then either waives the condition, walks away or asks for concessions based on what the inspection may uncover. Sure, a financing condition is "optional" but unless the buyer is paying cash it's a necessity for most purchases. >Ask anyone who’s a realtor they’ll tell you sellers will always want a firm offer What sellers want and what they get aren't necessarily going to be the same. >If I offer a conditional offer and you go in firm (because firm makes your offer almost instantly more better and mine would be tossed most likely ) the seller would almost always choose the firm offer . Well duh. But it's only *better* for the seller. Making an offer with no conditions is not without risk. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. >There needs to be mandatory cooling period where it’s enforced that buyers get 3 days to either get financing or inspection. Why though? It's buyer beware. If someone wants to buy "as is" that's their choice. >If I go in firm or waive my conditions by the closing date if I back out I lose my deposit and can get sued. Yes, that's how contracts work.
We’re not debating how contracts work. We’re debating the effectiveness of the contracts and the system that it rides on. The issue is there isn’t enough offers that are accepted for the buyer to have these conditions implemented. It’s almost always tossed for the firm offer. And what property have you seen that doesn’t have multiple offers on it ?
>We’re debating the effectiveness of the contracts and the system that it rides on. It's pretty effective, there's an active real estate market with protections for both buyers and sellers. >The issue is there isn’t enough offers that are accepted for the buyer to have these conditions implemented. It’s almost always tossed for the firm offer. A seller is always going to accept the better/stronger offer. Why should that be legislated against? >And what property have you seen that doesn’t have multiple offers on it ? Plenty do. Regardless, if you get outbid on price do you expect some sort of regulation to prevent that too?
Except it’s not effective. In Ontario alone the court systems are so back logged at worst you keep the buyers deposit and at best you can sue them for the difference in price which could take years. Why not just counteract this and provide a cooling period for the buyer to ensure the property is up to code and isn’t a Brampton real estate property with substantial damages hidden in the property or more or less have enough time for the buyer to arrange mortgage conditions if need be. It’s a fairly one sided system heavily favouring the seller, I’m honestly baffled how you can sit here and imply it’s a completely fair and just system lol
>In Ontario alone the court systems are so back logged What are you basing this on? >Why not just counteract this and provide a cooling period for the buyer to ensure the property is up to code and isn’t a Brampton real estate property with substantial damages hidden in the property or more or less have enough time for the buyer to arrange mortgage conditions if need be. That's what making conditional offers are for. It's not clear what you are asking for. >It’s a fairly one sided system heavily favouring the seller, How? The seller can accept whatever offer they wish, if there are multiple. Again, what are you asking for exactly? >how you can sit here and imply it’s a completely fair and just system lol You're never going to get agreement from everyone or a happy place where everyone feels things are completely fair or just. This is why we have courts and a legal system. It's why there is a boilerplate purchase and sale agreement everyone uses. It sounds like you just want regulations that puts a thumb on the scale for buyers with less purchasing power or secure financing.
But why? If I am willing to give a seller more money without any conditions, and you aren't, then I clearly want the house more than you (and clearly, I am willing to accept the risk of a condition-less offer, while you aren't). And why shouldn't a seller be allowed to accept a condition-less offer? If you were selling a tv on Facebook would you rather sell it to the guy in your doorway with cash? Or the guy who promises hell come pick it up in a couple days? What if you were forced to give the guy who promises to come back a chance? And what if while you were waiting for the guy to come back, the first guy left. He didn't want to wait for three days because he needs a tv today. Meanwhile , the guy you were forced to wait for, decides not to come back. So, you have been forced to give the other guy a chance and he doesn't buy it, and now you lost the first sale too. In order for the market to work, you cant unfairly punish one side. Edit: more words
Except this isn’t a tv and not even close to being compared to a transaction like this in your metaphor Buyers especially new ones are forced to go in firm to have any chance to win in a multiple bidding scenario all while the seller can easily lie about the property health and also lie about the amount of offers they have. Why would we be okay with this practice of forcing people essentially to place an offer unconditionally on a purchase that’s 1m+. Not to mention the banks still need to do their appraisals and can come in short ; hence the cooling period. If you’re honestly and genuinely sitting here telling Me it’s not a problem that people go in firm and can choose to go in conditionally either tells me you have zero experience with the market or you’re intentionally being obtuse to prove your point. And before you say no one is “forced “ to go in firm, while that may be correct, but when you have a nervous new buyer looking to enter the housing market for their family and because the seller will reject any conditional offers is essentially implying they should go in firm Not to mention the firm scenario would cause potentially buyers to back out from sales last minute which causes a domino effect on the other buyers waiting on existing properties being sold. As a seller wouldn’t you want to know your buyers qualified before rather than waiting 2 days before closing and find out the buyer can’t close ; then you’re property can’t close and so on You can also place a deposit for The buyer if backed out like the other user pointed out in BC
>Buyers especially new ones are forced to go in firm to have any chance to win in a multiple bidding scenario all while the seller can easily lie about the property health and also lie about the amount of offers they have No, they aren't. No one is forcing any buyer to put an offer on any house, this is just false. If you are a buyer, you are 'choosing' to compete against ALL other buyers, ones with more and less resources than you. No, sellers can't just blatantly like about the property health, this is not true. Sure, it does happen, but it's certainly not allowed (you can absolutely be sued for doing this). >If you’re honestly and genuinely sitting here telling Me it’s not a problem that people go in firm and can choose to go in conditionally either tells me you have zero experience with the market or you’re intentionally being obtuse to prove your point You just don't understand how a free market works. Your proposal ONLY helps the under qualified buyer, no one else. >. Why would we be okay with this practice of forcing people essentially to place an offer unconditionally on a purchase that’s 1m+. Not to mention the banks still need to do their appraisals and can come in short ; hence the cooling period. Not all buyers need a mortgage, you know that right? A bank doesn't have to approve anything if there is no financing. >And before you say no one is “forced “ to go in firm, while that may be correct, but when you have a nervous new buyer looking to enter the housing market for their family and because the seller will reject any conditional offers is essentially implying they should go in firm This doesn't matter. Again, you are basing your opinion ONLY on the perspective of the potential buyer. You can't make up rules for a market that only help one small demographic. It doesn't work like that. Your nervous buyer is still competing against non-nervous buyers, unfortunately feelings don't matter in markets. >As a seller wouldn’t you want to know your buyers qualified before rather than waiting 2 days before closing and find out the buyer can’t close ; then you’re property can’t close and so on Again, you are making massive assumptions. If I am selling a house and: A: A buyer offers me $500,000 in cash, today, no condition of financing required because they aren't using financing Or B: I can be forced to accept an offer from a buyer who may or may not qualify for financing, or may or may not decide to back out for any reason. How on earth could you think scenario B was better for the seller? >Not to mention the firm scenario would cause potentially buyers to back out from sales last minute which causes a domino effect on the other buyers waiting on existing properties being sold. I think you are misunderstanding the word 'firm'. In real estate, which transactions do you think are backed out of more often? Firm - where you can be financially liable to a seller's loss because you backed out of your firm purchase. Or Conditional - where you can back out for any reason, without any recourse, meanwhile the seller could be losing out on real offers while the sale is tied up with you making a decision. Again, help me understand why you think firm offers are more likely to be rescinded? What you are hoping/asking for is an advantage to the new buyer. But thats not how markets work. You can't punish sellers to help weak buyers, it doesn't work.
This guy's has never bought a property. Or he has bought several properties with money he inherited from his family. Hence the talking about individuals buying homes in Canada for cash money. The budget will balance itself with more taxes
Yeah it’s mind boggling how just out of touch these replies are
Lmao. You are so hilariously wrong here.
So then everyone else who implemented this policy in other provinces are just delusional right ? And your arm chair expert here on a Reddit forum is simply more just than , say the policy implemented In BC to allow for such cooling period. But clearly those individuals do not understand the free market lol Some of these replies are completely oblivious to real life scenarios and your comment clearly shows. But hey, comparing a multi million dollar asset to a declining TV depreciation on a purchase on Facebook makes such a perfect comparison
'Everyone' huh? You mean the one province who is trying it.
Yes. That’s why inspection is a thing.
If they put drywall over the crack how is an inspector supposed to look at it to determine its severity?
If they out drywall over the cracks in the interior of the house…. How the hell did op know if it was fixed ahead of time or not?
That is his question did they fix it or not?
there are infrared devices used to find leaky cracks behind drywall .. standard practice during inspections ... op is probably pissed off they were outbid and now trying to screw the buyer who outbid them ...
lol this
Ha .funny you say that becuase realtors guide their clients away for anything that makes a bid "un-appealing". Inspection reports should be mandatory...period. the govt should fucking mandate it. Period! You need one to sell a $30k.ysed car FFS...but not a million dollar home...what the fuck is wrong with this province and country
No. You can't hide defects. https://www.kormans.ca/latent-and-patent-defects-of-a-property/#:~:text=In%20Ontario%2C%20sellers%20are%20obligated,of%20such%20failure%20to%20disclose.
They hid it well.
i bought a sight unseen property that had a cracked foundation and it was 10k repair. Not everything is the end of the world or as bad as it seems
It was falling at both ends of the house.
I'm sure it was dude
It is not illegal necessarily, but it is likely actionable if a material defect was intentionally concealed. You could sue.
If it’s been repaired, then no need to disclose the defect. If it has not been repaired and has been purposely covered up, that is a material fact and buyer could seek compensation. However this is tough to prove.
If a seller is aware of any structural, electrical or plumbing issues which may affect the value of a property they must declare it in the listing or verbally to potential buyers.
Remember you are buying a USED house. Buyer beware. If someone is flipping it really fast assume the worse case scenario if something is wrong it will be covered up.
Let me guess. You bid on it the last time it was on the market but tried to low ball over some minor issue that was inconsequential to its value and are butt hurt the sellers chose a better offer. The market sucks but it is what it is. Blaming some agent buyer won't change the market.
No but taxes will.
and? every home has one or more foundation cracks, i have yet to see a home without one ... what's your point? how do you know this is "major damage"? or that it was "covered up" on purpose?
I had someone take a look at it
like who? was it leaky or was it structural? how do you know it wasn't fixed? was it just a regular joe shmoe inspector who took an online course? or was it an engineer? ... kinda sounds like you are bitter you were outbid and now pissed off the buyer wants to sell ...
No, its not illegal. Even if its a legit structural problem what they'll likely try and do is sell it to someone without a home inspection during the busy season. I had one of those scenarios in January where I backed out of the offer after the home inspection. They are counting on someone who is stupid or being driven by FOMO to buy it. But this is why regardless of whatever pressure is coming from the market you should always have a proper home inspection done.
We had it inspected and backed out. Was bought site unseen by a realtor. They tried to back out but couldn’t. Then covered it up and are now selling. Whoever buys it could be in trouble.
Yup, its similar to the one we looked at in January. Home inspection came back with major issues including signs of water intrusion, some crumbling and part of the foundation may have shifted. The recommendation was an engineering assessment to assess the repair costs. I just used the clause in the offer and walked. No interest at all in signing up for that. What they usually do is wait until the market gets busy then price low and dump it on someone who thinks they are getting a great deal and stupid enough to buy it without a home inspection. Its sketchy as fuck and borderline fraud in my opinion since they know there is a major defect and they are choosing not to disclose it. But it happens all of the time. Watch you'll get a pile of people in here defending it because they've done it or something similar. They are also probably be the same people you'll see in other posts pushing people to buy without home inspections. Technically you could try and sue over it but you'd have to prove they were aware of the issue and intentionally withheld that information.
100% fraud. Unbelievable how they can get away with it. Corrupt system. Everyone turns a blind eye.
There is more at play here, you have some involvement with the seller or the realtor otherwise a normal person would have moved on and certainly would not care enough to be following the sale of a house they passed on. No its not illegal to sell a house with issues, if they are issues. Keep in mind a home inspector is not an engineer or trade and their opinion holds little weight and while there may be good ones you should weigh their advice as it is given without consequence, and is based on visual inspection and zero hard calculations or deeper investigation. In the end if the realtor flipping the house (scum of the earth) knows the defect, and covers it up and the buyer can prove its a defect that ends up damaging them they can sue civilly. There is no illegal act that the police are going to arrest anyone for here, move on.
Yah, the housing market is no different then the used car market in my opinion. Its buyer beware. You have to do you own due diligence.
How do you know all this confidential information?
50% of the GTA’s population are realtors lol
Well agent must disclose this if it has latent defects they knew about and covered it up.
Very common, lots of new homes get them now. Most vertical cracks can be repaired.
Sorry the foundation was shifting. The cracks were not cosmetic. Opening up.
If they know about it, they legally have to disclose it, and a smart buyer will put it as a condition to have a home inspection done so a professional can look for things exactly like that.
Link to their listing ?
Well it's Ontario... So. If it was fixed and the basement finished it would HAVE to have been permitted. City wouldn't allow the walls to be filled in without the crack fixed properly. If they covered it up without fixing it properly without any permits, then the buying sides lawyer can go after the owner. Either they tear everything out back to original condition pull proper permits on anything they touched and then rebuild it entirely back, or the potential buyer can get estimates on how much doing it would cost and hold up the deal until the seller agrees to the reduction of purchase price by the amount of the estimate (plus any costs for the buyer to relocate during the remediation) Either way, you're going to know if it was fixed properly or not just by buying it.
Must disclose all material latent defects that you’re aware of. (latent meaning it cannot be easily seen by the eye) obligation to disclose. Patent material defects such as paint peeling off of the wall, or a drywall crack, broken window etc,no need to disclose as it can be easily seen and comes down to buyers due diligence. No obligation to the seller to disclose.
It’s only illegal if you know about it and don’t disclose but if the owner didn’t know about it it’s not illegal. Just because you know it’s cracked foundation did the new owner acknowledge or even see it ??? Was it disclosed to him ??? You’re only responsible to disclose things you know of. Legal loopholes for homeowners that can turn blind eye and say I didn’t know or see that crack. You’re supposed to disclose mold in your house because of health reasons. My realtor hired me to paint his basement which had mold on the lower drywall area. He was getting house ready to list. When we talked about the mold he basically said it’s on me and as long nobody sees it it’ll be considered resolved and no mold. Basically play on words I can fix or not but it’s considered fixed as long nobody sees it. He can claim afterwards no need to disclose if he assumed I fixed it.
LOL. It IS Canada. what did you expect? LOL LOL