Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I live in Scotland, and the process here is the seller has to undertake a survey with someone who is accredited. In practice this means that the same 3-4 firms end up doing most of the surveys. It's not just some ranodmer saying "yeah, looks good mate".

> In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.

You know what's even better than _only_ a couple of hundred dollars? The seller paying it once.



The seller paying it once.

It's the same in Sweden, that the seller does and pays for a survey. Still common for the buyer to request to be allowed to get a second independent survey done. Of course the seller can refuse to allow a second survey, but that in itself is quite telling.


Suppose the seller got a bad report. Wouldn’t they just shop to a new surveyor to get a better one? The incentives are bad in this situation.

Also, even if the money first comes out of the sellers pocket, it’s still being paid by the buyer in the houses cost.


Easy way to solve that is making sure there’s a record of all accredited inspections that potential buyers can access. So you have a do-over after fixing something but there’s a trail for the buyer.


In they US there’s a very competitive market. But that also means big differences in quality.

I wouldn’t trust an inspector chosen at random, much less an inspector chosen by the seller.

To be clear, I don’t care who is paying - as long as I pick the inspector.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: