What should i have done?

Question

My wife and I recently purchased a house. the seller had told us and our agent that the house had never been lived in as they were investors. We had the home inspection and everything and afterwards we had found out that they had rented the property out. Due to them saying the house had never been lived in the inspector didn't check the shower cartridges as they were not in "everyday use" at the time so it ended up costing us out of pocket to fix it. but afterwards the only advice our agent told us was that we could take them to court for the repairs but it would have been our word against theirs and the seller was a highly respected surgeon in this town so it wouldn't do much. Just getting others opinions on what they would have done? It only ended up costing about 150 bucks but it was more of a gee should i trust you if i ever need surgery thing lol.

It wasnt that the water didnt run it was just that the showers didnt have hot water at all. We probably wouldn't have known if the name in the mailbox wasn't different than the owners lol.

Answer 1

I had a similar problem with the wiring in my house, there was a dangerously bad wire under the house that the inspector was supposed to catch. The prior owner was supposed to pay for any repairs the inspector caught, but since he failed to catch that one it wound up costing us $200 and hot night without power. There are three options you have. You can just suck up the $150 just to keep from dealing with the trouble, which is what we did. You can take the man to small claims court, which will be a hard battle unless someone can testify that he said that it had never been lived in which is false advertising. But if you want to take it to court, your best bet would be to probably take the inspector to court. There is a code that an inspector was supposed to follow. If he failed to do it because someone "said" the place was never lived in, then he failed to do his job. There is a law that allows a homeowner to take the inspector to court if the inspector is negligent in such a way that something he misses might would have made you change your decision to purchase the house. Even if the house had never been lived in, the plumbing was supposed to be inspected since that makes it even MORE likely to have something wrong with it. The court option would probably be a lot more trouble than just accepting the cost, but it is an option if you want to do it. If you decide the court route, I would ask a lawyer about your options first, they will not charge you for a question. You can also find a lot of these laws that might come into effect online, I learned about the inspector law from a lender's website.

Answer 2

Just keep the guy's name in mind and never go to him for a surgery!

Not much you can do about $150, unless you really want to take him to small claims court. I'd say just be glad that's ALL that was wrong with the house :)

Answer 3

Well if it only ended up costing $150 and you got a terrific house then leave it that.

Answer 4

They having been investors had no-one living there while they had the place. even new fixtures can seize while not in use. if that is the worst problems with the place be happy for that isn't bad .

Answer 5

That should fall on the back of your agent,it was his responsiblity to see everything was as "represented"Contact your local board of Realtors and talk with them about your agent knowing this and not doing anything about it.

Answer 6

i looked at houses bevor. i always checked if the water runs in all sinks, showers, toilets, etc.
i dont know why yuor inspector did not check. he did a bad job. but you got it fixed. dont worry about it.

Answer 7

Live and learn