By Dan Steward
Photo: Saanich Police
One of the most insidious dangers in the real estate market is the increasing inventory of houses used for production of illegal, toxic substances – notably methamphetamines. Crystal meth use has risen drastically since 2003, with the highest concentration of crystal meth-related deaths occurring in British Columbia. Meth lab seizures are rising for the first time since 2003, drawing attention to the problem of meth contamination, which can permeate drywall, carpets, insulation and air ducts, causing respiratory ailments and other health problems.
Many of us have read accounts of families who’ve bought their dream homes, only to experience unexplained illnesses, grapple with associated medical bills and ultimately make the discovery that the home was used as a meth lab, a fact not disclosed during the sale. In an extraordinary example of adding insult to injury, these homeowners are now liable for the tens of thousands of dollars that cleanup and detoxification require.
The health effects of meth contamination are frequently difficult to prove, and research is scant. But John W. Martyny, a meth expert at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, says living in a former meth lab made children more likely to develop learning disabilities and caused long-term respiratory and skin problems. Even brief exposure can have severe effects, Martyny says. A 2007 study by the Denver centre found that more than 70 per cent of law enforcement officials who had inspected meth labs subsequently reported health problems.
Some regions have tried to fix the problem by requiring cleanup and, at the time of sale, disclosure of the house’s history. But the high cost of cleaning – $5,000 to $100,000, depending on the size of the home, the stringency of the requirements and the degree of contamination – has left properties vacant and quarantined, particularly in areas afflicted with meth use.
What about disclosure regulations? From a legal perspective, disclosures include patent defects, which are obvious, and also “latent” defects. These would not be revealed by a reasonable inspection. Although there is no implied warranty that a property is of any particular quality, if the seller knows, or could be expected to know that the buyer would not purchase the property if they were aware of the latent defect, the seller has a responsibility to disclose such defects to the buyer.
However, individual sellers can simply check the box that says “no” when asked if the house was used as a meth lab, and then disappear from sight. For those homes seized in police raids, there is often a series of transfers and sales, only lightly supervised, prior to sale at auction. In these cases, notice of use as a meth lab may simply fall away during the process.
Exerting best efforts to ensure a home has not been used as a meth lab is clearly the most prudent means of protecting your client, and yourself.
I believe a thorough home inspection is your best weapon to identify potential risks in a home. This means a thorough examination of the structure and systems including HVAC, electric and plumbing, plus walls, floors and attic and basement spaces. A professional inspection provides a clear, unbiased assessment of the home, presented in report at the time of the inspection, on the home’s condition. Pillar To Post now offers specific meth lab and marijuana grow house testing in certain markets and will expand to offer this service in additional regions in 2010.
The RCMP estimates there are 18,000 drug labs currently operating in the lower mainland of B.C. There are thousands more across the rest of Canada. You, as a Realtor, gain the greatest advantage by being aware of the preponderance of meth labs in the real estate market, and by guiding your clients on the safest ways to avoid these toxic risks.
Dan Steward is president of Pillar to Post home inspections, which has almost 500 locations in nine provinces and 43 states. 1-800-294-5591; www.pillartopost.com.
Buying a house without a home inspection should be grounds for dismissal of the Realtor. This is the LARGEST investment a person makes and to not spend $350 on an inspection should NOT be permitted. Aren’t Realtors supposed to be working in their clients best interest, not their pocketbooks? So what if it’s a bidding war and you have a cash offer, no conditions — first of all, the Realtor that allows that offer is TERRIBLE!
The problem in Canada is that the inspection isn’t valid for the property, only for the person who paid for it!! How dumb is that!! Why the home seller can’t get a pre-list inspection that is valid for the new buyer is a complete farce. This one rule change would make things so much better.
MORE “mis-information” for anyone reading it.
Kevin states (above): “Why the home seller can’t get a pre-list inspection that is valid for the new buyer is a complete farce. This one rule change would make things so much better.”
From where did you acquire this information, Kevin? And exactly what Rule (number) addresses this topic, please – that you would have “changed?”
My seller clients are offered the opportunity to acquire a pre-list home inspection, at every opportunity. If they decline, they decline. Their choice. We are still living in a world, so far at least, of free choice.
When a Seller does elect to have a pre-list home inspection, he can do with it whatever he wishes. He can sell it to the Buyer (be reimbursed on closing perhaps); he can give it to the Buyer; he can fix ahead of time what needs fixing, or allow for the cost-fix, to the Buyer, in the offer negotiations, if he so wishes; he can elect to ignore the results of the home inspection and wing it, hoping he will find a Buyer dumb enough to not ask for details. Multiple choices. But the Seller’s choices are not the responsibility of the REALTOR(r). Don’t shoot the messenger.
The Buyer can accept the Seller’s pre-list home inspection report (of course prepared by an expert, not prepared by a REALTOR(r) as some are apparently doing), on the subject property, and run with it, perhaps negotiating parts and pieces of it during the buying process; or, the Buyer can elect to have his own home inspection done, by his own chosen expert, relieving the Seller of that situation – even if it means that then are two inspections (great for comparing notes to see what if anything got missed).
And things do get missed. I am thinking we as REALTORS(r) might be wiser to suggest hiring a series of experts, instead: electrician, plumber and HVAC person, along with a roofer specific – instead of or in addition to a home inspector, who often enough, has restrictions as to liability placed on his work anyhow.
Either way, it is not the job of the REALTOR(r) to make any sorts of comments regarding home inspections other than to suggest that the Buyer might want to engage the services of “another” expert in this regard. And, if he is smart, he will keep his mouth closed as to offering expertise outside his area of knowledge, when the Buyer is reviewing the report.
In the case where a Buyer elects not to have a home inspection, a savvy REALTOR(r) will have a liability form signed off at the time of purchase, relieving the REALTOR(r) of any responsibility for the Buyer’s “personal” decision to move forward without one, acknowledging that the topic has been covered and the decision to proceed has been made by the Buyer who has not been co-erced by the REALTOR(r) in any way ,shape, or form.
A REALTOR(r) acting for the Seller, must NEVER tell a Buyer or Buyer agent that because a home, for example, is only fifteen months old, that Tarion covers everything, not to worry, no inspection needed. This is actually happening in the industry. Even in new-builds, city and government inspectors do NOT inspect “every house.” Their mandate is to inspect homes that are representative of the subdivision builder, and they then trust that all homes meet those standards. Sadly, often they do not, and the Buyer is then left to deal with Tarion who tells the Buyer the subject of discussion is not covered.
In a similar vein, Bob Aaron has addresses the survey issue in his articles: Lawyers are still telling Buyers not to concern themselves over having no survey or, more importantly, one with errors, because the lawyer has bought title insurance for the Buyer.
Here’s the catch, according to Title Insurance expert: LAWYER IS WRONG! If there is an existing survey and there is a problem, the problem is the lawyer’s problem, not a title insurance problem. The lawyer should have checked the survey, discovered the issues if any, reported them to his client(s), and dealt with any arising issues – BEFORE CLOSING. Title insurance WILL NOT COVER any related survey problems discovered after closing, when there is a survey provided by the Seller, as part of the closing documents.
The lawyer should not rely on having bought title insurance and then tell the client that he and his office were “sold down the river” when they bought into the title insurance concept. Where does THAT leave the client?
Regards,
Carolyne L
A licenced/registered REALTOR(r)
Proudly putting my name to my work for 29 years
Carolyne Realty Corp. Brokerage(1991)
Serving Burlington and Brampton
http://www.Carolyne.com
As prudent as it is for a home buyer to have their own inspection done ( I never advocate relying on the seller’s) many seem to choose the least expensive route, especially when that competitive edge hits them in a bidding war when they must have that house and where they throw all good sense away. Even so, I am sure most inspectors won’t even know how to go about testing for meth much less include the service in their usual fee and I know of at least one company whose inspection is so comprehensive the cost alone is in the 4 digit range and the wait time is at least 7 days – too few to avoid a bidding war.
The number of such incidences will increase when homes trade hands without the aid of a REALTOR.
Yes, PED.
Talk about a make-work project . . . (just something to think about in our about-to-be big brother is watching society).
If inspections were to be made mandatory (by whom?) and what types of inspections would be mandatory?- who would police the requirement(s)? monitoring the rules and regs and inspecting the inspectors? and making sure the Sellers met all the issues full head-on, perhaps before they would be “allowed to sell their property.” What kind(s) of inspections would be deemed vital, and fall into whose jurisdictions regarding compliance? What kinds of penalties would be implemented? and how?
What happened to the mandatory energy audit requirement that seemingly has been put on hold – some say due to lack of inspectors with the skills and knowledge to do those types evaluations? How come no one in the government thought of that glitch before trying to enforce that procedure?
Who is going to be the toilet police? making sure you have the right kind (now REQUIRED under new rules), and that you have, in fact, replaced yours? Is someone going to go house to house to check that you have met the new qualifications? and what will happen to you if you have not complied? Will there be a penalty? Will you be forbidden from selling your house, privately or otherwise until you have complied?
Are REALTORS(r) going to be required to be bylaw enforcement officers? Will it soon be a requirement for a REALTOR(r) to record information, relative to all the new, and soon to be new, must have’s? and report the findings to whoever is policing the situations? Surely not. Someone will read real estate ads and find a notation that all toilets are original; then what? A visit from a monitor? Soon big brother really will be watching. 1984 came and went but now we live it?
And who will ask what questions of those selling/buying privately? Who will be required to monitor those transactions? Will lawyers closing transactions be required to actually pay a visit to (as in attend at) the subject property before signing off on the closing paperwork, so they too will not be caught in the disclosure web? The new close-a-transaction police… is this where the future in real estate is heading? You might not need to hire a REALTOR® but you will certainly have to retain counsel of some sort, instead, to protect your position, your findings. Might cost more?
Now there’s a thought. REALTORS(r) are regulated. Fodder for new course materials. Who regulates those practicing real estate without a licence? Helping people buy and sell with no requirements attached to the industry? Isn’t that forbidden? Like water, it will all seek its own level eventually.
Carolyne L
A licenced/registered REALTOR(r)
Proudly putting my name to my work for 29 years
Carolyne Realty Corp. Brokerage(1991)
Serving Burlington and Brampton
http://www.Carolyne.com
You hit the nail on the head with the energy audit Carolyne:
Buyer – I demand an energy audit!
Seller – I’m not doing one see ya!