When we sold our house in 2004 we had a pre listing inspection. It was part of the expectations for the realty firm we went with, all their house listings had one. At the time, it was a seller's market so the inspection just made sure that we had good offers from the get go and that the buyer knew what they were getting and wouldn't back out later. It worked for us, we had multiple offers that all took our inspection and did not request to do their own.

I am not sure I would do one. It is impossible to predict the things that buyers will care about. For example, I could care less about the fans being vented into the attic, and wouldn't have asked you to change it. If it is being vented through a wall it would not really bother me either,but I don't particularly like modifying roofs to vent them through the roof.

Also, some inspectors really need to justify their fees and always seem to find "areas of concern," regardless of how legitimate they are.

Not suggesting anything, but any previously unknown problems discovered in that pre-listing inspection will impact on your disclosing known issues. (Yes, I understand the argument that they probably come up on any future inspections.)

If your bathroom van has been venting to the attic for an extended period was there any sign of mold? Depending on the home, venting thru the roof is not the only option. (Mine vent thru the end gable on my two story colonial, for example. Have to careful of the slope of the vent line in that case.)

I've never gotten one, nor do I plan to in the future. Why find out "problems" you must then disclose? I know others like them, but I still don't see the value in them.

The bathroom vents have always vented directly into to the attic and there is no sign of mold. He ran the tubes up to the rafters and attached the outlets to the exhaust fan in the roof.

Pre-listing inspections seem to be standard operating procedure in our area. As jesshs mentioned, in a sellers' market with typical multiple offers, the pre-listing inspections make it easier for buyers to swallow making offers with no contingencies.

Cons -- the inspection might turn up something unknown and unsuspected; this happened to us. It made me wonder whether maybe we should start having home inspections every few years just as a maintenance measure.

We had a fellow who has done work on the house go over it from top to bottom. As a result, we painted the garage floor, painted a wall in the basement and put good labels on the electric box in the basement. We have the yearly inspection on the furnace that shows its efficiency and the c of o on the work we did.

In our market it is standard operating procedure to have the house inspected prior to listing. That report is made available to prospective buyers and inspection is virtually never a contingency in offers. Made me nervous as a buyer because we relied on the seller 's inspection. But it is how it is done here.

If it is not usually done in your market, I don't think I would do one. Because you might fix things that a buyer's inspector wouldn't even notice.

I don't know if I would do a pre-inspection on a home. Inspectors find different things. I could do a pre-inspection sink money into fixing those issues, only to find that a buyers inspection finds a host of different issues. However, it's also not common or expected in my area.

The only thing I've done in advance is had a structural engineer review my foundation (as I'm in a 50 year old house) Foundation issues are common in my area, and so I wanted to know in advance if I needed any sort of major structural work, as it can run in the tens of thousands of dollars.

I had a 100 year old house that looked fantastic but had tons of issues. I had a pre listing inspection done. I told the inspector to be brutal. Then I copied the report and set it on the table by the house flyer. No surprises

I sold the house as is for close to asking.

Doesn't sound like your place is in that kind of shape. I wouldn't do it .

Jn3344...did you fix all the issues on the repair? I could imagine that could get very expensive.

No. That was the point - over disclose all the issues and make it so there were no surprises for anyone. I did evict some squirrels from the eaves :)

The big con is full disclosure. If you don't know, you can't disclose, but if you know... sorry, you must tell any buyer what was in that pre inspection. DO NOT DO IT!!

The purpose of the pre inspection is to find the major items that need repaired and then to repair them! So, there will be nothing to disclose. Most items on any report are small maintenance items, that do not need to be disclosed anyway.

Why would a seller want to hand over leverage to the buyer by not knowing what they are offering? The buyer will either ask for the repair anyhow, or ask for a price reduction three times the actual repair amount.

Do the major repairs under your time schedule, with your preferred contractors. It will save you money, misunderstandings, and stress.

Also, a seller does not have to disclose anything to EVERY buyer. Here, the seller has three days after the contract is executed to get the disclosure over to the other side. Of course, the buyer has the option to terminate the contract once they do receive the disclosure.

"Most items on any report are small maintenance items, that do not need to be disclosed anyway."

Can you give an example? For instance, stone that needs to be re-pointed. Is that something that needs to be disclosed or too minor? How about low water pressure at a spigot?

What exactly are the disclosure parameters?

DH was listing the home he co-owned with his ex and they got a pre-inspection. They repaired what they thought was obvious, like mold, dry rot, sagging beam, GFI's... stuff like that. Then came offer no. 1 with their own inspection report. It went much less deeper than DH's pre-listing inspection, but in California, both inspection reports had to be shown to the buyer. Buyer ended up backing out, but now there are TWO reports to be disclosed. Buyer no. 2 came along with their own inspector. Now there are THREE reports. The first report was more comprehensive and DH had to fix a lot more than he would have, had he not done the pre-inspection. This goes to show that not all inspectors are equal. Anyway. Lesson learned. No pre-inspection reports for us ever again.