Being a city dweller, I have never been party to an onsite system inspection, but I have been through home inspections at the time of sale.

Such inspections are generally not required by law, but due diligence demands them. The first time I was on the seller’s end of an inspection, things went seriously haywire, largely through my own fault.

To make a long story short, an inspector paid by the buyer found a highly questionable defect in a basement wall that the buyers insisted I repair. Instead of cutting my losses and negotiating a solution, I resisted.

I got other inspectors’ opinions and hired a lawyer, trying to prove myself right. The objective evidence said I was, but the buyer didn’t want to hear it. A few weeks and various (fairly small) bills later, I relented, made the repair (which was really not so costly), and closed the sale on schedule at near the asking price.

Meet in the middle

And right there I learned a lesson: A time-of-sale inspection requires some give and take. Ideally, both parties should be flexible. In fact, to his credit, the inspector who found fault with my basement wall said as much to my wife and me, and the buyers.

He said, in essence, that the objective was to make the sale go through, and that a fair resolution would help both parties. My wife and I would get our sale, and the buyers would get a basement pretty well beyond reproach, to their benefit both immediately and when they went to sell someday. So, he said, there was room to split the difference.

The fact my buyers wouldn’t do so is not really relevant here. The point is that a good inspector has the people skills to help both parties perceive their mutual interests and resolve the issue. And so it can be with onsite system inspections.

Too often, inspections that find defects lead to nastiness, busted deals, and even lawsuits. In home inspections, the unstated purpose often is to find defects so that the buyer can force the purchase price down. In onsite inspections, a finding of a failed system can confront the sellers with a major expense they did not expect.

A bit of wisdom

In reality, there is no reason the full cost of repair has to fall on the seller, because in the end, if repairs are made or a new system installed, the buyer is assured of a properly functioning system. And so the buyer has reason to share the cost.

The genius of time-of-sale inspections is that they expose system problems, if any, at a time when both buyer and seller are best equipped to deal with them. The buyers in all likelihood can add their share of repair costs to the mortgage. And the sellers can pay their share out of the sale proceeds. (I realize that the prevalence of underwater mortgages these days makes that proposition less certain.)

So if I were an onsite inspector, here is what I would do. Before going ahead with the inspection, I would get buyer and seller together around a table. I’d explain exactly what the inspection would include, and what they should expect and not expect from it.

And then I would say, in essence: “You are in this together. If we find a defect or a failure, it will have to be corrected. Mr. and Mrs. Seller, some responsibility is certainly yours, since care of the system was your job.

“Mr. and Mrs. Buyer, once repairs are made, you can be sure of a system that works so long as you maintain it properly. That has value for which you should expect to pay something. Sellers, you want to move on with your lives. Buyers, you want to own the property. We all want to see the sale go through. So there should be a way to find a middle ground. If that’s agreeable to everyone, let’s go ahead with the inspection.”

Too utopian?

As I said, I’m not an inspector, so maybe I’m being naive or too idealistic. But my limited experience tells me this approach can work better than simply going through the inspection, putting forth the technical facts, and leaving the parties to duke it out. (At least it should work in situations where the system problem is not the result of some gross negligence on the seller’s part.)

No matter what happens, you can’t get involved in the parties’ negotiations. But at least you’ll have helped put them on a conciliatory path. And if you can do that, you may gain a reputation as an inspector who tells it like it is, but who also helps people close deals. That can only be good for business.

The point is that in possibly contentious situations, where people have money and property at stake, feelings are as important as facts, and probably more so. And so it’s people skills, at least as much as technical knowledge, that will make or break an onsite system inspection.