Melbourne man discovers extensive model train network underneath house

Why don’t get sued into usefulness when issues inevitably arise in properties they’ve inspected?

When you pay an expert and rely on their opinion, you have recourse

My experience here in the UK, despite getting the highest "tier" of survey carried out on my (current) home when buying it, was that within the 74 page report they produced, there were at least a dozen occurrences of the surveyors recommending a "specialist".

They avoid any liability by saying, "we couldn't survey under the floor", we recommend getting in a specialist. "we can't assess the roof structure", we recommend getting a specialist.

By the time all was said and done, we were looking at tens of thousands of pounds in further "specialist" surveys, which nobody realistically is going to do only to decide after that you won't buy the house.

I can imagine once you're looking at houses priced in the millions it might make sense, but blowing the equivalent of your deposit just isn't tenable.

My home inspection report was two pages of useful information (here’s where the water shutoff is, the breaker panel is here), a page with two actual real issues (garage door opener didn’t work, kitchen foundation was settling) and then ten to twenty pages of “we don’t look at shit” legalese.

They specifically disclaim being experts in damn near everything.

If you want a real inspection you hire two or three building contractors to do it. I’d go with a general, a roofer, and an electrician. If I cared.