Compared a $200 inspection to a $500 one and the cheap one missed a leaky roof

I put an offer on a 1940s bungalow in Columbus and figured I'd save money on the inspection. The cheap guy spent 45 minutes walking around, no ladder no camera. Two weeks after moving in, found a slow leak in the back corner of the attic that had rotted some rafters. Ended up costing $2,800 to fix. Next house I'll just pay for the thorough one upfront. Anyone else get burned by skimping on an inspection?

2 comments

2 Comments

elliot_johnson7d ago

That cheap inspection sounds like the classic "pay now or pay way more later" trap. It's wild how people including myself will drop cash on a new TV or a weekend trip without thinking twice, but then try to save $200 on something that can screw up your whole house. Reminds me of how folks will buy cheap tires for their car just to save a few bucks, then end up hydroplaning in the rain and totaling it. The real cost of cutting corners is almost never the number on the receipt, it's the headache and money you burn trying to fix the mess later on.

white.seth6d ago

HOLD UP - 45 minutes total? That's barely enough time to walk through the front door and check the mailbox, let alone inspect a whole house from the 1940s. Those old bungalows have ALL kinds of hidden surprises in the attic and crawl spaces. My buddy in Cincy paid a cheap guy $150 and the dude literally skipped the basement because he "didn't want to get his shoes dirty." Turned out there was a cracked foundation wall that cost him $6,000 to waterproof. 45 minutes is what I spend just staring at my phone before getting out of bed in the morning, not inspecting a decades-old house with who knows what hiding behind the walls.