RV inspections before you buy

[Goshawk]

There are many variables in opinion on inspections. Find a mobile inspection mechanic who will go look at anything. If the are good they can find most issues. Plus they can do a full recalls & alerts database history.

Watched a YouTube video by a couple who paid $500 for an inspection. They found multiple recalls and many issues. All could abs would be fixed by the dealer. Or they can be valued to cut the cost off the asking price.

The top maintenance issue on an RV is the roof and roof leaks. If someone has not done yearly work up there, you will have leaks and mold. If it has an engine there are many issues like front end work, brakes, tire age over 5 years, exhaust, suspension sag, fluid change every ten years, timing belt. Etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DuneElliot]

I always let anyone perform a visual and functional inspection when I'm selling an expensive personal item, car, or whatnot.  If someone wants to pay for an detailed inspection, I as a seller of course am not incentivized to shoulder the increased risk - so the inspection can be performed on site by a licensed, bonded and qualified inspector at my discretion.  I have a few caveats that I've adapted from high value markets where inspections actually make sense:

• The potential buyer must sign a contract and put up a surety bond in escrow equal to the asking price of the vehicle to cover any incidental damages that should occur during inspections that require removal of components, opening sealed systems, load testing, or any other active, "non-destructive" inspection processes.
• Upon any damage, the full amount of the asking price in escrow will be contractually released immediately to the seller.  The balance, minus cost of repairs and compensation for any decrease in book value, will be contractually returned to the buyer once the repairs are affected.  (This protects the seller's time preference, as the car must be taken off the market during repair)
• They must also replace, at their cost, with new OEM factory components, any factory-specified one time use bolts, seals or other components that are removed or tampered during the inspection process.  
• They must bear the full cost of either laboratory fluid analysis or factory specified fluid replacement for any sealed systems opened, to ensure that contamination did not occur during inspection.  

I have never had a buyer follow through with inspection on these types of low value purchases.  Buyers are put off at the thought of having to shoulder the entire risk and costs of their inspection, oddly enough.

Realistically, there are three problems with inspection advice for these low value, high turnover purchases.  There is no real incentive for a seller to allow inspection, as most buyers do not ask for, or are willing to pay for, an inspection - especially in these types of markets.   Why?

1. Allowing detailed inspection does not alter the final sale price of a vehicle in any meaningful way.  There will never be a majority of buyers who will seek an inspection in low value consumer markets (most used RVs and automobiles qualify as low value purchases).  The seller is usually a 1) bulk dealer or 2) a private seller who has already lost a large percentage of the sales price to depreciation - high hassle customers are not worth the trouble for either zero or very marginal returns on the sale.  The relative value you bring to the table is not nearly enough to justify wasting time on the concession.
   
2. Inspections suffer the same problem as most other mechanical service dealings with RVs and automobiles - the people (certified or otherwise) performing the service have dismal diagnostic skills on average.  This is clearly demonstrated by the trouble with finding reliable, trustworthy mechanical services outside ones you may already be familiar with or have used in the past, a widespread and well known problem.
   
3. There is no available independent data for inspectors (and likewise mechanics) that demonstrates the failure rate of inspected sales relative to non-inspected sales.  This makes inspection services utterly worthless, in actuarial terms.

The likely outcome of this shopping behavior is that you will pass up vehicles with no obvious or unexpected faults, while the seller and the next-in-line buyer will happily take their money to the bank and their new RV on vacation.   Class B's in particular are a fairly supply limited market - getting a seller concession is highly unlikely as it simply isn't necessary on their part to sell the vehicle for similar profit.

Apologies in advance for this particularly contrarian advice, just the facts as I see them, unfortunately.

I'd walk away from that kind of thing too. I understand covering yourself but the mechanic/RV inspector that is being paid to do the inspection is insured and it would be his responsibility if something is damaged.

 

[AngryVanMan]

Yes, and as the mechanic is insured, as long as the buyer has faith in that insurance they can make a claim against the mechanic and work out the details on their own time to recoup their money - all the escrow situation does is get the seller's vehicle back in action as fast as possible while shifting the insurance and legal hassle and burdens onto the buyer to work out with their mechanic. This is also moot if they end up buying the vehicle.

It's important to understand that a buyer doing an paid inspection is the most serious kind of buyer, and are very likely to buy the vehicle after spending money for an inspection - so long as they don't turn up anything on the inspection they are majorly concerned with. So, even if the mechanic does damage it, they would be footing the bill anyway in the long run. This is also why the fluid inspection and/or replacement clause is not overly onerous - a buyer of a used vehicle is always recommended to change (or analyze) those fluids to start from a "known good" baseline. The only thing the contract does for the buyer is increase the cost of an inspection by the cost of an oil change/coolant flush/brake flush etc. if they do not end up buying that particular vehicle.

I should mention that I do recommend getting an inspection whenever you can, from a mechanic or tech you trust and have experienced the level of their abilities firsthand. My post above was mainly to point out that sellers (good or bad) do not have a strong incentive to allow you to perform one - and without a contract like the one outlined, a strong disincentive, in the form of potential damages, lost time, and decreased vehicle value on the chance that something goes wrong.

As a quick example, imagine you wanted your mechanic to do a compression test on your potential vehicle purchase, and that vehicle is a Triton V8. You, without a contract, damage the vehicle and the seller is now in a pickle because your mechanic stripped two spark plug bosses and caused a major, expensive to repair (properly) fault that did not exist prior to the inspection. There is no way a sane seller would take that risk upon themselves, and since their vested interest is in getting rid of the vehicle as fast as possible, they are incentivized to do a band-aid fix and/or sue you for damages. A contract prevents this dispute from occurring.

 

[ceejay]

I'd walk away from that kind of thing too. I understand covering yourself but the mechanic/RV inspector that is being paid to do the inspection is insured and it would be his responsibility if something is damaged.

I agree with you ... I would walk away from that ... sounds like an attorney wrote that to sway buyer to not get inspection ... reputable companies are insured ...

 

[AngryVanMan]

I would advise if you are unable or unwilling to take on the full risk of causing damage to someone else's property by your own actions, either stick to dealerships or look specifically for motivated sellers who are in a bad position financially. Both are more likely to take the risk on you to sell the RV because dealers can average out the risks over many sales, and motivated sellers need to make concessions for a quick sale to save their own skin. It will help save you some disappointment going forward.

 

[GotSmart]

If you are trying to sell a piece of junk to the public, be ready for people to stick their fingers through the dry rot, or find out the plugs on the Triton are sripped.  

Leagaleze B S is just a thieves way of trying to force a sale on someone smart enough to find the flaws in the garbage on the lot.

No sympathies for lying salesmen.

 

[AngryVanMan]

I understand the average person does not have much exposure to contract law, or even understands that contracts are designed to protect both parties. There is a a tendency to think "the customer is always right" and a strong aversion to personal responsibility on the part of the "customer" in many casual situations people are accustomed to. I try to explain the rational positions of both parties as best I can, but I am not always the best at it.

The problem in this situation is that the seller is the only party with anything of value at stake, the buyer is a dime a dozen, and might be a judgement-proof deadbeat that could wipe out 100%+ value off your vehicle with a relatively simple mistake, that they might be both unwilling or unable to pay for. A contract puts the value at stake for both parties on a level playing field, which is how good business is done. I hope the information helps, but if not, you'll probably still be OK in the long run!

 

[GotSmart]

One day in Contract Law class, the professor asked one of his better students, "Now if you were to give someone an orange, how would you go about it?"
The student replied, "Here's an orange."
The professor was livid. "No! No! Think like a lawyer!"
The student then recited, "Okay, I'd tell him, 'I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, claim, title, claim and advantages of and in, said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp, and seeds, and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut, freeze and otherwise eat, the same, or give the same away with and without the pulp, juice, rind and seeds, anything herein before or hereinafter or in any deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding..."

Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an honest lawyer and an old drunk are walking down the street together when they simultaneously spot a hundred dollar bill. Who gets it? The old drunk, of course, the other three are fantasy creatures.

Lawyers account for about 0.05% of the general population and about 40% of politicians,  :dodgy:

How many lawyer jokes are in existence?  Only three. All the rest are true stories.

 

[GotSmart]

The problem in this situation is that the seller is the only party with anything of value at stake, the buyer is a dime a dozen, 

The buyer has their cash at stake, and should NEVER be undervalued.  I have walked out of dealorships with my cash in my pocket because of entitled sellers having an attitude.  

Dealerships are a penny a gross. That is why they are waving flags trying to get customers.

 

[AngryVanMan]

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what "at stake" means in the specific context of this discussion about inspections. I am more than wiling to explain and engage you to help any way that I can, but the nature of your responses so far seem to be more of a joke or openly hostile than someone who wants to learn or understand the dynamics at play. If I have misinterpreted your intentions, let me know and I will happily continue this discussion.

 

[GotSmart]

No misunderstanding on my part.  You have the interest of the seller at stake.

The subject of this thread is for purchasers to have the RV, which many are investing a huge part of their life resorces inspected.  Without signing away their rights under law by unscrupulous sellers. 

Any seller asumes the risk of having a potential buyer inspect the goods for sale.  Transfering that liability onto an unsuspecting customer is not only dishnest, but against the law.  Ever hear of Consumer Protection Laws?  Federal Trade Commission?  https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/

How about the term "Abusive Business Practices"? Consumer Product Safety Commission?  

FTC vs GM

FTC vs Koons Automotive Company

I hope I have made my opinion clear. 

NEVER sign anything at a sales lot unles you are well aware of what it says.  Especially if you have not decided to make a purchase.

 

[AngryVanMan]

The only interest I have is adding to this discussion, hopefully to help ceejay and others in a similar situation, why your request for third party inspection will be turned down by people other than ruthless or "scammy" sales people. The primary reason as I have outlined, is that the risk-benefit of this request is in favor of a buyer and at the disadvantage of the seller, for these particular types of sales without further protections in place. The reason these inspection requests don't have meaningful "leverage" in this case is because other buyers with simpler requirements exist en masse in the used vehicle market.

One, FTC regulations to not apply to private party sales, which was the specific case I outlined a basic and fair way to distribute the risk equally to all parties which is used in private party sales of high value assets on a regular basis will little exception. Businesses such as dealerships, do not have the same amount of leeway, in large part because of some of the regulations from the FTC, very true! They can still reject your request for a third party inspection and often will, if they think they can sell the product to a less complicated customer. Funnily enough, the FTC also advocates the use of escrow to protect both the buyer and seller from these risks, such as inspection risks, as I have outlined.

Requiring the buyer to take liability for damage caused by themselves or their agent during an inspection is not illegal, I'm not sure where you got this idea. Nor is it dishonest - if you or your actions cause damage to property that doesn't belong to you in the United States of America, you are usually culpable for said damages in almost all cases. This is one of the primary reasons escrow exists. This is common in all high value transfers where inspections, escrow, and contracts are normally deployed for due diligence.

The FTC case(s) you highlighted are inapplicable to this discussion as far as I can tell. They are a judgment against deceptive advertising that claimed vehicles were inspected by the dealerships before being offered for sale. The specific problem was selling vehicles with open manufacturer recalls, which is not illegal - but advertising the vehicles as "inspected" or "certified" made implications that would lead a buyer to believe the car was safe and did not have open recalls.

 

[ceejay]

The only interest I have is adding to this discussion, hopefully to help ceejay and others in a similar situation, 

If the party selling the RV is not willing to allow an inspection and or requires such a contract to allow inspection  as you have outlined they should state that in their advertisement of the RV ....  
I think discussion is a good thing ...  it makes us think and opens our eyes  to situations we may encounter

 

[Ballenxj]

If the party selling the RV is not willing to allow an inspection and or requires such a contract to allow inspection  as you have outlined they should state that in their advertisement of the RV .... 

When I sold my 5th wheel, a couple drove out to see it. I had it hooked up to water and power, I talked to them a bit, lit the water heater for them and walked them through everything, then left them alone with it. It was cold and rainy out, so they got to try the heater as well as look for leaks.
They must have been satisfied, because about an hour later the gentleman walked up to me and said we'll take it. Done deal!

 

[ceejay]

When I sold my 5th wheel, a couple drove out to see it. I had it hooked up to water and power, I talked to them a bit, lit the water heater for them and walked them through everything, then left them alone with it. It was cold and rainy out, so they got to try the heater as well as look for leaks.
They must have been satisfied, because about an hour later the gentleman walked up to me and said we'll take it. Done deal!

good job ... you gave them the time to be comfortable with their purchase without being pressure ...