Three building inspection reports, three disturbingly different results
The builders report is a fundamental part of buying a home, but a comparison of three inspections of the same property delivered some sobering results.
When three different building inspection reports were carried out on the same property, the results were vastly, and somewhat disturbingly, different.
With recent interest rate cuts and expanded first-home buyer incentives, many property markets are experiencing a surge in demand.
But this raises an important question—how are out-of-area buyers ensuring their due diligence is done properly, especially when much of it is outsourced and handled remotely?
Too often, we see purchasers relying solely on selling agents or a single pest and building inspector to guide their decision.
This leads to a critical issue: are all pest and building inspections created equal, or can the quality and findings vary significantly?
To put this to the test, we recently engaged three separate firms to carry out building inspections on the same property within the same week.
One inspector was recommended by the selling agent, while the other two were independent contacts we knew.
The results? The discrepancies between reports were startling—and a clear reminder of why buyers need to look beyond a single source of advice.
Three very different building reports
To ensure anonymity, we’ll refer to the inspections as Building Report 1, 2, and 3.
Reports two and three each identified significant moisture issues throughout the property, noting potential rising damp and recommending further investigation. Report 1—the one provided by the selling agent’s preferred inspector—downplayed the issue and stated the moisture was not a concern.
Initially, we relied on Report 1 based on the agent’s advice, however, its lack of detail prompted us to commission two independent reports.
Both confirmed what we suspected: a major problem.
Rising damp is not a minor issue—it can lead to mould growth, foul odours, timber and skirting board rot, and structural wall damage. It’s also notoriously expensive and difficult to fix.
While there were other minor inconsistencies between the reports, the treatment of the moisture issue was by far the most concerning.
Key differences in three building reports
| Area | Report 1 | Report 2 | Report 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glass safety | Not mentioned | Replace or film | Replace or film |
| Stairs/balustrades | Not mentioned | May not comply | Not mentioned |
| Roof framing | Not mentioned | Rafter movement identified; suggested a carpenter be consulted | Split rafters |
| Dampness/water entry | Specifically said the moisture is of no concern | Rising damp identified and a range of concerning moisture issues identified. This is a major issue; suggested a specialist be engaged | Moisture damage and high moisture reading identified. Rising damp identified |
| Structural integrity | Sound structure | Not assessed | Functional roof |
Building report 1
- Moisture: specifically noted in many areas that there was no rising damp and any moisture readings were of no concern.
- Structural integrity: no serious cracking; structure deemed sound
- Rising damp: no significant issues; minor moisture near bathroom wall, likely fixable with a shower screen
- Floor and subfloor: good condition overall; slight slope in hallway attributed to removed original cupboard
- Internal fixtures: windows, doors, skirtings and architraves in good condition.
Building report 2
- Moisture: rising damp identified, high moisture readings, considered significant issue.
- Glass and safety: recommends replacing older glass panes with safety glass or shatterproof film
- Stairs and balustrades: notes that many may not comply with post-1996 standards and should be upgraded
- Retaining walls: not assessed; recommends further investigation for structural integrity and drainage
- Rooms below ground: warns of potential dampness and water ingress, especially during heavy rain
- Asbestos and mould: no inspection conducted; disclaimers included
- Roof: rafter movement detected.
Building report 3
- Moisture: moisture damage and high moisture reading identified, rising damp noted.
- Glass safety: similar caution about older glazing not meeting current standards
- Smoke detectors: recommends installation per AS 3786 standard
- Roof framing: functional but with split/broken rafters observed; new support beams added
- Cladding: Colourbond steel cladding noted as functional.
The smartest approach is to ensure you’re getting truly independent advice at every stage.
Start by asking your conveyancer or solicitor for recommendations on reliable pest and building inspectors—or even reach out to local valuers who often know the best operators.
This helps avoid situations where an inspector may be too closely aligned with the selling agent and motivated to downplay their findings.
It’s also important that the inspection report is issued in your name so you can legally rely on it. Always take the time to speak directly with the inspector to clarify the findings and ensure you fully understand the report.
Finally, remember that a pest and building inspector’s role is limited to assessing the physical condition of the property.
They won’t evaluate whether it’s a good investment. Key factors like location, natural light, floor plan functionality, proximity to amenities, rental appeal, and broader demographics all fall outside their scope.
That’s why it’s essential to either inspect the property yourself or engage a qualified buyers’ agent who can provide this level of assessment.
