Am I being unreasonable about UW request

[NC Old Guy]

As I read most of the posts, I "think" they don't quite understand what the OP is looking at. I'm assuming here but they sound like some we've been asked to appraise. Imagine a 6 unit townhome group. Now imagine another 6 unit townhome group. Turn the second group front to back & attach to the first 6 unit townhome group. There is no rear. There are no rear windows. They all "back up" to each other. It is ONE building. We did provide a "rear view" once. Then had to explain why we had included 2 front photos. ROFL You can't win whichever tack you use. Point is, there is no rear (compared to most of us that eat too much), only fronts.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

As I read most of the posts, I "think" they don't quite understand what the OP is looking at. I'm assuming here but they sound like some we've been asked to appraise. Imagine a 6 unit townhome group. Now imagine another 6 unit townhome group. Turn the second group front to back & attach to the first 6 unit townhome group. There is no rear. There are no rear windows. They all "back up" to each other. It is ONE building. We did provide a "rear view" once. Then had to explain why we had included 2 front photos. ROFL You can't win whichever tack you use. Point is, there is no rear (compared to most of us that eat too much), only fronts.

The rear is the middle ... whats so hard to understand about that???

 

[ROBERT JONES]

Thanks for all of the replies and opinions. However, I stand my ground that this is NOT a rear, and like Tudor, I have done so plenty of times with the UW realizing that it is silly to have the front of another property as the subject's rear. FYI - The lender waived the request.

I do not believe the results were any less credible or the photos any less demonstative without this other photo. I have eaten plenty of gas, and fees for correcting true "mistakes", but I was put off by this one. I will, naturally, take this photo in the future for this lender so as to avoid the condition, but now I know. I have been doing work for this company for 7 years and this is the first time such a request has been placed.

Bob

 

[RSW]

Thanks for all of the replies and opinions. However, I stand my ground that this is NOT a rear, and like Tudor, I have done so plenty of times with the UW realizing that it is silly to have the front of another property as the subject's rear. FYI - The lender waived the request.

I do not believe the results were any less credible or the photos any less demonstative without this other photo. I have eaten plenty of gas, and fees for correcting true "mistakes", but I was put off by this one. I will, naturally, take this photo in the future for this lender so as to avoid the condition, but now I know. I have been doing work for this company for 7 years and this is the first time such a request has been placed.

Bob

You got lucky on that one. Could have been an expensive lesson. Digital photos are cheap. Just remember to take photos. Lots of photos. You can always delete them if you don't use them.

 

[DTB]

The rear is the middle ... whats so hard to understand about that???

How do you get out?

 

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

How do you get out?

You awake and find yourself in a steel room that has been welded shut. With you in the room, are a mirror and a wooden table. How DO you get out?

 

[Tudor]

Thanks for all of the replies and opinions. However, I stand my ground that this is NOT a rear, and like Tudor, I have done so plenty of times with the UW realizing that it is silly to have the front of another property as the subject's rear. FYI - The lender waived the request.

I do not believe the results were any less credible or the photos any less demonstative without this other photo. I have eaten plenty of gas, and fees for correcting true "mistakes", but I was put off by this one. I will, naturally, take this photo in the future for this lender so as to avoid the condition, but now I know. I have been doing work for this company for 7 years and this is the first time such a request has been placed.

Bob

That's good to hear Bob.

People looking at these reports must be going off of a check list and not bothering to read the report.

 

[London]

Just received a UW condition request for a rear photo of a condo. I told them fine but there will be a trip fee. Now they are asking why an additional fee and that I should have provided a rear photo in the original report. The rear of this condo is the front of another condo. I have never taken such a picture and find it extremely odd and outside of what is typical. Of course this is a 30-40 minute ride. Am I wrong, should I be providing this picture?

We do not provide rear photo's for condo, but we do explain why the rear photo was not taken. We just state that there is no rear photo, due to the rear being attached. I have never heard of that, and neither has my boss. The only time you include the rear photo for a condo is when the rear is not attached, or obstructed by another condo. I guess you just provide them with a picture at no fee, and next time explain. You might be able to write a letter explaining why the no rear photo was provide.m2:

 

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

I do not believe the results were any less credible or the photos any less demonstative without this other photo. Agreed!
I have eaten plenty of gas, and fees for correcting true "mistakes", but I was put off by this one. As have we all...

I will, naturally, take this photo in the future for this lender so as to avoid the condition... Alas, the true point of the thread

 

[Metamorphic]

While you're at it grab a photo of the other side of the foundation.