Am I being unreasonable about UW request

[Midwest Guy]

I would give them the picture and apoligize for the oversight. Also, let them know you have learned something from this ordeal.

 

[redfish]

What if the rear of the property is completely concealed by trees/bushes/RV/Fat homewner, would you exclude the rear photo because there is no view of the rear? What about small backyards that don't allow enough room to get a clear rear view? Provide the photo at no cost. Underwriters will get a bad taste in their mouth for your reports with all the blacklisting going I would get the photo and make it skippy....oops I meant snappy.

 

[ken351]

We all make mistakes and sometimes it costs us a tank of gas, ouch! No fee for rear photo.
An instructor once told our class that a bank long ago loaned on a house with only the fornt photo showing the front of the house, just to find out later they have been scammed since the house was just the front facade with no structure behind it.

 

[jay trotta]

I yam wit Smokey Bear; and I will make the assumption you addressed the issue in the Original Report.

Smokey, yes it would be the front of "someone else's" property - therefore, private property and the question could come to pass, are You infringing on that person's "Privacy Rights" ? 2nd, you would be providing a "Misleading Report" - because You cannot provide an actual "Rear Photo" of the "Subject Unit".


Ifn you complete the UW's request please provide me wit a copy of the report; the UW's request; an that so-called "Rear Photo" - so that we can file a Class Action against the Lender / ASB /AQB and Congress, for hiring "Unlicensed" mortgage related empty suits.

 

[airphoto]

Better yet, go to GoogleEarth or similar source and show underhead photo w/subject labeled, and showing that rear is another condo .. (if true ..)! Insert piccie in 'rear view' photo ..

 

[Tony in Ohio]

Thats a very elegent solution airphoto, It gives the underwriters a reasonable illustration of the issue and allows them to say "there was a Photo" if it comes back to them, and it saves the original poster the trip.

 

[Mike Boyd]

What if the rear of the property is completely concealed by trees/bushes/RV/Fat homewner, would you exclude the rear photo because there is no view of the rear? What about small backyards that don't allow enough room to get a clear rear view? Provide the photo at no cost. Underwriters will get a bad taste in their mouth for your reports with all the blacklisting going I would get the photo and make it skippy....oops I meant snappy.

I agree. In this scenario, I provide a photo of the rear of the building.....irrespective of what it is.

 

[TN Pro]

I yam wit Smokey Bear; and I will make the assumption you addressed the issue in the Original Report.

Smokey, yes it would be the front of "someone else's" property - therefore, private property and the question could come to pass, are You infringing on that person's "Privacy Rights" ? 2nd, you would be providing a "Misleading Report" - because You cannot provide an actual "Rear Photo" of the "Subject Unit".


Ifn you complete the UW's request please provide me wit a copy of the report; the UW's request; an that so-called "Rear Photo" - so that we can file a Class Action against the Lender / ASB /AQB and Congress, for hiring "Unlicensed" mortgage related empty suits.

Since when is taking a photo from the street infringing on someones private property rights.?
Second, how are you providing a misleading report you are showing the underwriter what the subject backs on to.
This isnt rocket science, and anyone who doesnt comply with the request, or anyone who charges is making an unwise business decision.
And people wonder where the work is?

Also, again, google earth, unless you pay for google earth pro is copyrighted. Why would any intelligent business owner keep using copyrighted material in their reports. I guess you could just send it not contained in the report via email to the underwriter, but that probably wont fix the issue.

Dean

 

[Tudor]

I would tell the stupid *** that the rear is NOT visible and I am NOT going back to photograph someone elses CONDO...period.

Ditto.

I just explain that the rear is not viewable.

Whenever there is another unit on the rear of the subject, I have not taken a photo, because it is not the "rear" of the subject, it is the front of another property. If it is an end unit, then I will take a side photo.

I have never been asked to take a front of another unit and call it the rear, and I have done hundreds of these.

 

[Smokey Bear]

If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. The only proper "rear" photo would be one taken from the rear of the abutting unit, and I doubt that owner is going to let you in to photograph their rear rooms. I like the idea of an aerial photo, or adding a rear of the building photo, with the appropriate description (although ACI doesn't let you change the rear photo description) but really, this is ridiculous. Substituting a picture of another unit that backs to your unit and calling it a rear photo is misleading. Why don't they ask for a picture of the basement when it's a slab foundation? That's about what they're doing.