Using MLS Photos

[Terrel L. Shields]

I always hate when this happens, but thankfully (knock on wood) generally this is all that happens, they back down and I go on to the next pic

I think I was run down only once and my assistant was stopped by another a few years later.

 

[Elliott]

It takes a little time, but I've started to photo shop the mail box address or the "original" photo with the MLS. I make the street address lettering or original photo a small rectangular photo in the right hand corner about 15% the size of the MLS. It gets the story across.

 

[KenAZ]

I was just thinking about this today. We are at great risk taking original photos. According to my insider at FNMA, about 85% of the photos are MLS. In my case, I do VA, so 100% of my photos are original, unless it is a gated community.

I have been pulled over many times, I have been chased, I had a gun pulled on me, I am at the mercy of the homeowner if the kids are in the front yard. Just yesterday I asked a father to move his kids so I could take the photo. He did nothing, but fortunately the kids were nice enough to move on their own. Most of us are probably on some secret watch list for photographing children.

WHY IS THIS OUR RESPONSIBILITY? Why should we be risking our lives just so a client can get the checkbox for original photos? It is insane. There is so much paranoia now due to identify theft, Scare of kids being kidnapped, Neighborhood watch, Burglaries (People STILL think that burglars take photos of homes before they rob them).

I get chased down at least once per week. Sometimes I stop and explain, other times I floor my Charger and out run them. Why should I have to do this? Just stop this antiquated rule to take photos of comps. It is silly and dangerous. 100% of the desk reviews rely on MLS photos to verify if our photo is correct, all desk appraisals rely on MLS photos, BPO's rely on MLS photos, All regression or other types of valuation models provide NO original photos.

And now original photos are not even good enough . . . Your photos are too dark, I can't see the house through the trees, You didn't take the photo at an angle . . . Guess what the solution is?????

Yes, the solution is to provide the very MLS photo you could have provided in the first place.

INSANE!!!

I am so glad I am close to retiring.

 

[BarrySW1963]

Had one AMC a few years back send a lender complaint that comps photos of Texas ranches were just photos of gates (with MLS photos as support, and appropriate commentary). The revision came in ALL CAPS exclaiming about how on earth someone in the QA/QC department for the AMC could miss the oversight on the part of the appraiser, and demanding fresh photos of the actual houses. You know, the ones way up long private driveways, not visible from the public roads.

We just don't take the rural orders anymore. Not worth the hassle of CU, three-legged dogs and shotgun happy homeowners.

 

[Ahhhh Yeahhhh]

You are all breaking laws by driving distracted. You are all a bunch of sycophant lemmings. Grow a pair and tell HUD to point out in their guidelines where a requirement to view the comp from the street is? There is no requirement that you "drive the comp".

HUD requires an original photo to show compliance. However, they do not indicate what you are supposed to be complying with as there is no requirement to drive by a comp.

FNMA doesn't require original comp photos... Ever wonder why? Because they require GEO-competence prior to assignment acceptance.

There are only two real reasons that an original comp photo would be necessary.
1. You don't know your market area and you are not geo-competent.
2. You accidentally set your time machine back to 1987.


Seriously... There is nothing safe about driving the comps. First off those kids... you really don't want one of them to run in front of your car from your right while you are holding your camera under your left arm trying to covertly take a picture while looking only at the view finder. Second, you cannot do it in a legal manner. If you can manage to drive while reading numbers on the house and stay focused on the primary activity of driving then you are a better person than I. We all know it's dangerous. Lets quit being a bunch of whinny liars and just admit to our clients that taking comp photos is unnecessary, dangerous, not required by the GSE, and it violates distracted driving laws.

Surely the client or AMC wouldn't try to pressure you into breaking a state law right?

Last but not least.... AN ORIGINAL PHOTO DOES NOT MEAN THE APPRAISER DROVE BY THE COMP, IT JUST MEANS SOMEONE DROVE BY THE COMP. Maybe Terrell Shields' assistant.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

HUD requires use of the GSE forms. The scope of work in the GSE forms requires the appraiser (not her assistant, nor her hired photographer) requires the appraiser to (wait...........wait..........wait) inspect "each of the comparables from at least the street,...".

Certain things remain true to day that were true in 1987. In the appraisers' universe, one of those is that there may be aspects of comparables that affect their price and marketability that may not be evident from MLS info, public records and interviews with agents: granted, aerial photos were not common 38 years ago, and photos like Google were not available. But, the surest way to determine if what an appraiser bases her report on is to look at the information used in developing it, including the comparable properties and their immediate surroundings.

There are a lot of requirements that lenders and AMCs have piled on because whining liar appraisers got caught not doing the diligence they said they did and missed something about a comp (or a subject) that would have been readily evident had they done so.

 

[Ahhhh Yeahhhh]

So, can you please point out the requirement to "drive by the comp"?????

Let me go ahead and answer that for you. Nope. You can't. But you can however misconstrue the requirement to view "from at least the street" to mean "drive by the comp".

The requirement to view "from at least the street" in meant to see what the comp looks like, nothing more or less. You already did that with the 48 pictures in the MLS, so you complied with your certification. Are you going to allow some AMC reviewer to bastardize YOUR certification to imply something that it doesn't in an effort to pressure you into breaking state traffic laws and putting yourself and others into danger? Surely you have more balls than that.

In 1987 the only way to see what the comp looked like was to drive by it. That is not the case today. This was a necessary part of comp verification. In 2016, we have more data and there is no need to drive by and take a picture solely to prove you drove by.

If you are geo-competent and you know the area, no need to drive by. If you are not geo-competent and don't know the area, then you cannot accept the assignment (at least for FNMA).

Too many appraisers are doing the drive by for no other reason than fear. The are afraid they will get their wrists slapped, they are afraid of being called lazy, they are afraid of the lemming HUD reviewer that doesn't understand their own guidelines.

There is no requirement to drive by any comp. In fact, the word DRIVE doesn't even exist in either the 4000.1 or the selling guide. Believe it or not, a crapton of appraisers actually believe it is a USPAP requirement to drive by the comps.

If the SOW said you must view the comp "from the street" versus "from at least the street" then you would be required to drive by the comp. But the SOW allows you to view it from a better perspective than the street which would include the dozen MLS photos you already have.

So, if you have enough MLS photos and you are familiar with the neighborhood as you should already be, then driving the comps isn't a requirement or even necessary.

Again, FHA wants an original photo to prove compliance with some obscure requirement that frankly doesn't exist.

 

[Joe Flacco]

So then does that mean for a 2055 when we certify that we perform a visual inspection "from at least the street" we can just look at MLS photos of the subject property?

 

[JTip]

I was just thinking about this today. We are at great risk taking original photos.

That's why, since 1890 or something, all that is required is that we certify that we inspected from the street. Somebody had to go and skrew it up by asking for original photos, putting our souls in jeopardy .

 

[Peter LeQuire]

Looking at a picture is not the same thing as looking at the property and its neighborhood. "Driving the comp" doesn't satisfy the agreed-to scope of work.

You may insist there is no reason for the requirement: but, if you agree to do so when you accept the assignment, do it. And, you're correct - there is no requirement to "drive" the comp(s)": the requirement is to "inspect the comparables from at least the street" and is silent about how you get to and move by the property - bike, burro, bus make no difference. For HUD, you can find it in the 4000.1 which requires use of the GSE form, and includes the GSE form's scope of work.

The SOW does not forbid using photos from other sources in addition to those she takes herself. "...at least..." - plain language - means that the appraiser inspected the comparable property from the street, and may use information from, for example, having inspected its interior or walked around its yard.

And, again, the requirement is not to "view" (nor is it to "drive") the comparables - the word used is inspect.