Recommending a Radon Test (or Not)
man Realtor can serve two masters.”
Regular readers will recall a recurring theme on this blog.
No, not my penchant for alliteration. 🙂
My stance on single agent dual agency, which is when the same agent represents the Buyer as well as the Seller.
Namely, I regard it as a classic conflict of interest — and therefore contractually promise my clients not to do it.
Exhibit A: Radon Test
Realtors who do play the role of dual agent essentially advocate for neither client, instead opting to neutrally provide information.
Which is fine, at least until the Buyer’s and Seller’s interests diverge.
Like when it comes to inspection issues.
At least in my opinion, it is almost always* in the Buyer’s interest to test for radon, an invisible gas that poses a health risk at elevated levels.
I base that on a simple cost-benefit criterion: the radon test costs $150; the “benefit” (avoiding the expense to remediate) is around $1,500, depending on the size of the home.
Given that the odds of finding radon seem to be about 30% to 50%, depending on location within the Twin Cities, that translates into $600 (40% x $1,500).
No Affirmative Duty
What is the Seller’s interest?
Not to go looking for radon (there’s no affirmative duty to determine if it’s in the home) — and certainly not to suggest to the Buyer that they do.
How do dual agents handle the issue?
I honestly don’t know . . .
*The one exception I can think of: a condo, especially one on an upper floor.
Given that radon is a byproduct of decomposing soil, there’s not much risk of finding that in a 6th floor condo.