Temporary Point of Sale Freeze in Bedford

Effective May 13, 2016, the city of Bedford placed a temporary freeze on its Point of Sale Inspection policy.

According to the city’s website, “The City will still perform a POS Inspection on a voluntary basis upon written request. POS [inspections] that were done prior to 5/13/16 still need to follow procedure. It is imperative that we [the city] are still provided with the name(s) of the buyer(s) along with the name of the title company & fax number so that we can issue Certificate to Transfer and update our records. A special assessment (SAS) will still need to be obtained.”

Click here for more information about this temporary freeze and the SAS

The POS Inspection freeze is due to pending litigation, and it is unknown how long this freeze will be in place. Recently, the municipality was named in a court case, Kenneth Pund, et al. v. City of Bedford, et al., spearheaded by The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association (“OREIA”), the Finney Law Firm in Cincinnati, and the law firm of Berns, Ockner & Greenberger in Cleveland.

According to a post on the 1851 Center website, “The lawsuit seeks to restore both Ohio homeowners’ and small business owners’ freedom from warrantless searches without probable cause. In doing so, the 1851 Center’s Complaint explains the following:

  • Government inspection of homes, even when for sale, requires a warrant, and these expansive warrantless searches, as “unreasonable searches” of “houses,” violate Ohioans’ Fourth Amendment rights.
  • The Warrant Requirement is a significant protection for property owners, because a warrant can only be issued in light of serious and credible complaints about the property.
  • Fees that are charged to fund these unconstitutional inspections are also unconstitutional; cities cannot require their payment, and must return past payments.
  • In a prior 1851 Center victory, Baker v. Portsmouth, federal courts declared warrantless inspections of rental homes unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment’s protections should extend to inspections triggered by the marketing or sale of a home, just as they apply to inspections triggered by renting a home.”
Learn more about the court case
  • OAR Article
  • Learn more about ACAR’s position on Point of Sale inspections by clicking on the image below.

Real Estate Ransom


One response to “Temporary Point of Sale Freeze in Bedford

  1. Lucy Oliver says:

    The Point of Sale was initiated because areas were “changing” with the goal of keeping up appearances The results were horrible Many long time residences were abandoned with owners feeling unable to deal with the POS The POS does not look at neighbor’s less than perfect properties. Many buyers cann’t or don’t want to be involved with any of this, increasing the deterioring of POS communities
    Just compare POS communities with simular non POS
    communities. Find a way to restore the damage POS has done and do away with it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *