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

  0

2 responses 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

  2. Stan says:

    The cities have a genuine interest in maintaining their housing stock.

    Unfortunately the inspection legislation is biased because it targets only the rentals or sales.

    The field inspections are subjective to the will of the inspector and that’s never good.

    The results of the inspections are criminal in nature which is a violation of the 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself. The rental legislation cannot force the property owner to have an inspection and when violations are found the owner is criminally charged to make the repair or face fines and jail time.

    Incredible that this violation of constitutional rights has not been addressed in court.

    Yes, have inspections and have inspections for every homeowner not just rentals and sales. Then, the violations found by the inspection should be civil not criminal violations. Issue a court order to the property owner to repair the violations within a reasonable time or an agreed upon time based on the severity of the violations.

    If the property owner fails to make the repairs, then he is in violations of a court order and the court can proceed from that point on.

    Other methods are available for enforcement, but the Cities see easy money by collecting it from rental property owners and POS inspections.

    Although the inspections do serve the City and it’s housing stock, the inspections also damage the City because investors and homeowners will run from this dictatorial schema to incriminate and extract $$$ cash $$$ from property owners.

    Cities have to find a fair and equitable solution.

    Cities cannot force inspections by threat of enormous fines and jail time, then criminalize and punish property owners without showing damage to anyone and anything. IT’S PURE EVIL!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Share