filing a complaint with NACHI

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.nachiadrs.com/

[rwand1]

Joseph Hagarty opined:

A Home Inspection is a contracted service between a Company and Client.

As a Fraternal Organization, reviews with regard to the contracted Performance of a Home Inspection is an area that NACHI should not be involved in.

If that were the case there would be no need to put in contracts that inspections are performed to the COE/SOP. You are contracting with the client to udertakea review to a standard that the association promotes as their own. I don't see how our collective hands can be washed of an issue particularly if the inspector was short in performing to the COE/SOP that affected his/her client. My opinion of course.

[Michael R. Boyett]

The NACHI ADRS website repeatedly refers to a 3rd party mediator and arbitrator. As Jim B hinted at above, is the NACHI ADRS mediator, in whole or in part, the NACHI ESOP committee?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mboyett

The NACHI ADRS website repeatedly refers to a 3rd party mediator and arbitrator. As Jim B hinted at above, is the NACHI ADRS mediator, in whole or in part, the NACHI ESOP committee?

Nope. Two separate entities with two separate objectives.

The ESOP Committee deals only with complaints of infractions of the COE. In some cases, we may recommend that the client not be contacted with the results of the investigation, depending upon the issues involved.

ADRS is a commercial entity that provides mediation/arbitration between an inspector and client for any issue.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Thanks Jim...that's what I thought but post #11 confused me.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Thanks Jim...that's what I thought but post #11 confused me.

My fault, Mike. Sorry. I was quoting the term "arbitration committee" but there, in fact, is no such thing.

[whandley]

Originally Posted by mtimpani

Yes, NACHI should have something in place to handle complaints and then advertise it... It will make clients feel more secure about hiring a NACHI inspector.

Yes, Nick you should get back to her and help her to keep a positive NACHI image.

You're suggesting the founder of a 10,000 member HI organization should begin responding personally to individual complaints against member inspectors? If our membership averages 100 inspections per year, that's 1 million inspections. There won't be enough time in the day for Nick and the NACHI staff to handle the phone calls. Those issues are best left in the hands of the inspector, the legal system and or your insurance carrier.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by whandley

You're suggesting the founder of a 10,000 member HI organization should begin responding personally to individual complaints against member inspectors? If our membership averages 100 inspections per year, that's 1 million inspections. There won't be enough time in the day for Nick and the NACHI staff to handle the phone calls. Those issues are best left in the hands of the inspector, the legal system and or your insurance carrier.

On top of that it was reported that the inspector is not even a NACHI member .

Your inspector is not a member of NACHI and never was.
--
Nick Gromicko, CMI
Founder
World's biggest, best inspection association
"PlanetNACHI... resistance is futile"

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Originally Posted by rwand1

If that were the case there would be no need to put in contracts that inspections are performed to the COE/SOP. You are contracting with the client to udertakea review to a standard that the association promotes as their own. I don't see how our collective hands can be washed of an issue particularly if the inspector was short in performing to the COE/SOP that affected his/her client. My opinion of course.

There is no need to reference a particular COE, SOP or HI Association in the IOA.

The contract is an agreement between the Company (Inspector's Employer) and the Client.

[James H. Bushart]

As usual, Joe Hagarty is wrong.

A member of the public, to which each and every NACHI member has a duty to (in accordance with the COE) can inform the association whenever they feel there has been a breach to the code. These reports will be, and are, routinely investigated.

Often, it is found that the complaint does not fall under the COE but is simply a difference of opinion as to the quality of the inspector's work.

But if an inspector solicits the client for repairs of issues he flags in a report, for example, a client may wish to report him for it. Such a report will be investigated. Likewise, should clients report incidents of discrimination, incidents in which the inspector shared the report without their permission, or incidents in which the inspector failed to comply with the licensing laws of his state, and other similar references to the inspector's duties under the COE - the ESOP Committee has jurisdiction and will investigate.

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Which part do you feel is incorrect since I referenced nothing relative to your post?

The Duty of the Inspector and the legal and contractual responsibility of a Company are not necessarily synonymous.

I am curious as to how many times the ESOP Committee has improperly involved themselves in conducting so called investigations.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jhagarty

Which part do you feel is incorrect?

The Duty of the Inspector and the legal and contractual responsibility of a Company are not necessarily synonymous.

I am curious as to how many times the ESOP Committee has improperly involved themselves in conducting so called investigations.

And "curious" you shall remain, since such investigations that do not directly involve you are none of your business.

A member cannot hide behind a corporate veil or claim it is a "company" decision to charge one particular race a higher fee for inspections than another and escape their personal accountability to the association for complying with that ethical standard...while their "company" continues to display the NACHI logo, for example.

When members of the public complain to the association and that complaint falls under the area of ethics, they are investigated. We do not start threads or open the discussion for review. It is all handled quitely, appropriately, and in a manner that protects the interests of everyone concerned. Recommendations from the committee go to Nick, after the facts have been thoroughly reviewed, who acts in the manner he feels is appropriate.

Better find some other fight, Joe.

[rwand1]

That sure is a strange assumption condsidering the courts routinely refer to the SOP/COE in some of the rulings. If a professional association is selling its members services as a certified assessment then surely the assessment must be done to a standard that the body is certifying its members too?

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Statements made without basis in fact.

Thankfully other COE Committee Members do not share in your perceived display of unethical behavior.

[rwand1]

As a point of reference I belong to another Canadian Assoc. which under its by-laws which members promise to follow which allow that association to investigate a member under very narrowly defined criteria, and that criteria is based solely on the SOP/COE infringements with regard to inspections.

This is why I have repeatedly asked on this forum specifically what the by-laws provide for in Nachi. Come to think of it maybe someone can post the by-laws with regard to what Nachi can do legally to members who breach the SOP/COE. If there are no rules to follow, then Nachi has no authority to investigate any member for anything for sake of discussion...