Under Attack

[Nick Gromicko]

Originally posted by Dr. Keith Swift:

For many years, I resisted joining any organization, mostly because of the rumor-mongering, back-stabbing, and other equally distasteful activities that seem to accompany group behavior. However, I was left without choice when my insurance company insisted that I join one. Shortly thereafter, I joined NAHI on the recommendation of a fellow inspector, and in the interests of fellowship I began sending them articles about the threat that litigation poses to the inspection industry, which I documented with precision. They published one, and then steadfastly declined to publish any more, even though CREIA and other organizations were publishing them quite regularly. Perplexed, I told them that I didn’t want to waste their time and mine by submitting articles that were apparently being ignored. They replied, and informed me in so many words, that the level of diction in my articles was too high for their membership. As an English professor, I didn’t need to be informed about the level of diction from a NAHI staff member, and I certainly didn’t need to take more than a cursory glance at their magazine to realize how absurd their response was. In fact, I understood it to mean that they either didn’t have a very high regard for the group intelligence of their membership or didn’t want to publish anything that was critical of attorneys or the legal profession. Almost immediately, I resigned my membership in NAHI and joined NACHI, but I have never said anything negative about NAHI, or any other organization for that matter, nor would I ever. I have respected inspector/friends in several organizations.

Since then, the fellowship of NACHI has welcomed me with open arms, all of my articles have been published, and I haven’t had a second thought about NAHI until my business partner in Porter Valley Software, Lorne Steiner, received a letter from the president of NAHI canceling Porter Valley Software’s affiliate membership and canceling its vendor invitation to their upcoming conference, on the grounds that he is a director at large of NACHI, and I was recently appointed as its vice-president. You don’t have to think about this for too long to see that there is no logical explanation for such censure. Many vendors serve honorably on the boards of other organizations. As a building inspector, I’ve always tried to do what is best for inspectors, and it does concern me that Porter Valley Software’s trade practices should be impugned for whatever grievance (real or imagined) NAHI has with NACHI.

Many NAHI members visit the NACHI website, if only because it is vastly superior to others. Regardless, if you’re a NAHI member, I ask you to consider what is right and what is wrong, and if you believe in truth and justice to make your voice heard. I have no doubt that you are able to read these words without difficulty, which is more credit than NAHI officially gave you, and for that reason you might want to spend more time on the NACHI message board, and if you’d like to read what NAHI didn’t apparently want you to read, it’s contained in my book Inspect and Protect, in which I proudly acknowledge NACHI’s contribution. There is nothing more disarming than the plain truth.

Don't feel bad about getting kicked out of Scumbag NAHI's Convention. Read Proverbs 24:1.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Will do, m'lord. Cheers, Nick.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

Just read proverbs 24:1; ancient wisdom, and sound advice.

[John Lomonaco]

Keith,

Well said....

Welcome aboard.

Nick,

Wow...

Keep up the good work....

John

[Kelly D. Lopez]

This is a long over due public thank you to Keith Swift.

In November a Phoenix news team (ABC 15) did a segment called "Inspecting the Inspectors". Keith, I appreciate your numerous phone calls and e-mails while assisting me with the written statement. The end product below was so powerful that the news team would not post it on their web site and chose to eliminate any negative statements about my company. Your true professionalism, expertise, knowledge and most of all, your concern for a colleague, will never be forgotten.

Sincerely,

Kelly Lopez
InSpec Home Inspection, LLC




Dear Mr. Ducey,

Thank you for allowing me to respond to the critique of one of my inspections that was taped without my knowledge. I am proud of my service and report. I always stand behind my work with personal passion and financial insurance that far exceeds the state minimum requirements.

As documented in my report, I spent over five hours on the property, and completed a thorough inspection and report, which meets or exceeds Arizona Standards of Practice.

The only questionable item that I have been made aware of involves a glass shower enclosure, that has been purported to be inadequately supported and a safety concern. I cannot find anything in the Arizona Standards of Practice that warrants and supports this contention. We are not code inspectors with clear guidelines that would work for every house. Apparently, this is in line with four out of the five inspectors hired.

The following excerpts from the Arizona Standards of Practice support my decision to not include the shower enclosure in my report.

3.2 General Exclusions:
A. Inspectors are NOT required to report on:
5. compliance or non-compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

B. Inspectors are NOT required to:
2. calculate the strength, adequacy, or efficiency of any system or component.

You stated that you have an “expert home inspector” who is also a member of the Board of Technical Registration that agrees that the shower enclosure should have been reported by every inspector. However, no standard has been provided to support this opinion. I have consulted with several other home inspection professionals including: instructors, litigation specialists, and a national home inspection association founder (all of whom are considered “experts”) and have found no standard to support this opinion. I welcome information to improve my service and ask for this standard to be provided.

If this is the only item in question, I take some comfort and pride in the fact that I scored what would be considered an “A” in what was a “loaded house” test. I hope that the entire report is taken into consideration as proof of my professionalism, and not just this one questionable item.

Thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate and improve my service.

Sincerely,

Kelly D Lopez
InSpec Home Inspection, LLC
480-296-8942
www.InSpecHomeInspection.com

This full report can be accessed from our web site using the following case sensitive login information.

Name: 5320palomino
Password: phoenix

[dharris]

The only questionable item that I have been made aware of involves a glass shower enclosure, that has been purported to be inadequately supported and a safety concern. I cannot find anything in the Arizona Standards of Practice that warrants and supports this contention. We are not code inspectors with clear guidelines that would work for every house. Apparently, this is in line with four out of the five inspectors hired.

The following excerpts from the Arizona Standards of Practice support my decision to not include the shower enclosure in my report.

3.2 General Exclusions:
A. Inspectors are NOT required to report on:
5. compliance or non-compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

B. Inspectors are NOT required to:
2. calculate the strength, adequacy, or efficiency of any system or component.

You stated that you have an “expert home inspector” who is also a member of the Board of Technical Registration that agrees that the shower enclosure should have been reported by every inspector. However, no standard has been provided to support this opinion. I have consulted with several other home inspection professionals including: instructors, litigation specialists, and a national home inspection association founder (all of whom are considered “experts”) and have found no standard to support this opinion.

Sincerely,

Kelly D Lopez
InSpec Home Inspection, LLC
480-296-8942

This is an interesting post.. The following is not intended to support the action taken by other innspectors,nor bash Kelly or members from one org or another.

Just the opposite as Kelly may have met the minimum standards
Lets assume that this was a complaint from a customer stating that the shower door was not properly supported at time of inspection and someone was injured due to the door falling off.

As someone that sees similar complaints and made the commitment to provide an unbiased review for the BTR. The following comments from Kelly [in this case] or any other inspector would raise a questions when reviewing the complaint.

**We are not code inspectors with clear guidelines that would work for every house.
*** I cannot find anything in the Arizona Standards of Practice that warrants and supports this contention.
***Reports meet or exceeds Arizona Standards of Practice.

The questions I would raise as a reviewer of the complaint seeing this responce from the inspector

If we are going to provide a report to the standards and claim to meet or exceed the standards, where does the code come in play when someone was injured and the defense was quoting what we are not required to do??
A. Inspectors are NOT required to report on:
5. compliance or non-compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

B. Inspectors are NOT required to:
2. calculate the strength, adequacy, or efficiency of any system or component.

If we are going to provide an inspection that exceed the standards, As inspectors shouldn't we disclose that the door was not properly secured and recommend that correction is needed with out having standards requiring us to disclose this?

Your comments.....

[bbernier]

For those of you inspectors who don't speak French, a better translation in English would be " pariah " which sounds much better than scumbag for all intents and purposes.

Regards,

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by dharris

The only questionable item that I have been made aware of involves a glass shower enclosure, that has been purported to be inadequately supported and a safety concern. I cannot find anything in the Arizona Standards of Practice that warrants and supports this contention. We are not code inspectors with clear guidelines that would work for every house. Apparently, this is in line with four out of the five inspectors hired.

The following excerpts from the Arizona Standards of Practice support my decision to not include the shower enclosure in my report.

3.2 General Exclusions:
A. Inspectors are NOT required to report on:
5. compliance or non-compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

B. Inspectors are NOT required to:
2. calculate the strength, adequacy, or efficiency of any system or component.

You stated that you have an “expert home inspector” who is also a member of the Board of Technical Registration that agrees that the shower enclosure should have been reported by every inspector. However, no standard has been provided to support this opinion. I have consulted with several other home inspection professionals including: instructors, litigation specialists, and a national home inspection association founder (all of whom are considered “experts”) and have found no standard to support this opinion.

Sincerely,

Kelly D Lopez
InSpec Home Inspection, LLC
480-296-8942

This is an interesting post.. The following is not intended to support the action taken by other innspectors,nor bash Kelly or members from one org or another.

Just the opposite as Kelly may have met the minimum standards
Lets assume that this was a complaint from a customer stating that the shower door was not properly supported at time of inspection and someone was injured due to the door falling off.

As someone that sees similar complaints and made the commitment to provide an unbiased review for the BTR. The following comments from Kelly [in this case] or any other inspector would raise a questions when reviewing the complaint.

**We are not code inspectors with clear guidelines that would work for every house.
*** I cannot find anything in the Arizona Standards of Practice that warrants and supports this contention.
***Reports meet or exceeds Arizona Standards of Practice.

The questions I would raise as a reviewer of the complaint seeing this responce from the inspector

If we are going to provide a report to the standards and claim to meet or exceed the standards, where does the code come in play when someone was injured and the defense was quoting what we are not required to do??
A. Inspectors are NOT required to report on:
5. compliance or non-compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

B. Inspectors are NOT required to:
2. calculate the strength, adequacy, or efficiency of any system or component.

If we are going to provide an inspection that exceed the standards, As inspectors shouldn't we disclose that the door was not properly secured and recommend that correction is needed with out having standards requiring us to disclose this?

Your comments.....

Dan this would be better in a new thread.
What standard was used to establish that the door was not secured properly? Some BTR/ASHI old school HI personal preference BS? Or a real/verifiable standard?

Therin lies the problem Dan. I recall turning in my reports to the state and some idiot reading my report for verification wanted me to put in the report the size of the incomming water line. That information is not required unless it is deemed too small, I put it in as I wanted my License.

It seemed to me at the time the person validating my reports had a hard time comprehending the state requirements as written.

And you shoud not tell people that you are exceeding the standards, that will just get you into trouble.

My favorite part of that hidden camera deal was watching those ding dongs running their metal tapes up to the power lines to check the height.

[dharris]

Not sure another thread would do it as the only other reply was defining the word scum bag.

What standard was used to establish that the door was not secured properly? Some BTR/ASHI old school HI personal preference BS? Or a real/verifiable standard?
I don't know of a standard..
I guess my answer would be, your words [ Some BTR/ASHI old school HI personal preference BS?
If it was not properly secured and not disclosed and some one was injured, or if the customer called a shower guy after closing and was told the framing was damaged behind the walls and it will cost 5000.00 to replace the entire enclosure the inspector will be held liable [ in the customers mind and most likley his attorneys mind ]for not disclosing even if was not inthe standards.

And you should not tell people that you are exceeding the standards, that will just get you into trouble.
I see that as a business decision. [ and I'm sure there are 1000s of different opinions
The way I see it is, if your claim to meet or exceed the standards, using the defense "that I met the minimum standards" if you fail to report a defect that was accessable and not clearly addressed in the standards, doesn't cut it.

My favorite part of that hidden camera deal was watching those ding dongs running their metal tapes up to the power lines to check the height.

Gotta admit some of those ASHI guys are ding dongs

</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>

[Brian E. Kelly]

Thanx for the Smoke Dan.
I have been a snack cake myself a time of two.
Catch you later.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by dharris

The only questionable item that I have been made aware of involves a glass shower enclosure, that has been purported to be inadequately supported and a safety concern. I cannot find anything in the Arizona Standards of Practice that warrants and supports this contention. We are not code inspectors with clear guidelines that would work for every house. Apparently, this is in line with four out of the five inspectors hired.

The following excerpts from the Arizona Standards of Practice support my decision to not include the shower enclosure in my report.

3.2 General Exclusions:
A. Inspectors are NOT required to report on:
5. compliance or non-compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

B. Inspectors are NOT required to:
2. calculate the strength, adequacy, or efficiency of any system or component.

You stated that you have an “expert home inspector” who is also a member of the Board of Technical Registration that agrees that the shower enclosure should have been reported by every inspector. However, no standard has been provided to support this opinion. I have consulted with several other home inspection professionals including: instructors, litigation specialists, and a national home inspection association founder (all of whom are considered “experts”) and have found no standard to support this opinion.

Sincerely,

Kelly D Lopez
InSpec Home Inspection, LLC
480-296-8942

This is an interesting post.. The following is not intended to support the action taken by other innspectors,nor bash Kelly or members from one org or another.

Just the opposite as Kelly may have met the minimum standards
Lets assume that this was a complaint from a customer stating that the shower door was not properly supported at time of inspection and someone was injured due to the door falling off.

As someone that sees similar complaints and made the commitment to provide an unbiased review for the BTR. The following comments from Kelly [in this case] or any other inspector would raise a questions when reviewing the complaint.

**We are not code inspectors with clear guidelines that would work for every house.
*** I cannot find anything in the Arizona Standards of Practice that warrants and supports this contention.
***Reports meet or exceeds Arizona Standards of Practice.

The questions I would raise as a reviewer of the complaint seeing this responce from the inspector

If we are going to provide a report to the standards and claim to meet or exceed the standards, where does the code come in play when someone was injured and the defense was quoting what we are not required to do??
A. Inspectors are NOT required to report on:
5. compliance or non-compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

B. Inspectors are NOT required to:
2. calculate the strength, adequacy, or efficiency of any system or component.

If we are going to provide an inspection that exceed the standards, As inspectors shouldn't we disclose that the door was not properly secured and recommend that correction is needed with out having standards requiring us to disclose this?

Your comments.....

I think that this is why it has been recently discussed that claiming to meet and exceed industry SOP is not wise and may come back to bite you in the buns.

[Nick Gromicko]

Dan Harris writes

Gotta admit some of those ASHI guys are ding dongs

A few aren't.


Anyway... very nice work Keith!

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

There's an ethical and logical side to most arguments. I exceed the standards every day, and will continue to do so to avoid litigation. The dependance on the standards is laudible as a legal defence, but when you're in court and win, what have you won? To answer my own question, nothing. However, this is a choice that is made by individuals every day, and that's as it should be.

[rwand1]

Keith couldn't have said it better, I too exceed the standards everytime I do an inspection.

Continued success!

[dharris]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Gotta admit some of those ASHI guys are ding dongs
A few aren't.

Seeing your recent bragging about giving another free membership to an ASHI member... It looks like there are a few ASHI members that will and are willing sell their sole to the devil for the almighty dollar