Under Attack

[gporter]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Dr. Swift writes:



This is the same scumbag NAHI who paid for the postage for their own member to mail out a letter to PA REALTORs that said NACHI wasn't compliant with state law, harming many good NACHI inspectors.

This is the same scumbag NAHI who moved its dead convention next to ours in Florida this past year, the 3 days preceeding ours.

This is the same scumbag NAHI who sued NACHI for using a house in its logo, as if scumbag NAHI owned everything that had a house in it.

This is the same scumbag NAHI who went to court complaining that NACHI is using NAHI in their metatags to divert traffic away from their site, even though NAHI.org wasn't even registered until 3 years after NACHI went online and we don't use metatags.

This is the same scumbag NAHI who refused to join with ASHI, NACHI and CMI in prohibiting preferred vendor list participation (bribing of REALTORs to get them to breach their fiduciary duty to their clients to recommend inspectors solely on merit and instead recommend the scumbag NAHI member who pays them the most).

This is the same scumbag NAHI who is trying to bastardize our profession by permitting (in a document they ridiculously title NAHI Code of Ethics) their members to disregard our duty to be impartial and sell repair services without disclosing that their reports lack impartiality prior to the customer hiring the inspector (so it isn't a disclosure at all) despite ASHI, NACHI, CMI, and every known licensing board prohibiting such unconscionable practices.

I'm not a person who regularly uses mean-spirited words like "scumbag" so if someone can come up with a more accurate adjective to describe scumbag NAHI... I'll switch to it.

Love ya Nick. Get'em

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

After a recent legislative hearing in Kansas, 2 legislators came up to me in the hall and started conversations regarding wording in the Bill that they felt was harmful to the public and worked against the public's best interest.

Their views were different, but the issue in the HI Bill was the same.

The Bill prohibited HI's from repairing or working on a house they'd inspected for the next year. The state representatives felt this language was bad.

One's position was that they're in a small rural county that maybe sells 120 to 150 houses a year. They're 1.5 hours away from any sizeable community. A home inspector can't make a living BY DOING inspections alone. He said that over the past 5-6 years, 2 guys have done inspections (a remodeler and a HVAC contractor). To both of these people home inspections is a remote sideline. They also get called upon to repair issues found in the inspection. He felt that if this law passed as written - they'd lose their home inspectors.

The 2nd representative was more direct - he said that as a homeowner, once he bought the house and closed, it was nobody's business but his who he chose to use to repair or workl on HIS HOME. As an example, he said after he closed on the home - if he wanted the home inspector to build him a custom deck AND the home inspector agreed that was between him and the inspector AND none of anyone else's business - including the state.

That being their opinion, obviously they're both right. So do we call them scumbags. I think not. Its well past time for us to realize just because we've put our pants on with the zipper in the back for 50 years doesn't make it right. Both rep's thought more reasonable language might be "that during the escrow process the inspector can't repair or work on the house". After the client becomes the owner he/she can hire whoever they want to work on OR around their home (THEIR HOME - NOT YOURS - THEIRS).

I cut my teeth on the other way - but today their way seems more open and honest AND does not appear to be something I refer to as SCUMBAG!

[Nick Gromicko]

I've just been made aware of a scumbag NAHI member who included a roofing bid with his home inspection report that declared the roof to be in need of replacement. He was correct, the roof did need to be replaced. The seller waited to respond to the report until after the time to complete the inspection had run out in the sales agreement. Then he informed the buyers and the REALTORs that because the buyer used a scumbag NAHI member and because the inspection report was not impartial (because it contained a repair estimate from the scumbag NAHI member)... he didn't consider it to be a home inspection and that in his opinion (and his attorney's) the buyer waived his right to perform a home inspection and therefore had to buy the home as-is. He contacted me to help him in his suit for specific performance (to force the buyer to buy his home as-is). If it goes to court I, as founder of the world's largest inspection association, will testify that all home inspection reports that are not written impartially are in fact estimates, not home inspection reports and that anyone who hires such an inspector... hasn't hired an inspector... and therefore has waived their rights to negotiate for failing to perform an inspection in the time allowed by the sales agreement.

Consumers need to look for and avoid the scumbag NAHI logo if they want to use their inspection report in negotiations.

[dharris]

Consumers need to look for and avoid the scumbag NAHI logo if they want to use their inspection report in negotiations.[/quote]

I know of several AZ inspectors that are marketed as "certified" inspectors by nachi that are not currently certified by the state.

Just because you claim to have this information on one person why should that affect every inspector that chooses to join nahi or what ever group that you decide to bash?


Using your advise, AZ Consumers need to avoid inspectors marketed as nachi certified on your find an inspector , if they want to use their inspection report in negotiations

[Nick Gromicko]

Dan, I know of no law on earth that prohibits a homebuyer from offering contracting work to whomever they want. However, every state that adopted home inspection licensing prohibits the inspector from accepting that work (if they did the home inspection) for at least a year. If I'm wrong, and there is a home inspection law that doesn't prohibit this practice... please correct me.

Anyway these laws aren't on the books for no reason at all. And it has nothing to do with the fine contracting work these inspectors are probably quite capable of performing or the home owner's right to offer the work to whomever they want... it has to do with the state having a public interest (shared by NACHI and ASHI) in preserving the impartiality of a home inspection... even in (and IMHO especially in) as you say "small rural counties."

Consumers in small, rural counties deserve access to state assured impartial inspections just like everyone else in America.

[Nick Gromicko]

Dan, you are mistaken.

The AZ BTR already agreed that people can be NACHI certified without being licensed in AZ. This decision (made years ago) was the result of an unlicensed (still to this day) owner of a multi-inspector firm who didn't perform home inspections himself (he only owned the business). To this day, he is not licensed and has no intention of ever becoming licensed. He is not an inspector. He is the owner/manager of a multi-inspection firm who naturally finds value in joining our trade association since he is in the inspection trade.

Furthermore, much of what NACHI does is helpful to people prior to getting licensed and so they are not only welcome to join before getting their license, they are encouraged to.

And finally, more and more inspectors in licensed states, who are not required to be licensed (commercial inspectors for exampe) are joining NACHI. We welcome them.

[dharris]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Dan, you are mistaken.

The AZ BTR already agreed that people can be NACHI certified without being licensed in AZ. This decision (made years ago) was the result of an unlicensed (still to this day) owner of a multi-inspector firm who didn't perform home inspections himself (he only owned the business). To this day, he is not licensed and has no intention of ever becoming licensed. He is not an inspector. He is the owner/manager of a multi-inspection firm who naturally finds value in joining our trade association since he is in the inspection trade.

He's marketed on your find an inspector site as a "certified inspector" with all the others that are auctualy state cerified or are either , suspended , dead, inactive or delinquent ??

[Richard L. Bennett]

Dan

One can hold a license and or be certified in another state. This is part of a persons credentials

Thus if one is a member of NACHI one is what one is

rlb

[dharris]

Originally Posted by rbennett

Dan

One can hold a license and or be certified in another state. This is part of a persons credentials

Thus if one is a member of NACHI one is what one is

rlb

Member yes..
Advertizing stating your a certified HI , or any other lic professional in a state when you are not state certified or licensed is against state law..

[Richard L. Bennett]

Dan

If one has a web site one in advertising in every state.

I can be certified or licensed in a state or two.

The problem is how I state same to my clients

rlb

[Nick Gromicko]

Dan... no it is not. Private organizations (like NACHI) certify. Governments license. Governments have no exclusive use of the word certified. California found this out when they were toying with the idea of certifying home inspectors a few years back.

[Richard L. Bennett]

Dan

One is not saying that one should conduct a HI without being in compliant with local law

rlb

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by kswift

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.

I believe the point was not to advertise that you exceed the standards. I think all agree for the most part that we should exceed all standards.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

I believe the point was not to advertise that you exceed the standards. I think all agree for the most part that we should exceed all standards.

Correct.

The SOP tells my client what I will inspect and what I won't inspect and, in some cases, how I will inspect.

There is no actual "exceeding" anything. There is simply "changing" the SOP by adding or subtracting from it.

Now, if I have added something to my SOP...it is prudent for me to advertise "I have added X, Y and Z to my standard of practice to ensure a quality inspection" as opposed to say "I exceed the SOP".

Why? If the SOP states that I am not accountable for hidden conditions and I advertise that I "exceed" that, perhaps the client will claim I was hired because he thought I AM accountable for hidden conditions. This list could go on and on.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by dbowers

One's position was that they're in a small rural county that maybe sells 120 to 150 houses a year. They're 1.5 hours away from any sizeable community. A home inspector can't make a living BY DOING inspections alone. He said that over the past 5-6 years, 2 guys have done inspections (a remodeler and a HVAC contractor). To both of these people home inspections is a remote sideline. They also get called upon to repair issues found in the inspection. He felt that if this law passed as written - they'd lose their home inspectors.

The 2nd representative was more direct - he said that as a homeowner, once he bought the house and closed, it was nobody's business but his who he chose to use to repair or workl on HIS HOME. As an example, he said after he closed on the home - if he wanted the home inspector to build him a custom deck AND the home inspector agreed that was between him and the inspector AND none of anyone else's business - including the state.

I cut my teeth on the other way - but today their way seems more open and honest AND does not appear to be something I refer to as SCUMBAG!

Texas tried that for a while but the same bad fruit comes out.
Inspectors slant the report and wait a few weeks to reap the
new business they created from the bias report. Follow the money.

Texas changed their law to stop that.

I live 2 hours from any big city and fit the description of those kinds
of inspectors that are way out in the country. If you stop inspectors
from working on the houses they inspect, you stop the good ole
boy network from ripping off the poor Client. The law should be written
to protect the CONSUMER, not the inspector vultures/contractors.

Scumbag is still a good word for some.