Builder messed up, and blames me!

[James H. Bushart]

Anybody see anything in Article 9 that limits it to a "home inspection" as defined by anyone's state law?

[Michael Larson]

Home Inspector Code of Ethics

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Anybody see anything in Article 9 that limits it to a "home inspection" as defined by anyone's state law?

Jim, would Article 9 still apply if this Inachi member is acting as a Consultant in lieu of a Home Inspector?

[James E. Braun, CMI]

If a mold inspector, who is also a home inspector, does testing and he is certified under a mold organization then would not that mold organization COE prevail over the home inspection organization COE? They are two different animals.

[Mark Nahrgang]

Originally Posted by jbraun

Does a client remain a client even if the inspector never gets paid?

Well, if you take a look at "Websters" and use a little bit of logic, the answer is clearly no.

Professional: 2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor...

Client: 2 a : a person who engages the professional advice or services of another

If there is no "gain" or "livelihood", then there can be no "client". But of course, I'm sure there are some here who don't think logically, so they won't be able to understand this.

[Mark Nahrgang]

Originally Posted by jbraun

If a mold inspector, who is also a home inspector, does testing and he is certified under a mold organization then would not that mold organization COE prevail over the home inspection organization COE? They are two different animals.

I would think so. Especially since the mold inspection is outside the scope of what is defined as a home inspection. Like you said, they are two different animals.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Home Inspector Code of Ethics

Agreed

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

I would think so. Especially since the mold inspection is outside the scope of what is defined as a home inspection. Like you said, they are two different animals.

Yes. Our CEO only relates to home inspections per the verbiage written. Remember we cannot assume in a court of law what counts is in the writing.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mcyr

Jim, would Article 9 still apply if this Inachi member is acting as a Consultant in lieu of a Home Inspector?

Yes. That is why "limitations" is addressed in the COE.

Here is the thought behind all of this, Marcel. Your name, my name and Will's name are all associated with NACHI...and NACHI with us. The way that you and I conduct our business with the public reflects not only upon us as individual inspectors, but upon each other...and upon all members of NACHI.

Now, I could probably look and find a technicality in every part of the code that would allow me to pay a realtor for a lead, do an inspection for that lead without writing a contract, and then share the results of the inspection with someone competing against him for a bid on a house. As a result, the client will feel screwed by his "NACHI" inspector and tell 100 people about his bad experience with NACHI. This is how compliance with the COE affects one another and why we have a duty to ourselves, our clients and our fellow members to avoid even the appearance of acting in an unethical manner.

Getting even with a client who has stiffed you on your fee by disclosing his report to someone who could use it to sue him is unethical. Period. You can argue definitions and parse words in any way you want to and it is still the wrong thing to do, ethically. If you do it and your client files an ethical complaint, you are probably toast.

Engaging in a business relationship with anyone without a contract is stupid, first. Second, it appears to be in violation of some state HI laws and with our COE. Will a member be kicked out for not using a contract? Probably not....but when his client files a complaint against him for an ethical violation, the lack of a contract is already strike one against the inspector in that case for he can never prove what his business relationship with his client, his duties to his client, or scope of his services actually were agreed to be. Since his code of ethics requires this contract and he has already violated that code of ethics by not having it, it is not that far of a stretch to accept as fact whatever additional violations the client describes.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Pretty much like when I represent my Company listed in my signature.
Every action taken on my behalf is always a true reflection of that company for people only know me for working for it.
I understand what you are saying Jim. Thanks for the explanation.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Getting even with a client who has stiffed you on your fee by disclosing his report to someone who could use it to sue him is unethical. Period.

What are we to believe Jim's position is when in this post he says the opposite with regard to ethical behavior?

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f5/duty-y...tml#post579704

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mcyr

Pretty much like when I represent my Company listed in my signature.
Every action taken on my behalf is always a true reflection of that company for people only know me for working for it.
I understand what you are saying Jim. Thanks for the explanation.

You're welcome.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Yes. That is why "limitations" is addressed in the COE.

Here is the thought behind all of this, Marcel. Your name, my name and Will's name are all associated with NACHI...and NACHI with us. The way that you and I conduct our business with the public reflects not only upon us as individual inspectors, but upon each other...and upon all members of NACHI.

Now, I could probably look and find a technicality in every part of the code that would allow me to pay a realtor for a lead, do an inspection for that lead without writing a contract, and then share the results of the inspection with someone competing against him for a bid on a house. As a result, the client will feel screwed by his "NACHI" inspector and tell 100 people about his bad experience with NACHI. This is how compliance with the COE affects one another and why we have a duty to ourselves, our clients and our fellow members to avoid even the appearance of acting in an unethical manner.

Getting even with a client who has stiffed you on your fee by disclosing his report to someone who could use it to sue him is unethical. Period. You can argue definitions and parse words in any way you want to and it is still the wrong thing to do, ethically. If you do it and your client files an ethical complaint, you are probably toast.

Engaging in a business relationship with anyone without a contract is stupid, first. Second, it appears to be in violation of some state HI laws and with our COE. Will a member be kicked out for not using a contract? Probably not....but when his client files a complaint against him for an ethical violation, the lack of a contract is already strike one against the inspector in that case for he can never prove what his business relationship with his client, his duties to his client, or scope of his services actually were agreed to be. Since his code of ethics requires this contract and he has already violated that code of ethics by not having it, it is not that far of a stretch to accept as fact whatever additional violations the client describes.

Makes perfect sense Jim.

[Rick Maday]

Interesting thread...

" "Home inspection" means the examination and evaluation of the exterior and interior components of residential real property, which includes the inspection of any 2 or more of the following components of residential real property in connection with or to facilitate the sale, lease, or other conveyance of, or the proposed sale, lease or other conveyance of, residential real property:"


I am making a few assumptions here.
1) There was an examination and evaluation of the exterior and interior components.
2) The property in question is residential real property
3) Two or more components wer inspected

I think we can all agree on those points, no?

If so, defining if it was a home inspection (as per IL law) or not, is dependant on your interpretation of the red.

So answer these questions...

A) Was the property to be sold or leased (or otherwise conveyed)?
B) Was the inspection in connection with A?
C) Did the inspection facilitate A?

Main Entry: fa·cil·i·tate
: to make easier : help bring about

If A is yes and either B or C are yes, then you have a home inspection.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

No, Billy....I am talking about Missouri inspectors going into Illinois to practice these inspections without a license. It's okay, right? As long as the house is not listed for sale?

Yep. Radon inspections, mold inspections and inspections on houses that are not under contract of sale are not covered by the Illinois law.

Hope this helps;