What message does this send? YOUR OPINION COUNTS!

[Joe Farsetta]

Here in NY, the HI Advisory Board has crafted a draft COE. The following verbiage is taken directly from it:

"Home inspectors are not permitted to make any statements or comments concerning the adequacy or soundness of the home, it structure or systems and are not permitted to provide engineering or architectural services."

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. WE WANT INPUT FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY ON THIS.

a Are you comfortable with this language?
Yes or no
b. Will this statement cause your clients concern about the value you bring to the home inspection process?
Yes or no
c. Do you think this statement will cause harm to your business?
Yes or no
d. Do you think this statement will make it more difficult for you to be successful in the home inspection business?
Yes or no
e. Do you think this statement will help professional engineers get more home inspection business?
Yes or no
f. Is it fair to have a Professional Engineer represent the home inspection industry as chairman of ANY Home Inspection Licensing Board or Regulatory Agency or Advisory Council?
Yes or no
g. Do you think professional engineers could use this mandated language to help them increase their market share of home inspections?
Yes or no


OTHER COMENTARY IS WELCOME. FOR US, HERE IN NY, THE SITUATION IS VERY REAL, AND YOUR OPINIONS ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

a Are you comfortable with this language?
Yes or no

No. Ambiguity is often a purposeful attempt to empower an appointed board for "case-by-case" interpretation.

b. Will this statement cause your clients concern about the value you bring to the home inspection process?
Yes or no

Yes. Why hire a home inspector if he is not allowed to comment on whether or not the home and its systems are in working condition?

c. Do you think this statement will cause harm to your business?
Yes or no

Not if I were an engineer.

d. Do you think this statement will make it more difficult for you to be successful in the home inspection business?
Yes or no

It will certainly discourage the use of home inspections and require more emphasis (and teeth) in the disclosure laws.

e. Do you think this statement will help professional engineers get more home inspection business?
Yes or no

Yes

f. Is it fair to have a Professional Engineer represent the home inspection industry as chairman of ANY Home Inspection Licensing Board or Regulatory Agency or Advisory Council?
Yes or no

They should not even be connected with home inspection licensing in any way. It is not only unfair, but irrelevant.

g. Do you think professional engineers could use this mandated language to help them increase their market share of home inspections?
Yes or no

The could and certainly will.

[David A. Andersen]

"Home inspectors are not required to make any statements or comments concerning the adequacy or soundness of the home, it structure or systems and Home Inspections should not be construed to be engineering or architectural services."

[Joe Farsetta]

David,

Your suggestion is a good one, but unless we squash this, it will go through as written.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Here in NY, the HI Advisory Board has crafted a draft COE. The following verbiage is taken directly from it:

"Home inspectors are not permitted to make any statements or comments concerning the adequacy or soundness of the home, it structure or systems and are not permitted to provide engineering or architectural services."

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. WE WANT INPUT FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY ON THIS.

a Are you comfortable with this language?
Yes - The purpose of a Home Inspector is as a generalist and not specialist. The Inspector identifies the issues found and recommends further evaluation from a highly trained specialist in that area. Texas already has this requirement and quite frankly it helps the Inspector stay out of trouble.

b. Will this statement cause your clients concern about the value you bring to the home inspection process?
Yes - However, there is nothing you can do to change this short of obtaining all the necessary licenses, in the various trades and areas of expertise, to allow you to make definitive statements on a homes condition.

c. Do you think this statement will cause harm to your business?
Yes - No more than is already present. Homebuyers need to be educated on the value of a "Generalists" inspection before hiring all of the various professionals, at very high prices, just to obtain definitive statements.

d. Do you think this statement will make it more difficult for you to be successful in the home inspection business?
Yes and no - If it is ingrained in consumer mentality that they need these definitive statements, and their distrust of Inspectors continue, then yes. Otherwise success will be measured only by your honesty, integrity and hard work.

e. Do you think this statement will help professional engineers get more home inspection business?
Yes - Unfortunately there are many engineers out there who undervalue their abilities and services and will fail to charge adequately for their services. This is tantamount to our $99 Inspector problem here in Texas.

f. Is it fair to have a Professional Engineer represent the home inspection industry as chairman of ANY Home Inspection Licensing Board or Regulatory Agency or Advisory Council?
NO - It is never fair to have the Fox guarding the Hen house!

g. Do you think professional engineers could use this mandated language to help them increase their market share of home inspections?
Yes - But what difference is that from the Inspector that uses high technology items such as thermographic cameras, etc., to obtain additional market share?

[Joe Farsetta]

Manny,

Thanks for the comments and insight. The word "soundness" is troublesome to me, as its definition would prohibit us from commenting on anything in the home, which may or may not have defect or decay. That pretty much stops us from commenting on anything...

I would ask you to look up "sound" and "soundness" and re-look at the proposed statement. We are not talkng about being a generalist. We are talking about the ability to inspect and write a report, or answer a clients basic question.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by escanlan

a Are you comfortable with this language?
Yes - The purpose of a Home Inspector is as a generalist and not specialist. The Inspector identifies the issues found and recommends further evaluation from a highly trained specialist in that area. Texas already has this requirement and quite frankly it helps the Inspector stay out of trouble.

b. Will this statement cause your clients concern about the value you bring to the home inspection process?
Yes - However, there is nothing you can do to change this short of obtaining all the necessary licenses, in the various trades and areas of expertise, to allow you to make definitive statements on a homes condition.

c. Do you think this statement will cause harm to your business?
Yes - No more than is already present. Homebuyers need to be educated on the value of a "Generalists" inspection before hiring all of the various professionals, at very high prices, just to obtain definitive statements.

d. Do you think this statement will make it more difficult for you to be successful in the home inspection business?
Yes and no - If it is ingrained in consumer mentality that they need these definitive statements, and their distrust of Inspectors continue, then yes. Otherwise success will be measured only by your honesty, integrity and hard work.

e. Do you think this statement will help professional engineers get more home inspection business?
Yes - Unfortunately there are many engineers out there who undervalue their abilities and services and will fail to charge adequately for their services. This is tantamount to our $99 Inspector problem here in Texas.

f. Is it fair to have a Professional Engineer represent the home inspection industry as chairman of ANY Home Inspection Licensing Board or Regulatory Agency or Advisory Council?
NO - It is never fair to have the Fox guarding the Hen house!

g. Do you think professional engineers could use this mandated language to help them increase their market share of home inspections?
Yes - But what difference is that from the Inspector that uses high technology items such as thermographic cameras, etc.?

Manny,

What are you smoking?

How could you possibly endorse language in a home inspection law that would put home inspectors out of business?

The inability to comment on the "soundness" of the water heater or the "adequacy" of the water pressure - just for starters - makes for a very short inspection report.

Why do you feel that home inspectors should not be allowed to report on the "soundness" (or lack thereof) of the flexible aluminum dryer vent?

[Michael R. Boyett]

In the proposed COE what does it say the HI is allowed to comment on? Does the proposed COE seem to contradict itself? Is this a matter of semantics or of the proposed COE writer's choice of words?

[Joe Farsetta]

Michael,

The SOP starts with what is NOT included in the home inspection, if this counts. The chair of the Hi Advisory Board happens to be a PE. I'd like to believe he's championing the cause of consumer protection, but am having a tough time. I have heard, though cannot verify it, that another member of the Board crafted a simple COE, and "other" verbiage was added to it.

The draft COE and SOP can be viewed in the State Legislation section of this BB.

We are trying to build concensus from professionals and lay-people as to what they think about the proposed verbiage. It is but a small piece of the overall COE, which follows this came vein, including a duty to report others we suspect may be in violation of the law.

[James H. Bushart]

Another rather ambiguous and open-ended term is "engineering or architectural services".

Are you referring to services that engineers and architects "may" perform or services that are totally unique and restricted to those professions? How would a judge, with the influence and assistance of the highly paid team of attorneys hired by the architectural firm, interpret this? If an engineer "may" perform these services, a home inspector may not?

This, alone, could turn the whole industry upside down in New York by restricting home inspectors from performing services that could also be provided by engineers or architects.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Manny,

Thanks for the comments and insight. The word "soundness" is troublesome to me, as its definition would prohibit us from commenting on anything in the home, which may or may not have defect or decay. That pretty much stops us from commenting on anything...

I would ask you to look up "sound" and "soundness" and re-look at the proposed statement. We are not talkng about being a generalist. We are talking about the ability to inspect and write a report, or answer a clients basic question.

Joe,

I see and agree with your points. The problem, as you and Mike are intimating, is more likely a semantics issue. The problem with semantics are how many different ways a phrase can be interpreted. For example the simple fact that you wrote up an issue with framing, HVAC, etc., could also infer that you have made a definitive statement that the system or component is not properly functioning. Without being able to explain specifically why you feel that way you would be left in a lurch with the client. As worded the only real way to CYA against a claim of license violation would just be to state "It's broke and needs repair". Again the definitive statement concept would be encroaching on the wording as it is proposed.

I will PM you with a more descriptive reason behind my thoughts and concerns. It is apparent there will be others, as already demonstrated, that would personally attack others for their beliefs.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by escanlan

I will PM you with a more descriptive reason behind my thoughts and concerns. It is apparent there will be others, as already demonstrated, that would personally attack others for their beliefs.

If this is referring to me, I apologize for sounding "personal". I didn't mean to. I was attacking what I believed to be your point...not you.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by jbushart

If this is referring to me, I apologize for sounding "personal". I didn't mean to. I was attacking what I believed to be your point...not you.

James,

I learned a long time ago to not take things personally and to just move on and ignore such comments. I don't look for apologies (no offense intended with that remark) as that is counterproductive. With that said I'll save the PM and let the chips fall where they may and state my opinion and reasons of why I feel as I do.

First off let's face the actual facts. The Home Inspectors original role was to provide a knowledgeable opinion regarding a homes condition, complete with issues found, at a much more reasonable price than hiring highly paid Engineers or multiple specialists in specific areas. If signs of serious problems are found the client is advised and has the option to pay more and call in the specialists.

The fact is that more and more Engineers and specific specialists are getting into the business of Home Inspections. Since this is an issue with Engineers we will stick to that group of people. With that being said you just have to ask the question. Why would anyone want to pay $40K - $100K to obtain an Engineering degree just so they can inspect homes?? The answer is really simple actually. Look at your economy, the job situation, how much is offshored even in the engineering field, the way corporations and business' literally enslave their Engineers with salaries, 60-80 work weeks, etc.. Schools and universities will continue to crank out engineering degrees and those degreed individuals still need to work to pay their bills. Just as HI's branch out and look for other avenues of income (side work for draw inspections, etc.) so too are these Engineers.

f. Is it fair to have a Professional Engineer represent the home inspection industry as chairman of ANY Home Inspection Licensing Board or Regulatory Agency or Advisory Council?
NO - It is never fair to have the Fox guarding the Hen house!

This is where the majority of our industry's problems lay! The laws, regulations, procedures, etc., will all be crafted by those not currently in the Inspection field. There will be no regard to what should be properly done and very little regard to consumer protection!! Instead the whole driving force will be so a specific group of people, not Inspectors, can force control over an industry and run it the way that best benefits them!!

The only way that Inspectors can protect their industry and help ensure consumer protection is to be empowered to establish the system and its rules from the ground up, with little interference from special interests. Do you really believe that is going to happen though?

[Donald R. Peterson]

Manny,

First off let's face the actual facts. The Home Inspectors original role was to provide a knowledgeable opinion regarding a homes condition, complete with issues found, at a much more reasonable price than hiring highly paid Engineers or multiple specialists in specific areas.

Who ever stated that a home inspector's price has to be "much more reasonable" than an engineer?

If an engineer, (be it a chemical or structural, as long as they are a registered professional engineer) wants to conduct home inspections (not engineering evaluations) the fees should be about the same.

This is an interpretation by you and not a fact.

[David A. Andersen]

Your suggestion is a good one, but unless we squash this, it will go through as written.

Squash away!!!!!!!!!!!

I figured a few changes in the wording would make my point without verbage.
If your counting votes, NYYYNY

I'm from New England, and those people up there misconstrue laws to make them the way they want them rather than the laws intended purpose.

So, any wording that is ambiguous need to go.

Any individual involved in the process that has a conflict of interest should not be in charge of the process, rather a board member with a single vote.
I can see what they're saying (thus my revision), but it's not what they're saying!