A Mission to Change the Standards - Let's Debate

[Kevin A. Richardson]

I starting this thread over here in this public forum so that everyone may have a voice in the following letter I recieved from Kevin O'Hornet with Prospex. This topic came to light two days ago in this thread: http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=23230

I'm very surprised and shocked on his response! However, Mr. O'Hornett is a very well respected professional in the home inspection community. I respect and admire him a great deal. Please refrain from taking personal jabs and/or attacking him on his opinions. Thank You!!

Howdy, Kevin,


You're correct in assuming that I would ask for the name of the inspector and the inspection company if anyone approached me to consult with them regarding home inspection standards in a dispute with a home inspector. I absolutely would not consider accepting such work if I knew, directly or indirectly, of the individual or company – period. I've done this on multiple occasions in the course of my career and in every instance I've declined the work because I've always been acquainted with the inspector and/or the company.


Other ProSpex subscribers understand and agree with the purpose of the website information. They, like I, believe that the only way to get the attention of the major professional associations for home inspectors with regard to the problems with their standards is be made aware of the potential for an inspector who adheres to their standards lose in court because of the standards and then to turn around and file a suit against the home inspection association.


This could be avoided if even one of the major associations were to adopt the ProSpex Uniform Standards of Practice for the Performance of Professional Home Inspections. The ProSpex Uniform Standards apply only to site-built and factory-built homes designed and intended to remain at a single building site and attached to a permanent foundation.
They follow the format of both industry standards and building codes by addressing and referring to actions, inclusions, limitations, and exclusions rather by referring to what is required or not required of an individual performing a home inspection. By focusing on the inspection process and not the individual home inspector, the ProSpex Uniform Standards provide true guidance rather than didactic direction for individuals who choose to apply them to home inspections.


Perhaps the single most foolish and potentially dangerous change in home inspection standards has been the incorporation of the concept that home inspectors are performing “safety” inspections and are in the business of “protecting” buyers from avaricious real estate agents, dishonest home sellers, and a myriad of “things that go bump in the night.” The ProSpex Uniform Standards intentionally exclude any reference to specific examination of any systems or components for “safety.” The inclusion of evaluations for “safety” or for “unsafe” conditions in current home inspection standards places inspectors in an untenable position. It makes them responsible for any and all actual or potential “unsafe” or “safety” related conditions. It also leads inspectors to try to perform building code compliance evaluations instead of home inspections by requiring inspectors to report as adverse conditions, “grandfathered” or intact and fully functional installations which were approved by the AHJ at the time of original construction.


Home inspections performed in accordance with the ProSpex Uniform Standards apply only to systems and components present and able to be inspected at the time of the inspection. They don't contain the ambiguities and outright contradictions which all current standards contain. They're written as individual standards for each major system. This permits an inspector to have and apply the applicable individual standard or standards when a client requests inspection of some but not all of the major systems.

I'm prepared to give the ProSpex Uniform Standards, free of charge, to any home inspector association that wants them and all I ask in return is that ProSpex be given attribution in the document. While I'm a retired member of ASHI, I'm not wedded to any professional association. I'd like nothing better than to see NACHI leap out in front of ASHI and NAHI because NACHI has the foresight to recognize the need for a better and a different kind of standards. Were NACHI to adopt the ProSpex Uniform Standards, they would be far ahead of the other organizations and it would make it much more difficult to use the standards against an inspector. NACHI could truly say that they were the leader in home inspection standards. Based on my own familiarity with various home inspection standards, the current NACHI Standards look like a document cobbled together from bits and pieces of other standards. Not just NACHI members but all home inspectors deserve a standard that will hold up, one that doesn’t create the potential for increasing their legal exposure.


My sole motive here is to bring these associations to their senses and to serve as a catalyst for change. Ideally, I’d like to see a groundswell among home inspectors for change. I’ve certainly got your attention. It’s always more effective when change comes from below rather than when it’s imposed by those at the top. Even though the website costs me money, I hope that I never make a nickel from consulting with a plaintiff's attorney in a case against a home inspector. I'd like nothing better than to remove my website and never consult with anyone working against an inspector. I’d like to take my website down because one of the major home inspector associations has recognized the need for better standards and has produced standards that really protect home inspectors instead of doing what, in my opinion they're currently doing - exposing them to potential litigation. But I'm a realist. I've tried for twenty years to get the attention of ASHI for twenty years but my imprecations have fallen, with a few exceptions, on deaf ears. I want to improve the profession which has done so much for me and the only way I know how to get the attention of the various associations and their members regarding their standards is to hold out the potential of hitting them where it hurts – in the pocketbook. As I said, I hope it never comes to that. I’d much prefer that one of the major associations steps up and assumes the role of visionary leadership with regard to standards instead of simply resting on the status quo.


You're a member of NACHI. Look over the material which follows this letter and then email me. I’ll call you so we can further discuss it. It's a critique of some, but certainly not all, of the problems with the current NACHI Standards. I'm not singling out NACHI. ASHI, NAHI, and CREIA as well as Arizona and other regulated states have just as many problems with their standards; many of them are the same ones that affect the NACHI Standards. I've sent you the material on the NACHI Standards because you’re a NACHI member and you apply their Standards to your work. I'd like for you to become better informed regarding some of the problems with the document that you hang your hat on. If you think that other NACHI members and, through them, NACHI itself might be interested in new standards, let me know and maybe we can work on getting them to consider the approach taken in the ProSpex Uniform Standards.

You’re young, ambitious, and smart.

Keep thinking; you do it well,

Kevin

[Joe Farsetta]

One problem with the notion of ProSpex, or anyone else re-writing a "standard" of any type is the fact that just because you write it, doesnt mean it will be accepted or adopted.

Two specific examples of this come into play with state licensing and with the insurance industry.

So, for the gentleman at Prospex, let us not forget that in 23 regulated states, thetre are SOPs which are not only accepted, but mandated. Is his standard one of them? Will it be accepted over any other? Have inroads been made or is this just another attempt at re-inventing the wheel?

The second example is far more reaching... into our wallets. For this gentleman to claim that our ambiguous SOPs translate into losses in tortuous actions, my suggestion would be for him, to offer some proof of his claims. The reality os that all the E&O carriers want adherance to a major associations SOP. Period. There is good reason for this. They are used to successfully defend against lawsuits.

[Blaine Wiley]

Because many states have their own SOP for licensing that are very close to industry standards, changing the inspection industry standard will be difficult at best.

I can't seem to pull up the standards he touts. I'm getting a 404 not available error. Do you have a copy of them?

[Kevin A. Richardson]

Originally Posted by bwiley

Because many states have their own SOP for licensing that are very close to industry standards, changing the inspection industry standard will be difficult at best.

I can't seem to pull up the standards he touts. I'm getting a 404 not available error. Do you have a copy of them?

I do not, but I have asked Kevin O'Hornett to provide a copy and to join us in this thread.

Kevin

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Kevin, Without actually viewing his set of standards it would be difficult to make any statement regarding their value.

With that being said I would have to agree with most, if not all, of what he has stated. One of his statements that speaks quite well for his standards is:

They follow the format of both industry standards and building codes by addressing and referring to actions, inclusions, limitations, and exclusions rather by referring to what is required or not required of an individual performing a home inspection. By focusing on the inspection process and not the individual home inspector, the ProSpex Uniform Standards provide true guidance rather than didactic direction for individuals who choose to apply them to home inspections.

As stated above though there are many states that have their own standards adopted. Unfortunately for us the Texas standard is one that dictates what is required of the individual instead of Kevin O'Hornet's approach. Attempts have been made to change the standard but have been, for the most part, killed by those parties wishing to maintain control over what the Inspector is responsible for and not "what the inspection is responsible for".

I would like to read his standards and learn what efforts, if any, he has undertaken to introduce these to states with a current set of standards? From previous attempts at changing the Texas standards it is obvious that the pressure for change will have to be introduced from outside of the organization (TREC) that controls them.

[Kevin A. Richardson]

I just don't like the way he is going about it all.

I want to improve the profession which has done so much for me and the only way I know how to get the attention of the various associations and their members regarding their standards is to hold out the potential of hitting them where it hurts – in the pocketbook.

The above statement, unless I misunderstand it, means that he is willing to provide consulting services to people who are in litigation against home inspectors. He has made it clear that he will share with his clients the "loopholes" in the SOP, so that they may have an advantage over the inspector involved in litigation.

This is his way of a "wake-up call"

I don't agree with that method.

http://www.docdocs.us/

Kevin

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

An Open Forum on the NACHI BB may not present the proper Forum to be discussing Mr. Hornet's perceived inadequacies (legal loopholes) of the NACHI, ASHI, NAHI, etc... Standards of Practice.

[James H. Bushart]

Mr. Hornett is in the business of looking for and exploiting loopholes that would advantage a plaintiff and disadvantage a home inspector who is simply doing his job in accordance with an agreed upon (between he and his client) standard.

As Mr. Farsetta has stated, in the absence of verifiable raw data provided by Mr. Hornett to the contrary, I would wager that the standards have been upheld more times than Mr. Hornett has been able to successfully exploit them.

There are lawyers who chase ambulances and there are "experts" huffing and puffing right behind them. It's the nature of the beast. These lawyers seek "experts" who will support their case and this particular "expert" has simply published in advance for lawyers seeking such an "expert" what his testimony will be. I would hope that any good defense attorney would use his website as evidence of his pre-disposition and discredit his entire testimony.

Standards of practice are agreed upon by the client and inspector prior to services being rendered. Inspectors who fail to comply with what it is they say they will do can expect, perhaps deservedly, to be held accountable for that. But to accept the argument that Keith Swift, and now Mr. Hornett, have made ---- "yours is weak and mine is better" ---- as a reason to change standards is foolish and frivolous.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Kevin,

I don't care to have anyone trying to sue me having inside information and/or abilities that could further what I would consider a frivolous case. But the fact is if he does not do this then someone else will. The advantage we might have is if Kevin O'Hornett chooses his cases carefully to perform services only for valid cases of negligence. I know we can get into a debate of what is valid or not but we are discussing his SOP and business practice policies.

Sometimes a "wake-up call" must come in a format that is not desirable to many. One of the problems with our country as a whole, and specifically our industry and its participants, is a total lack of apathy regarding what is occurring around them. Very few people care until it affects them in some significant way. By then it is generally to late to affect changes that could have prevented that significant, negative event. In this instance a "wake-up call" might be what is needed to grab the industry members attention and motivate them to act for changes that actually benefit them.

Joseph,

I value your opinions and as such hope this is not taken inappropriately. IMO I see nothing wrong with holding a discussion of this type on a fully public forum. If the NACHI SOP is exceptional then it can withstand any constructive, or otherwise, criticism that is brought forth. If it is lacking then it is a healthy thing for the public to view we are debating and changing it to better protect all involved.

[Blaine Wiley]

For quite a long time now, I would guess since the inception of ASHI and home inspections we have followed standards. ASHI came up with some of the original ones, and others have evolved somewhat from them, but all current standards for associations and states are similar.

The visual home inspection is what the visual home inspection is. As James stated, it is agreed upon between the client and the inspector.

If the purpose of different standards is to perform a different type of inspection, or to raise the standard to a different level is unclear, but I am always wary of someone who made their money in the inspection industry, then wants to change it because after leaving it now it isn't good enough.

I would see nothing wrong with writing a more technical standard, a more inclusive standard, or a more exhaustive standard, if the intent of that standard was to increase the level of the inspection performed and raise the ability of the inspector to charge a significantly higher fee.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bwiley

I would see nothing wrong with writing a more technical standard, a more inclusive standard, or a more exhaustive standard...

Take a number. I think Swift and Hornett are ahead of you...

[Bruce A. King]

I have requested a copy of the prospex SOP as Kevin has offered for free.

I am looking forward to finding the differences and how he claims to omit "safety items".

I have to follow NC and SC sop's which include more than the nachi and ashi sops anyway.

[Russell Buchanan]

I think its healthy to listen and examine new ideas, change and someone claiming they have a better way. Who knows, maybe they do? If not, then it will only reinforce the old proven way.

[Joe Farsetta]

Let's FIRST discuss whether ot not there is NEED for change. Unless and until we, as professional inspectors, can convince the world that we are the MOST important part of the real estate transaction, we will NEVER be able to justify higher prices. Absent of higher prices, what is the INCENTIVE for any of us to take on higher liability?

I could imagine those who will pile on and state that we MUST raise the standard first, in order to justify a higher price. It is my contention that it doesnt matter what standard we follow, as the client is primarily driven by price when choosing a HI.

I also believe, and the actuarials will back me on this one if pushed, that the current standards are fine, and so long as the inspector provides the inspection and conforms to the stated standard, negligence is a hard thing to prove.

If an industry states that one must inspect X, Y, and Z, and one does what he/she states he would do, where's the negligence?

[klott]

Originally Posted by krichardson

I just don't like the way he is going about it all.


The above statement, unless I misunderstand it, means that he is willing to provide consulting services to people who are in litigation against home inspectors. He has made it clear that he will share with his clients the "loopholes" in the SOP, so that they may have an advantage over the inspector involved in litigation.

This is his way of a "wake-up call"

I don't agree with that method.

http://www.docdocs.us/

Kevin

It seemed like a threat to anyone who does not fall in line to me also. That's a red flag.