40-60% Ignore PA HI Law, per BBB

[Bruce A. King]

How about this scenario:

Licensed State.

Inspector does 2 or 3 quick inspections a day, onsite quick report, does not truly meet any SOP. Gets most of these from agents.

Gets a complaint every so often and justs pays the client for the item(s) missed. (Most clients do not bother to complain)

Gross annual income around $200,000.00
Claims paid to unhappy clients that bothered to complain per year $8,000.00

Agents are happy because they know the inspector will "pay off the complainers"


Anything here illegal?

(In case you don't already know, its not my business that operates this way)

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

One does not require a license to do a home inspection in Illinois. It is only required if you are doing a home inspection for compensation.

If you do a $450 doorbell inspection...you may add a free home inspection - no license required. Read your law.

Jim;

You error in that your argument si reducto as absurbum.

Sure, there are always guys who will violate the law, knowing that they are doing so, even if the try to hide it in some stupid ($450 door bell inspection? who, in their right mind would pay $450 for a door bell inspection? Only in some contrived scenario that dishonest people cook up in their own minds.)

There have been many such jokers who have tried this, but got wacked.

Also, there are two City of Chicago Fire Dept Asst. Battalion Chiefs who contuinue to do inspections, even though they are not licensed, and continue to be protected by politics.

No system will work, perfectly, 100% of the time. But that is no reason to not try.

No law "protects" ahead of time. Laws only exist to allow for the punishment (after the fact) of those that break them.

Nice try, though.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

There have been many such jokers who have tried this, but got wacked..

LOL

I can certainly understand why you would want to believe this, but it is not true. In fact, I know it to be a standard practice.

$300 septic inspection...home inspection free.

$350 water well inspection...home inspection free.

No one is being sanctioned for this.

In fact, in Illinois...no one is getting sanctioned for anything. With all of the unlicensed inspectors in Illinois (some even post on this message board) and those in bordering states conducting regular business without licenses....only 3.......3 home inspectors in Illinois....were sanctioned in the past year. All three had licenses. One lost his because he paid for it with a bad check. A second got his suspended for having concealed some felony convictions, and third violated a "consent" order he agreed to with the Division.

Another gaping loophole is your law's definition of a "home inspection assignment", which determines if the inspector must be licensed. It reads like this: "Inspection assignment" means an engagement for which a home inspector is employed or retained to conduct a home inspection and prepare a home inspection report." No report means no official home inspection, which means....no violation. Thus, consultations can be conducted by anyone, licensed or not, as long as there is no report.

It's a joke. You guys should work on repealing it. It means nothing to anyone.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bking

How about this scenario:

Licensed State.

Inspector does 2 or 3 quick inspections a day, onsite quick report, does not truly meet any SOP. Gets most of these from agents.

Gets a complaint every so often and justs pays the client for the item(s) missed. (Most clients do not bother to complain)

Gross annual income around $200,000.00
Claims paid to unhappy clients that bothered to complain per year $8,000.00

Agents are happy because they know the inspector will "pay off the complainers"


Anything here illegal?

(In case you don't already know, its not my business that operates this way)

Many salesmen in licensed states continue to use unlicensed inspectors. In Illinois, there are licensed inspectors who...for the promise of future referrals...will actually sign reports under their license, at an agent's request, when they use one.

Licensing is a joke. Consumers don't care. Rarely, if ever, enforced.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

LOL

I can certainly understand why you would want to believe this, but it is not true. In fact, I know it to be a standard practice.

$300 septic inspection...home inspection free.

$350 water well inspection...home inspection free.

No one is being sanctioned for this.

In fact, in Illinois...no one is getting sanctioned for anything. With all of the unlicensed inspectors in Illinois (some even post on this message board)

Prove it, send me names and I will follow up, or shut the freak up!

You have made this claim before, but never backed it up.

And, a (former) ESOP member. iNACHI's SOP and COE requires followi9ng all state laws. Knowing about a law violation, and not reporting it, makes one a party after the fact.

If you KNOW (as opposed to suspect) of any unlicensed inspectors doing business in Illinois, and you don't report it, you are just helping to maintain the condition that you decry.

and those in bordering states conducting regular business without licenses

Again, see the above. If you know about illegal action and do not say anything about it, then you are a party to it.

....only 3.......3 home inspectors in Illinois....were sanctioned in the past year. All three had licenses. One lost his because he paid for it with a bad check. A second got his suspended for having concealed some felony convictions, and third violated a "consent" order he agreed to with the Division.

Another gaping loophole is your law's definition of a "home inspection assignment", which determines if the inspector must be licensed. It reads like this: "Inspection assignment" means an engagement for which a home inspector is employed or retained to conduct a home inspection and prepare a home inspection report." No report means no official home inspection, which means....no violation. Thus, consultations can be conducted by anyone, licensed or not, as long as there is no report.

Look at the law, and have your lawyer (if you have one) explain it to you. If you inspect, for a fee, and the house is part of an RE transaction (i.e., under contract) then you MUST be licensed and you MUST provide a written report and you MUST have a signed inspection agreement.

If you are going to misrepresent, then at least do so honestly.

It's a joke. You guys should work on repealing it. It means nothing to anyone.

Jim;

I don't know where you get your data, but I get mine from the state site.

There have only been three court lawsuits against HIs, but there have been many actions from the state (administrative hearings with disiciple actions).

In fact,. a recent case had a local Village code inspector disciplined (with 1 $10,000 fine and he lost his job with the Village) for doing home inspections without a license.

Maybe, as you state, people from neighboring, non-licensed states, are doing inspections in Illinois, but you already know that this is illegal, and a violation of iNACHI rules.

If you know of any inspectors from other, non-licensed states, who are doing inspections in Illinois, please let me know (by private e-mail, see below) and I will do what I can to get them disciplined.

I have made this offer, before, but you just scoffed at it. I hope that you will now do what is necessary to make you dream of licensed states actually enforcing their own laws work,

It's up to you.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

from other, non-licensed states, who are doing inspections in Illinois, please let me know (by private e-mail, see below) and I will do what I can to get them disciplined.

Why in the world would I want to do anything like that?

Your law has loopholes large enough to drive a truck through and your state cannot govern anyone not living in it. An inspection for which there is no fee is not governed by your law. An inspection for which there is no report is not governed by your law. There are a few more loopholes that I want to keep to myself, for a while, but they are just as advantagous to anyone not wanting to contribute money to your state.

I have no interest in seeing anyone sanctioned for ignoring a law designed to put money in the pocket of the state and vendors.

Instead, I wish them continued success.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

All consumers in all states...HI law or not...have the courts to support them in matters regarding home inspectors. If HI laws do anything, they restrict...not enhance...a consumer's litigation rights in these matters.

Our HI laws are the TREC standards of practice (very close to the InterNACHI SoP).

Which one of the SoP restrict the consumer?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Our HI laws are the TREC standards of practice (very close to the InterNACHI SoP).

Which one of the SoP restrict the consumer?

None, that I know of.

It was incorrectly stated that the absence of a home inspector licensing law made it difficult for consumers to recover from a bad inspector. I pointed out that all states have the courts at their disposal.

I also stated that in states with HI laws, many times the laws are written to restrict...not assist....consumers collecting damages. HI laws do little to help consumers recover any losses incurred. They can pull a license...but not compel an inspector or his carrier to pay a claim.

Consumers do not push inspector laws, generally do not care or even know about them, and are not really protected by them all that much.

Illinois is a joke and...according to the BBB in Pennsylvania, half of the inspectors on job are violating the state law.....and no one cares.

It's time to start throwing these useless things away.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Why in the world would I want to do anything like that?

Jim, I am still trying to figure out why someone who lives in a non-lisensed state is so obsessed with their neighboring state, so you have to find that answer for yourself.

If Illinois had laws that dealt with child molesters, but didn't enforce them, would you be all so joyful about it and not want to turn the offenders, that you knew were taking advantage of the lack of enforcment (both offenders from Illinois and your state) how would you feel about that.

Besides, it is a violation of a state law and iNACHI has rules about that. As a former ESOP guy, isn't it kind of your duty to help iNACHI enforce the COE. If people get away with this, and they are iNACHI members, and you know about it, you are allowing (and, it can be argued, condoning) harm and disrepute against iNACHI, are you not?

How would you feel if I came into your state and broke a state law there, and came back to Illinois and bragged on this board how easy it is to do and how the government of your state was so silly.

Ever hear of extradition?

If you feel you are right, give me a call and I will go along with you when you, of these people you claim (but do not prove) do un-licensed inspections in Illinois. Then we will see if you are correct?

Or are you just a foolish bragging chicken?

Your law has loopholes large enough to drive a truck through and your state cannot govern anyone not living in it. An inspection for which there is no fee is not governed by your law. An inspection for which there is no report is not governed by your law. There are a few more loopholes that I want to keep to myself, for a while, but they are just as advantagous to anyone not wanting to contribute money to your state.

An inspection without a fee is not a home inspection, as defined by the state law. But why would anyone want to do this (for a living)? I have done inspections in both Wisconsin and Indiana (two, total) and I am not licensed in either state. But one was for a family member and one was for a friend. I did not charge a fee, so therefore it was not a home inspection, as defined by Wisconsin or Indiana law.

On the other hand, an inspection for a fee, as part of an RE transaction IS a state regulated home inspection and MUST produce a written report and have a signed written agreement.

But, you don't trust me to know the law in my own state (which we are required to learn, and are tested on, prior to licensing) so you can either continue in your ignorance or hire a lawyer, familiar with Illinois law and ask him.

But, again, why would anyone want to work for no pay.

But, again, why would any ethical iNAcHI member want to voilate a state law.

Why would any former ESOP member put in such work and effort to pick such small nits?

These are the real questions.

I have no interest in seeing anyone sanctioned for ignoring a law designed to put money in the pocket of the state and vendors.

Instead, I wish them continued success.

So, you have no interest in seeing laws followed, and will ignore (and facilitate) thosw who do?

Thanks for the heads up, Jim. If what you just posted, above, is true, I see no reason why anyone should every concern themselves with your "opinions" again.

Why would anyone want to communicate with someone who has such contempt for law, this industry, or ethics?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

So, you have no interest in seeing laws followed, and will ignore (and facilitate) thosw who do?

Thanks for the heads up, Jim. If what you just posted, above, is true, I see no reason why anyone should every concern themselves with your "opinions" again.

Why would anyone want to communicate with someone who has such contempt for law, this industry, or ethics?

As I earlier stated.....there has never been nor is there presently being considered...a home inspection law that has been initiated by or lobbied for by any consumer or consumer group(s). These laws are put in place to raise revenues for states and special interest groups (vendors, house salesmen, etc).

Why should I care if they are losing money?

They are not enforced and this does not bother me. It would bother me to be shelling out $700 per year (or whatever the HI tax is in your state) knowing that many don't....but that's your business.

The failure of your law....with its countless loopholes that allow home inspections for no fees....no reports....etc....to sustain itself is fine, by me. I enjoy watching it fail to achieve its intended purpose. It is written so poorly that anyone who wants to work around it, can. Many do, and more power to them.

As stated in the article which this thread addresses...in one state, over half of the inspectors....as well as many of the real estate sellers and consumers.....don't care to follow their law, either.

This, I believe, is how home inspection legislation that is NOT supported by the consumer is destined to die. To this end, allow me to be the first to pull the plug in Illinois....

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Our HI laws are the TREC standards of practice (very close to the InterNACHI SoP).

Which one of the SoP restrict the consumer?

John. What would you say and what would you do if Jim (or his friends) cam to Texas and did inspections?

What would you do?

What would you think of Jim?

[John McKenna]

This has been debated many times. It's like telling the IRS that income is not
really income.

In Texas, if you inspect more than 2 components or system in a house, then
that constitutes a home inspection.

If you provide the consumer less than the SoP and a written report, then you
are guilty violating the SoP. This also agrees with the InterNACHI SoP.

This provides a minimum level of service and protection for the consumer.

Encouraging inspectors to violate the law is a breach of the InterNACHI CoE.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Encouraging inspectors to violate the law is a breach of the InterNACHI CoE.

I spent a day or two on Ethics Committee and I do not recall this to be true. Failure to comply with your state law is a violation of the COE. What one supports, advocates, or otherwise publishes is a different story.

But...hey...I could be wrong. File a complaint against me and we will see.

Besides, what I am encouraging is repealing these silly things...and defeating their passage, where being considered. Pointing out how hopeless the task is of trying to enforce them kind of helps.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by wdecker

John. What would you say and what would you do if Jim (or his friends) cam to Texas and did inspections?

What would you do?

What would you think of Jim?

It would be like watching a turkey shoot when TREC goes after him...

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Failure to comply with your state law is a violation of the COE. What one supports, advocates, or otherwise publishes is a different story.

Why would one support, advocate or publish that which he openly acknowledges
is in violation of the InterNACHI COE., and still expect people to respect him?

You have painted yourself into a corner.