40-60% Ignore PA HI Law, per BBB

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

As to the "jurisdiction" question. The IDFPR hands over the ruling to the state's attorney who persues the action. Usually, a wage garnishment. The state's attorney works, if need be, with the person's home state states attorney.

But, if you think that you are smarter then them, hey, knock yourself out.

Call your three friends (Moe, Larry and Curly) and get from them the case that you are referring to, Will. The one poor guy (out of hundreds) who are giving free home inspections. Then....let's talk about the consultations that do not result in a report. There is no home inspection engagement, according to your law, unless a report is written. The lack of a report would render the consultation outside of the jurisdiction of the licensing board.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by mlarson

No examples Will?

The law is a joke without enforcement.

Mike, with respect. If you are so interested, I have given more than enough information and sources for you to find out for yourself. Please don't take this as a slam. I know that you are just playing devil's advocate.

But, I agree with your point. Lax enforcement, whether of HI laws or traffic laws or political ethic laws (or iNACHI's COE) make a mockery of the rules and encourage these kinds of people to break them.

People of low character get away with much.

Sad, really.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Mike, with respect. If you are so interested, I have given more than enough information and sources for you to find out for yourself. Please don't take this as a slam. I know that you are just playing devil's advocate.

But, I agree with your point. Lax enforcement, whether of HI laws or traffic laws or political ethic laws (or iNACHI's COE) make a mockery of the rules and encourage these kinds of people to break them.

People of low character get away with much.

Sad, really.

Not my issue. Have no need to call them.

You and Jim have both made some decent points but right now Jim is in the lead. IMHO

Even if the IL state board stated they would take action in the stated scenario, until they actually do, your argument is the weaker.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Call your three friends (Moe, Larry and Curly) and get from them the case that you are referring to, Will. The one poor guy (out of hundreds) who are giving free home inspections. Then....let's talk about the consultations that do not result in a report. There is no home inspection engagement, according to your law, unless a report is written. The lack of a report would render the consultation outside of the jurisdiction of the licensing board.

Asked and answered, again and again.

Links to the state site, with examples of an Indiana inspector doing an inspection in Illinois, without a license, and he got fined $5,000.

Example given, proven.

If you really wanted to know, you have been given all the resources you need.

Since you still chose to believe what you want, in the face of the proof, than I can only assume that you are being un-serious or have some other agenda then the truth.

Believe what you want to believe, Jim.

I don't have time for you anymore.

Oh, and don't forget to call me more names, claim how right you are and how wrong I am and feel all superior. Whatever gets you off, Jim.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Not my issue. Have no need to call them.

You and Jim have both made some decent points but right now Jim is in the lead. IMHO

Even if the IL state board stated they would take action in the stated scenario, until they actually do, your argument is the weaker.

Fine.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Asked and answered, again and again.

Links to the state site, with examples of an Indiana inspector doing an inspection in Illinois, without a license, and he got fined $5,000.

Example given, proven.

Nope. Not proven.

Was he there to do a water certification for $400 and gave a free home inspection....or did he cross the border to do a home inspection, and got caught? I think the latter.

You have offered nothing to prove your claims other than your own arrogant opinions which, without additional proof connected to them, are not worth much.

Licensing solves nothing.

[Joe Farsetta]

Will,

I do not support the concept of inspectors turning other inspectors in simply for the fact that if they dont, then they are also guilty.

I do support the notion that if someone complains that an inspector is breaking the law, and provides verifiable proof that does not require a decision by a board, that ESOP can and will act accordingly.

But, ESOP weighs both sides. In the example of an inspector performing repairs on properties inspected, a simple accusation is insufficient. Proof would need to be submitted, and it the inspector offers a logical defense, then ESOP would defer to an actual decision by court or licensng board.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Will,

I do not support the concept of inspectors turning other inspectors in simply for the fact that if they dont, then they are also guilty.

Maybe, because I just came back from seeing my Daughter complete Plebe summer at the Academy, I am biased.

The U.S. Naval Academy has a simple, easy to understand and hard to argue against (even for smart a** high school graduates) policy AND SWORN OATH:

"I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor will I tolerate anyone who does."

But, we are adults, and have learned how to find loopholes, use vauge language and "play the system". We are old and have lost our idealism.

So be it.

I do support the notion that if someone complains that an inspector is breaking the law, and provides verifiable proof that does not require a decision by a board, that ESOP can and will act accordingly.

Just to clarify, what board? The iNACHI board or the Illinois state HI board?

In any case, it is good to know that the ESOP will act against those who break their own state laws without having to wait for a court to decide for them.

But, ESOP weighs both sides. In the example of an inspector performing repairs on properties inspected, a simple accusation is insufficient. Proof would need to be submitted, and it the inspector offers a logical defense, then ESOP would defer to an actual decision by court or licensng board.

Agreed. But, if the inspector is inspecting and repairing (for a fee. I, regularly, will go back, after closing, and help a client fix little things. I do not consider some beer and a few slices of pizza, freeely offered, to be a fee.) then they are not full time inspectors and should consider a better marketing plan.

If I inspected a house, then, for a fee, went back and fixed the problem that I reported on, what would be a "reasonable defense", in your opinion?

i.e, "your roof is bad and needs replacing. I will come back and fix something that I called out, and make money doing so, (based upon my own determination) but you can rest assured that I am a totally unbiased party to this inspection."

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Call your three friends (Moe, Larry and Curly) and get from them the case that you are referring to, Will. The one poor guy (out of hundreds) who are giving free home inspections. Then....let's talk about the consultations that do not result in a report. There is no home inspection engagement, according to your law, unless a report is written. The lack of a report would render the consultation outside of the jurisdiction of the licensing board.

Where are your examples of the hundreds giving free inspections?

[Joe Farsetta]

Will,

"Board" refers to a licensing or regulatory board.

If the complaining party offered verifiable proof that the NACHI member performed repairs on that he inspected, after the fact and for a fee (let's also clarify that it would need to be a repair or improvement to an item covered in the SOP), then ESOP could and would act.

[bkelly1]

Nine pages of conversation so that somebody can possibly break the law to perform an inspection in a licensed state. Whatever.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by ccurrins

Where are your examples of the hundreds giving free
inspections?

Good question and no answer. Touché.!

touché has come to mean a score or a point, often used figuratively in
verbal fencing. ...

[James H. Bushart]

LOL...I've explained that I have no desire or duty to turn in anyone who has creatively averted the requirements of the Illinois home inspection law. You will have to catch them, yourself.

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Will,

Has a non IL licensed HI been disciplined for doing a free home inspection in IL while charging for some other service?

I fail to understand how it is considered free...In fact doesn't it fail the free test.

1. Does the customer have to pay a fee to gain the services. Answer - Yes.
2. Can the customer obtain the free service without any other requirements. Answer - No (At least not in this scenario)
3. Is this a fee paid inspection - YES. It fails the free test in that the offer is non existent unless a fee is paid for another service. The offer is not stand-alone.

In addiiton if you are offering something free - isn't that the same as "waiving the fee" under special circumstances. And if your "waiving a fee" - wouldn't you need to be licensed in the first place to receive a fee.

Just my Opinion, of course.

Seems to me that this unlicensed individual for the state of Illinois (whether in-state or out of state) may be considered in violation of Illinois regulations. Illinois inspectors should (in my opinion) report any known violations of this type to the state for possible further action. I don't see any black and white here, a fee of some type was paid to make the service seem free. The service is not available unless a fee has been paid.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbowman

I fail to understand how it is considered free...In fact doesn't it fail the free test.

Really?

Have you ever recevied a "free" item with the purchase of another?

BTW-I am not advocating for or agaisnt this practice of "free" inspections.