Florida - Three Busted in License Scams

[William J. Decker]

"Well, like I said, I really don't know. I'm just speculating."

And you call yourself a Philadelphia Lawyer?

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jferry

You are dating yourself.

Actually he's very young.

[jwisecup]

Wendy-you've been checking for dob's on public profile-haven't ya? I couldn't help but notice that yours is not on there. (nor mine)

[wforsyth]

Saw his pic too.

And yeah...nobody believes me when I tell them how old I am anyway.

[dhelm]

Joe, in many states, Washington included, a general contractors license is only about the financial abililty to buy GL insurance. At least here it is done by the state instead of the local municipality. Certificates of Occupancy don't really have much meaning. Local building inspectors typically spend no more than 15 minutes on site for any given inspection, including final. There is no way that they have the time or inclination to do a real inspection. So combine "bought license" with "overscheduled inspector" and you get Caveat Emptor when it comes to the homebuyer.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Do you really want to trust a local government to completely inspect, based upon minimum standards (that are as much political as they are technical), especially when the local government specifically disclaims all legal liability for any defects the miss?

Isn't this what a person does, for the most part, when they hire a "state licensed home inspector"?

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Isn't this what a person does, for the most part, when they hire a "state licensed home inspector"?

No, it isn't.

In Illinois, we are requireed by law to inspect based upon current national standards (not local codes) and to do a complete inspection (defined by the SOP, which is, at least, more comprehensive than a local code inspection (assumeing the 15 minutes most code guys give to an inspection)) and we can be held liable for things we miss, don't report or don't disclaim for a good reason (inacessability, safety).

I know you don't like licensing, and I agree with you on this in some areas. The reason for licensing (at least in this state) is becauce the legislators wanted to provide the public with a means to have someone, with fiduciary responsibility and liability, who the client could hire according to a private contract to examine and explain the condition of the house to them and who didn't have a conflict of interest, like some Realtors, many code inspectors and most developers.

The state then set some minimum standards for licensing (and they are going up next year!) and give the inspector the authority and protection of having a state issued license.

In Illinois, plumbers and roofers (only) are licensed by the state. Yet, there are plenty of people who are doing plumbing and roofing without a state license. Sure, the state could (and should) crack down, but at least the state can answer complaints about bad roofers and plumbers by telling the complaining citizens, "Hey, you decided to go cheap and hire an unlicensed worker. That makes it your problem, not ours. We have no liability."

These jokers will only stay in business as long as a (purposely) uninformed public hires them.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

No, it isn't.

But, does not a consumer in Illinois select a home inspector from persons that your state government set basic minimum standards for (that are as much political as they are technical) and disclaim all legal liability for any defects they miss?

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

But, does not a consumer in Illinois select a home inspector from persons that your state government set basic minimum standards for (that are as much political as they are technical) and disclaim all legal liability for any defects they miss?

The state sets standards, but most HIs I know greatly exceed those standards (NACHI SOP exceeds the state SOP). Most I know exceed NACHI standards.

The state still disclaoms the liability, but places it, specifically, on the inspector. So the client has recourse. Ever try to sue a municipality for a bad code inspection? Can't be done. RE: City of Chicago and the collapsing porches. The City was not liable for the porch collapse, the builder was.

So, at least the public is not totally vunerable to the delusion that having a code inspection somehow ensures that the house is properly built or safe. They have a recourse (should they decide to use it) that allows them (at their own expense) to have a state licensed person (an, legally, defined as an expert, by reason of that license) check out the house for them.

Not perfect, but it s at least something.

BTW: Please do not infer that I like or agree with these facts. I am merely trying to point out that they are facts.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

The state sets standards, but most HIs I know greatly exceed those standards

...and contractors don't? Just Illinois home inspectors (those that you know). Yeah, sure.

Licensing is licensing.

I am licensed by the state to inspect for termites. I passed a test, like all other termite inspectors. People ask me two questions...am I licensed and what do I charge. Period.

Once the profession has been socialized by the state, your "exceeding standards" is there to impress your peers (if they are so inclined). The public will assume comfort from the license. It has been proven over and over again.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

...and contractors don't?

Some exceed the standards, some don't. I did not intend a sweeping judgment. Most I talk to state that they just have to 'meet code', meaning locak AHJ code.

Just Illinois home inspectors (those that you know). Yeah, sure.

Your implication was not stated or implied. I know inspectors from Illinois and others from other states. Most of the inspectors I know, at least, told me that they exceed the NACHI SOP. It's not that hard to do.

Licensing is licensing.

I am licensed by the state to inspect for termites. I passed a test, like all other termite inspectors. People ask me two questions...am I licensed and what do I charge. Period.

Agreed. But wouldn't you say that inspecting for termites is easier than inspecting a whole house and all 10 systems?

Some are only interested in price. Some are willing to pay more for a higher level of service. What about all those stories of Realtors who never refer us to their clients, but will only use us when they, or their relatives, are buying a house.

Once the profession has been socialized by the state, your "exceeding standards" is there to impress your peers (if they are so inclined). The public will assume comfort from the license. It has been proven over and over again.

While I see your point, there is a great difference between licensing and socialism.

WIth regards to "impress[ing] your peers", I don't get your point (or maybe choose to simply ignore it).

Look, NACHI SOP requires that we check a 'representitive' sample of windows and electrical receptables. I check the all (all that I can get to, at least). Thus, I exceed the NACHI SOP. I have talked and read many posts on this board from other inspectors who do the same. The reason? Because there is almost always one bad receptacle or window and it is, usually, the one that a "representative Sample" will not uncover and the one that the client will get all worked up about and sue my butt.

I could care less about "impressing" other inspectors and I am sure that that they could care less about impressing me.

I run my business the way I run my business. You do the same. The reason that we do is because they are our businesses, and succeed or fail based upon only our efforts.

I know an inspector who, heaven knows how, passed the license exam. I took him on ride along, as did others in the Chicago Chapter. He displayed no knowledge of what he was doing. He never marketed himself. He actually fell asleep on the seller's couch during a ride along, claiming to be "too tired" to do anything. He then proceeded to complain to me because his busines was not succeeding. When I suggested that he check every window, he said, "Why, we don't have to?".

His business is failing (good riddance) and it is all because of his action (or in action). Yet, he decides to focus all his attention on me as the cause of his failure. Who's fault is that?

Again, licensing has its pros and its cons, no doubt. But one can only play the cards they are dealt. If they don't want to, they should have the honesty to get out of the game.

Counterpoint?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Counterpoint?

You jump from one position to another, Will.

You want to run your business as you see fit...yet support government control over it, at the same time.

The market will eliminate those inferiors you refer to. Licensing will disguise them as "competent" for having met a government controlled standard.

Right now, there is rat crap being processed into your lunch meat because a minimum basic government standard allows it. USDA approval allows so many parts per million of rodent fecal matter. Delicious, huh? Apparently, the state of Florida allows a certain percentage of fecal matter to become licensed contractors, or we would not have this thread.

Government control does not solve problems. It creates them. A free market is the best way to ensure quality and quantity of services. If this were not so, there would still be a USSR.

Your turn.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

You jump from one position to another, Will.

I don't believe so. I enjoy the protection that a license provides, but I don't like some of the licenseing law. To tell the truth, there is very little 'restricting' home inspectors in this state except for getting a license and doing CE. No manditory E&O or GL insurance. A very minimal SOP that is easily met (as a minimum standard). What I inspect or don't inspect is totally determied by my contract with my client, no governmental interference in that.

You want to run your business as you see fit...yet support government control over it, at the same time.

There are different levels of 'control'. Texas has much stricter 'control'.

The market will eliminate those inferiors you refer to. Licensing will disguise them as "competent" for having met a government controlled standard.

A price to be paid. All retailers have a certian amount for 'governmental control' inflicted on them, but there are still people who wouldn't be caught dead in Wal-mart and others who would never go into Lord and Taylors. Different sub markets of the larger market. Different standards of service. I, personally, don't want 'bargin shoppers' as my clients. They expect to pay Wal-Mart fees and get Neiman Marcus service. Too much of a hassle. Let them hire the "We Inspect Any House. $95.00" jokers.

Right now, there is rat crap being processed into your lunch meat because a minimum basic government standard allows it. USDA approval allows so many parts per million of rodent fecal matter. Delicious, huh? Apparently, the state of Florida allows a certain percentage of fecal matter to become licensed contractors, or we would not have this thread.

Both you and I, as well as the world's greatest gormet, are incapable of tasting x parts per million. The cost to eliminate that small portion is too high to pay, as the market has determined. Law of diminishing returns.

Government control does not solve problems. It creates them. A free market is the best way to ensure quality and quantity of services. If this were not so, there would still be a USSR.

The problem is that many people (the un-informed, lazy or just plain dumb) believe, almost like a religion, that governmental laws are able to solve all their problems. Moral, ethical and character problems can only be solved by moral, ethical and character solutions, not material ones. Unfortunately, the government can only control material solutions. Laws to not stop objectional behavior, they only provide a means of punishing those who break them.

That is, is the government enforces those laws, but that is a whole different discussion.


Your turn.

Response?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Response?

I'll stick with my previous post.

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

"A wise and frugal Government shall leave it's people to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvements"

Thomas Jefferson