Licensing Helps HIs/Yes or No?

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Andy, after 28 years of doing home inspections, expert witness and training - nothing I said is vague generalizations. Its facts of life. As you and I both know, in Missouri & Kansas there is no mandatory state wide building code, no mandatory state wide code inspections, no mandatory state wide licensing of builders, contractors, remodelers, etc. In 3/4 of the state if you want to be a roofer, foundation contractor, framer, builder - you just go.

Even in the areas that require residential licensed builders (Johnson County Kansas for example), the requirement is passing the open book ICC exam (under 85 questions) AND no proof you even know how to build a house, etc BUT they're licensed. What I'm saying is simple to the guys that don't know better is really simple .................

Licensing does almost next to nothing for us other than give us another government group to stick their nose in your underwear. It doesn't lower complaints, eliminate low-ballers or knot heads or 60 minute inspectors. It doesn't mean realtors, lenders, builders or the general public looks at you with any higher regards or respect. In their eyes you're still just that old home handyman / Home Inspector (but licensed now) - AND - the realtor, lender, buyer, seller, etc still says you're dumber than snot because you said this .......... and the professional builder, plumber, roofer said that ......!

Good Luck !!

[Paul Sabados]

Yep

Thats what licensing get you!

Amen Dan!

[Andrew Shick]

Dan, I work primarily in a rural area. No one out here cares what kind of house gets built except me, and a handful of other inspectors who work in the area. To add insult to injury, most of the buyers don't see the value of a home inspection. Their uncle/dad/brother is a roadworker/farmer/painter and he can take a look at the house for them. As the city folks come out here, the real estate agents have had to adjust to dealing with a new kind of buyer, and to dealing with me. Five years ago, I was basically in the same position you were in 28 yrs. ago. I'm the primary Inspector for several of the rural agents, I've also lost an entire office over killing the Broker's wife's deal.
As for government regulation, I think the government in general should mind their own business, building roads, etc. No one in the government is intelligent enough to regulate:
businesses,
people's smoking rights on private property,
people's sexual preference,
manage eminent domain,
or a laundry list of other things.

I was just playing devil's advocate to get you to give a more specific answer. I thought it would get you fired up. I think that it's funny that anyone with an alternate view is considered a "newbie", or an uninformed inspector. I'm new here, and haven't been involved in a good argument yet, this one will have to suffice for now.
Thanks for your views, maybe we'll meet up someday.

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by bdoles2

Licensing weeds out the "shotty" inspectors. The low-ballers.

My opinion, licensing should be required in every state.

Not here. All it does is lift money out of my pocket and trivializes my memberships. In an unlicensed state, I'd be distinguished by my memberships. "The other guy is cheaper and licensed so I don't see a difference". I'll explain the differences but customers often assume that the licensing laws are strict and enforced.

[dthomas2]

To All,

What a great conversation - good comments, interesting and insightful opinion.

At this point, we see nearly 75% of the 54 who voted believe HI Licensing helps us - of the near 600 who have viewed this thread (but may not have read any of it). I would like to know if any of those "yes" voters read any of the conversations prior to their vote? And, was anyone persuaded one way or the other?

Could any of us be moved to the other side by some of those "yes" voters? (It appears we placed ourselfs out on an island here as most all posts here believe government doesn't need to be generating more work for themselves by supervising our profession...)

Is there a good argument for "yes." Nick posted a thought (maybe 'fact',) a few days ago - don't remember where - that moved me to the yes side. Then, on this thread Nick's info was discredited, and I am back on the "No" side. Flip-Flopper? Well, I try to go with the facts or in lu of facts, the most reasonable argument.

Have all HI organizations put their heads together to come up with a North America Home Inspection Standard? I could look but thought one of you may have already. I believe ONE "Standard," like the "NEC", etc., is a worthwhile goal and if it exists isn't it enough for a State to mandate compliance to the North America Standard? I think so. I imagine it is too late for states who already have licensing in place.

As we dissenters have found each other, can we identify and articulate one goal, maybe two, that we can agree upon and work to persuade NACHI to actively support? Worth the effort?

[bdoles2]

Originally Posted by dthomas2

To All,

What a great conversation - good comments, interesting and insightful opinion.

At this point, we see nearly 75% of the 54 who voted believe HI Licensing helps us - of the near 600 who have viewed this thread (but may not have read any of it). I would like to know if any of those "yes" voters read any of the conversations prior to their vote? And, was anyone persuaded one way or the other?

I'm on the fence, I said yes, but it could be no. But I believe it varies by area.

The main reason (my opinion) I think it weeds out some of the disfunctional HI's is because then you are required to have E & O insurance if your state requires a license. (If that's not true, please let me know).

If the "cheapo's" now are required to have E&O because of the licensing, they will have (if they are smart) to raise rates to pay that $2-3k a year, plus their licensing fee's,etc...

Here in Atlanta, with what I have experienced so far, if you're targeting realtors for your marketing, more than half of them won't even let you place brochures or cards in the office if you don't have E&O.

Out of curiousity, in a 50 mile radius of your location, how many HI's do you think are currently practicing?

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

Some food for thought. Just maybe those who do not believe that E & O protects anyone other than the Home Inspector (believe it or not the Realtor can still be sued by the client just for recommending a certain HI as well as a myriad of other reasons)...may be a little more conscientious and do a more thorough job precisely because they don't carry the E & O or because like some of us prefer to be self insured rather than fill the pockets of the Insurance companies. All it takes it one claim and the insurance company will more than likely either raise your rates or cancel your policy. Then it becomes virtually impossible for you to get another policy issued with another company. If you live in a State where E &O is mandatory you are out of business. Having done it both ways, the first or one of the first questions on the application is "Have you ever been denied insurance or had a policy cancelled?" One of the other always present questions is "Have you ever had a claim filed against you or your company?" As someone stated earlier...What do you want or think licensing can/will do for you? Historically, it does not do ANY of the things most think it will do. It almost always boils down to simply another level of unnecessary bureaucracy put into to place. It almost never protects the consumer, the inspector, the general public. Having been involved in fighting licensing for over a decade now, I can tell you it almost always involves someone else getting wealthy at the expense of others. Always follow the money because it always leads back to the source of those wanting licensing. The argument always sounds good on the surface but once you throw back the covers you find the real reasons.

[dthomas2]

Originally Posted by dedwards

Some food for thought. Just maybe those who do not believe that E & O protects anyone other than the Home Inspector (believe it or not the Realtor can still be sued by the client just for recommending a certain HI as well as a myriad of other reasons)...may be a little more conscientious and do a more thorough job precisely because they don't carry the E & O or because like some of us prefer to be self insured rather than fill the pockets of the Insurance companies. All it takes it one claim and the insurance company will more than likely either raise your rates or cancel your policy. Then it becomes virtually impossible for you to get another policy issued with another company. If you live in a State where E &O is mandatory you are out of business. Having done it both ways, the first or one of the first questions on the application is "Have you ever been denied insurance or had a policy cancelled?" One of the other always present questions is "Have you ever had a claim filed against you or your company?" As someone stated earlier...What do you want or think licensing can/will do for you? Historically, it does not do ANY of the things most think it will do. It almost always boils down to simply another level of unnecessary bureaucracy put into to place. It almost never protects the consumer, the inspector, the general public. Having been involved in fighting licensing for over a decade now, I can tell you it almost always involves someone else getting wealthy at the expense of others. Always follow the money because it always leads back to the source of those wanting licensing. The argument always sounds good on the surface but once you throw back the covers you find the real reasons.

=D> Bravo!

[dthomas2]

Originally Posted by bdoles2

I'm on the fence, I said yes, but it could be no. But I believe it varies by area.

The main reason (my opinion) I think it weeds out some of the disfunctional HI's is because then you are required to have E & O insurance if your state requires a license. (If that's not true, please let me know).

If the "cheapo's" now are required to have E&O because of the licensing, they will have (if they are smart) to raise rates to pay that $2-3k a year, plus their licensing fee's,etc...

Here in Atlanta, with what I have experienced so far, if you're targeting realtors for your marketing, more than half of them won't even let you place brochures or cards in the office if you don't have E&O.

Out of curiousity, in a 50 mile radius of your location, how many HI's do you think are currently practicing?

I don't know Brian - a phonebook (internet) shows 15 to 20 companies, and how many total inspectors? - I'm not sure how one would find them.

Pricing is an issue. I under-priced my first one or two - that's fair. After that, I hope to not bring the wage down because it is expensive to run even a one man company. But "Price Fixing" is not legal - so if this is the intent of licensing we're over the edge of "completely honest." "Jack-in-the-Box" or "Sonic" offer a cheap product, yet the "Outback Steakhouse" is doing very well, so too is "Starbucks." I have found some people, i don't know what percentage, want to pay the most for what they purchase - someone has to be there for them. Perhaps we need to look at HI the same. If you can't attract clientele at a price you can make a living at the reason may be that you aren't as good as others in the HI business. So, lower your standard of living and your price. Price should delineate the best from the worst, not licensing - right? I don't buy the cheapest of anything - never! I do shop Wal-Mart but will not buy a tool there again.
Let competition deside who stays - not licensing (still, the NACHI tests or similar I feel are good for everyone.)

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Brian -

Only a handful of states require E&O for inspectors. None of the states I've ever lived in have required E&O insurance to get a license for realtors, contractors, builders, electricians, appraisers, nor do they require mal-practice insurance for doctors, lawyers, etc.

Last year I talked to a legislator that was a member of the state judiciary committee and I asked him his thoughts about mandatory E&O insurance for any regulated profession - his answer was if you're for it you're either trying to eliminate the competition or dumber than a box of rocks.


Andy -

Most guys I see or talk to across the country in favor of licensing are either: (1) new and naively think it will bring credibility to them; (2) old dogs having a hard time holding ground and hoping licensing will eliminate some of the competition - especially if they can make it very costly (fence me in - fence you out); (3) people that train HI's for almost 100% of their revenue (if licensed - every new swinging weewee will have to go to HI school, so more bucks for them than if its optional as now); and finally (4) our great white father HI Association that seems to think if they can push us all into regulation AND hopefully get their Stds in play AND their 3rd party Test shoved in maybe they can stack the state HI Board and gain more control.

[David A. Andersen]

Most guys I see or talk to across the country in favor of licensing are either: (1) new and naively think it will bring credibility to them; (2) old dogs having a hard time holding ground and hoping licensing will eliminate some of the competition - especially if they can make it very costly (fence me in - fence you out); (3) people that train HI's for almost 100% of their revenue (if licensed - every new swinging weewee will have to go to HI school, so more bucks for them than if its optional as now); and finally (4) our great white father HI Association that seems to think if they can push us all into regulation AND hopefully get their Stds in play AND their 3rd party Test shoved in maybe they can stack the state HI Board and gain more control.

I see your still talking out your ***** Dan.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dandersen

I see your still talking out your ***** Dan.

If so, I think that Dan's ***** is making a whole lot of sense.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Quote: Most guys I see or talk to across the country in favor of licensing are either: (1) new and naively think it will bring credibility to them; (2) old dogs having a hard time holding ground and hoping licensing will eliminate some of the competition - especially if they can make it very costly (fence me in - fence you out); (3) people that train HI's for almost 100% of their revenue (if licensed - every new swinging weewee will have to go to HI school, so more bucks for them than if its optional as now); and finally (4) our great white father HI Association that seems to think if they can push us all into regulation AND hopefully get their Stds in play AND their 3rd party Test shoved in maybe they can stack the state HI Board and gain more control.

Originally Posted by dandersen

I see your still talking out your ***** Dan.

Gee Mr. Anderson I guess we will have to agree to disagree .
I think Dan can see the true picture .
Roy Cooke I am an old Guy who thinks Dan can see what you do not want to see.

[dthomas2]

Originally Posted by dandersen

I see your still talking out your ***** Dan.

David, I am disappointed in you. You gave us great thoughts to ponder - then went from "Diplomat" to "Moron." Did you get into some Jack Danial's? Does everyone really have to agree with you or they are ignorant? Has insulting people in the past worked well for you? Should we all respond this way? ...

Why this thread is helpful:
The State of Washington has tabled until February its legislation to force Licensing of Home Inspectors. The thoughts put forth in this thread I and others in Washington will use to defeat or support this initiative.

If licensing is a good thing, how is BEST employed and regulated?

If licensing is a bad thing, what facts, and in Lu of facts, observations, support this position?

Thank you all!
</IMG>

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dthomas2

David, I am disappointed in you. You gave us great thoughts to ponder - then went from "Diplomat" to "Moron." Did you get into some Jack Danial's? Does everyone really have to agree with you or they are ignorant? Has insulting people in the past worked well for you? Should we all respond this way? ...

Why this thread is helpful:
The State of Washington has tabled until February its legislation to force Licensing of Home Inspectors. The thoughts put forth in this thread I and others in Washington will use to defeat or support this initiative.

If licensing is a good thing, how is BEST employed and regulated?

If licensing is a bad thing, what facts, and in Lu of facts, observations, support this position?

Thank you all!
</IMG>

Best of luck, Dennis.

I would invite anyone considering favoring a license bill to correspond with Joe Burkeson. Joe was one of the staunchest supporters for legislation in his state and was involved, behind the scenes, in many activities leading up to the bill's passage in the house - only to see it vetoed by the governor. In this regard, not too many folks have taken such an active roll or had the inside perspective as he had....only to, today, feel that licensing is not a good idea.

His perspective on the issue would be of interest to opponents and proponents, alike, IMO.

Perhaps he would favor us by sharing his thoughts in this forum.