NC Realtors Assn Congratulate Selves for Harming Citizens

[James H. Bushart]

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Home Inspector Legislation and Rules

The NC Assn. of REALTORS® crafted and successfully sought the enactment of legislation that will improve home inspection reporting, raise the general liability insurance requirements for inspectors and increase the professionalism and educational standards of the home inspection industry. This legislation passed unanimously and among other things deleted the requirement that an inspector include items that “adversely affect the habitability of the dwelling” on the summary page, as this phrase is highly ambiguous and proved to cause interpretation and enforcement issues. The bill also prevents a home inspector from trying to require that a home be “brought up to Code.”

The Home Inspector Licensure Board, the licensing board for home inspectors, must now change the Board’s rules to bring them into compliance with the requirements of the recently enacted legislation. Cady Thomas, NCAR’s Director of Regulatory Affairs, is closely monitoring and reviewing all proposed rule changes to ensure the intent of the legislation is followed.

Rick A. Zechini
Director of Government Affairs
rzechini@ncrealtors.org
Posted by NC Assn of REALTORS at 2:13 PM
Labels: legislative

Send Rick an email and ask him how it helps a citizen of NC when an inspector can no longer remark as to whether or not a building is habitable. Be sure to thank him for interfering with an inspector who is communicating to his client that a building fails to meet the minimum basic standards for safety.

I would also ask that all InterNACHI members join me in closely monitor the internet for stories of electrical fires, carbon monoxide poisonings, and other home related deaths and tragedies that occur in North Carolina so that we can send a copy of Rick's congratulation and a copy of that article to the NC media and their Governor.

Here's a link to their blog. Stop by and give them your love.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

How did that piece of crap get passed? NACHI and NC inspectors must of been siting on their hands on that one.

[Gary L. Farnsworth, CMI]

In most all states, there are only hundreds of inspectors, and tens of thousands of RE agents. It is a no win situation for us.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Gary -

I believe you are looking at this whole thing wrong.

I have sat in literally half a hundred legislative sessions over the past 4 years in Kansas and Missouri and listened to the Realtors Lobbyists tell the Representatives or Senators TIME after TIME, that they DO NOT want to CONTROL or HARM the home inspection industry - All they REALLY want to do is HELP ensure that the CONSUMER has gotten a COMPETENT and WELL TRAINED home inspector that delivers a THOROUGH / ACCURATE home inspection report.

[Bruce A. King]

There are lots of misunderstandings about the latest rules in NC.

Here are some facts:

1. We can still report items that are not in compliance with "building standards" or other similar wording in the summary. The new rule just states that if you report that something does not meet "NC residential building codes" you must include specific proof in the report as outlined in the new rule.

2. We can still report safety concerns in the summary section.

3. The only thing that is still not allowed in the summary is non-safety related upgrades such as the thickness of attic insulation or cosmetic issues. This is not a new rule, same as always.

4. The language about "habitability" was supposed to be removed but is still in the Oct 1,2009 SOP section .1103 we currently work under, even if they correct that it in no way prevents us from reporting all pertinent problems with houses in the summary since any issue with "habitability" would surely be a reportable problem anyway. In other words, currently 143-151.58 had items added about the summary but they forgot to include the changes in the SOP section .1103 Its a moot point anyway since we can report all actual problems with a house in the summary either way.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bking

There are lots of misunderstandings about the latest rules in NC.

Here are some facts:

1. We can still report items that are not in compliance with "building standards" or other similar wording in the summary. The new rule just states that if you report that something does not meet "NC residential building codes" you must include specific proof in the report as outlined in the new rule.

2. We can still report safety concerns in the summary section.

3. The only thing that is still not allowed in the summary is non-safety related upgrades such as the thickness of attic insulation or cosmetic issues. This is not a new rule, same as always.

4. The language about "habitability" was supposed to be removed but is still in the Oct 1,2009 SOP section .1103 we currently work under, even if they correct that it in no way prevents us from reporting all pertinent problems with houses in the summary since any issue with "habitability" would surely be a reportable problem anyway. In other words, currently 143-151.58 had items added about the summary but they forgot to include the changes in the SOP section .1103 Its a moot point anyway since we can report all actual problems with a house in the summary either way.

I'm sorry Bruce, for it appears that you are used to working under such a law as this, but to the rest of us in the profession....being told what we can and cannot say to our clients...is an abomination.

[Bruce A. King]

This all started a few years ago when they tried to pass a law that would keep safety issues out of the summary and it was stopped by the governor.

I have never left anything out of the required summary that I felt needed to be in there and have never been expected to by any HI law in NC, past or present.

James, do you use a summary and if so, do you include cosmetic issues and insulation upgrades in it?

The main items in the new law have to do with licensing, insurance and education, not the summary. The realtors keep trying to gain something substantial but have not suceeded because they do not see the big picture. Trying to keep the information from buyers is not going to happen, ever. They would best be served by learning how to classify problems versus the age of the home and to make sellers pay a fee if they list a house with certain undisclosed problems that come to light after a buyer has invested their time into the pursuit of a house that turns out to have considerable issues.