Will the NH Licensing Law Prevent This?

[Larry D. Kage]

Originally Posted by chorne

I can think of something that is way more of an embarrasment than that.
The board will hear grieviences and follow the law and the admin. rules.
that is our job.

Hang in there, Carla...

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by chorne

I can think of something that is way more of an embarrasment than that.
The board will hear grieviences and follow the law and the admin. rules.
that is our job.

The question I asked is....will your law prevent a home from being condemned 3 months after it is inspected?

[James H. Bushart]

NH is not the only board to have a "Media Star" on it.

The "poster child" for the Massachusetts law...the one targeted by the media for having the most lawsuits of any other inspector, also was on the original licensing board.

My personal favorite is the New Jersey inspector who, according to the State Senator who wrote the toughest law in the books against HIs (at that time, before it was changed), cost him over $30,000 for items he failed to report in an inspection ---- was "grandfathered" under the law and was among the first to be licensed.

Licensing solves nothing.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by chorne

I can think of something that is way more of an embarrasment than that.
The board will hear grieviences and follow the law and the admin. rules.
that is our job.

At least do not allow him to train other inspectors.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

For all of you who want to express your concerns about this matter you can send an e-mail to the Executive Director of the joint licensing board here is her information;

Louise Lavertu
57 Regional Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-2219
(603)271-6990 FAX

llavertu@nhsa.state.nh.us

• For those of you who live in New Hampshire there is a "Board Meeting" tomorrow July 7 at 9 AM and I strongly urge you to attend.

All of the "board meetings are held at the address listed above.

[Gary L. Farnsworth]

This is just a prime example of why home inspection laws are being implemented; for the benefit of attorneys, insurance agents, and special interest groups all who will make money on the lawsuit, court attendence fees, etc. Licensing laws do not protect consumers; only the ones who write them. E&O insurance protects the inspector; not the consumer. Attorneys will make thousands off of this deal. They do not care who wins or loses; just as long as they get paid. Now, do all of you see where licensing laws are headed? To the courthouse.

[Donald T. Belmont]

We may not have the specifics but I'd wager I can give the outline.

1. A cursory checklist inspection designed not to irritate the main source of business

2. A price to low to allow an inspector to take the necessary time and examine what they see.

3. An inspector very full himself but not really understanding how a home works so doesn't question a roof design that puts a lot of water where it don't belong (Of course that's not SOP right)

4. Someone who doesn't see fresh paint/plastic/insulation as great big warning signs of something being hidden. Mainly because their buddy (the used house salesman) wouldn't do that. (Oh my I think there's gambling going on, I'm shocked). I see fresh anything I suspect deceit on the part of the seller and the real estate agent until I can be certain otherwise. And if I can't be convinced then I make sure my client is told to ask for an explicit explanation in writing from the seller just in case. My attorney says my clients attorney will love me helping to get the seller on record in case things are not as they seem.

This person sits on the licensing board of NH. This person is on record as believing licensing will improve the breed ( as well as thin the herd). According to this individual they are one of the few people qualified to train inspectors in New Hampshire. The question for me is whether this person will hold themself to the spirit of the law they are charged with enforcing and remove themself since their ability to regulate and judge other inspectors is clearly impaired by this event.

He may in fact be covered by all his contract language. But there are more then sufficient signals that I can see in the video and in the description to say this was a poorly done inspection. We should never be afraid to call out what we see even if it is an inspector. Even without resorting to thermal imaging or technology. It just requires a brain and a willingness to use it.


As for your pics Marcel. Can't see the flashing but I'll bet it's missing or incorrect. And the deck is clearly tipped incorrectly (don't need my thermal to see that). I don't see a space for the ledger which with the other issues will trap water.

[Chris McDonald]

Don,
well said.

To me, it is not only the inspectors responsibility to remove himself from the board, it is also the boards responsibility to remove him.
Additionally, even though licensing is not effective at this time, it is a good test for their investigative system. Will press about a home inspector automatically warrant an investigation? How will the board handle such an investigation. To me, the only responsible route to go is through a truly independent (unlike the "independent test" that the law speaks of) investigation committee. Not that I doubt the boards ability to ensure that this occurs, it may be a good idea to send correspondence to the AG with copies to the Governor.
Just my two cents.

Chris McDonald

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by dbelmont

We may not have the specifics but I'd wager I can give the outline.

1. A cursory checklist inspection designed not to irritate the main source of business

2. A price to low to allow an inspector to take the necessary time and examine what they see.

3. An inspector very full himself but not really understanding how a home works so doesn't question a roof design that puts a lot of water where it don't belong (Of course that's not SOP right)

4. Someone who doesn't see fresh paint/plastic/insulation as great big warning signs of something being hidden. Mainly because their buddy (the used house salesman) wouldn't do that. (Oh my I think there's gambling going on, I'm shocked). I see fresh anything I suspect deceit on the part of the seller and the real estate agent until I can be certain otherwise. And if I can't be convinced then I make sure my client is told to ask for an explicit explanation in writing from the seller just in case. My attorney says my clients attorney will love me helping to get the seller on record in case things are not as they seem.

This person sits on the licensing board of NH. This person is on record as believing licensing will improve the breed ( as well as thin the herd). According to this individual they are one of the few people qualified to train inspectors in New Hampshire. The question for me is whether this person will hold themself to the spirit of the law they are charged with enforcing and remove themself since their ability to regulate and judge other inspectors is clearly impaired by this event.

He may in fact be covered by all his contract language. But there are more then sufficient signals that I can see in the video and in the description to say this was a poorly done inspection. We should never be afraid to call out what we see even if it is an inspector. Even without resorting to thermal imaging or technology. It just requires a brain and a willingness to use it.


As for your pics Marcel. Can't see the flashing but I'll bet it's missing or incorrect. And the deck is clearly tipped incorrectly (don't need my thermal to see that). I don't see a space for the ledger which with the other issues will trap water.

Well written & to the point!

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by cmcdonald

Don,
well said.

To me, it is not only the inspectors responsibility to remove himself from the board, it is also the boards responsibility to remove him.
Additionally, even though licensing is not effective at this time, it is a good test for their investigative system. Will press about a home inspector automatically warrant an investigation? How will the board handle such an investigation.

To me, the only responsible route to go is through a truly independent (unlike the "independent test" that the law speaks of) investigation committee.

Not that I doubt the boards ability to ensure that this occurs, it may be a good idea to send correspondence to the AG with copies to the Governor.
Agreed!

Just my two cents.

Chris McDonald

Chris,
ALL of the New Hampshire inspectors that I have spoken to feel the same!

[Gary L. Farnsworth]

I am proud that honest inspectors of New Hampshire are voicing their opinions of licensing. Boards are creating their own SOP's, and all inspectors in their respective states will have to abide by them. NACHI SOP's allow for some variances. This must be allowed in all states. If it is not, things like this will happen, and attorneys will make their money. Not having flexable SOP's will only hurt the consumer, limit what an inspector can and cannot do, and level the playing field, which in turn will favor the inexperienced, cheap low-balling inspectors. We must continue to do better, day in and day out. With the help of this message board and all of the great inspectors that NACHI has, we will all be better in the long run. If states limit what we can do, the court rooms will be busy.