No More Home Inspections in Kansas

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I am not at liberty to explain how I know this, but RESPA is revisiting home inspector/agent relationships and is close to breaking all ties between the two, by Federal law.

This means our industry becomes an all out marketing race.

Sounds like we are heading in the right direction. To those who already
market exclusively to the consumer, then they are already ahead of the pack..

Joe,
We all believe the SoP helps the consumer, until it becomes law. Then
some starting claiming it helps no one. It does not make sense to me.

Do you believe the Texas SoP helps the consumer here?
We all believe the SoP helps the consumer, until it becomes law. Then
some starting claiming it helps no one. It does not make sense to me.

Do you believe the Texas SoP helps the consumer here?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Sounds like we are heading in the right direction. To those who already
market exclusivly to the consumer, then they are already ahead of the pack..

Joe,Sounds like we are heading in the right direction. To those who already
market exclusively to the consumer, then they are already ahead of the pack..

Joe,
We all believe the SoP helps the consumer, until it becomes law. Then
some starting claiming it helps no one. It does not make sense to me.

Do you believe the Texas SoP helps the consumer here?
We all believe the SoP helps the consumer, until it becomes law. Then
some starting claiming it helps no one. It does not make sense to me.

Do you believe the Texas SoP helps the consumer here?

Kansas law has no SOP. It simply created a licensing board made up of real estates salesmen, a few home inspectors, and others who the governor can reward with an appointment.

It also prohibits inspectors from negotiating a contract that has less than 10K of liability assigned to them, which the used house salesmen and their lawyer friends are interpretting and applying to mean that the first $10,0000 of any disclosure issue falls on the inspector.

The law has very, very little to do with the act of inspecting homes.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Kansas law has no SOP. It simply created a licensing board made up of real estates salesmen, a few home inspectors, and others who the governor can reward with an appointment.

It also prohibits inspectors from negotiating a contract that has less than 10K of liability assigned to them, which the used house salesmen and their lawyer friends are interpretting and applying to mean that the first $10,0000 of any disclosure issue falls on the inspector.

The law has very, very little to do with the act of inspecting homes.

Joe said
Where licensing is enacted, I defy anyone to show where it has helped a single consumer or protected anyone.

So I ask him about the Texas SoP. What is your answer?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Joe said
Where licensing is enacted, I defy anyone to show where it has helped a single consumer or protected anyone.

So I ask him about the Texas SoP. What is your answer?

I agree with Joe.

You can have an HI law that registers home inspectors and requires an SOP. A "license" is meaningless when it comes to consumer protection.

[Joe Farsetta]

John,

To answer the question, one would need historical data. That is, quantifiable evidence that consumers were being HARMED in the first place. All to often, there is simply no justification for licensing, at all.

A case in point may be to examine state licensing of builders and home inspectors.

If 1000 homes were constructed, and there were 50 complaints agaist builders, that would equate to a 5% rate. Place that to an average home value of $250k, and we are speaking of relatively high numbers

If 1000 homes were inspected, and it resulted in 5 complaints against inspectors, we are looking at 1/2 of 1%.

Consider the value of an inspection, as opposed to the value of a new home, you tell me where the licensing belongs.

Here in NY, we have no state licensing of electricians, plumbers, HVAC specialists, roofers, or builders. Some are licensed at a local level, while some are not. Yet, and in spite of the fact that no quantifiable evidence existed to justify the need to license home inspectors, we have licensing of home inspectors anyway.

But, to your point, absent of historical data which starts with the number of inspectors, the number of inspections performed, the instances of complants, and the resolution of said complaints... a need for licensing can not be established. If no one knows who or how many were harmed, then no one can measure how beneficial any licensing act is... or is not.

Where's the beef? Where's the data? Where's the benchmark?

There aint none.

We, as an industry, embraced this licensing mantra. Some thought it would raise the bar. It hasnt. It cant. The law that excludes is unconstitutional.

Others thought it would control the Realtors. it hasnt. it never will.

Others thought (and think) it will thin the herd. It never does. In fact, licensing has just the OPPOSITE effect; ig MORE inspectors entering the profession.

After all is said and done, we still fight each other for the smallest piece of the pie.

Licensing creates more problems than it solves. it's worth less than zero, IMO.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I agree with Joe.

You can have an HI law that registers home inspectors and requires an SOP. A "license" is meaningless when it comes to consumer protection.

The license in Texas means the SoP is the law.
The SoP helps the consumer. Simple.

To deny that is is to deny the SoP.

[Joe Farsetta]

John,

Can anyone provide proof that the law was needed in the first place?

Does the TEXAS SoP protect a consumer better than any other voluntary SoP enacted through a HI association?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

John,

Can anyone provide proof that the law was needed in the first place?

Key word here, John, is "proof"....not opinion.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

John,

To answer the question, one would need historical data. That is, quantifiable evidence that consumers were being HARMED in the first place. All to often, there is simply no justification for licensing, at all.

A case in point may be to examine state licensing of builders and home inspectors.

If 1000 homes were constructed, and there were 50 complaints agaist builders, that would equate to a 5% rate. Place that to an average home value of $250k, and we are speaking of relatively high numbers

If 1000 homes were inspected, and it resulted in 5 complaints against inspectors, we are looking at 1/2 of 1%.

Consider the value of an inspection, as opposed to the value of a new home, you tell me where the licensing belongs.

Here in NY, we have no state licensing of electricians, plumbers, HVAC specialists, roofers, or builders. Some are licensed at a local level, while some are not. Yet, and in spite of the fact that no quantifiable evidence existed to justify the need to license home inspectors, we have licensing of home inspectors anyway.

But, to your point, absent of historical data which starts with the number of inspectors, the number of inspections performed, the instances of complants, and the resolution of said complaints... a need for licensing can not be established. If no one knows who or how many were harmed, then no one can measure how beneficial any licensing act is... or is not.

Where's the beef? Where's the data? Where's the benchmark?

There aint none.

We, as an industry, embraced this licensing mantra. Some thought it would raise the bar. It hasnt. It cant. The law that excludes is unconstitutional.

Others thought it would control the Realtors. it hasnt. it never will.

Others thought (and think) it will thin the herd. It never does. In fact, licensing has just the OPPOSITE effect; ig MORE inspectors entering the profession.

After all is said and done, we still fight each other for the smallest piece of the pie.

Licensing creates more problems than it solves. it's worth less than zero, IMO.

In Texas the SoP is the law. It helps the consumer to have an inspection.

In Texas, the market is not being flooded with new inspectors, as you say.

It requires too much now to become an inspector...
448 hours of education
7 years experience as an engineer, architect or general contractor
E&O and continuing yearly education.

No more flood of newbies here.

Weak laws produce weak results. You are right.
A strong SoP and enforcement helps the consumer every time an inspection is done.

To deny the SoP helps the consumer is to deny the SoP. Simple common sense.

Do you feel the InterNACHI SoP does not help the consumer?

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

John,

Can anyone provide proof that the law was needed in the first place?

Does the TEXAS SoP protect a consumer better than any other voluntary SoP enacted through a HI association?

So we agree that the SoP (InterNACHI or Texas) does help the consumer.

We like it, until it is enforced. Enforcement is what inspectors do not like.
Protecting the consumer is built into the SoP. The only thing here in Texas
is that we enforce it.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Key word here, John, is "proof"....not opinion.

You have stated many time that realtors and sellers will hide things to sell a house.

Every time an inspector discovers a defect for the consumer, by inspecting
according to the SoP, then that is your proof that consumers are protected
by that very SoP. The proof is obvious if your honest.

[John McKenna]

There is too much canned speech and generalizations about HI laws.

Do the higher education standards and the experience required to become
a CMI help to identify a better inspector? Yes.

Do the higher education standards and the experience required to become
an inspector in Texas help identify a better inspector? Yes.

You can't say YES to one, and NO to the other Joe...

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

You have stated many time that realtors and sellers will hide things to sell a house.

Every time an inspector discovers a defect for the consumer, by inspecting
according to the SoP, then that is your proof that consumers are protected
by that very SoP. The proof is obvious if your honest.

Do inspectors using an SOP in unlicensed states also discover defects?

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Do inspectors using an SOP in unlicensed states also discover defects?

Yes... you hit the nail on the head.

The SoP is good. We agree.

Some inspector hate enforcement. That is the real issue behind all the smoke.
"Don't tell me what to do" ... that is the real problem... LOL nothing else.

Being accountable and liable is the problem... nothing else.

We inspectors do not want to be held to the fire to do the right thing.
Violators of the SoP are prosecuted in Texas. Thats it.

BTW... fewer and fewer fly by night hair dressers are coming to Texas to
become home inspectors.

[Gary Farnsworth]

Key thing here is enforcement. How can the new Kansas HB #2315 be enforced? Who is going to monitor hundreds of inspections per day in the state? Not possible. How do other states enforce their laws? As I stated, and Dan, James, and others have stated, licensing is not needed, unless you are an attorney, insurance agent, "licensed engineer", or lobbyist/politian who needs money for their business/campaigns. The consumer will now lose. It will take years to educate the consumer on how a contractor will not perform a proper inspection of one to two separate home areas. Laws are written for the benifit to those who write them. As more states have laws, the days of a home inspector nationwide are numbered. We, as inspectors, work for the people who pay us. We should go by their laws/wishes. Not by the wishes of the states.