Alberta Home Inspector Licensing/Regulation meeting in Edmonton on May 25, 2009.

[Claude Lawrenson]

I fail to see where an inspector that claims to be INACHI certified that cannot be licensed in BC is claimed to be recognized. There is nothing wrong with the Canadian system anymore than what we see happening in the US. Nor in Canada is it just a Canadian CAHPI thing - there are others out there lobbying too!

Is this discussion not about two different things? (1) the claimed minimum basic criteria to be an entry level inspector, and (2) those that are licensed and therefore recognized by BC licensing that obviously exceed those claimed in (1) noted.

[Bill Mullen]

The fact in British Columbia is that...........most iNACHI members do not qualify for licensing because the iNACHI requirements have been deemed to be inadequate by the government's licensing board. Therefore, most iNACHI members in British Columbia are not legally allowed to inspect houses. All the marketing in the world can't change that.

Paul Blakey is correct........Nick Gromicko has abandoned his members in British Columbia, and based on his recent statements, the same will happen in Alberta.

Fortunately, in Alberta, Vern Mitchinson and a couple others have been promoting the better aspects of iNACHI. If iNACI is recognized in Alberta when licensing happens, it will be despite Nick Gromicko rather than because of him.

Claude and I have helped many iNACHI members stickhandle through the many challenges, but that isn't our job..............it's Nick's. He gets your money; we don't.

Bill Mullen

[James H. Bushart]

In the state of Washington, prior to licensing, the inspectors used to spoof newbies into believing they would go to jail if they did not have a special insect/mold inspection license which required them to carry E&O. This scam was used to keep the expense of being an inspector high...and the number of inspectors low.

Most licensing laws have this initial intent, as well. People who claim to have met all of the required criteria attempt to convince their government that their competitors who haven't...must do so in order to qualify as an entry level inspector.

Some actually call it "raising the bar" without realizing that, wherever they put the bar, they have merely established a minimum entry level standard.

Soon....you have an entire province full of people who carry the "credential" of having met the minimum entry level standard. This makes them "special" for a while....until the public wakes them up to the fact that they will almost exclusively contract the inspector among these minimum entry level inspectors who offers the lowest fee, that being the only real and tangible means of distinguishing between them.

A license represents a person who has merely met the basic entry level criteria established by the state.

In Illinois, for example...it is this ridiculous. To be a licensed home inspector, you must take a 60-hour course that teaches you the Illinois test. Then, you take and pass the Illinois test. Then you pay your licensing fee....and you are now licensed. The same is true in 90% of the thirty states with some kind of registration or licensing for home inspectors.

So....big deal. The state has your money and you have a license that says....after 25 years in the business.....you have shown that you know as much as every other entry level inspector in the state.

What does an entire state of likewise "credentialled" inspectors do to set themselves apart? Now that the list of names handed out by the state for people to select an inspector from has, in alphabetical order, the 30 year veteran alongside the inspector still working on his original set of flashlight batteries...what "credential" is left?

None.

You have established in the mind of your provincial government and your consumers that everyone with the license is equally competent and qualified to do a home inspection. All that is left is.....marketing.

Yes, after all of the meetings and dealings and political haggling to create a single standard for all to meet so that all can share the same "credential"......one must now devote his remaining attention to undoing this travesty and finding a way to set himself apart from those who he has just equated himself to.

The benefit of InterNACHI membership will not be found in helping one meet the minimum basic entry level standard. The benefit will come to those who find themselves struggling to convince people that....although they have the same license as every other inspector in the province and every other inspector is just as qualified to perform a home inspection....they should be paid more than $149.00 that is being offered by their equally licensed competitors.

[Bill Mullen]

Jim: As usual, your grasp of what is really happening is warped by your love of Nick's royal acknowledgement that your unresearched and totally wrong ramblings actually fit into his bizarre ( and wrong ) view of the Canadian inspection industry.

You and Nick rely on marketing to save the iNACHI inspectors from oblivion. Unfortunately, they can't market if they don't qualify to be inspectors. They don't qualify to be inspectors because Nick in his usual, arrogant manner has decided to let them all fend for themselves.

I feel sorry for these inspectors and I feel sorry fopr Nick. I and others offered him a way to help the iNACHI membership, but Nick decided that his personal bank account was much more important.

Licensing is scheduled to come to Alberta later this year, and today I learned that the Ontario government has a January 31, 2010 date set for licensing. Fortunately for consumers and competent inspectors, I hav also been told that the licensing will use the National Certification as the benchmark credential.

Bill Mullen

[Claude Lawrenson]

So even if it is a "minimum" standard (not saying that it is) because there is lower, in the case of BC, than does the licensing standard not "weed" out those that do not meet even that standard?

Now consider "realtors" what makes them any different under licensing; appraisers, and teachers?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

So even if it is a "minimum" standard (not saying that it is) because there is lower, in the case of BC, than does the licensing standard not "weed" out those that do not meet even that standard?

Now consider "realtors" what makes them any different under licensing; appraisers, and teachers?

It weeds out no one. It simply provides steps for them to achieve in order to have the same credential as Claude Lawrenson.

Think about it.

When you came in the business, did anyone have a formula laid out in front of you....step-by-step....as to how to become a competitive, recognized home inspector.

When your law passes, every teenager with a hamburger flipper in his hand will....with plenty of carpetbaggers opening up schools to help him fill those squares.

Up until now, it is up to your market as to who will make it and who will not. If your market is anything like ours, 90 percent of home inspectors are told by their market to find other work sometime between their first day and fifth year. Do you really think your government is going to turn away 90%?

Sorry, Canada. You didn't invent this idea and it has been failing to achieve its legitimate objectives in the USA for years.

Now, don't get me wrong....licensing has helped the school that could not recruit students but got the government to mandate attendance. it helped the developer of the NHIE, rejected by home inspectors generally, but gained financially when it convinced certain states to mandate it at $300 per test.

But the consumer....the profession....and the home inspector have all been harmed.

Nick is wise to see to it that InterNACHI is not linked to licensing...especially to see to it that the public does not view InterNACHI as a minimum entry level requirement to get a license.

[James H. Bushart]

Your government admits there is not enough of a problem to warrant the regulation of home inspectors.

Instead of fighting them...support them, and kill this stupid idea.

CALGARY - The Alberta government is asking the public whether it should become only the second province to regulate home inspectors.
For typically $400 or so, inspectors perform the crucial service of checking for problems in a house’s structure, ventilation and foundation before a home purchase.
But there are no rules in place to ensure an inspector is qualified or does a thorough job — and until British Columbia brought in a licensing system this March, no jurisdiction in Canada had rules.
“Home inspectors in our province do an excellent job and we hear few complaints,” Service Alberta Minister Heather Klimchuk said in a news release.
“However, in the rare case of a negligent inspection, a homeowner could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars so it is prudent to consider whether regulations are needed for the industry.”
In its public consultation on the issue, the province is considering creating minimum training standards, liability insurance and requirements on inspection contracts. The ministry also warns that mandatory licensing, insurance and standards could push inspection costs to between $600 and $1,000.
The government was pressured to develop regulations by the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors, a voluntary licensing group that has training, insurance and auditing standards for members.
Twenty-seven home inspectors are certified by the association in the Calgary area. But there are 46 different home-inspection firms listed in the city’s Yellow Pages.
The region’s Better Business Bureau occasionally receives complaints that homebuyers had an inspector deem a house in good shape, but a leaky roof or other problem not reported or notice demands costly repairs, bureau spokesman Daniel MacDonald said.
Some inspectors will offer money-back guarantees, but those normally only cover the inspection fee — not repair costs. The Better Business Bureau and Canada Housing and Mortgage Corp. both recommend prospective homebuyers be careful when they hire inspectors and preferably select one that is registered with an industry association.
jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

[Michael Larson]

“However, in the rare case of a negligent inspection, a homeowner could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars so it is prudent to consider whether regulations are needed for the industry.”

Of course we all know that "negligent inspections" are eliminated by licensing, right?

[Claude Lawrenson]

Michael - actually now that you bring "negligent inspections" in to the picture - when is the first or last time an INACHI member was disciplined for such?

If anything under the BC licensing it holds the recognized "associations" fully accountable to investigate and discipline the member.

If the inspector did perform a negligent inspection - than the E&O becomes the next bag of money pursued.

Now if I am not held "accountable" by that license and under the terms of association membership - who protects those that are not accountable to anyone?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Michael - actually now that you bring "negligent inspections" in to the picture - when is the first or last time an INACHI member was disciplined for such?

If anything under the BC licensing it holds the recognized "associations" fully accountable to investigate and discipline the member.

If the inspector did perform a negligent inspection - than the E&O becomes the next bag of money pursued.

Now if I am not held "accountable" by that license and under the terms of association membership - who protects those that are not accountable to anyone?

Who protects the consumer under your proposed law?

No one.

A consumer can complain and, possibly, the inspector will be investigated and if enough consumers complain...the inspector might even lose his license. The same thing happens in Newtonia, Missouri where there is no licensing and when the local inspector cannot get work because of his reputation. The market can take care of itself.

But instead of protecting the consumer....the government will put all of the consumer's at an increased level of risk by hiding the Wendys amongst the Claudes and leave it to the consumer's to try to identify the difference.

Proponents of your licensing bill are forced to make the false assumption that all Canadians are helplessly stupid and need you to make this decision for them. The second erroneous assumption is that you will somehow ensure quality by providing teenagers the instruction and the means to get out of the fast food business and become home inspectors.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Michael - actually now that you bring "negligent inspections" in to the picture - when is the first or last time an INACHI member was disciplined for such?

If anything under the BC licensing it holds the recognized "associations" fully accountable to investigate and discipline the member.

If the inspector did perform a negligent inspection - than the E&O becomes the next bag of money pursued.

Now if I am not held "accountable" by that license and under the terms of association membership - who protects those that are not accountable to anyone?

Claude, it was in the news story. Ask the reporter who wrote it.

You can pretend that some licensing board will prevent all negligent inspections but we all know that it will not work.

[Vern Mitchinson, CMI]

Go to http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/...stry_paper.pdf for the PDF inspector survey and to http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/...blic_paper.pdf for the consumer survey.

[Marcel Gratton]

Originally Posted by wblakey

What good is marketing if you do not have the legal right to work as a home inspector?

At the moment in BC, if you only have INACHI "qualifications" you cannot work.

You seem to think that I am lobbying for licensing. This is not the case. I am lobbying INACHI to support its members by helping to validate its criteria to a neutral source (the BPCPA - Business Practice and Consumer Protection Authority.)

If you think your standards are so high, why don't you defend them?

So if:

*CMI* = University Degree

*CHI* =college diploma

*NCH* = secondary school diploma

*CAPHI* = elementary school diploma

then, why does inspector's in BC with a University Degree have to go back to elementary school to be able to put food on the table?

As Mike Howard said: *Nick....comes a time when you have to stand up and say....No More.

[James H. Bushart]

How many home inspections were performed in the four years in which Alberta received all of 18 complaints to the BBB (of which a portion were not legitimate)? A million? More?

Those who are pretending to be doing this "for the consumer" need to be called out on their lie and the public should know that there are fewer complaints against home inspectors in Alberta than almost every other unlicensed profession.

Blow the whistle loud and sharp...and point to the carpetbaggers who are preparing to gain, financially, from this law. Let the public see who truly cares about consumers and who is wanting to gain at the consumer's expense.

Do this while the media is watching.

[dcook1]

Bottom line is as has been stated... if licencing is legislated, then the inspector needs to have his credentials recognized. Just because NACHI "claims" it credentials are much higher does not make them that.... I had a used car salesman tell me how great his car was! DO they measure up to what is required to the government dictated standards? Even if it is the "minimum" Whether or not we agree with licencing, as Paul states, the law is in place. If your credentials are not recognised, tis means you do not work. No matter how "high" NACHI claims to be. No matter how "high" ASHI claims to be. No matter how "high" CAHPI claims to be. THe legislative powers have looked at certain requirements and found a minimum level they are comfortable with, (and where they can mke money with) and put those guidelines in place. This means an inspector needs to have those recognized credentials. No matter what. If he goes beyond that, he looks better. If NACHI feels they are better than that, they need to make the inspector realize he should try to get NACHI certified. But id NACHI certifications are not recognized by the government, the general public will not see the NACHI certification as any good,,,,,, any more than the inspector will.