BC is acting on the new bill

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Yes It looks to e like a propaganda sheet for BC home Inspectors put out by a Home inspection Company.
It's long and says what has been posted here before .
They also mention a P2P case of a few years ago.
You would think if what they say is true they would have cases listed .
Sounds like the BC Association are getting nervous with NACHI.
Time has show the Cream rises to the top.
Thanks NACHI for supplying a place where the truth can be shown.
....Cookie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter & Associates Inspections Inc. :: Independent House Inspectors
Serving Vancouver, the Lower Mainland, Whistler, Southern Gulf Islands, and Vancouver Island

• home
• about us
• testimonials
• inspections
• videos

Contact Us

Phone: 604-435-7637
Cell: 604-725-7713
Toll Free: 1-877-725-7712
hunterinspections@shaw.ca

Custom Reports with Photographs, Indoor Air Quality & Mold Investigations


Bruce's Consumer Alert

With the ever-increasing number of lawsuits by recent home buyers against home inspectors for allegedly performing poor inspections, consumers obviously require more information on how to avoid that.
Court action is very expensive and most new homeowners cannot afford to pay the high legal fees required to win their case for compensation.
A recent statement by the American National Association of Certified Home Inspectors (NACHI) indicates:
"According to the Foundation of Real Estate Appraisers (FREA), British Columbia has the highest home inspection litigation in all of Canada."
Based on our experience and involvement in attempting to assist recent home buyers get justice to resolve poor home inspections performed by other home inspection companies, here is what we believe is causing litigation.
Firstly, most consumers have no clue exactly what their Inspector is required to or will report to them when hired to examine a home or property for them. Their realtor should be making them aware of the rules (Inspection Standards) that govern inspections by providing them with a copy prior to the inspection, but this rarely happens.
Further, prospective buyers do not understand the differences between the major Home Inspector Associations in this province, nor are they aware of what training is required to be recognized as a professional and competent inspector. Homebuyers often make decisions to hire an inspector based solely on what their realtor tells them or go for the cheapest inspector.
If a consumer was going to have surgery or buy a new car he would pick the best doctor and attempt to get the very best used vehicle by calling on his mechanic, friends who know about cars, or hiring a specialist from the Automobile Association to come into his driveway and test the car.
When it comes to spending close to a half a million dollars or more on what will probably be their single most expensive investment, they throw caution to the wind. It's unbelievable.
We have advised clients that, if their funds are so limited that they can barely afford the cost of a proper inspection, they may want to reconsider purchasing a home in that price range.
Anyone who has owned their own residence realizes that there are a lot of other things to be purchased to maintain the home, such as garden equipment, ladders, the list is endless.
CMHC has recently introduced a programme where first time buyers can purchase a home with virtually no down payment.
This places many uninformed consumers in the position of not being able to keep their recently purchased homes if the economy suddenly changes and interest rates rise.
Some of us remember when interest rates went from 7% to 21% not too many years ago.
There are only two formally recognized Inspection Associations in the Province of British Columbia.
The first is the British Columbia Institute of Property Inspectors (BCIPI), which has been described in the media as a professional organization. Members of that organization must be affiliated with the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C. (ASTTBC). The ASTTBC organization is mandated under the provincial ASTT Act to grant certification to Home Inspectors.
No other inspectors' home inspection association group is permitted to refer to their inspectors as being "certified." ASTTBC has a membership of over 8,000 Technologists, Technicians, and Technical Specialists in B.C.
In order to receive a designation as a "Certified" Home Inspector with ASTTBC, BCIPI members have no choice but to take their home inspection training at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT).
In order to be granted "certification", a BCIPI inspector must take formal recognized training at the college or university level.
These training facilities are not directly connected with the Home Inspectors association.
Home Inspection training provided outside the influence of an Inspectors association creates, in our view, a more objective and formal examination process. To learn more about this organization, go to your Internet search engine and type in the initials BCIPI.
One of the documents you will want to review first on the BCIPI web page before hiring your inspector is their Standards of Inspection.
This document dictates the responsibilities of the inspectors in performing their inspections. More will be said about those "rules" of inspection later.
The second Home Inspector Association in B.C. is the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (CAHPI).
They have been described as being more of a trade organization as opposed to a professional group. One of the major differences between the BCIPI group above and CAHPI is in their methods of receiving training and accreditation.
For example, BCIPI inspectors must attend BCIT for inspection training and pass the Institute's exams.
Their individual home inspectors association has no influence over the process.
CAHPI inspectors conversely can arrange to take correspondence courses from any source they can find.
The CAHPI group does, however, offer correspondence courses through an out of province Inspection Company, for which they charge a fee for exams. Providing the CAHPI property inspector writes and passes their exam and performs five inspections to the satisfaction of the CAHPI executive, they can perform inspections.
The question consumers should be asking themselves here is:
Would they hire a doctor who has only completed his first five operations, regardless of his examination marks?
Fast tracking inspectors is a risky business.
To become a good inspector requires many years of on site inspections, learning from each error or omission.
Obviously under the CAHPI policy, a consumer must be very careful to select an inspector who has completed more than five inspections, regardless of how much insurance they purport to have.
On the matter of "Certification", only BCIPI members can legally use the designation "certified" inspector.
The legislative right to do this flows from the powers granted to the Applied Science Technologist & Technicians under the provincial ASTT Act.
The CAHPI use the term "Registered" RHI to denote an inspector that has successfully completed 250 inspections under their program. The term "Registered" was granted by the British Columbia Registrar of Companies and is more to do with a job protection title.
To gain more insight into that organization, search the Internet under the initials CAHPI.
While in the CAHPI site, review what they refer to as their Standards of Practice. BCIPI calls their similar regulations "Standard of Inspections".
There are subtle differences between the two associations rules for inspection, but they both essentially set out what the inspector is obliged to inspect and what he/she is "Not required" to inspect.
There lies the problem, which results in many lawsuits against inspectors. Homebuyers ASSUME that their inspector is going to check all the perimeter drains, check for buried oil tanks, and report asbestos, mold conditions, or many other items uninformed buyers would expect that a home inspector would review.
But take a closer look at those Standards of Practice.
Under the CAHPI Section 13 General Limitations and Exclusions, you will see that their inspectors are "Not" required to note "Wood destroying organisms" and "Environmental hazards" such as buried oil tanks. A recent Court case in Kamloops was brought by buyers who accused their CAHPI Pillar to Post inspector of not reporting known termite problems in the home they purchased.
Oil tanks are a real problem in older areas of Vancouver because there are thousands of them buried in Vancouver yards. If they leak, considerable cost can be realized for cleanup.
They are the responsibility of the current homeowner to get rid of once they are decommissioned, but many realtors try to pass off this cost to a new buyer. This goes against the City of Vancouver's Fire By-Law (No. 8191, sec. 4.10.3) and Sewer and Watercourse By-Law (No. 8093, sec. 5.3). City Bulletin 2001-001-EV dated January 17, 2001, states
: "Oil tanks which will not be reused or have been out of service for two years shall be removed." A tank removal permit must be obtained from the Fire Prevention Department.
Further, Inspectors are not required to offer "warranties or guarantees of any kind". They only inspect areas that are "readily accessible", which means that if the homeowner has placed boxes or other items in front of a heating unit, for example, the inspector is not obliged to inspect the furnace.
Under the CAHPI Glossary of Italicized Terms you will see the words "Representative Number".
This simply means that when an inspector enters a room, for example, they are not required to check all the windows, doors, electrical outlets found therein. This allows them to complete their inspection much quicker and go to another inspection job elsewhere.
This method of only doing random checking can also apply to reviewing the condition of outside perimeter drains.
The inspector may not have to check any under their inspection requirements or choose to test only one out of four.
Even a homebuyer with limited knowledge would realize that if an inspector only checked one out of four similar items in a house, there is a very good chance that one or more of those other items may be defective.
The problem created by accepting quick and limited checklist type inspection reports is compounded when too many buyers hire the cheapest inspector recommended by their realtor.
The Vancouver Better Business Bureau recommends against accepting checklist reports because they provide insufficient information.
Buyers fail to realize that all too often many realtors' main interest is in making a quick sale. Unprofessional realtors sometimes convince their clients that exhaustive testing is time consuming and unnecessary.
From time to time we hear from buyers that the realtor told them three other inspectors checked the house out already, so everything must be okay.
If they checked a little further they might find that one or more of those inspectors may be on the selling realtor's preferred inspectors list.
That should set off alarm bells to an alert purchaser.
We recommend that buyers go to the Better Business Bureau of Mainland B.C. at www.bbbvan.org and search under "Buyer's Tips".
Enter the word "home inspection" for more information.
The Courts and Better Business Bureau suggest that a prospective buyer who hires an inspector recommended by a realtor who will profit from the sale of the property is a fool. "Buyer Beware" they will say.
For more information on this, contact the Vancouver Better Business Bureau at (604) 682-2711 or go to their web site.
In January 2003 the Provincial Court of B.C. in the case of Brownjohn v. Pillar to Post (Home Inspections) made some interesting statements. The Court's Reasons For Judgment made the following points concerning how an inspection should proceed, comments on Pillar to Post reporting methods and what was the value to the consumer relying on the CAHPI Standards of Practice of assuring them of getting a thorough inspection.
The Court in part referred to the CAHPI Pillar to Post inspector's report as being an "awkwardly formatted document" of "relatively small print."
It contained a number of paragraphs that protected the inspector from any useful legal action against him and it offered the homebuyer no protection. One of the most revealing statements of how poorly these limited inspections are for a home purchaser were revealed when the Court stated:
"One imagines that persons wanting useful and reliable advice about their prospective home purchase might be discouraged from retaining inspectors if they really understood that the inspector was doing everything possible to ensure he could not be held accountable for the way in which he did his work."
In our view what the Court has said is, "Why even bother hiring an inspector who provides such limited work and concentrates more on protecting themselves against just about any mistake?"
The type of report the Court was reviewing in this case is commonly known as a Check List.
They consist of nothing more than a number of pages with small check boxes where the inspector ticks off what he supposedly inspected.
Checklist reporting allows the inspector to complete his work quickly and move on to another inspection job.
There is very little room for written comments and the remaining pages are full of disclaimers limiting the home purchaser from attacking the inspector if something goes wrong.
Unprofessional realtors recommend inspectors who use this type of reporting system because their limited capacity to provide useful and full information to the new home buyer is less of a threat to the real estate deal crumbling. Limited information in reports also raises fewer concerns with the true condition of the house, thereby preventing the purchaser from reopening up the contract for negotiation.
If the home purchaser errs in not reading the inspector's contract and later wants to sue the inspector for doing a poor inspection, their lawyer will immediately draw their attention to the wording in the inspector's contract, which places a Limitation On Liability.
The next question he will ask is: "Why did you sign that contract in the first place?" Typical wording in Check List Reports reads as follows:
"Inspector's Liability for mistakes or omissions in this inspector's report is limited to a refund of the fee paid for this inspection and report."
In short, this clause means that if the inspector missed anything in his/her inspection, regardless of whether it was a fifty dollar or a hundred thousand dollar problem for the new home buyer, all the new homeowner could expect to receive in compensation for the inspector's mistakes would be the ($300 or $500, etc.) fee they initially paid for the inspector's work.
Our advice is to not sign any contract that limits your ability for compensation to only the fee paid for the inspection.
To make matters worse, some inspection companies ask the home buyer to pay an additional $600.00 to receive extended liability protection from faults generated by the inspector.
The question that still puzzles independent inspectors is:
"Why would any person willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on buying a home risk it all to not read and understand what type of inspection they were going to receive from the inspector they hired and know what protection they could expect in compensation if something serious was missed?"
The answer in part, we believe, is that buyers initially are so enthralled with the home that they don't want to hear any bad reports about it.
We overheard one realtor saying to a client that the fact that the inspector had found that the perimeter drains on the house were defective was not a big deal. He could find someone to fix the problem much cheaper than the inspector had suggested it could cost to remove all of the landscaping, tear up sidewalks, and remove the deck to replace the drainage tiles in the ground. The realtor in fact was making light of a very serious problem, which could cause water to enter the basement at some point in time.
The time to negotiate deficiencies is before you remove your subjects.
When we later encouraged our client to take independent quotes on replacement of the drainage system, they realized that it was a very expensive undertaking (in excess of $20,000).
They chose to walk away from the house and within two weeks purchased another home with fewer problems.
After the Reasons for Judgment were released by the Court on the Pillar to Post Home Inspection case the Real Estate Council prepared a short bulletin called "Legally Speaking" for release to real estate agents in the province. (For a copy of that document, see the "Interesting Articles" section.)
This notice did not bring out all the important facts but it points out that, if consumers expect to get a thorough inspection of the home they want to purchase for only a few hundred dollars, they are in for a big surprise. The Court commented:
"The home inspection was not being used as an assurance of the structural integrity of this building.
To do that for $200 would be a fool's errand, in my view."
It is the old story that you get what you pay for in life.
If you want a cheap car, you pay less money. If you need the best lawyer or doctor to save you from disaster, you will have to pay more.
Too often realtors interested more in making a quick sale will refer the prospective homebuyer to three or four hand picked inspectors.
They will promote these inspectors as being qualified, but at the same time say that their fees are low. Any fool should know the two don't mix.
Because of recent complaints, even the Real Estate Council is beginning to realize that realtors referring inspectors leads to Court action.
The last problem we detect is that many realtors will recommend a home inspector to their client but they don't believe they have any duty to point out to the buyer that they had better make sure they get the "Standard of Practice" or rules and conditions under which the inspector will do his job.
If the buyer believes for a second that the inspector is going to do a complete inspection of the home, they are misguided.
When realtors don't alert buyers to the fact that there are inspection standards to be followed, and ensure that they are produced before the inspection, concerns arise. We have brought to the attention of the Real Estate Council of B.C. the fact that we rarely see evidence of realtors ensuring that their clients receive these standards prior to the inspection. Their response was that there is nothing in their Act that forces them to compel realtors to warn buyers that inspections of this type are very limited in nature. So change the Act, we say, and provide consumers with more protection.
The realtor should ensure that their client receives those inspection procedures from the inspector prior to him starting his work. This is one of the points that came out in the above Court case.
The Pillar to Post inspector called as his witness a CAHPI inspector who stated that the "recommended approach" before starting the inspection was to "provide the contract (Inspection standards) to the realtor in advance and subsequently reviewing with the client the limitations of the home inspection process."
By going over the document that the inspector will be guided by while doing his inspection, the buyer will know straightaway whether the inspector will check all the outside drains, comment on the possible presence of a buried oil tank on the property, discovery of mold or asbestos, whether he will actually go up onto the roof, or many other things.
If the buyer was alerted before the inspection by the inspector or realtor that certain things would not be covered, then the buyer would have the opportunity to call in an expert to address their concerns.
Most homebuyers would be amazed at just how many items or systems an inspector is not obliged to comment on without calling in an expert.
So why don't all realtors who recommend inspectors to their buyers ensure that the Inspection Standards are presented up front to the buyer and discussed before proceeding the inspection?
Our view is very much in line with what the Court said and that is that, if the buyer realized that all they would get back from the inspector if something was missed regardless of the seriousness of the error was what they paid for the inspection and further that most inspections of this type don't report much, then they would not hire the inspector in the first place. Most home inspections are nothing more than a quick glance at the condition of the home.
The realtors need the inspection, in many cases, so that the deal can be concluded, the mortgage let, and their commission paid.
This is all understandable, but we have observed too many situations where our clients are rushed into making quick decisions.
So how can a buyer avoid a lawsuit and get the type of inspection that will provide sufficient information to make an informed condition on whether to purchase the house or not? Here are the five steps we recommend.
1. Never hire a home inspector steered to you by your realtor, regardless of how well you know that realtor.
This is supported by the Better Business Bureau.
Business is Business and you must select your own consultant to work in your best interest.
It is well known in North American realty circles that inspectors who take referrals from realtors don't always reveal all the faults with a home. NBC Television did a show "Hiring home Inspectors" on this very subject.
A commentary from that reads as follows.
"While some inspectors give objective complete inspections, others may fear if they speak too openly about the flaws in a home they will anger the realtor, and never get another referral."
One would think that it should be obvious to buyers that, if a realtor recommends an inspector, there must be a reason for it.
A thorough inspection will always make the realtor work harder to sell the home, but negotiation is part of their job.
There is increasing evidence that the public is fed up with paying what they perceive to be unrealistically high real estate fees. Go to our Table of Contents, "Interesting Articles" section, and read the editorial entitled "Home Sales Guru Predicts Demise of Real Estate Industry".
We receive too many complaints about realtors not doing much for their clients. They fail to assist with understanding the process, do not ensure that the home is ready for inspection, or seem more preoccupied with rushing the client into making a hasty decision.
This detached behaviour takes away from the good work being performed by professional realtors.
2. Hire an Independent Inspector who does not take referrals from realtors. By that we mean an inspector who does not hand out brochures or solicit business in any way from either the realtor(s) or their company. If you see Inspectors' brochures in a realtor's office, be on guard.
Try and find a friend who has hired an inspector before and was satisfied with their services and the fact that their report showed the house they purchased was representative of what the inspector's report stated the previous year.
Ask your lawyer or credit union for assistance but be aware of large agencies such as Canada Mortgage and Housing (CMHC) that promote only one group of home inspectors. CMHC is in the business of selling homes and lending money and have come under criticism in recent years for not informing consumers of leaky condo buildings.
See the "Interesting Articles" section for CBC News "Vancouver condo owners say CMHC knew about leaks."
3. Don't be swayed by a fancy webpage or a big Yellow Pages ad.
Our investigations over the years have shown that the largest ads tend to generate the most complaints.
Oftentimes, consumers are misled about the experience of an inspector.
The person they most often speak with on the telephone is not actually the inspector who appears on site to do the work.
Some large inspection companies hire inexperienced inspectors and pay them a low fee for doing the inspection.
The company pockets the rest of the money.
These junior inspectors take the inspection work to gain experience so they can receive certification.
4. Don't be overly concerned about paying more for a thorough inspection. It's amazing, but the first question a lot of callers who have no place to go for assistance ask is: "How much?"
They forgot the important issues such as the training of the inspector, how much of the house and property are actually inspected, what type of report will they receive, or if they can provide any references of satisfied clients. Aside from concentrating too much on cost, they get hung up on whether or not the inspector is insured or how long they have been in business.
Although these are good questions, the first thing consumers must know is that all inspectors' insurance companies, instruct inspectors to clam up if something goes wrong. If the inspector tries to help out too much with resolving the dispute, the insurance company looks at this as an admission of quilt by the inspector.
If something goes wrong after the inspector has tried to be helpful in resolving the issue, the insurance carrier will refuse legal protection for the inspector. To rely on a home inspector's insurance company to pay for your mistake in signing an inspector's contract with limitations will be difficult.
This is something a lawyer will continually remind you of.
We have represented many clients who have received bad home inspections from other inspection companies.
They may have a good case for compensation from the Courts at first glance, but once they are told by their lawyers that it will take them approximately three years to get their dispute before a Judge and thousands of dollars to get the case started, they often give up.
In most cases, buyers with grievances against their inspectors cannot afford to pursue their cases through the Courts.
It is also unrealistic to expect an inspectors' association to provide the disgruntled homebuyer with any degree of comfort.
For example, most consumers would agree that it would be helpful and in the interest of promoting good relations if the inspector's association would send a representative to their home to review what the buyer believes the inspector either failed to report on or downplayed the importance of. Presently, the only home inspection association that will send out a representative to conduct further investigations is the BCIPI.
The CAHPI association does not permit their inspectors to review another inspector's work on site.
The difference in price between a thorough inspection by an Independent Inspector who provides a typewritten report with photographs of the home's deficiencies and a checklist report prepared by a realtor referred inspector is not significant.
The value received, however, in additional information is very useful.
Even if the vendor refuses to move on their price because of the discovery of more defects than were originally reported, your will have much more information about the home if you choose to purchase it.
This will reduce the risk of sudden and unexpected financial demands on your wallet. At least, you will be going into your problem house with "your eyes open".
To risk getting a bad home inspection on a half million dollar house by limiting yourself to the cheapest possible inspector is foolhardy.
5. Ensure that the realtor you hire is willing to negotiate on your behalf if your inspector's report reveals many unreported defects that will cost you money to repair. We always tell our clients that the real cost of the home is what they offered to the vendor plus what it will cost to put it in serviceable condition. Regardless of whether the buyer negotiates for compensation now or decides to fix the problem in the future, they will have to pay for those repairs. It's better to deal with the problem at the stage when you have some negotiating power, than leave it to some future date when material and labour costs to fix the problem are unknown.
Some realtors advertise themselves as being "the negotiators".
Our experience has shown that there are very few of these out there but, like good home inspectors, they are hard to find but available.
Although we do not take direct referrals from realtors, we would not hesitate to identify to our clients those realtors who, in our view, have impressed us with their abilities to do a professional job for their customer and, at the same time, not interfere with our work.
A common phrase used by realtors who don't care about striking a reasonable deal, after being presented with the buyer's comprehensive inspection report, is: "Well, we are not selling you a new house."
If you hear your realtor saying those words, you are in trouble.
If possible, at this point you may consider hiring a more professional realtor to represent your interests.
They are available, but you have to seek them out.
We recommend that you read carefully how the realtor has described the home in their listing.
If it says something like: "Nice home on the west side, with a large deck for entertainment, great back yard, and a rental suite available", then you should expect to find those things to be in good condition and legal.
The second form you should review is the Property Disclosure Statement (PDS) prepared by the vendor.
In the listing, the realtor should describe the home and property accurately.
With respect to the PDS, it gives the homeowner the opportunity to be honest and divulge those things and services in the home and property that are defective.
If the inspector's investigation reveals that the realtor has promoted the home to more than it is, and the homeowner has neglected to report obvious deficiencies, then the house you placed your offer on is not the same.
This can be very disappointing for some buyers, because they begin to realize that person(s) may have deceived them. We often see this when a realtor presents a house as being recently painted, and we find that much of the rotted wood has been concealed with filler and painted over.
We had a recent example where the deck was described as being large and a wonderful entertainment area.
The deck, in fact, was built without a permit from the City of Vancouver, did not meet the safety requirements of the Building Code, and was found to be rotting underneath. The media has reported numerous decks that have collapsed in recent years, with deaths resulting.
Decks carry a huge legal liability and must be constructed to handle large groups of people and the activities that come with that during the summer months. That and a few other unreported items listed in the Independent Inspector's report enabled our client to receive $14,000 off their original offer.
You can see why many realtors do not want anything more than checklist type inspections from their preferred, hand picked home inspectors.

Copyright © 2006 Hunter & Associates Inspections, Inc. > Designed by Raincoast Designs
</IMG></IMG></IMG>

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

B.C. to license home inspectors

By Tom Fletcher - BC Local News - February 10, 2008

The BC . government is preparing to introduce a new licensing system and regulations for home inspectors.
The solicitor general's ministry is accepting public input until Feb. 22 on proposed rules that would establish a mandatory system to ensure home inspectors have up-to-date training on building codes, as well as electrical, natural gas and fire code regulations.
The government intends to have legislation ready by this fall.
NDP housing critic Diane Thorne introduced a private member's bill last spring calling for regulations that prohibit home inspections done without a provincial licence.
"For years, the home inspection industry has called for regulation, but Solicitor General John Les has ignored their concerns," she said.
B.C. home inspectors are currently self-regulating, with two organizations offering voluntary membership and certification.
The B.C. branch of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors offers an online course and set of exams that lead to certification.
Applicants are allowed to challenge the exams.
The B.C. Institute of Property Inspectors has a volunteer board of examiners from the industry and post-secondary instructors who evaluate applicants' experience and education. To become a certified property inspector, the institute requires house and property inspection courses and a program on the B.C. Building Code offered by B.C. Institute of Technology.
The ministry's consultation paper reviews the approach taken by the professional organizations. It asks whether inspectors should be required to complete certain courses to obtain a licence, or whether those with practical experience but lacking formal academic training should be allowed to write exams to qualify.
The consultation includes a proposed definition of home inspection, a "non-invasive visual examination" of the outside and inside followed by a written report.
Inspectors typically use a moisture meter to check for water leaks in the roof and walls, as well as checking structural work, roof condition and wiring.
The government is considering whether to make insurance mandatory for home inspectors, to cover situations where customers claim financial loss over a mistake made by an inspector.
If adopted, the licensing and regulations would be administered by the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority, an independent group that has a contract with the government to oversee designated trades and professions.
The consultation paper is available on the provincial government website at www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/legislation/current.htm along with directions for submitting responses by email or fax

[rwand1]

There are many misnomers in the article! Its a shame it will be taken as gospel. Just look who wrote the article. Talk about self serving!

Copyright © 2006 Hunter & Associates Inspections, Inc. > Designed by Raincoast Designs

[Claude Lawrenson]

Remember the leaky condo stories, and excess moisture conditions out there? Not to say in Ontario that we don't have leaks and water problems here too!

[rwand1]

ASTTBC has not be granted the right to certify inspectors under its act, it has empowered itself only to do this. The article is so factually incorrect this jerk does a big diservice to the readers of the document, while playing up BCIPI for self serving purposes.

[Vern Mitchinson]

Unless the complaint comes with the name of the complainant. the location of the complaint and the phone number and confirmation of the complaint it's just ********.

[rwand1]

February 5th, 2008

To the Members of CAHPI(BC):

I want to begin by thanking you for your words of encouragement and support at the Quarterly General Meeting on the weekend, and through phone and e-mail contact these last couple of weeks. I agree with you that any action by the BC government to bring standards to the BC home and property inspection industry must include CAHPI(BC), and work that has already been done on this issue.

In fact, at UBCM last fall, I asked the Premier if he would meet with me for precisely this reason, and he agreed, asking me to contact his office to make arrangements. In writing to his office on November 8, 2007 to set up the meeting, my note reminded him that the reason for the meeting would be to discuss the efforts necessary to ensure that the actions by the BC government, with respect to the regulation or licensing of Home Inspectors, include CAHPI * British Columbia and Canada#146;s largest professional Home Inspection Association * which is currently unable to participate given the direction and approach being taken by the BC government. Mr. Campbell's office has not yet followed through on his UBCM commitment, but I expect they will.

I thank so many of you for advising me that you recently received an e-mail from a Susan Walker of Mr. Les's Ministry, asking you to participate in a consultation that Mr. Less ministry is conducting about the home inspection industry. In writing to me as the president of CAHPI(BC) on January 18, 2008, Ms. Walker didn't tell me she was writing to CAHPI(BC) members as well. In addition to the honour of being your president at CAHPI(BC), I am still a fulltime home inspector, too, and I would have thought that Ms. Walker would have written to me in that capacity, if she was writing to individual members of CAHPI(BC). But again, thank you for so quickly letting your Board of Directors and me know about this action.

Please rest assured that we know all about this consultation referenced by Ms. Walker.

At the meeting on the weekend, you asked me for direction on how to respond to her e-mail. Well, we're all business people, and we're all pretty independent. It's not for me to tell you what to do * your voice is important, and no one, least of all me, should tell you what to do to make it heard. We're all pretty busy, too, and often that means we just don't have the time to look after family, our health, and our business, and to make sure government understands us, and listens to us.

So I'm going to start by apologizing for what's going to be a very long read. But I think it is a very important one. In fact, it may be the most important message I've written in all my years as a home inspector. I believe that through inattention to the excellent work that each of us has done in building the Registered Home Inspector designation, and that we, with so many others, have done to develop the National Certification Program, Mr. Les and the ministry are placing BC consumers at risk, threatening our businesses, and our organization.

I'm going to suggest that you read the whole thing, including the two resolutions near the end that were passed at the Quarterly General Meeting this past weekend. Please print out and read each of the documents attached to this e-mail, as they tell our story. Then, if you are willing, I'm going to ask you to do 5 things:

1. Forward this entire e-mail, the attachment Background Material.pdf to the Solicitor General ministry at PSSG-CPPO@gov.bc.ca

2. In the subject line, please write: Response to BC government regulatory framework for house inspectors.

3. Please CC your local MLA, whether government or opposition. Please go to the BC legislative website at http://www.leg.bc.ca/ and click on Members#146; on the left side of the page, second item from the top, to locate your MLA, and get their e-mail address.

4. Please CC your Mayor and Council. To get their e-mail address, use the UBCM Local Government Officials List at http://www.civicnet.bc.ca Click on "Local Govt Links and Info" and from the list, call your council and ask for the e-mail address that will get information to the Mayor and Council.

5. Please CC your federal MP, no matter their party. Federal government and agencies have played a significant role in advancing the National Certification Program. Please go to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/List...9&Current=True To get an MP's e-mail address, click on the MP's name, and you'll get all their contact information, including an e-mail address.

6. Please CC Premier Campbell at premier@gov.bc.ca

7. Please CC me as well, at president@cahpi.bc.ca

As I said above, we know all about this consultation referenced by Ms. Walker. And I have made sure Ms. Walker knows why CAHPI(BC) cannot participate, as the attached December 12, 2007 letter to her makes clear (attachment 1). In it, I reminded her of Mr. Les's August 3, 2007 letter to us in which he rejected the use of the National Certification Program standards as the baseline standards for BC, for reasons including his remarkable assertion that: "...the standards for British Columbia should account for building code, climate, and conditions in the province." As each of us knows, the Alberta and Quebec governments are moving to introduce industry standards based on the National Certification Program standards because they've been able to understand what the BC government does not: The National Certification Program was purpose-built with the flexibility to recognize and accommodate local and regional housing characteristics and provincial building codes.

The National Certification Program, and the inspection standards it includes, were not built in a day, or just by any one group. All kinds of people * including the Construction Sector Council, the Alliance of Certified Building Officials#146; Associations (ACBOA), Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and Human Resources Skills Development Canada * helped create the National Certification standard for the home and property inspection industry. These are national standards of competency, certification, and accreditation for private inspectors and municipal building officials.

That brings us back to the e-mail Ms. Walker sent to you on behalf of Mr. Les, and the document that Ms. Walker asked you to fill out, which can be accessed at http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/legislation/current.htm

It's no surprise that the document is not at all about using the NCP here in BC. And I agree with those of you who have said that it seems almost a punishment for the work the late Larry Hipperson started, and so many of us have been continuing: To protect BC consumers from con artists masquerading as qualified house inspectors when consumers are making the biggest purchasing decision of their lives. Many of you will remember the threat Mr. Les directed at me, and all of us, for corresponding to the Premier. There was a lot of media coverage of it in November, 2006, and I have attached a Vancouver Sun column from that time (attachment 2).

It seems to me that when you read the document that Ms. Walker asked you to fill out, which talks about excluding and exempting some house inspectors from government licensing, but making others pay what could be as much as $1,800 or more for a licence, this #145; consultation#146; is not so much about protecting consumers from con artists passing themselves off as house inspectors * the consumer protection issue CAHPI(BC) started asking the BC government to take an interest in some five years ago. It seems to me, that the effort is aimed at creating more confusion for consumers as to who#146;s qualified and who isn#146;t, and one that's aimed at making CAHPI(BC) members and the consumers who rely on them pay for all of this unnecessary work and needless confusion.

What do I mean by this? Well, some of you suggested at the Quarterly General Meeting this past weekend, that perhaps 80 per cent of active and qualified home inspectors in British Columbia are CAHPI(BC) members. I think you're probably right. And I agree with other members who have noted that because CAHPI(BC) members are in 178 BC communities, many of the inspections done for consumers in communities outside the Greater Vancouver are done by CAHPI(BC) members. That makes sense, too.

So when Mr. Les rejects the National Certification Program as the baseline for qualification in BC, and tells us that after securing our Registered Home Inspector designation, then the National Certificate Holder distinction * a combination The Toronto Star calls the "gold standard" in the house inspection industry in the attached article (attachment 3) * that we'll then have to secure some new, third standard, then the BC government is going down an unnecessary and costly path.

This weekend, I listened to many of you talk about how the changes in the economy are causing concern in your communities, your families, and your business. I agree with those of you who have made the point that CAHPI(BC)'s membership size and strength means that in over a hundred communities outside Greater Vancouver, when people seek a home inspection, it's very likely that the only inspector qualified, trained, accountable, and able to service the community is a CAHPI(BC) inspector. I see your point that some new third qualification as proposed by Mr. Les, that excludes some inspectors, and exempts others, but targets CAHPI(BC) members, and makes them pay $1,800 or more for a licence, perhaps even per year, will have a particularly negative impact on British Columbians who live in communities outside Greater Vancouver, and the men and women living there who have chosen to be home inspectors, and CAHPI(BC) members.

Why?

Well, either your business will have to eat the cost of the $1,800, or maybe you might have to adjust your prices to consumers to help afford it. But I worry that passing along the cost to folks might just make them decide not to have a home inspection.

So frankly, I wonder if Mr. Les just doesn't want people to get home inspections, or if he's just trying to bust CAHPI(BC). All of this seems so silly.

But make no mistake about it: CAHPI(BC) has been consulting with the BC government on this issue for the past five years. When Minister Abbott had the file, we presented to him, and he asked us to draft legislation to protect consumers. When Minister Coell took over the file and asked us for new legislation, we provided it to him as well. When Minister Coleman and Minister Les asked for information on the National Certification Program, we met directly with their staff at the Solicitor General Ministry. Never any response; but, promises in 2006, first from Minister Coleman on CBC radio on March 28 ( http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...n20060328.html ), then from Minister Les on July 27 on CBC radio, CKPG, and CHNL to take action to protect consumers by the end of 2006. Commitments that amounted to nothing.

So, on February 28, 2007, almost a full year ago, time and industry progress did indeed pass the BC government by. With the National Certification Authority up and running, on time, as promised (http://www.nca-anc.com), with the first home inspectors to achieve the new national standards able to add "National Certificate Holder" after their names, CAHPI(BC) announced that the new standards were in place for the BC home and property inspection industry (attachment 4).

By September 10 of last year, it was clear that the National Certification Program was succeeding in every province in the country. As we said in six regional news releases distributed that day (see sample in attachment 5), The National Certification Program (NCP) was introduced earlier this year, and of the 115 home inspectors across Canada who have achieved national certificate holder status, 16 are from BC. What's remarkable is that of 137 home inspectors across Canada currently working towards National Certification status, 57 of them * fully one-third * are from BC. British Columbia is leading the country in terms of the number of inspectors working towards achievement of national standards of competency, and BC consumers are the winners.

And as we all know, since last September, the take-up rate on the NCP has continued to grow, with inspectors from all manner of professional organizations across the country * not just CAHPI * seeking and earning National Certificate Holder distinction. The National Certification Program works, for consumers, and for house and home inspectors.

But with the Mr. Les having stated his view no-NCP view in advance of the start of his "consultation" I hope you understand why CAHPI(BC) participation was rendered impossible: In knowing the Solicitor General's position, the act of participating would indicate an abandonment by CAHPI(BC) of the National Certification Program, and send a confusing message to other jurisdictions responding so favourably to the long-overdue protection for consumers the NCP represents.

I believe, therefore, that when I say this Solicitor General "consultation" is flawed, it is beyond repair, too. It's all one-sided, making sure that at its outset * after our consultative input for so many years had been ignored * our unique input was, from August 3, 2007 onward, to be precluded as well.

So, we've been threatened. Strong, solid achievement on baseline qualifications for the industry built by Canadians from across the country has been ignored. And now, British Columbians are being faced with an ill-conceived, punitive, too-late regulatory lark that comes with as much as or more than an $1,800 price tag per inspector, perhaps even per year, when all that needed to be done was for BC to embrace the National Certification Program.

This is a great deal of money for consumers and for business owners, but I don't overestimate our importance. There are other groups who are also experiencing the sloppy Solicitor General approach to consultations, where many millions of dollars are involved. As many of you read, a recent column in The Vancouver Sun (attachment 5) revealed how Mr. Les handled the announcement of a prison in Lake Country. Between the public's experience there, and ours with our own admittedly smaller issue, you begin to see that there is simply something wrong with the way these Solicitor General people conduct themselves.

I want to close by telling you that I am so very proud of the work done by so many to build the Registered Home Inspector designation, and of the cooperation shown by each of you in supporting the efforts by groups from across this country to develop and put in place the National Certification Program. Through your efforts, more consumers each and every day know that when they seek the input of a registered Home Inspector and National Certificate Holder on the most expensive purchase of their lives, they can have confidence that because of that choice, they#146;re in a better position to make an informed decision.

So thank you for the two resolutions you passed at the Quarterly General Meeting. In respect of responding to the BC government regulatory framework for house inspectors, the following resolution was passed:

As a CAHPI(BC) Member, I endorse the position that any regulation of the home and property inspection industry in the province of British Columbia use the National Certification Program as the baseline for qualification/

I hope this letter, submitted by you as suggested above, allows you to uphold this resolution, making your voice heard, while making sure that people understand just how hard we've tried to work positively and cooperatively with the BC government for almost five years. And that just because the BC government has finally decided to act, it can ignore our input. Or worse, somehow pretend that a national industry standard, one that was developed and implemented while the BC government dithered, just doesn't exist.

And I thank you for passing the second resolution. It serves two purposes, really. It highlights what many considered a disrespectful, clumsy effort by the Solicitor General ministry to go around your duly elected CAHPI(BC) Board of Directors, and the efforts and positions we have been advancing over these many years, all for the sake of proving some kind of "consultation" with you, when the Solicitor General ministry knows full well that no consultation with CAHPI(BC) has been allowed to occur.

That said, it also reminds us that no matter the history with Mr. Les, or any of his staff in the ministry, there's always the chance of a new start. Should the Solicitor General ministry act, or be directed to act, to start anew, in proper and open consultations, to regulate or licence the home and property inspection industry in BC, your CAHPI(BC) Board of Directors CAHPI(BC) will advance use of the National Certification Program as the baseline for qualification.

That resolution reads as follows:

CAHPI(BC) Membership authorizes the CAHPI(BC) Board of Directors to act on their behalf with the Government of British Columbia in all matters regarding the regulation or licensing of the B.C. home and property inspection industry.

Again, I apologize for the length of this letter to you. But if you wish to respond to the Susan Walker e-mail, I hope this letter, containing as it does some important background information, the two resolutions from the Quarterly General Meeting, and some very relevant attachments allows you make your voice heard in the clearest way possible.

Sincerely


Bill Sutherland, RHI, Kamloops
President, CAHPI(BC)

On behalf of:

Vice President: Chris Stockdale, RHI, Richmond
Treasurer: Craig Hostland, RHI, Kelowna
Secretary: Owen Dickie, RHI, Lake Country
Director: Don Ruggles, RHI, Victoria
Director: Gary Poirier, RHI, Surrey
Director: Stephen Andrews, RHI, Prince George
Director: Dan Brown, RHI, Chilliwack

To read Southerland's letter to Ms. Walker, click here.
http://www.inspectorsjournal.com/for...ion=goto&id=86