Chapter meeting with Government Officials

[Vern Mitchinson]

If you bothered to join you would find out that the first test is an entrance exam.
If you can not pass that you are probably not inspector material.
This is a civilized discussion about licencing and the way the government is doing it.

[Nick Gromicko]

Brian says:

And Nick shares all that's going on with all members here?? Give your head a shake!!!

How could I possibly share ALL that's going on at InterNACHI with ALL members? Do you have any idea how much is "going on" at InterNACHI?

We have new graphics being made, new inspection articles being written, new research being done, new benefits being developed, new corporate deals being cut, new inspection courses being built, new inspection videos being produced, new inspector marketing material being created, lobbying being done, tests being administered, stuff being translated into other languages, chapters holding events, new marketing programs being launched, new legal documents being drafted, inspector booths at local events, new webpages being added, insane IT projects being completed, inspection books being published, members joining from all over the world, phones ringing off the hook, thousands of emails being answered every day, huge bags of mail going in and out every day, pallets and pallets of stuff being shipped every day... and you expect me to "share all that's going on with all members"? How would I even know?! Dude, keep it real... and give your head a shake.

[Kevin Hawes]

The Chapter Meeting in Red Deer was a very interesting meeting indeed.
To me, one of the most 'interesting' parts, was how Mr. Hood and Mr. Flak seemed very rigid about their positions and the legislation at the very beginning of the meeting. However, after the first coffee break, Mr. Hood and Mr. Flak were taking more and more notes and seemed to be understanding some of the larger issues with the regulations that the Inspectors were verbalizing. Even going so far as to verbally tell us to 'email the Minister and Mr. Hood himself ' regarding changes. I can only hope that the bigger issues can be dealt with before the Sept. 1 effective date.
One of the more disappointing parts of the meeting was how none of the insurance people could/would provide a clear definition of a Surety Bond, such as this one taken from an Alberta insurance website: A contract bond – or surety bond – is not actually ‘insurance', but rather a guarantee between a surety (someone who agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of another), a contractor, and a project owner. The agreement binds the contractor to comply with the terms and conditions of a contract. If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor's responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed.
This would have cleared up several/many questions and some confusion, as to why a Surety Bond is required, and the confusion between a Surety Bond and being "bonded".
All-in-all, it was a well organized meeting, with some very good points raised... I am glad I turned down business to attend.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Brian says: How could I possibly share ALL that's going on at InterNACHI with ALL members? Do you have any idea how much is "going on" at InterNACHI?

We have new graphics being made, new inspection articles being written, new research being done, new benefits being developed, new corporate deals being cut, new inspection courses being built, new inspection videos being produced, new inspector marketing material being created, lobbying being done, tests being administered, stuff being translated into other languages, chapters holding events, new marketing programs being launched, new legal documents being drafted, inspector booths at local events, new webpages being added, insane IT projects being completed, inspection books being published, members joining from all over the world, phones ringing off the hook, thousands of emails being answered every day, huge bags of mail going in and out every day, pallets and pallets of stuff being shipped every day... and you expect me to "share all that's going on with all members"? How would I even know?! Dude, keep it real... and give your head a shake.

You seem like a "hands-on" type of guy!! Hell, you have time to send out individual requests for inspections to members......or is that you? Is there smoke and mirrors going on in your name?

[Wand Raymond]

Brian

Your tiresome rants are boring. You are like a broken record, over and over!

Now in your effort to appear all knowing and all seeing why don't you ever comment on the corruptness of the Nat. Cert. wherein many applicants were stiffed for their fees?

Why don't you mention the conflicts, the politics, the turf wars within the Canadian Associations of note?

Why aren't you concerned about how Cahpi and OAHI conspired to do in the National, why OAHI would not release financial info to its members?

Why taxpayers money went into subsidize a fraud?

Nachi activities whatever you think is going on within Nachi pales in comparison to the associations registered as non=profits in Canada.

[Marc-Andre Beauchemin]

I disagree with you Brian,

As far as I am concerned, here in Quebec, NACHI is the best alternative for someone who wants the job well performed.
One question for you though, do you remember your first inspection? Did you tell your client it was your first? What about inspection franchises who send out newbies? I hope they are NACHI trained!
My opinion!
Beauchemin Marc-Andre

[John Mills, CMI]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

Yes, there may be other teaching/training companies and orgs but none
as damaging to the overall well-being of the industry as the "cheap & easy" "certification" offered here!!! Sign in, write/pass a free test (can take it as many times as you wish), pay your fee, show up as a "certified" HI the next morning....is it any simpler???

Here's what diploma mills do to the industry......

Hire a certified home inspector for $95.00 (plus GST)!*

That is what happens when the field gets overcrowded!!!! That was from an Alberta member.

Brian.

I do not know your interest in this matter. However, the InterNachi Alberta Chapter is constantly requiring education improvements for member inspectors and now all Alberta members will require very rigid peer review inspections.

[Vern Mitchinson]

Originally Posted by khawes

..............
If the contractor is unable to successfully perform the contract, the surety assumes the contractor's responsibilities and ensures that the project is completed.
This would have cleared up several/many questions and some confusion, as to why a Surety Bond is required, and the confusion between a Surety Bond and being "bonded".
All-in-all, it was a well organized meeting, with some very good points raised... I am glad I turned down business to attend.

Just talked to an insurance broker this morning and he reminded me that the "surety bond" used to be called a "performance bond". The purpose of this bond is to guarantee that the work would be completed as per the terms of the contract.
In our case Our agreement calls for us to do an inspection and deliver a report within a specified time limit. If we collect the money and do not do the inspection the client would have a claim.
We told them during the advisory committee meetings that it was not required and it is not going to do anything but cost us more money.
Having to buy a $10,000.00 performance bond to cover a $400 to $600 fee does not make any sense. Especially when you consider that we are on site before we get paid the risk of us running off without doing the inspection is pretty low.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Regarding "performance bonds":

A “bond which guarantees against breach of contract. ” 440 P. 2d 600, 605.

Generally used in building contracts to guarantee that a contractor will perform the contract. In the event the contractor defaults or otherwise breaches the contract, the owner of the building project may use the proceeds of the bond to complete the project. 423 N.E. 2d 390, 393. Depending upon its terms, the proceeds of a performance bond may also be used to pay subcontractors who furnish labor and materials. 187 A. 2d 799, 802. See also bond [performance bond].

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/perform...#ixzz1PxqzlrU2

Although from my years of project management and spec writing experience - this could also be interpreted to apply for "breach of contract" through a claim of negligence.

"Liability for negligence is a civil, not a criminal, matter. It is for the victim to prove that the defendant owed them a "duty of care", that that duty was breached, and that they have sustained either foreseeable harm or economic loss as a consequence of the negligence alleged.

If successful, the victim will be awarded damages assessed on the basis of the harm caused or loss sustained."

So unless this is clearly articulated, without any questionable doubt, there can be a valid reason for the posting of "performance bonds" or concerns about requiring. It's just another form of protecting consumers.

[Nick Gromicko]

Vern correctly notes:

Having to buy a $10,000.00 performance bond to cover a $400 to $600 fee does not make any sense. Especially when you consider that we are on site before we get paid the risk of us running off without doing the inspection is pretty low.

[Kevin Hawes]

Please don't misunderstand me... I too believe that a $10K Surety Bond is overkill. I was merely pointing out that this was not very well explained/exampled by the insurance people during the meeting.

... While I am thinking about it (and to change the subject somewhat)... If this is all part of the 'Fair Trading Act', what legal recourse does a Home Inspector have if a Client cancels the inspection last minute (less than 48 hours notice)? I know some Inspection firms take the Clients credit card info up front at the time of booking, some Inspection firms charge a cancellation fee. Collecting is a whole other issue.

[John Mills, CMI]

According to Kim Smith, $10,000.00 is the smallest surety bond issued.

If sufficient inspectors contact Scott Hood that the bond is not needed as no prepayment of fees happen. He has the authority reduce the bond amount to $0.00. If it becomes evident that the bond is required he can increase the value back to $10,000.00.
The CAPHI members reading this can also contact Scott Hood on the issue.

[Nick Gromicko]

You're positive it is a surety bond and not a fidelity bond required? I don't understand how a surety bond makes any sense. Inspectors don't get paid until after we do the inspection, so why would they need a surety bond? A fidelity bond makes more sense.