Do think the National Certification Good or Bad for us?

[rwand1]

There have been what could only be described as very questionable decisions made by OAHI without full knowledge of the members and full knowledge of the BOD with regard to CAHPI/National.

I believe last March (2006) five BOD from OAHI went to Calgary to meet with CAHPI reps from two western provinces. They went and made decisions on behalf of OAHI to cement a deal. Having done this and given the fact the full Board and membership was not even aware of this meeting/decisions makes those decision null and void within OAHI and the fact that CAHPI was the other party; those decisions made by CAHPI would also be invalid. The by-laws were breached yet again by special interests and for ulterior motives. And is so often the case the membership was left completely left out of any information or the ability to instruct their reps! There is also the conflict of interest created by that because two of the CAHPI reps from OAHI also sit on the CAHPI BOD. What is even more appaling is these Directors from Ontario conspired to exclude the full CAHPI BOD. Even the President of CAHPI Mike Guihan and the Vice President.

With this sort of nonsense going on who can be sure of anything being done correctly and openly? No one. Without the members of OAHI having access to minutes that likely were not kept, and the fact that no one has ever seen minutes of the BOD meeting, there is a need for an outside investigation of CAHPI-OAHI, perhaps by the Auditor General because Federal TAXPAYERS money has been spent for what amounts to negligent actions. I sure hope CAHPI and OAHI have Directors and Officers liability because a standard of care, fiduciary and diligence have not been excercised.

Is CMHC and other government agencies aware of what has gone on? I doubt it, and maybe the RCMP should be called in to take a closer look at what and is going on. This clearly is not how things are to be done. I have been a vocal critic of the manner in which business has been conducted and it seems I have not been wrong.

[Gill Strachan]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Bill

I think Nachi is structured differently from Oahi, Oahi is a non profit.

STRUCTURED DIFFERENTLY?!?! Now that's a laugh and a half.

you're darned tootin' it's structured differently... you give the janitor money and he puts it under his mattress. he pretends to provide member benefits (main overhead is only website hosting and traveling dog & pony show costs) and you pretend to be "certified" by him.

You are waaay to funny. Probably woke up feeling professional again this morning. giggle

[rwand1]

Come on you ninny, you talk alot but you never provide any documented evidence.

Who have your f ck over this week?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

This really shows the results of the National Certification and what is happening .

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost....&postcount=285



Roy Cooke

[Claude Lawrenson]

Are we in denial that anyone can call themself a home inspector?

Where should the "bar" be set? What defines competency or better yet a competent home inspector?

Does passing a test really proove anything?

Does performing a 1000 hours or 1000 home inspection really prove anything?
If so, who inspects the inspector?

There is presently no uniform certification and no requirement for home inspectors to take any courses or to have passed any tests. Anyone can say that they are a home inspector. That is why it is important to choose an inspector wisely.

CMHC does not recommend or endorse any individual home inspector or association. CMHC does encourage and support the private home inspection industry to establish national uniform standards of competency.

Competency is defined as ‘the ability to meet complex demands successfully or to carry out an activity or task" "Some even define competency as association with conduct or behaviour."

I see that the biggest hurdle to competency is the fear perceived or be real of being assessed to assure if one can actually acquired the required competencies at a proficient level successfully or to carry out an activity or task’.

[rwand1]

I see that the biggest hurdle to competency is the fear perceived or be real of being assessed to assure if one can actually acquired the required competencies at a proficient level successfully or to carry out an activity or task’.

While I agree with your points I think the matter is not one of fear of being able to prove one is competent, but rather the fear and the concern that the system has not been shown to be fair because of questionable actions and decisions by the administrative bodies which over see the regulations via the by-laws, due process, fair hearings, fair and impartial review. We know full well (well at leat you and me and a few others) this is not the case.

[George A. H. Luck]

Good questions Claude but nobody seems to be willing to demonstrate that there is an actual need for the national or any other form of licensing. The only numbers we have seen so far seem to indicate a "failure rate" so small that it would be the envy of many other professionals. Still other studies indicate that licensing has a deleterious effect on education, years of acquired experience and incomes.

It appears that smoke and mirrors and fear mongering have been able to sway those at the federal levels, but that is not a good enough reason to implement such a huge bureaucracy and spend millions of dollars of public money. Perhaps it is time for a fresh wind to blow through the whole issue.

[rwand1]

Like I asked on the other thread, How many would subscribe to the National if the price were reduced for Certification to say between $350-$400?

[James H. Bushart]

Hhhhmmmmm.....

Let me see.....My choices are to remain free from outside control and run my business as I see fit, for free ..... or

I can pay someone hundreds of dollars to allow them to determine how I should run my business. In the end, I get a "National Certification" that says that I have the same qualifications that I had before I paid them anything....

Boy. This is a tough one.....

[Claude Lawrenson]

James - Than what are your thoughts on CMI?

[Nick Gromicko]

Only a very small percentage of harmed consumers are harmed due to lack of competence. And though most E&O insurance claims are not valid... almost all valid E&O insurance claims are not caused by inspector incompetence but by rather inspector laziness (competent inspectors who could but didn't).

[James H. Bushart]

Claude,

First, I will ask forgiveness for any error I may state in my facts, for I did not even look at the CMI program until Mr. Rowan became associated with it and I have not revisited it since he withdrew into seclusion.

The difference I see in the CMI program is that it is being presented, not as a basic minimum standard in which one should be expected to achieve in order to qualify as a home inspector...but as a marketing tool for home inspectors who have acquired training and experience above and beyond what is required.

Your certification, on the other hand, is being touted as a "must have" in order to be recognized as competent. It serves as a tool for the "haves" to restrict from their market the "have nots".

Just out of curiosity, Claude, did anyone sitting at the table drafting the standards for your "certification" propose a measure that exceeded their own qualifications or did they limit the standard only to those who were less "qualified" than themselves?

In all fairness, this trend is not unique to Canada. In every state that has legislation in effect or proposed, not one single contributor has proposed a qualification to be required that he/she did not already have acquired - as a minimum standard to compete for a home inspection booking.

It is the nature of the beast and is motivated strictly by greed.

[Claude Lawrenson]

First I agree with Nicks comment. It's also known as complacency!

James - matter of fact yes. There are significant differences - such as the CMHC study and even Construction Sector have pointed out between provinces, associations and even within the termed certification standard known as RHI (Registered Home Inspector). Several provinces had significantly higher standards, several had lower. To address that issue the national certification was viewed to help define a "common" standard. Associations are welcomed to meet it.

As a matter of fact even some training providers exceed the 200 hours of required training by as much as double the minimum number. Now add on top 50 hours of onsite mentored inspections, and a miminum of 1 year of practical experience (100) fee-paid inspections.

However anyone claiming to meet it, and actually having a review to assure compliance is a whole different means of assuring compliance.

The other significant issue - no "grandfathering". On other words no free passes or no "buy your way in". It must be documented, verified, and earned. that is where the Test Inspections with Peer Reviews verify that an inspector actually performs to a set standard or better, and also known, understand and complies with the SOP and COE.

I hope this helps shed a little light on the issue. I don't believe that any of these requirements are overly restrictive or reasonbly unattainable by anyone that is serious about wanting to be recognized as a "professional".

Can we at least agree that at the current time that between lawyer, real estate agent, banker/mortgage officer and home inspector - that the H.I. is most often the least qualified as far as requisite education is required?

[Claude Lawrenson]

BTW: its been widely noted many time that it is NOT MANDATORY to become a national certificate holder! Perhaps some may be over zealous with claims to be a "must have". I rather see it as a matter of personal choice - just like the CMI. Certainly there are lots of candidates in the NACHI crowd that can meet the mark for CMI, but perhaps it's simply their choice not to participate.

I thought about it - and personally do not see any benefit to me. That's simply my choice. I respectfully agree that others are entitled to their choice too.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Respecting the issue of "Only a very small percentage of harmed consumers are harmed due to lack of competence." - I reference page`50 of the OHIO study- homeowners survey. Questions 14 and 15 provide some interesting stats.

#14 Did you find any defects the inspector missed. Yes replies 55 No response 81

#15 Did any defects cost more than $500. Yes replies 39 No response 96

Or how about on page 68 - summary. In cases where the data is not statistically different, the following conclusions can be drawn: real estate agents in licensing and non-licensing states - said approximately 15% of home inspection reports they have seen are inadequate. Or that approximately 13% of homeowners later discovered problems with their home despite having a home inspection. More info is listed, but hopefully the information forms a list of areas that could use attention.