FINALLY ANSWERS . . . . . sort of

[George A. H. Luck]

Finally we have some 'answers' to the "BIG THREE" . . . . er . . . . sort of. One of the founding fathers of the NCP has provided the following 'answers' to the questions posed.

HOW MANY HOME INSPECTORS ARE THERE IN CANADA?
"At last estimate, it was between 4,000 and 6,000."

HOW MANY INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED IN CANADA / YEAR?
"At an average of 100 to 150 per inspector, that would be 400,000 to 900,000, but that immediately looks like way too many."

HOW MANY OF THESE INSPECTIONS LEAD TO MINOR / MAJOR CLIENT COMPLAINTS?
At an average of one major complaint or law suit per 1,000 inspections, there would be 400 to 900 serious complaints per year against home inspectors.”( I won't point out that this is an admitted .01% failure rate)

"estimate", "At an average", "that would", "there would".
So there you have it. The entire NCP is based on unsubstantiated claims, guesses, estimates and imagination. We, Canadian Home Inspectors asked for facts and we got opinion. Shockingly, the entire programme is a sham and has had a multi-million dollar life span of over nine years.

Small wonder that it collapsed.
Small wonder that a number of applicants are out a lot of money.
Small wonder that less than 10% of Canadian Home Inspectors have bought into this shameless lie.

And these people have labeled us all as "cowboys", "incompetents", "unqualified", "dangerous", "a threat", and more. Now it is clear that unless you jump through their hoops, attain their qualifications, perform their requirements you are worthless or worse.

There is a better way. The ALLIANCE of CANADIAN HOME INSPECTORS values all inspectors and offers them a way to apply for membership and make a commitment to improve themselves. Like plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, teachers and others, the ACHI has a 'grandfathering programme' that allows all inspectors to apply for membership and make a commitment to betterment, an SOP and to improving the industry.

The ACHI has been condemned for being "just like Nick" and appealing to the lowest common denominator. The ACHI is appealing to every denominator of Canadian Home Inspectors. And if comparing us to Nick is supposed to be insulting ( and in the closed private clubs we have up here parading as Home Inspection associations it does) we would like to say "thank you!". We could, on the other hand, be compared to the self appointed 'industry leaders' who got us to the sorry state that the industry finds itself in today.

Your future in the industry awaits.
JOIN US AT;
http://www.theachi.org

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by gluck

Finally we have some 'answers' to the "BIG THREE" . . . . er . . . . sort of. One of the founding fathers of the NCP has provided the following 'answers' to the questions posed.

HOW MANY HOME INSPECTORS ARE THERE IN CANADA?
"At last estimate, it was between 4,000 and 6,000."

HOW MANY INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED IN CANADA / YEAR?
"At an average of 100 to 150 per inspector, that would be 400,000 to 900,000, but that immediately looks like way too many."

HOW MANY OF THESE INSPECTIONS LEAD TO MINOR / MAJOR CLIENT COMPLAINTS?
At an average of one major complaint or law suit per 1,000 inspections, there would be 400 to 900 serious complaints per year against home inspectors.”( I won't point out that this is an admitted .01% failure rate)

"estimate", "At an average", "that would", "there would".
So there you have it. The entire NCP is based on unsubstantiated claims, guesses, estimates and imagination. We, Canadian Home Inspectors asked for facts and we got opinion. Shockingly, the entire programme is a sham and has had a multi-million dollar life span of over nine years.

Small wonder that it collapsed.
Small wonder that a number of applicants are out a lot of money.
Small wonder that less than 10% of Canadian Home Inspectors have bought into this shameless lie.

And these people have labeled us all as "cowboys", "incompetents", "unqualified", "dangerous", "a threat", and more. Now it is clear that unless you jump through their hoops, attain their qualifications, perform their requirements you are worthless or worse.

There is a better way. The ALLIANCE of CANADIAN HOME INSPECTORS values all inspectors and offers them a way to apply for membership and make a commitment to improve themselves. Like plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, teachers and others, the ACHI has a 'grandfathering programme' that allows all inspectors to apply for membership and make a commitment to betterment, an SOP and to improving the industry.

The ACHI has been condemned for being "just like Nick" and appealing to the lowest common denominator. The ACHI is appealing to every denominator of Canadian Home Inspectors. And if comparing us to Nick is supposed to be insulting ( and in the closed private clubs we have up here parading as Home Inspection associations it does) we would like to say "thank you!". We could, on the other hand, be compared to the self appointed 'industry leaders' who got us to the sorry state that the industry finds itself in today.

Your future in the industry awaits.
JOIN US AT;
http://www.theachi.org

George:

You obviously always have a lot to say! You're trying to start the association to unite and save the Canadian.......eerrrr.....Ontario HI industry...........

Why can't you answer your own questions?

Let me get this right! You headed out into the void without the numbers you ask for and no polling or market studies.......... to create what....... the 7th or 8th HI org vying for membership.......your ship already sailed!!

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

George:

You obviously always have a lot to say! You're trying to start the association to unite and save the Canadian.......eerrrr.....Ontario HI industry...........

Why can't you answer your own questions?

Let me get this right! You headed out into the void without the numbers you ask for and no polling or market studies.......... to create what....... the 7th or 8th HI org vying for membership.......your ship already sailed!!

I wonder why you find this so important you come into the Canadian section and try to trash our system then you go to the NACHI section and try to trash NACHI ,CMI and the members .
Brian can you tell me why you are so destructive of our industry ,Does any love you in the inspection industry .

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

George /NACHI
You are important to google .

FINALLY ANSWERS . . . . . sort of - InterNACHI Message Board
By gluck
At an average of one major complaint or law suit per 1000 inspections, there would be 400 to 900 serious complaints per year against home inspectors.”( I won 't point out that this is an admitted .01% failure rate ) ...
InterNACHI Message Board - http://www.nachi.org/forum/

[Claude Lawrenson]

Mikey says:
http://makeitright.ca/Information/ma...es.php?id=1193

MIKE HOLMES INSPECTIONS is the direct result of the number of personal emails and letters Mike has received from homeowners dissatisfied with the quality of their home inspections. Thousands of homeowners have purchased flawed homes based on incomplete, inaccurate or incompetent inspections—and these purchases have cost them money and heartache.

[George A. H. Luck]

Claude, you were an instructor at a community college. I don't need to tell you about the importance of accuracy or the danger of accepting subjective data.

That is all we have asked for but it is now clear that you don't have it.

[George A. H. Luck]

Brian. Now just stop and think for a second.
Why would I have asked the "BIG THREE" in the first place if I already had the answers? Really stop and think about this.

I do not have the answers and wish I did. But I have not condemned an industry and attacked the integrity of every Canadian Inspector in it. That would by your friends Brian.

[Claude Lawrenson]

We cannot define a fact as something that is either true or false, because that is the same case as an opinion. I believe there's a need to be more open-minded to both sides of any argument. The people, that really do care simply need choose to believe what facts they think are true and dismiss what facts they believe to be false based on the argument that they believe.

Ultimately, all data is subjective, but if you feel you are right - so be it. I have never stated that you are wrong - have I? We seem to disagree, even if you claim it is based on different beliefs. So how factual is that?

It seems in your view there's no big issue regarding concerns with negligent or perhaps some incompetent inspectors. That's OK. Perhaps those news reports on those home inspection nightmares really don't count, unless you are consumer that got the short end of the deal. What will be the tipping point, such as what happened in BC? Whose next?

Refuting a claim is showing it to be false. Typically this is done by producing reasons that make it clear that it's false. Until you produce reasons, we can both continue to deny or reject the claim, but you still won't have refuted it. You have only offered your opinion, and not facts.

So I kindly ask, provide information and "data" to claim it's not true?

You seem to be making your own guesstimates, rather than offering any "real" facts. But even more so, I will even take it one step further, please offer your source of professional expertise of the paper that proves your point. Even newpaper articles about home inspectors that correct their incompetence would be acceptable.

This is not a piss ing match. So I simply disagree from my sources, that's everything is just fine with the status quo. I do not have an issue if you want to disgaree, based on your beliefs, or lack of facts.

Thank you.

[George A. H. Luck]

That is one of the larger smoke screens we have seen lately.
But let me open the window and let the smoke out . .

"It seems in your view there's no big issue regarding concerns with negligent or perhaps some incompetent inspectors." That is your interpretation of convenience. I have never said that. I have only asked for proof of your claim that there is a huge problem with inspector competence. You can wiggle and squirm and debate the meaning of words but the fact is that you haven't answered the questions and cannot.

"Refuting a claim is showing it to be false. Typically this is done by producing reasons that make it clear that it's false." I have made no claim, but Claude, you have. All we have asked is that you prove your claim that we are 'all' incompetent and that there is a huge problem with Canadian Inspectors. You have defamed us all with your unsubstantiated accusations. It is quite reasonable for us to ask you for proof. Be positive Claude. Give us the facts.

"You seem to be making your own guesstimates, rather than offering any "real" facts. But even more so, I will even take it one step further, please offer your source of professional expertise of the paper that proves your point. Even newpaper articles about home inspectors that correct their incompetence would be acceptable."
What on earth are you talking about? I have made no claims. I am asking a series of questions on behalf of 5000 inspectors. You are trying to evade the questions again Claude. You have made the claims. All we want is the proof. You don't have it.

"So I simply disagree from my sources, that's everything is just fine with the status quo."

Well that is a step of progress. At least you admit to having sources to back up your damaging claims. I have never stated that I approve of the 'status quo'. I have only asked you to provide facts, statistics, surveys, polls anything at all that will show us that there is as severe a problem as you seem to think; proof that you haven't launched the entire national programme based on opinions, beliefs, rumours, or Ouija readings. You have spent millions of dollars on the project and years of effort and have managed to coerce less than 10% of Canadian Inspectors into the fold. All that time you have accused us of dangerous incompetence. We have merely asked for proof of those claims. We, despite your avoidance, are still waiting.


But really Claude, we don't need to enter into a large and protracted discussion of the philosophy of facts.

It is a pretty simple concept Claude.

Simple questions were asked that required simple mathematical answers such as " There are 5789 Inspectors in Canada, who performed 1,230,000 inspections that produced 35 major and 400 minor complaints." You see, mathematics is a science and leaves little room for interpretation.

We asked for facts and it is obvious that you don't have them. if you do then please answer the questions;

HOW MANY INSPECTORS ARE THERE IN CANADA?
HOW MANY INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED IN ONE YEAR?
HOW MANY OF THESE INSPECTIONS LEAD TO MINOR / MAJOR CLIENT COMPLAINTS?

[Claude Lawrenson]

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f73/distu...thering-55992/

Respectfully - nor do you!

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f73/distu...thering-55992/

Respectfully - nor do you!

That is quite the thread......do we see parallels that may occur here?

It's getting a bit hellish......INACHI members are beginning to quote me!!

[Claude Lawrenson]

I simply posted - what was information already available on the forum.
I am not the messenger....it's an open free discussion, offered by "members" - to members, as well as the public. You seem to hate when someone brings another POV to the discussion, that opposes yours.

The NCA set a recognized standard in Canada. It's unfortunate some inspectors have failed to meet it!

It's certainly better than assuming grandfathering works for everyone, or that guarantees anything either!

[George A. H. Luck]

"Recognized" Was that before or after the programme collapsed?

Grandfathering seemed to work well for plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics and teachers and it will work well for our industry too. Unfortunately those who reject it also reject 90% of Canadian Home Inspectors. But that too will change.

But in the mean time have you found any actual answers to the "BIG THREE"?

HOW MANY INSPECTORS ARE THERE IN CANADA?
HOW MANY INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED IN ONE YEAR?
HOW MANY OF THOSE INSPECTIONS LEAD TO MINOR / MAJOR CLIENT COMPLAINT?

I'm just asking.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by gluck

"Recognized" Was that before or after the programme collapsed?

Grandfathering seemed to work well for plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics and teachers and it will work well for our industry too. Unfortunately those who reject it also reject 90% of Canadian Home Inspectors. But that too will change.

But in the mean time have you found any actual answers to the "BIG THREE"?

HOW MANY INSPECTORS ARE THERE IN CANADA?
HOW MANY INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED IN ONE YEAR?
HOW MANY OF THOSE INSPECTIONS LEAD TO MINOR / MAJOR CLIENT COMPLAINT?

I'm just asking.

You are obviously dis-regarding data on the CANNACHI forum such as this from the HI insurance industry in 1996-7.

191 inspectors of 1 group are insured and 100 (52%) are involved in claims paid worth $ 889,470.79 191

Now this is a bad year .............but.......... it needs no explanation!!

[Claude Lawrenson]

And BTW - some of those were multiple claims by the same inspector!

Now who was abusing the insurer?

It also shows a person can sue for failing to enter into a contract.

Like dah!

Provide the data on that.....