Kingston Meeting September 10th

[rwand1]

Next allegations are dime a dozen - when and if the allegations that are continually aired about the breaches of conduct by the named associations and parties are dealt with in a fair and open manner - rather than through a "kagaroo court" - these matters will be a matter of record. Than and only than will the real facts prevail - be it good, or be it bad. Until that judgement day its just a huge waste of time and web space. I must at least give credit that it certainly has entertained many and helped boost the hits on the NACHI website.

Kangaroo Court? That is exactly what OAHI did with me and is doing to me by denying what they are obligated to provide which is due process! I can more than prove what I have alleged. On the other hand a self regulating body has and is in breach of its obligations. It also has a great deal of explaining to do about the irregularites of the financial affairs.

Claude you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Mr. Lloyds hijacking of the bylaws with the assistance of the directors speaks volumes about corruption and ignorance. But we are all to familiar with the ignorance of the leadership which you seem to consistently to support.

Kangaroo court indeed!

[rwand1]

Marcel

Better still where is the President of this so called great organization? They keep sending rookies to sell a program that neither of these two individuals has a seat on!

[rwand1]

As NCA Chair - I do not represent CAHPI - NATIONAL or OAHI/CAHPI-Ontario.

Pray tell who appointed you to your position? You weren't elected.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Thanks Raymond that is true - and I do not deny it! How's that for a straight answer?

An election will take place within months. Didn't NACHI and a lot of other association bodies start in a similar fashion? It seems it's the chicken or the egg phenomenon!

[rwand1]

Claude,

This has been nothing but a bunch of buddies electing and appointing each other. Look no further than the bunch of appointees by the BOD of OAHI to CAHPI. Those positions should have been filled by open elections. You have to look no further than the big cheese Mr. Lloyd from Ontario now negligently operating as Secretary of CAHPI, on the NCA body, Cert. Holder and President of OAHI.

Screw the elections, its nothing but a self regulating body made up of voluntary membership run by hoodlums.

[rwand1]

Judging by the lack of "read" on the OAHI Cafe about the Kingston meeting there have only been 26 people who have read the post about the meeting.

Compare that number of "read" (views) where Mr. Lloyd lambastes Nachi and me under the title Lawsuit which has had 412 reads!

Thats a very good indication of the interest the National garners within CAHPI-OAHI. Perhaps CAHPI-National should be asking CMHC for additional funding so they can pay CAHPI-OAHI members to attend the Sept. 29th meeting.

[Marcel Gratton]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Marcel

Better still where is the President of this so called great organization? They keep sending rookies to sell a program that neither of these two individuals has a seat on!

Ray and all,

I have no doubts that lots of efforts and work went into the NC program but is it really necessary?

Much has been argued on its merit already.

My personal view is that major marketing changes are needed for general acceptance.

[rwand1]

Marcel

This program does not appear to be drawing inspectors together as a united profession. The industry is already splintered and will remain splintered because people have had the opportunity to look at the facts vs fiction. The other factor diluting the program is the erroneous statements made on bulletin boards, news articles.

There appears to be no one to accept or deliver the goods in a consistant honest manner. The leader is no where to be found to deliver the message with goodwill and honesty, but rather so called spokes people have been given free rein to do and say as they wish.

There is no grandfathering, but grandfathering is acceptable at management level via appointments.

Unfortunately this whole program is going to require more than major marketing efforts before its accepted. But then we get back into jurisdictional issues, which are purely provincial matters. I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone in OAHI would run out and get certification given that OAHI has higher entry requirements and is quasi legislated which CAHPI cannot touch. I think in the weeks and days you will see that some in OAHI who are peeved at the way things are run or the manner in which they have been treated or the way in which information is given have jumped ship and put their faith in CAHPI even though right now CAHPI-National does not seem to be any better at delivery of the goods and facts, and that is the result of the leaders who have continually bragged and supported themselves.

No one has derailed the National more than the leaders. People like Roy, me, and others have just had the wisdom and fortitude to ask the hard questions backed up by facts, and have made sure the truth is factored in.

Cheers.

[George A. H. Luck]

"I will answer questions if asked in a fair and reasonable manner"

And I ask again in a "fair and reasonable manner" - Will you please post the surveys upon which the national based it's reason for being and which indicate that there is a severe problem ( larger than the generally accepted 3% failure rate) with home inspections / inspectors in Canada.

Thanks Claude.

[Claude Lawrenson]

There are several surveys and reports - "Inspecting the Future" completed in 2002 - prepared in cooperation with CAHPI, in an earlier version was completed in 1997 - "A Strategy to Provide Coordination of the Canadian Home Inspection Profession". These reports and the planning sessions conducted by CHIBO outlined the key milestones needed to be met by the home inspection sector in Canada.

Another report with respect to an E&O insurance study - "Investigating Claims Against Home and Property Inspectors" in 2004. The analyses of the claims data indicates and supports CAHPI data indicating 321 inspectors alone involved in claims in 2003. Even assuming as wild guestimate that 2000 inspectors conducted business in that year - that constitutes - a significant percentage of inspectors being sued. Not to forget this was reported by the insurance company based on insured members - not non aligned or other independents.

Two of these reports are CMHC sources - while the other is a CAHPI report. All indicating a similar issue.

Certainly I would like to conduct a poll that is more up to date - but like many of the limitations in any report - will everyone participate, and will they report openly and honestly the facts?

Which brings me to return a question - please indicate to me where you get your 3% figure. As I stated before the OHIO report clearly states on page 68 indicates 15% of home inspection reports seen by real estate agents are inadequate. Homeowners indicate 13% later discovered problems - even after having the home inspection. On the education and knowledge component 8 and 8.5 on a scale of 1 to 10 for overall client satisfaction. That equates to 80 to 85%. I am still looking for that 3% number.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

It would be so nice to have some facts Percentages do not tell much of a story.
Claims can be much different to the eventual out come .
Example 100% of the CAHPI directors that post on the NACHI site claim that Roy and Ray are presenting false information .
Well 100 % of these directors is two Claude and Bill.
now we look again and it looks like
Roy and Ray are liars.
Now we look again and these are Claims by Claude and Bill.
Now we look again and we see no figures to back up information from Claude's Previous post.
"The analyses of the claims data indicates and supports CAHPI data indicating 321 inspectors alone involved in claims in 2003. "
I wonder who did the analysis
AS I and others have asked for is full information and as per usual ,
We are still waiting .
Information with held is just a delayed Lie.

.......... Cookie
..

[Claude Lawrenson]

Sorry if you feel challenged by my post - but as I respectfully stated - I feel it would be good to conduct a poll. Polls are synonomous with only providing us part of the information - or only part of the picture. Now studies on the other hand are usually conducted by professionals in a scientific manner.

My point being that although some may feel 3% is there number to support their cause - there are other numbers in studies that indicate that otherwise.
I appreciate there may be differences.

Perhaps to clarify your example - do I claim you always post "erroneous" information; or is it your belief that I said you "always" post "false" information. Therein lies a huge difference. No disrepect intended....

Now back to the figures are in the studies - why keep trying to pretend that 3% = 15%? Does 8.5 out of 10 not equal 85% - hence in the OHIO study 15% at issue. Now what does 321 claims out of 1500 home inspectors represent? (21.4%) Perhaps the argument may be now take those 1500 inspectors times 100 inspections and we can claim less than 1%. But the larger issue is still the number of claims against "inspectors" whether they did 1 or 300.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Sorry if you feel challenged by my post - but as I respectfully stated - I feel it would be good to conduct a poll. Polls are synonomous with only providing us part of the information - or only part of the picture. Now studies on the other hand are usually conducted by professionals in a scientific manner.

My point being that although some may feel 3% is there number to support their cause - there are other numbers in studies that indicate that otherwise.
I appreciate there may be differences.

Perhaps to clarify your example - do I claim you always post "erroneous" information; or is it your belief that I said you "always" post "false" information. Therein lies a huge difference. No disrepect intended....

Now back to the figures are in the studies - why keep trying to pretend that 3% = 15%? Does 8.5 out of 10 not equal 85% - hence in the OHIO study 15% at issue. Now what does 321 claims out of 1500 home inspectors represent? (21.4%)

Claude you have been invited to post a pole on the only open BB that comunication is available to all. NACHI
You should do it to make sure it has the wording you would be satisfied with .

... Cookie

[Claude Lawrenson]

Actually thanks Roy but no - I thinking of a much bigger study. One that invites ALL inspectors. I have resources through the college to provide such a study. Not one that politically motivated - but one that is out to seek answers - similar to the OHIO home inspection study. Although talking of politics - what was the purpose of the OHIO study?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Actually thanks Roy but no - I thinking of a much bigger study. One that invites ALL inspectors. I have resources through the college to provide such a study. Not one that politically motivated - but one that is out to seek answers - similar to the OHIO home inspection study. Although talking of politics - what was the purpose of the OHIO study?

Great Idea but I feel you are just a little late like about three years or more.
It seems to me that the secret society has made many decisions and they are going zip .
This is so close to what happened with whistler it is almost humorous.

It is unfortunate that you and others can not see you are flogging a dead horse .
NACHI comes out with so many great ideas constantly and does so much for the Home Inspection industry ,While the rest all keep trying to undermine NACHI.
No one in the Canadian Association seems to want to communicate with NACHI.
They all want to use the NACHI resources but co-operation is not happening.

...... Cookie