Kingston Meeting September 10th

[rwand1]

Why do you think the CAHPI meeting in Kingston is not officially sanctioned?
Whose show do you think it will be? Either the Cam Allen show, or the non sanctioned CAHPI National Certification show, or the show down with OAHI over his recent removal from the Board of Directors?

[George A. H. Luck]

Thanks Claude for your speedy reply. However I was hoping that you would be able to supply either the surveys themselves or a link to them so that we might undertake our own analysis. That being said let me respond to your comments below;

"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."

I don't think that anyone could view the sources or sponsors of these studies and not see that there is a great possibility that the studies supported the assumptions of those who designed them. You are right. It is time that there was some effort made by those who do not have an axe to grind, or a forgone conclusion to support, to conduct an unbiased study into the actual failure rate of home inspectors in Canada in this century.


Another report with respect to an E&O insurance study - "Investigating Claims Against Home and Property Inspectors" in 2004. The analysis 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.

Again, one must ask - is not it not odd that a survey / study carried out by the insurance industry might, by some twist of fait, come to support the need for insurance? And again, without being able to examine the suits one must ask how many were fishing trips? How many were tossed out of court? How many were awarded against the inspector due to prejudices of the court, the ability to extract money from an insured inspector, the willingness of an insurance company to pay rather than fight etc etc etc?

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

The similar conclusions are not surprising. CMHC has up to two million dollars invested in the system and CAHPI is the recipient.

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?

This same line of thinking could be used against all the studies and surveys used to support the alleged need for the CAHPI / National.

Can you supply the actual surveys or at least a link / source for them?

[rwand1]

Again, one must ask i- s not it not odd that a survey / study carried out by the insurance industry might, by some twist of fait, come to support the need for insurance? And again, without being able to examine the suits one must ask how many were fishing trips? How many were tossed out of court? How many were awarded against the inspector due to prejudices of the court, the ability to extract money from an insured inspector, the willingness of an insurance company to pay rather than fight etc etc etc?

We know the insurers pay out and then put the blame on inspectors shoulders. That justifies their need to insure more inspectors because the more in the pool the lesser is the loss. They don't sell it without a profit margin and you can be sure its a good profit margin. Plus other tax benefits they receive for reserved funds for claims.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by rwand1

We know the insurers pay out and then put the blame on inspectors shoulders.
Wonder what the claims rate is for well esablished technical groups like engineers or engineering techs? Anyone got figures to compare with HI's. Remember, quite a hew HI's are not insured so any claims/litigations/payouts are not included in the insurance #'s!!




That justifies their need to insure more inspectors because the more in the pool the lesser is the loss.
And if the law of averages works, the premium rates should be reduced unless the presently uninsured HI's are worse than the insured HI's.


They don't sell it without a profit margin and you can be sure its a good profit margin. Plus other tax benefits they receive for reserved funds for claims.

Brian

[Claude Lawrenson]

I will provide you with photocopies of those reports - when you explain to me the report, the rationale and facts to back up the 3% number you keep quoting. Seems like a fair deal - I will even pay the postage to deliver it to you. In total its about 200 pages of info.

You will not likely find them readily available - unless you order them direct through CMHC publications - if they still are being published.

Your comment quoted below (and noted in your response above) raises another interesting bit - of stretching the reality of the financial numbers. Once again - where did this number come from?

You noted: CMHC has up to two million dollars invested in the system and CAHPI is the recipient. That's an interesting number - where exactly is the source to back that fact up?

The other "odd" part you assume - is the insurance company did not do the survey. It was completed like the other reports by "independent" consultants. Those numbers quoted came from one insurer for a national insurance program representing only "part" of the home inspection sector. Those insured under that company at that period of time.

[rwand1]

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a
Task Priority Assessment Results
A total of 50 TPA surveys were received from building officials across Canada. The regional breakdown of
surveys received was:
Region
Responses Entered
in Database
British Columbia
21
Saskatchewan
6
Manitoba
13
Ontario
2
Nova Scotia
2
New Brunswick
4
Unknown
2
National Total
50

[George A. H. Luck]

Sorry for the rushed response but I have to go to work. ( three inspections today!)


You noted: CMHC has up to two million dollars invested in the system and CAHPI is the recipient. That's an interesting number - where exactly is the source to back that fact up? WE GOT IT FROM YOU!

The other "odd" part you assume - is the insurance company did not do the survey. It was completed like the other reports by "independent" consultants. "Those numbers quoted came from one insurer for a national insurance program representing only "part" of the home inspection sector. Those insured under that company at that period of time. " AND YOU DON'T FIND THAT JUST A LITTLE SELF SERVING?

[rwand1]

A Strategy to Provide Coordination of the Canadian Home Inspection Profession

http://cmhc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr...h00-131-e.html

[rwand1]

Investigating Claims Against Home and Property Inspectors

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en&shop=Z01EN&areaID=0000000042&p roductID=00000000420000000027

[rwand1]

Another interesting study conducted for BC Home Owner Protection Office
http://www.hpo.bc.ca/WhatsNew/Home_Inspector_REPORT_9-16-05.pdf.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Very interesting Thanks Raymond............ Cookie

[Claude Lawrenson]

Sorry - but perhaps you misunderstood - yes, approximately $2m was spent on the project - but I never indicated that CMHC paid that amount. So I suggest checking your source. However, I will indicate that many paid into the funding of the national initiative - not just CMHC. What about HRSDC? or How about the "building officials? or "FNNBOA, CAHI/CAHPI and others?

On the issue of the 50 task analysis received - how many were sent out and handed out? I know of at least 300 alone at a national conference, not to forget about it being sent out by the consultants to other stakeholders. The consultants and the CHIBO committee cannot be held accountable for lack of interest by inspectors filling out a survey. Yes as Raymond oftens says - we are an apethetic group. To busy to take the time - until its already in progress - and often far too late!

It's like believing or putting a lot of faith that the poll offers the view of the majority of NACHI members in Canada. It indicates at least to me that far more have not voiced their opinion. You cannot force people to vote or take a position - but it certainly is very easy to find fault and criticize. That's OK - but it must be put in proper perspective.

BTW - still waiting for the 3% verification report.

BTW2: Nick and NACHI members in Canada have been officially "formally" invited for equivalency agreement. The forms and a nice form letter was sent diretly to him. I see this as an opportunity for NACHI and the NCA to cooperate and to step forward to the plate for assurance of equality. As they say - the ball is now in NACHI's court.

BTW3: In addition a number of NACHI members will become national certificate holders. Once again - indicating that equality and fairness does exist - despite all the allegations trying to indicate otherwise.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Sorry - but perhaps you misunderstood - yes, approximately $2m was spent on the project - but I never indicated that CMHC paid that amount. So I suggest checking your source. However, I will indicate that many paid into the funding of the national initiative - not just CMHC. What about HRSDC? or How about the "building officials? or "FNNBOA, CAHI/CAHPI and others?

On the issue of the 50 task analysis received - how many were sent out and handed out? I know of at least 300 alone at a national conference, not to forget about it being sent out by the consultants to other stakeholders. The consultants and the CHIBO committee cannot be held accountable for lack of interest by inspectors filling out a survey. Yes as Raymond oftens says - we are an apethetic group. To busy to take the time - until its already in progress - and often far too late!

It's like believing or putting a lot of faith that the poll offers the view of the majority of NACHI members in Canada. It indicates at least to me that far more have not voiced their opinion. You cannot force people to vote or take a position - but it certainly is very easy to find fault and criticize. That's OK - but it must be put in proper perspective.

BTW - still waiting for the 3% verification report.

BTW2: Nick and NACHI members in Canada have been officially "formally" invited for equivalency agreement. The forms and a nice form letter was sent diretly to him. I see this as an opportunity for NACHI and the NCA to cooperate and to step forward to the plate for assurance of equality. As they say - the ball is now in NACHI's court.
Unless I am mistaken this is old news you are recycling again .
I do believe NICK turned it down and I am sure you can see the NACHI pole 68% ? also showed we do not want to support a secret group who give poor answers to questions
BTW3: In addition a number of NACHI members will become national certificate holders. Once again - indicating that equality and fairness does exist - despite all the allegations trying to indicate otherwise.

So again we come down to a unknown number of NACHI members have chosen to see if the NCA is can help them to make more money.
Stll waiting for all the money to be made a with
Remember Whistler http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4935 Bill has a big announcement comming soon http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost.php?p=166560&postcount=103 .A the big announcement.
Strange how we have not had the big answer from Bill .
It was just a short while ago he was telling us all how that OAHI/CAHPI would have their supper insurance plan come to gether .
He just loved posting that on the NACHI members BB.
Strange how when Bill is wrong he never remembers to post that some thing did not Happen .
Well like many of Bills great soon to show you NACHI people how great his information is usually a flop. The Insurance is also a flop.
Claude and Bill continue to flog a dead horse the NCA is a BIG FLOP,
Just like the male Bovine Paddies in the pasture all Bull *****

[rwand1]

Should NACHI submit its requirements for review by another self regulating body?

Nick has voted no.

http://www.nachi.org/forum/poll.php?...lts&pollid=377

aberdahl, areid, bemelander, ccooke, ccurrins, ebaumann, fodette, gluck, gmortensen, gromicko, jbowman, jcote, jpassailaigue, klott, mgratton, mkyriacou, mmasney, mwest, prussell, rcooke, rfrancis, rhorton, rwand1, rwilson1, tcole, vmitchinson

[Claude Lawrenson]

Thanks Ray - Survey result - about half of those surveyed believe its difficult to find a qualified home inspector; almost 3/4 do not believe that consumers are adequately protected - et al.

Bottom line - there is nothing - regardless of association - to prevent unqualified individuals from operating as home inspectors.

At a minimum - mandatory certification of home inspectors would benefit with the full range of interested parties to clarify concerns and identify a means to resolve them.