More on Home Inspector Licensing

[George A. H. Luck]

You are right Jerry. The OAHI is in melt down mode apparently because it cannot even keep it's books straight. Add to that the abuse of it's membership and a propensity to operate behind closed doors and outside of it's own constitution and the OAHI has clearly demonstrated that it is incapable of responsibly governing anything.

It is even more interesting that Bill Mullen who has been on these very pages attacking the OAHI for many of the above reasons, is quoted in the article as being full of praise. It seems odd that on the one hand he is working against the organization and on the other is praising it. I guess power and the opportunity to exercise it against those you don't like is a huge aphrodisiac.

James is right. Licensing is just a method for one group to control another. See the above example for proof.

[Claude Lawrenson]

George, I believe that you have taken Bill's support and misinterpreted that quote out of context.

From the article - "Bill Mullen is past president of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors. He told me that he is "quite pleased" with the B.C. move, and that his group is in favour of mandatory licensing as long as it establishes a high enough standard."

I see no specific reference to him supporting OAHI's position. His reference was not praise for OAHI, but a comment indicating the need for licensing/regulation when and where established, establishing a high enough standard.

[George A. H. Luck]

I received this note from Bill Mullen tonight. Apparently I need to practice my reading skills! My apologies to Bill.
George



"Hi George:

I can't post to the NACHI forum any longer, but I thought I would ask you to correct a statement you made about me this morning.

In the Toronto Star article, I have stated my pleasure about the BC licensing and the fact they insisted on a high standard...............that's all.

You posted the following:

"It is even more interesting that Bill Mullen who has been on these very pages attacking the OAHI for many of the above reasons, is quoted in the article as being full of praise. It seems odd that on the one hand he is working against the organization and on the other is praising it. I guess power and the opportunity to exercise it against those you don't like is a huge aphrodisiac."

This is not correct, and if you read the article closely, I did not mention or refer to OAHI in any way, and I most certainly did not praise them. The reporter goes on to talk about them, but I said nothing.

My feelings about those running OAHI are still very strongly against their policies, so I hate to have people think I have gone to their side.

No harm done, George, if you fix this. We all misread stuff every once in a while.

Thanks
Bill M."

[Claude Lawrenson]

Thanks George - I have fallen into the same condition from time to time!

[Marcel Gratton]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

From the article - "Bill Mullen is past president of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors. He told me that he is "quite pleased" with the B.C. move, and that his group is in favour of mandatory licensing as long as it establishes a high enough standard."

I see no specific reference to him supporting OAHI's position. His reference was not praise for OAHI, but a comment indicating the need for licensing/regulation when and where established, establishing a high enough standard.

Claude,

OAHI is part of CAHPI to which Bill Mullen was past president. His lack of reference supporting OAHI's position and his praise for licensing/regulation when and where established is enough said...

[Claude Lawrenson]

Think what you want Marcel, but I suggest that is only second guessing.

Yes OAHI is part of CAHPI National, and Bill was past president of CAHPI National, not OAHI. That still does not equate to Bill supporting OAHI. OAHI speaks for OAHI and not CAHPI National.

The position stated(quoted) by Bill was reported. Simply, I am not trying to read between the lines or make something out of what Bill said, or what OAHI statements represent.

What appears to me to be the bigger issue in this article is should licensing be deemed as threat to Ontario home inspectors based on what the article suggests? Or is it perhaps just a wake up call for all home inspectors and/or associations in the province?

[jkogel]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.
Established iNACHI inspectors in BC can become NCH without too much trouble, but a new inspector with less than 150 paid inspections under his belt is SOL.

John Kogel
www.allsafehome.ca

[Dale Duffy]

Jim said:

Show me a state with building codes and that has laws governing the licensing of builders and contractors...

Click the link Jim.....AZ has VERY strict Building Enforcement to the minimum standards of course, but some Builders are not even qualified to Build to even the basic minimum standards.

For the last 4 months I was inspecting a Concrete Tile re-roof, the AZ Registrar of Contractors where summoned by me to inspect the roof because the roofing company was arguing with me, and the owner would not pay him his $24,000.00, after the AZ Registrar of Contractors did a FREE inspection (which they always do when called), the builder was required to remove every stitch of material he installed on a 5000 sq ft house, he was there for another 2 months, re-roofing the re-roofing--)

AZ Construction Laws, although the minimum standard, make the builders stick to those standards....or keep doing it until they get it right.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Originally Posted by jkogel

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.
Established iNACHI inspectors in BC can become NCH without too much trouble, but a new inspector with less than 150 paid inspections under his belt is SOL.

John Kogel
www.allsafehome.ca

John I do not disagree, but it depends on the inspectors background assessment supplied on the application, reviewed by the National Certification Council.

Established inspectors that have 150 fee paid inspections and a verifiable background would be well positioned to become a National Certificate Holder. The 150 inspections is not the only criteria indicating knowledge, skill level and performance.

Assuming the inspector met the minimum acceptance level, the inspector Candidate would still be required to pass their TIPR - Test Inspection with Peer Review.

[George A. H. Luck]

Claude, this is the issue I have been trying to . . . ah . . . discuss ... on another message board. Can an experienced inspector who has gained the necessary knowledge through years of work experience, product manufacturer training and employer training, go directly to the test writing and peer revue level without being forced to take the " How to tie your shoes before entering your work vehicle" courses?

It seems to me and to many others, that experienced inspectors will be in open revolt if they are forced to take a load of basic courses that 'teach' them what they already know. Surly, no system can treat experienced and successful inspectors as 'new-bees'? Some opportunity for an experienced inspector to demonstrate his acquired knowledge through ( for lack of a better term) 'nontraditional sources' must be provided? I am not talking about escaping the continuing education component of course as any education after establishment of basic qualifications is a good thing.

[Terry Neyedli]

Originally Posted by gluck

Claude, this is the issue I have been trying to . . . ah . . . discuss ... on another message board. Can an experienced inspector who has gained the necessary knowledge through years of work experience, product manufacturer training and employer training, go directly to the test writing and peer revue level without being forced to take the " How to tie your shoes before entering your work vehicle" courses?

It seems to me and to many others, that experienced inspectors will be in open revolt if they are forced to take a load of basic courses that 'teach' them what they already know. Surly, no system can treat experienced and successful inspectors as 'new-bees'? Some opportunity for an experienced inspector to demonstrate his acquired knowledge through ( for lack of a better term) 'nontraditional sources' must be provided? I am not talking about escaping the continuing education component of course as any education after establishment of basic qualifications is a good thing.

George:
Your second paragraph says it all for those of us who have "on the job" training.
Two, 5 or even 10 years inspecting as a true independent inspector IMHO should carry some credible weight.
T.Neyedli
www.alphahomeinspections.ca

[James H. Bushart]

From what I have been reading, the proponents of your "credential" (whether it be licensing or national certification) want it to represent a basic minimum standard. This credential is not there to recognize skill and expertise...it is there to denote the basic entry level requirement. People without this "credential", in otherwords, are unfit to inspect a home.

With that being the case, it is logical for them to insist that every required step be taken.

What is so illogical to me is why a man would want to take all of his education and experience acquired over his lifetime, and represent it to be "the minimum acceptable standard" or as an "entry level" skill. Why would he not want to have it reflect so much more than that...and use it to entitle himself to higher fees for bigger jobs? This is what looks so nonsensical about this concept, to me.

[W Paul Blakey]

Originally Posted by gluck

Claude, this is the issue I have been trying to . . . ah . . . discuss ... on another message board. Can an experienced inspector who has gained the necessary knowledge through years of work experience, product manufacturer training and employer training, go directly to the test writing and peer revue level without being forced to take the " How to tie your shoes before entering your work vehicle" courses?

It seems to me and to many others, that experienced inspectors will be in open revolt if they are forced to take a load of basic courses that 'teach' them what they already know. Surly, no system can treat experienced and successful inspectors as 'new-bees'? Some opportunity for an experienced inspector to demonstrate his acquired knowledge through ( for lack of a better term) 'nontraditional sources' must be provided? I am not talking about escaping the continuing education component of course as any education after establishment of basic qualifications is a good thing.

As a member of the National Certification Committee I can say that there is a great deal of latitude given towards experience. For one thing, if you can prove that you have done over 500 inspections, this gives you the maximum number of points in that area of the assessment. Other experience is also graded accordingly, though more points are gained if you have an accredited training. An inspector with years under his belt should be able to get to the TIPR quite easily.

This, in my opinion is what sets National Certification apart from any of the organizations which depend more on standardized training (Carson Dunlop etc). The TIPR puts you in a real situation. You pass or fail according to what is there, not theory -- practical knowledge is what will get you through. No experienced inspector should be afraid of putting themselves through the Test Inspection Peer Review.

[Allen Cavdek]

Originally Posted by wblakey

As a member of the National Certification Committee I can say that there is a great deal of latitude given towards experience. For one thing, if you can prove that you have done over 500 inspections, this gives you the maximum number of points in that area of the assessment. Other experience is also graded accordingly, though more points are gained if you have an accredited training. An inspector with years under his belt should be able to get to the TIPR quite easily.

This, in my opinion is what sets National Certification apart from any of the organizations which depend more on standardized training (Carson Dunlop etc). The TIPR puts you in a real situation. You pass or fail according to what is there, not theory -- practical knowledge is what will get you through. No experienced inspector should be afraid of putting themselves through the Test Inspection Peer Review.

Agreed!!!
TIPR is good,,if you have the knowledge/experience you should not be afraid to do a peer review, then just theory

[Douglas Cossar]

Ok the following has been my concern all along when it comes to the National and I have never received a direct answer before. How about now?

I have been inspecting since Feb 05, have done almost 800 fee paid inspections, more that 600 hours of education, but not from an "acredited" education provider.

I have no fear of a TIPR and no boubt that I could ace the TIPR inspection.

I have a difficult time investing $1000.00 to have someone decide if my education meets some unknown criteria, only to be told it doesn't and never get the chance to do the TIPR and loose the $1K

Could someone here shed some light on this for me.

BTW I have been getting some presure to enter the process but until I get an answer its no go for me.

Paul: How does the National obtain proof of the number of inspections completed

Cheers