More on Home Inspector Licensing

[hlowe]

Originally Posted by dcook1

Jerry,
OAHI is not a private organization. InterNACHI is. OAHI is a non-profit organization. And you are correct in saying they have some serious problems taking care of themselves. However I am hoping it is starting to make some changes. There are some great members and committees in place that are interested in the members and their benefits , not just in personal interests now. In light of InterNACHI not being recognized by BC as a viable organization because of education it leaves 1 of 2 choices. Either InterNACHI makes sure their education system will qualify you and I to obtain a license, or we have to be part of an association that does.

Personally I believe InterNACHI has some fantastic education in place that puts the onus on the inspector to educate himself. This means InterNACHI has to ensure that any legislator has reason to allow its education system or adjust it's education system to get this recognition. That is the only way the members can benefit in the long run.

OAHI has other education that is great and is currently recognized by legislators. However they are not leaving it there, they are adding education and trying to determine what education will best benefit the industry.

In the end will licensing eliminate the "Cowboy" as Bob states? Just because the inspector is not a member of OAHI does not make him a "cowboy" any more than by being a member of OAHI member does not make you a "cowboy". There always will be the good, the bad and the ugly. In every industry.

It does come down to what we are willing to put into it. Some have worked hard at trying to help OAHI (Claude for one) for years and have been kicked in the teeth many times. But I am going to be like him and put in as much as I can, because I believe this industry is going places.

Keep those positive thoughts sir.

Hey David!

You know I'm CanNachi, but I have to say, " BRAVO " to these comments. If every association decides to focus on better education,
then the whole industry benefits, and the end users of our product benefit as well. Also, if you're putting, " as much as you can " into your
choice of association; even if " it " fails to become all you'd hoped it
would; ..........." you " have not failed!

As Canadians, we need to put a little ( or a lot ) more passion
into everything we do; whether it be our business, our family, our
relationships, or whatever! What we get out of life is directly related
to what we put into it! Always try to go the " extra mile "

Thanks!

[Claude Lawrenson]

Doug in my opinion - based on the preliminary information you have noted, you would be in a very good position to complete the background review.

Yes the $1000 is bit hard to afford, but after that $1000 investment even being non-affiliaited would run you $200 per year for renewal. That is cheaper than most all other fees unless it was free.

Regarding the proof of inspections, the NCA and NCC can utilize the audit mechanism, if they choose. The NCP is based on following the CAN-P-9 certification and accreditation standards. Proof of comparable experience and accredited or non accredited education based on a point system - up until the end of 2009. After that the requirements become much more rigid.

Verification and compliance is part of the NCC mandate. That can be for education and for home inspections. Sort of the luck of the draw - so to speak.

I am not here to confirm your situation other than indicate it sounds that you "should" be able to meet the required criteria for your background review. Having fulfilled the background review the inspector MUST successfully complete the TIPR - Test Inspection with Peer Review.

[Douglas Cossar]

Claude:

You have mail

Cheers

[wblakey]

If you can prove that you have put in the hours, even with a non-accredited educational provider, these are taken into consideration, though they are not as highly marked as an accredited provider. From what you have said (if you can prove it with some kind of documentation) you would most likely be given the go ahead to take the TIPR.

Get in touch with the NCA and print out the application form. It does cost more for iNACHI members to go through the process, but that is because iNACHI has chosen to distance itself, rather than to join with the NCA (even though they were invited), and that makes the process for those on the Certification committee more difficult.

The difference is this: if a CAHPI member applies to the NCA, all we have to do is check with the provincial body to see if the documentation is valid. That saves a lot of time and trouble because that group has already verified that person's training. They still have to do the TIPR though, like everybody else.

I still haven't given up on iNACHI and I think that if more members gained their National Certification then we would be able to lobby for iNACHI to get on board with the process, to the advantage of all.

[Douglas Cossar]

Thanks for the information Paul

I'll get the application

cheers

[Claude Lawrenson]

Regarding previous comments of licensing and consumer protection. I have received and do have permission from the author to post this message.

As a consumer, an end-user, an ordinary civilian outside the arena of home inspection, I wished to make my own corrective input to the discussion but, despite registering, found I was unable to do so. Hence, I am choosing to communicate with you in hopes that you may feel able to pass my comments along to those other participating alleged professionals.
Firstly, this legislative initiative can clearly not be dismissed as merely the work of a cabal keen to monopolise the business and keep it all within a closed circle, as some conspiracy fantasists seem intent on believing. Rather, it is explicitly and intrinsically designed according to principles of consumer protection. And this is surely not before time in an industry where standards of practice are so wildly divergent, where ethics are often questionable, and where conflicts of interest had become institutionalized and endemic.
Secondly, to suggest that there is, or has been neither consumer demand nor need for licensing is a blatantly self-serving misrepresentation of the facts. I am a consumer. I myself have lobbied for full and proper professional status and standards to be applied – i.e. licensing. And, through this process, although I don’t have any individual list of fellow-travellers and can thus hazard no guesses about our actual strength of numbers, I learned at least that I am definitely not alone. Our concerns – and those of the profession itself – have quite self-evidently had influence on the framing of the act.
Thirdly, it is always my sensible personal preference as a consumer of professional services, that the practitioner be governed by a properly constituted regulatory body – just as we have the right to expect of our local veterinarian, dentist, auto-mechanic, doctor, child-care provider, lawyer, or chiropodist, for example – based on commitment that the primary duty of service be towards the client, and the client only.
And finally, it should be no surprise that NACHI membership fails as an acceptable criterion. In gathering ammunition and argument for my small piece of the consumer lobbying action, I took the NACHI test. Apart from a brief adolescent stint as a bricklayer’s labourer, I have no other relevant experience whatsoever. And yet even I, a musician, without any advance preparation for the test, passed with flying colours. Clearly, British Columbia’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority was correct in determining that the level of education and training required by NACHI was beneath their consideration.
Thank you.
I would be very happy if you were able to post this on my behalf – but am understandably reluctant for my personal contact details to be available to the more rabid members of the NACHI constituency. Or, if you are in a position to share how I might be allowed to post to the site personally, then this whole indirect procedure can be obviated.
Sincere warm regards, name removed as requested, from BC

[Douglas Cossar]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Regarding previous comments of licensing and consumer protection. I have received and do have permission from the author to post this message.

As a consumer, an end-user, an ordinary civilian outside the arena of home inspection, I wished to make my own corrective input to the discussion but, despite registering, found I was unable to do so. Hence, I am choosing to communicate with you in hopes that you may feel able to pass my comments along to those other participating alleged professionals.
Firstly, this legislative initiative can clearly not be dismissed as merely the work of a cabal keen to monopolise the business and keep it all within a closed circle, as some conspiracy fantasists seem intent on believing. Rather, it is explicitly and intrinsically designed according to principles of consumer protection. And this is surely not before time in an industry where standards of practice are so wildly divergent, where ethics are often questionable, and where conflicts of interest had become institutionalized and endemic.
Secondly, to suggest that there is, or has been neither consumer demand nor need for licensing is a blatantly self-serving misrepresentation of the facts. I am a consumer. I myself have lobbied for full and proper professional status and standards to be applied – i.e. licensing. And, through this process, although I don’t have any individual list of fellow-travellers and can thus hazard no guesses about our actual strength of numbers, I learned at least that I am definitely not alone. Our concerns – and those of the profession itself – have quite self-evidently had influence on the framing of the act.
Thirdly, it is always my sensible personal preference as a consumer of professional services, that the practitioner be governed by a properly constituted regulatory body – just as we have the right to expect of our local veterinarian, dentist, auto-mechanic, doctor, child-care provider, lawyer, or chiropodist, for example – based on commitment that the primary duty of service be towards the client, and the client only.
And finally, it should be no surprise that NACHI membership fails as an acceptable criterion. In gathering ammunition and argument for my small piece of the consumer lobbying action, I took the NACHI test. Apart from a brief adolescent stint as a bricklayer’s labourer, I have no other relevant experience whatsoever. And yet even I, a musician, without any advance preparation for the test, passed with flying colours. Clearly, British Columbia’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority was correct in determining that the level of education and training required by NACHI was beneath their consideration.
Thank you.
I would be very happy if you were able to post this on my behalf – but am understandably reluctant for my personal contact details to be available to the more rabid members of the NACHI constituency. Or, if you are in a position to share how I might be allowed to post to the site personally, then this whole indirect procedure can be obviated.
Sincere warm regards, name removed as requested, from BC

Dear Sir/Madam:

Thanks for your input.

Just passing an on-line examination does not make anyone a Home Inspector. We have heard this argument from numerous sources over the years. Someone even alleged his dog passed the on-line exam. Passing the exam, required for membership status, only opens the door to further training opportunities.

As I'm sure you know, the "book learning" is just the start. Practical exerience and doing the job provide the best training there is.

BC has chosen to licence Home Inspectors, and that may be a good thing, however being "licenced" does not make someone a good Home Inspector, Doctor, electrician, plumber or what have you.

BTW congratulations on passing the exam

Cheers

[James H. Bushart]

When you seek an attorney for his professional services, is the fact that he is "licensed" serve to suffice your entire interest in his background? Probably not, for we all know that a "license" reflects, simply, an entry level of skill.

The 16 year old driver can be "licensed", but you would hardly expect to see him driving your ambulance, would you?

The same thing goes for home inspectors. In fact, it gets a little worse.

In a market where inspectors compete against one another for recognition and business, not only must one be consistent in providing excellent service (for word of mouth will kill a business before any government institution will), but he must also work to obtain skills and training in many areas so that he can stand out from among his peers.

Licensing "dumbs down" the process. Now anyone with any kind of a background (short order cook, gas station attendant, housewife, etc.) can use the licensing checklist to obtain simply the minimum required by the state...and suddenly become "licensed"---- where people like you who take it to mean a satisfactorily demonstrated level of competency ---- can be more easily fooled.

Protect yourself from the inferior inspector's desire to hide himself among a state full of "licensed" home inspectors...and use your time as an advocate to oppose licensing in your jurisdiction. Keep home inspectors professionally accountable and independent to ensure you are able to tell them apart.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Although you present another side to this issue, I believe that it least it provides some level of protection for consumers. There is a mandatory insurance requirement, mandatory criminal check, and duty by the named organizations respecting and upholding professional practice, discipline and accountability.

Licensure is a means to protect the public from unqualified and unethical practitioners and to help assure that home inspection is practiced only by those who have the education and experience necessary to do the work properly. Licensing places a degree of legal accountability on those who engage in the public practice of home and property inspection. Up until now in BC, it was consumer beware. It is not as you claim a guarantee, but a lot better than the condition that made it the target of attention.

Legislation established the licensure program and defined the basic experience and educational requirements that all licensees must meet. The legislation also allows for civil penalties for violations of the licensing act.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Although you present another side to this issue, I believe that it least it provides some level of protection for consumers. There is a mandatory insurance requirement, mandatory criminal check, and duty by the named organizations respecting and upholding professional practice, discipline and accountability.

Licensure is a means to protect the public from unqualified and unethical practitioners and to help assure that home inspection is practiced only by those who have the education and experience necessary to do the work properly. Licensing places a degree of legal accountability on those who engage in the public practice of home and property inspection. Up until now in BC, it was consumer beware. It is not as you claim a guarantee, but a lot better than the condition that made it the target of attention.

Legislation established the licensure program and defined the basic experience and educational requirements that all licensees must meet. The legislation also allows for civil penalties for violations of the licensing act.

Kinda....maybe....sometimes. It depends upon the law, how it's written, and when it actually is tested in court.

The harm to consumers, however, comes in an immediate form. As you will gather from the press releases that splatter the same newspaper that, someday, will line a bird cage and actually gather less crap ----- the license will be touted as something described by you in the preceding post. When this happens, misled consumers then conclude that the license is their means of identifying equally qualified and competent home inspectors.

How then do most consumers choose to select between 100 equally qualified and competent candidates? The equally qualified and competent candidate with the lowest fee, of course.

Study any and all states in our country that are plagued with licensing bills and compare the average fee (not the BS you hear on the message board, either) to the selling price of the house.

Read the study where licensing did nothing to improve the quality of the inspection or the inspector. The study that was actually done by a state Real Estate Commission looking for a reason to push a licensing bill....that concluded that licensing solves nothing.

[Claude Lawrenson]

How about this for an example: "The BPCPA can freeze and convert assets, recover costs of actions, order restitution to consumers and impose administrative monetary penalties up to $50,000, in addition to fines that the courts can order."

Surely this condition should provide at least some measure of consumer protection. Perhaps it should be more aptly coined not "buyer/consumer beware - but inspector beware"!

Perhaps it's just me - but it seems there is accountability and certainly it is not intended for the faint at heart. Perhaps it's also time to not compare what is happening in BC licensing of home inspectors with some of the other shortcomings in the US.

What we likely can agree on - is that licensing does not always represent the best for everybody.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Show me a state with building codes and that has laws governing the licensing of builders and contractors...add to that a state that has a demonstrated need for the state's control over the qualifications for home inspectors...with the final ingredient, and that being a movement among actual consumers of home inspections to determine what qualities and measuring devices are of benefit to them...and I will personally lobby for its licensing laws.

The problem is that this has never ever ever happened...anywhere....in any state.

Licensing laws have been introduced by those seeking an advantage over others and have been supported by those hopeful of gaining advantage or market for what they sell. The consumer, if he even asks, is later informed - after the fact - of what has been done to protect him without ever having input or having any idea of the danger in the first place.

There has never been a single problem used to justify a licensing law that has ever been solved by a licensing law. In the end, it is nothing more than one group attemtping to gain advantage over another.

The prosecution of negligent home inspectors, initiated by
consumers, in on record in Texas. My son would like to be an
inspector today, but instead must study and be trained before
he is loosed on the general population. I can tell you firsthand,
that is a good thing for the consumer and for my son.

Realtors hate my reports (they sure didn't have me in mind as
a benefit that would give them more sales). The states collects
approx. $29 a year from me (and no sales tax), so they are not
making much money off of me. Our own Texas home inspectors
wrote our SoP, not the Realtors. The consumers in Texas have
filed complaints and seen the punishment of negligent inspectors
on many occasions, and have been compensated for their
damages.

We don't have trouble with walk by inspectors who deliver non-
documented, standardless reports. We don't allow inspectors to
entice the consumer with low prices just so they can do a walk
by inspection to get their foot in the door, Even iNACHI, ASHI and
NAHI will not endorse that kind of inspection. Some people even
list them as part of their credentials, but do not follow those
association's SoP. Ever see a person like that?

No wonder you do not want the SoP enforced in your state.
We are not perfect in Texas, but we try to weed out people
like that. That kind of walk by inspector would not do well
in Texas. Most consumers would be shocked if they new
what a real inspection looked like.

Our consumers could file a complaint and have justice served
on the head of a walk by inspector in Texas. We frown on
negligence and deceit masquerading as an inspector.

Weak laws produce weak results, good laws produce better
results. You have been mocking licensed inspectors for too
long and need to examine your own house... IMHO.

BTW... we get to carry guns in Texas and are allowed to shoot
law breakers who seek the breach our homes, cars and place
of work. There is still plenty of freedom in Texas. Some laws
create bondage, some protect the freedom and rights of it's
citizens. Hooyahh.

[dcook1]

Originally Posted by jbushart

When you seek an attorney for his professional services, is the fact that he is "licensed" serve to suffice your entire interest in his background? Probably not, for we all know that a "license" reflects, simply, an entry level of skill. Exactly


In a market where inspectors compete against one another for recognition and business, not only must one be consistent in providing excellent service (for word of mouth will kill a business before any government institution will), but he must also work to obtain skills and training in many areas so that he can stand out from among his peers. YEP

Licensing "dumbs down" the process. Now anyone with any kind of a background (short order cook, gas station attendant, housewife, etc.) can use the licensing checklist to obtain simply the minimum required by the state...and suddenly become "licensed"---- where people like you who take it to mean a satisfactorily demonstrated level of competency ---- can be more easily fooled. Are you saying I can print a card (because I do not require a license) and this makes me smarter? A license will remove some of the let's do it because we legally can people.

Protect yourself from the inferior inspector's desire to hide himself among a state full of "licensed" home inspectors...and use your time as an advocate to oppose licensing in your jurisdiction. Keep home inspectors professionally accountable and independent to ensure you are able to tell them apart.

James,
While the license will not make anyone any good,it will weed out a small amount of the dweebs that would otherwise take the profession up because they simply do not have to answer to anyone.

hang on, hang on,,,,, and it will put some money in the coffers of some branchof government,,,,,, maybe like our gun registry. They have taken in over $6,000,000 in years since they got this off the ground.... but it has cost almost $50,000,000 since it's inception.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dcook1

James,
While the license will not make anyone any good,it will weed out a small amount of the dweebs ....

....and replace them with a large amount of dweebs who can immediately meet entry level requirements for a license but get lost looking for the basement.

Here is just one licensing criteria for you to mull over....

Will your government (mine won't) create criteria for a job that would intentionally keep out a man in a wheel chair?

[Claude Lawrenson]

Our anonymous consumer poster from BC once again has asked me to offer the following:
“Just passing an on-line examination does not make anyone a Home Inspector.”
So much is self-evident.
However, had I paid the NACHI fee, it would have allowed me to claim NACHI status.
Surely even you can see how such certification is thus immediately de-valued.
“We have heard this argument from numerous sources over the years.”
However many times you may have heard it, does this automatically make my simple point invalid?
“Practical experience and doing the job provide the best training there is.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
Quite clearly, this must be why such qualifications are core to BC’s impending licensing requirements.
“being "licenced" does not make someone a good Home Inspector, Doctor, electrician, plumber or what have you”
But it does indisputably erect a minimal level of competence to a far higher degree than that expected by NACHI.
In response to James H. Bushart:
“When you seek an attorney for his professional services, is the fact that he is "licensed" serve to suffice your entire interest in his background?”
Certainly not.
“a "license" reflects, simply, an entry level of skill”
Are you suggesting that this entry level under BC’s new licensing regime is inadequate while that of NACHI is exemplary ? Surely not.
“The 16 year old driver can be "licensed", but you would hardly expect to see him driving your ambulance, would you?”
I am unpersuaded by the obvious poverty of your metaphor.
If I was in desparate need to get to a hospital and required an ambulance, your age criterion would be perhaps far from my mind. In such sorry circumstances, my understandable tendency would be to trust in the entry level requirements for one to become an ambulance driver in the first place. Maybe it is different in Missouri, but the likelihood of being allowed to perform that function at the tender age of 16 lacks credibility.
“Licensing "dumbs down" the process."
Now anyone with any kind of a background (short order cook, gas station attendant, housewife, etc.) can use the licensing checklist to obtain simply the minimum required by the state...and suddenly become "licensed””
This is arrant nonsense.
“people like you who take it to mean a satisfactorily demonstrated level of competency ---- can be more easily fooled.”
Please do not take me as a fool, sir.
“use your time as an advocate to oppose licensing in your jurisdiction”
Why on earth would any sane consumer contemplate such a course of action?
Indeed, you do take me for a fool.
“Keep home inspectors professionally accountable and independent”
That is my very wish.
And with BC’s licensing requirements there is a greater chance of achieving both.
Without it, at present, there is no accountability, and industry practices thus far have mitigated solidly against independence. Licensing explicitly and effectively addresses these issues.
Please consider Mr Lawrenson’s subsequent responses to your posts.
“misled consumers … conclude that the license is their means of identifying equally qualified and competent home inspectors”
Do we?
Perhaps it is so.
I certainly know of numerous cases where consumers have been misled to their great detriment and cost by trusting the assertions of professional competence where there is no minimum standard.
At least, with licensing, we will have recourse other than costly litigation.
“Study any and all states in our country that are plagued with licensing bills and compare the average fee (not the BS you hear on the message board, either) to the selling price of the house.”
With the greatest of respect, British Columbia is not part of your country.

“The study that was actually done by a state Real Estate Commission looking for a reason to push a licensing bill....that concluded that licensing solves nothing.”
Are you seriously suggesting that the Real Estate industry is a disinterested party?
Their demonstrable collusion with inspectors has been detrimental to client interests and is central to the ‘conflict of interest’ principles at the core of this legislation.
Clearly, the transparent disregard for client interests evidenced by Messrs Cossar and Bushart contributes only to the justifiedly poor perception of the Home Inspection industry on the part of consumers which has served to fuel our demand for licensing.
It must be a tough challenge indeed for responsible and reasonable practitioners like Mr McKenna to restore our faith in the concept of professional standards.