National Certification

[rwand1]

Vern posted...

The following is a direct copy from the http://www.fnnboa.ca/FNNBOA_Newslett...ring_20051.pdf site.

Application Fee – Individuals are to submit a fee of $150
for certification as well as $150 to become a member of FNNBOA. If anyone does not want to become a member of FNNBOA, but wants to be certified, the application fee will be $1,000. This fee is based on cost recovery to establish the Certification and pay for the Council to review the application.

FNNBOA or First Nations National Building Officers Association

The way I read this is if you want to be certified by FNNBOA then this is the fee.

Does this fee schedule apply to CAPHI certification then Ray & Roy are correct.

If The FNNBOA is certifying inspectors then CAPHI does not have exclusive rights.

Then other associations would also have the right to establish standards and certify anybody that meets those standards. It seems to me that CMHC as a government agency can establish standards that the various inspection associations could or should follow. In a democratic society we all have the free choice to follow, lead, speak out about or ignore without
the threat of law suits.

As a member of NACHI I would hope that NACHI adopt those standards and exceed them wherever possible.

FNNBOA sent me an application, but as I understand it FNNBOA certification is not the same certification as CAHPI.

As to Nachi adopting we do not yet nor fully understand CHIBO, full costs, anticipated participation. Thus far standards are being formulated by folks who have not been elected to their positions. They have been appointed, where is the democracy there? No one has been able thus far to show me any legislation which will make any of this relevent. I am for licencing and college educated inspectors. There is a double message coming out of CAHPI and the latest statements in the London Free Press indicate that a CAHPI rep can make incorrect statements, and know one cares about accuracy. Shameful.

As to law suits at least one member in Oahi via the infamous CANUCK list is suggesting a collection be started to build a legal fund to go after Raymond. That member offered to start the fund with a $50 donation. I just wanted those to know that I am glad you only feel I am worth $50.

Happy New Year to one and all.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON

[Claude Lawrenson]

Why is the world full of illusions? Who knows. Perhaps some see it as more fun that way. Just to reiterate: one must understand the "distinct" differences between the AHJ to assure that the facts are not misconstrued from the reality of the work performed by the CHIBO committee. A few examples include:

1. FNNBOA and CAHPI are two very distinct associations. FNNBOA-ACBOA-CAHPI worked together and have representation on the CHIBO committee - to share common interest and goals. Representation was by appointment, based on personal recognition within the industry. (see point #5)
2. FNNBOA is primarily an association for First Nation "building officers" - a hybrid between home inspector and building officials - that do the majority of their work on First Nation lands (aka: tribal or band councils)
Becoming a member or getting certified by FNNBOA does not equate to the equivalency of what CAHPI has set as their standard.
3. CHIBO 1 (National Occupational Standards) recognized certain common core competencies (common between ACBOA-FNNBOA-CAHPI), but this does not equate to a "free pass" for certification - because there are still distinct differences between the three parties. Similarly, there is no reciprocal agreement for home inspectors and building officials.
4. FNNBOA's fees represent just that "FNNBOA's fees" - and should not be confused with CAHPI fees - (that are yet to be set). So until the fees are set - its simply speculation.
5. On the issue of representation, the initial setup for the CHIBO committee was based on "sector based" representation by the government body than known as HRDC. Again certain criterias had to be met. So for someone to state that the process and people involved are "corrupt" and attack them personally once again shows disrepect and lack of understanding of the requirements of that process.
6. NACHI, ASHI or any other association does not need to join, however, as stated before the certification process is primarily for Canadian "home inspectors" not home inspector associations.

Hopefully this information sheds a little more light on the facts.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Why is the world full of illusions? Who knows. 5. On the issue of representation, the initial setup for the CHIBO committee was based on "sector based" representation by the government body than known as HRDC. Again certain criterias had to be met. So for someone to state that the process and people involved are "corrupt" and attack them personally once again shows disrepect and lack of understanding of the requirements of that process.

Hopefully this information sheds a little more light on the facts.

I would appreciate you showing where I or others have said "involved are corrupt" .
You also said ask a simple question and it will be answered .
How much more simple can I be . What is the cost?
I also asked you to give an answer with out going all around like a politician and say little
This has gone on since 2004 I would hope you can soon give out some info.

Roy Cooke sr.
A HAPPY NACHI Member

[Claude Lawrenson]

Lets start from one of your latest, not to mention the litany of other suggestive inuendoes.
Posted: Dec 29, 2005 10:51 AM Post subject: I see a class action suit has been filled against CMHC.
It seems that when information was requested through the Canadian
Freedome of Information much was blacked out .

I wonder how it might come out if Home Inspectors applied for information
via the same route.

The CMHC CHIBO 11 sure looks like they too do not want any information going out to those who could be loosing their right to make a living the way they have been for many years.

The more I look the more I see that the Home Inspection Industry in Canada could be corrupted.

I wonder why they all are so secretive and not following their rules and giving information to the members.

I would take it that was your statement, and that its interpretation and intent is questionable.

Regarding your question of cost: How can one respond with an factual answer on a fee that has YET TO BE DETERMINED! Nothing has been officially released by the "Committee or Council" in writing - it is still in discussions. Know that is a fact!

[Claude Lawrenson]

BTW: This will most likely be my final response regarding posting on the NACHI forum. It seems that some feel that responding to your implications or allegations, facts or possibly lack thereof - only adds fuel to fire. Besides any of my well intended points or good will is long gone - and truly seems not respected. So it puts me in a no-win situation. Enough time has been wasted on trying to make you and others see the light! I have more important projects to tend to that brings $$$,$$$

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Lets start from one of your latest, not to mention the litany of other suggestive inuendoes.
Posted: Dec 29, 2005 10:51 AM Post subject: I see a class action suit has been filled against CMHC.
It seems that when information was requested through the Canadian
Freedome of Information much was blacked out .

I wonder how it might come out if Home Inspectors applied for information
via the same route.

The CMHC CHIBO 11 sure looks like they too do not want any information going out to those who could be loosing their right to make a living the way they have been for many years.

The more I look the more I see that the Home Inspection Industry in Canada could be corrupted.

I wonder why they all are so secretive and not following their rules and giving information to the members.

I would take it that was your statement, and that its interpretation and intent is questionable.

Regarding your question of cost: How can one respond with an factual answer on a fee that has YET TO BE DETERMINED! Nothing has been officially released by the "Committee or Council" in writing - it is still in discussions. Know that is a fact!

It is not questionable I meant it exactly as posted
When OAHI has TWO 2 treasurers resign and make the statement that there is defenatly a problem with the finances.
How do you read it ?.
When OAHI does not give out the 2004 finicial statement yet and the rules state they must be out by september of 2005 .
How would you read it? .
When Charges are laid with the OAHI DPPC in 2003 and they still have not followed up on the complaint.
How would you read it? .
I have many more that I can supply, and can back up all my statements.
I also gave you the Place where the class action suit has been filled against CMHC. MUCH Information Blacked out does that sound fair?
Do you dispute that also.

Sorry to see you leave Claude.
You at least will stand up and give your thoughts.
But you also know of some desceptancies of OAHI.
I do stand behind my posts and welcome a chance to be called to court by Bill or whom ever.
I do not expect any have the courage to try as they know who could be embarrased BIG TIME.
As a matter of information I am not agains OAHI or CAHPI and could sit down and talk with any of them at any time .
I am against the irregular way things are being doen and how the Majority of Canadian Home inspectors are being ignored.
I just whan honest fair treatment for all.


Roy Sr ....R.H.I.....C.H.I.....CAHPI-ON
A very Happy NACHI Member..... Happy New Year to All

[Vern Mitchinson]

The first post on this new forum quote me from the previous forum. The main point I was trying to make seems to have been mssed.

The main point is
If the first nations can establish under CMHC them NACHI can also establish NACHI standards as well.
The first nations are a federal administered entity.

I live in Alberta and am tired of the insessent whine coming out of Ontario. You are not the whole world. There is a great big world outside of Ontario and I do not think for one minute that OHI is going to dictate the standard in this province.
I say again CMHC can establish guidelines for certification and the standard for that certification but they do not have jurisdication to force anyone to follow it.
The set up of manditory standards is the right of the provincial grovernment.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Vern you got my vote all the way.
I agree completly but unfortunatly OAHI is about 50% of CAHPI and OAHI has always felt they should be in control.
I do believe there is quite a few of OAHI members trying to give their directions re the National Conference..
We have not been told who is making all the decesions but I would be very surprised if most where not from OAHI.
I can see no reason why NACHI who is larger then OAHI should not be included and protect their members all across Canada.
Having been a member of OAHI and never missing a meeting been on various Committees I do know a little of their methods.
Please do not complain about the insessent whine comming out of Ontario.
It is the constant digging by Ray and Roy that has produced the little information we have.

Roy Cooke sr..... R.H.I.....C.H.I..... CAHPI-On
A VERY Happy NACHI Member.

[Vern Mitchinson]

Sorry just got carried away for a moment.
I've never been a member of caphi and do not plan on becoming a member unless forced into it. I've been a member of ASET for many years and it has a very good certification process that caphi lacks. ASET recognizes many collages and training programs throughout the world. I'm not advocating they cert inspectors but just pointing out that they have been at it for over 40 years. They also have been trying to get the government to write legistation to give them selfpoliceing power to certify and displine their own members and stake out there area of expertize. The governement has come on side but then the pro engineers shot it down.
Thats why I am not getting very excited about cacpi getting very far very fast.

[Vern Mitchinson]

Further to the previous post

What I object to most with caphi is their insistance on inexperienced people haveing to do 250 paid inspections before they are certified as qualified inspectors. Their first statement on their web site is that their objective is to protect the public. How are they protecting the public when they insist on the inexperienced people doing 250 paid inspections. There is no mention of supervision or even checking the rookies reports.
10 supervised inspections would likely provide the newbe with a hell of a lot more valuable experience then stumpling around by him/herself. It would also sreve to protect the public.
I've been there and it's not fun. It also takes to long to learn from your mistakes and that is what caphi is insisting on with 250 unsupervised paid inspections.

The result is the public has to deal with the mistakes.
How do they deal with mistakes?
Law suits,
Increased insurance preimums,
and worst of all the decrease in public confidence in the inspection indurtry.

Happy new Year!

I have had run-ins with CAPHI members all the time, especially with the OAHI. The problem I see with that organization, is the word, "Organization".
I don't think they even understand the concept of how a organization should be run. Also, it appears to me, that the members of OAHI have this concept that they are elite in the inspection industry.
Here's a little testimonial;
I started a home inspection business, my competition was, Mike Guin, the president of CAPHI. I was told, that I was in over my head, and that is my business were to succeed, then I would have to join. Two years later, I am doing around 25% of the home inspections in the area. When asked how I did it, i told them, I sold myself, not an organization. People use my service because I am a damn good Home Inspector, not because I belong to some Organization.
So if we are to succeed, we need to concentrate on being the best home Inspector in the Business, just by being yourself and not being dictated by some money grabbing organization.
PS, I am not referring to NACHI, I think this place helps one become themselves.
Thanks NACHI

[rwand1]

Hi Tyrone,

I hand out surveys seeking customer feedback. Of over one hundred responses over the years, only 14 replied that they chose me because of my professional association(s). The rest indicated either friend or relative, agent, or lawyer referral. What does that tell you?

Just because you here the word "self regulating" being used does not mean self regulating. It is only is self regulating as much as it needs to be or wants to be.

Licencing yes.

Cheers,

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON

[Vern Mitchinson]

Originally Posted by twheeler

Also, it appears to me, that the members of OAHI have this concept that they are elite in the inspection industry............
..... I was told, that I was in over my head, and that is my business were to succeed, then I would have to join.

Interesting. I got the same inpression and sales pitch 5 years ago in Alberta. Looks like they have only one play book

[George A. H. Luck]

I find it rather odd that an organization that has been tasked with improving the quality of home inspectioin in Canada actually promotes unqualified , inexperienced, untrained people to go out and conduct 250, potentially disasterous inspections in order to qualify for membership. Doesn't his policy alone, throw their involvement in a national registration programme in question?

I too received the same advice from a local O.A.H.I. member when I started my business. I attended a coupl of meetings and quickly discovered that it was a closed shop. The inspector who gave me that sage advice decided that I was public enemy number one when I did not join and chased me for some time. At one point he even tried to have me thromw out of N.A.C.H.I. on the strength of some trumped up charges. After the laughter at N.A.C.H.I. H.Q. died down threatened to quit if his charges were not followed up! Ffortunately, since that time he seems to have fallen off the planet ( my appologies to whomever he lands on) and I have been doing quite well on the strength of my reputation.

This same story seems to be repeated with some variation time and again. and these are the sort of people who we are relying on to bring order to the inspection business in Canada?

UH, OH!

[rwand1]

OAHI is its own worst enemy! Self regulation run amuck. Just look how the National Initiative has been promoted. No input via the ballot box by the membership of OAHI.

Reputation is everything, no one should rely on any association to to what you need to do for yourself.

Licencing yes, dictatorships no.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON