Scare Tactics for Licensing in Ontario

[tadshead]

The only way that licensing helps anyone, is in terms of the pocket book of the licensing agency.

People can make all the arguments they wish to support it, but the simple fact is that a license, granted by anyone, isn't going to improve inspections. It will make it harder for people to break into the market, but like a door lock only stops honest people, that will only stop the people who wouldn't want to do a bad inspection in the first place. The scammers and fly-by-night operators will just see it as another hoop to jump through.

How many licensed construction contractors do ****ty jobs? How many licensed doctors get sued for malpractice, how many licensed real estate agents are there that would be better off being a house plant waterer?

Licensing solves zero issues in the industry that gets licensed.

As to whether it will happen? Of course it will, at some point. It is happening in every industry. There was a time when anyone could be a lumberjack, just by buying a chainsaw and cutting down trees. Now, you have to have a license for running a chainsaw (in a logging operation)... Has it made the industry any safer? In my view, all it has done is exclude the people who don't get that piece of paper. It hasn't made the ones who got the paper any smarter or less likely to do something stupid.

It has however, made a whole bunch of people and organizations a lot of money.

And the money, is the reason that licensing will come to this industry as all others, eventually.

The way to put that day off as long as possible is simply for each person who is doing home inspections is to do the best job they can each and every time they go out. Each stage of the process from presenting your image to the public, dealing with clients, the inspection itself, the report on it, and a commitment to helping the client understand the report must all be top notch.

Even if 100% of home inspectors adhered to that though, licensing will eventually be a reality.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Totally agree! Very good post.

[Vern Mitchinson, CMI]

Originally Posted by acavdek

So true Vern,
Realtors do control the process of home inspector selection and as they do refer their clients to us they do not want to take the liability on either.

If they want to refer their buddies then they should take responsibility for them. By being held responsible they may be more inclined to refer competent HI's. If they are not held responsible what incentive is there not to refer soft inspectors.
I do not refer any individual renovators, contractors, or any other trades people because I do not want to assume any responsibility for their actions.
When the need arises for a CCTV inspection I hire the guy collect the fee and pay the CCTV. Since the SOP forbids doing any repairs on inspected property I do not get involved in those things. I expect the same from others involved in the transaction.
Am I asking too much?

[Allen Cavdek]

Vern
You are not asking to much
Agents do infact have a lot of pull in our industry, its up to us the home inspectors to educate clients on the process of agent/inspector referal.
Sad to say that many agents do like soft reports, thats why they pre-screen the inspectors they refer.
Agents one thing and one thing only that they care about,,,, can you guess??????
Its the commission
$$$$$$$$$$$
That is why some are so scared to hire a compitant home inspector who does find defects in a home. In a perfect world RE Agents and Home Inspectors should work far away from each other as possible LOL.
Who has the most vested interest in clients during a RE transaction is their Lawyer, maybe the Lawyers should work hand in hand with us if licensing takes place, then fearful home inspectors who get much of their work based on soft reports finally inspect the way they should.
Licensing in BC has not stopped agent/inspector referals and for sure soft reports are being written, there will always be the money driven inspectors and agents no matter how the industry changes

[George A. H. Luck]

You're right Allen. The worst part is that the so called 'industry leaders' are trying to lead us down the garden path arm in arm with that same Real Estate industry. Just look at who is at the head table for tomorrows 'symposium'. Worse still is the unfortunate truth that there are no facts, studies, surveys or figures to prove the damaging claim that there is a huge problem with we inspectors. It is a sham aimed at enriching the few at the expense of the many.

[Claude Lawrenson]

The home inspection sector in Ontario is primarily made up of several volunteer organizations going through various stages of organizational maturation. The home inspection sector continues to establish standards on a volunteer basis. Even these volunteer organizations do not have the majority of home inspectors aligned as members in the province. There are estimates in the range that 35-50% of home inspectors are individual practitioners that are unaligned with a provincial home inspection association.

In the discipline of compliance frameworks, there is self management, which involves the industry taking the lead in initiatives to control business practices, as well as to educate the public towards good consumer or safety habits. Self-management is practiced in varying degrees, but ultimately this can lead to all of the activities associated with industry regulations (licensing, compliance monitoring, enforcement, complaints or dispute resolution) just to name a few.

Self-management means public accountability and accessibility, but government continues to play the participation role being unintrusive or inextensive as possible.
As an example TARION is a self-management corporation where no one can build or sell new homes in Ontario without being registered. There is legislative statute to support the program.

A self-regulatory framework includes legislation whereby the sector has total control of the sector and the government is not involved. There is no such legislation for the home inspection sector in Ontario. One home inspection association in Ontario was recognized in the mid 1990's and has the right to manage and discipline its members, but it was clearly articulated that they did not have the right to restrict others outside of that association from practicing. They merged with another provincial association and the association grew, however given time some left and followed a different path.

Finally there is the government regulation. In short the government introduces legislation if it believes there is public concern (safety, economic, consumer protection, unfair business practices, etc.). In the case of the home inspection sector the provincial government could introduce legislation if it believes consumers are at risk. The key point being to always consider that this is the only participant in house purchasing transaction that is not regulated.

Based on statistics gathered by qualified home inspector applicants in the practical "test inspection with peer review", the practical performance measurement of 80% minumum accuracy is met by approximately 85% of all test takers. That in itself should provide a bit of substance that some level of improvement is required. It does
not speak to those 1000 plus other home inspectors in the province that choose not to be tested. Nor does it speak to the other 20% that even the successfull inspectors met. It also alludes to the fact that a high percentage rarely would achieve the 100% mark. If anything, there is a huge gap and need for constant improvement to better our sector.

Given the reality of the state of affairs within the home inspection sector, few home inspectors want to really admit that a real potential problem already exists. One thing became evidently clear through the first licensing symposium in London Ontario, that there are other stakeholders such as the realtors, financial institutions, Better Business Bureau, and lawyers and yes even consumers that point out and speak out about that it's just matter of time before this becomes a critical concern.

As I noted earlier home inspection associations in this province are volunteer run organizations. That in itself often leads to inconsistencies and often varying levels of support and service to members as well as response to the public when issues arise. Standards for certification are inconsistent, an overall lack of accountability to assure conformance to a minimum Standard of Practice, and even a certain number of "certified" inspectors cannot pass a test inspection with peer review. Often discipline within an association can sometimes be based on personal prejudices against an individual member rather than the actual quality of the inspection.

At this point, self-management or self regulatory mandate would be difficult to achieve, because that involves major organizational restructuring, costs, resistance to change, etc.

Regulations on the other hand are intended to enhance consumer protection and give consumers confidence that a set standard of qualification and performance are in place.

[James H. Bushart]

Learn a lesson from those who have walked this walk before you.

Look at your future.

[George A. H. Luck]

An Claude, if that small number of self appointed 'industry leaders' set the bar high enough, nobody will pass those subjective testings scenarios.

The only statistics that matter are a comparison of total inspections completed to total number of failures and you know that you have no statistics to support your contention that there is a huge problem with the industry. Quoting statistics generated in a scenario that has been artificially manipulated means nothing.

Facts please.

[tadshead]

I'm a little confused about something that keeps being brought up in this thread.

Why would it matter one single bit to any inspector who refered them or recommended them?

Sure, RE agents would love to have inspections show exactly what they want, just as sellers would like to see inspections that make their house seem like solid gold.

That doesn't change the fact that an inspectors job is to report on the current condition of a house. The part of my post where I talked about professionalism? This is the prime example with an unhealthy dose of stupidity tossed in.

You get to the house, you do the inspection, you share and explain it to your clients and make sure they are satisfied with their understanding of the report. If the RE agent, (or whomever referred you), doesn't like the report you give and doesn't refer you anymore, that is a lack of professionalism on their part. If the inspector in any way feels they should fudge a report to make the referrer happy, then they are definitely not acting in a professional manner. Worse yet, they are being extremely stupid.

It isn't the RE agent (or other referrer) that is going to be dragged into court. It is the inspector.

Look at the Toth case.... how many referrals from RE agents would he need to get in order to make up for the $190,000.00 judgement he just got put against him?

Inspect, report, explain... do it all properly and the referrals will come, no matter what the RE agents have to say.

As for the licensing issue... being licensed will not stop people from sucking up to their referrers... The single difference will be that the inspector will have that piece of paper saying they are licensed.

[Claude Lawrenson]

To borrow from another thread "licensing simply makes everybody equal in the eyes of the licensing authority, it shows the advantages and responsibilities of the home inspection professional." John Onfrey

"The point is to stay within your areas of responsibility and standards of practice until you achieve 100% competency." David Anderson

But more to the testing comment - what part of even self-regulation addresses the issue on assuring "competency" in the occupation?

[George A. H. Luck]

"But more to the testing comment - what part of even self-regulation addresses the issue on assuring "competency" in the occupation?"

I think you just sank your own boat!

[Claude Lawrenson]

My point being that hardly anybody is inspecting and testing the home inspectors for competency. We have associations and home inspectors claiming to be certified based on the collection of membership fees and a proclamation of self-assessment. Even the mere suggestion of grandfathering becomes a means to assure everyone regardless of their skill level is guaranteed to be part of the "program".

Now couple that with the movement by very few associations to have a certification body seperate from the same potentially self-serving body. A union is not the answer unless you are looking at paying for benefits of mutual interest. That at best will improve the inspectors personal benefits, but certainly not a way to declare a win in a move for really protecting consumers.

[George A. H. Luck]

My point Claude has always been " Grandfather everyone. Get all inspectors INSIDE the association. THEN set your standards and upgrade EVERYONE."

But instead, OAHI, PHPIO, CAHPI chose to exclude everyone except the people THEY deemed acceptable. Then one must ask who set the standards and what, other than guess work and personal opinion were these standards based on?

Other than the benefits of strength through numbers, representation at both Federal and Provincial levels ( that will be listened to), reduced insurance rates, access to health and accident insurance, lobbying for universal E+O insurance, equality of members ( no elitism of 'industry leaders') and many more, there is one particular word that the other associations are deathly afraid of; GRANDFATHERING.

By GRANDFATHERING every inspector and getting them inside the union, the union can then set entrance requirements which will become the defacto 'Ontario License'. The difference is that EVERY member will have a voice in the design of the requirements which makes it very fair.

Oh yes. That is another word of which these private home inspector associations are very frightened ; DEMOCRACY.

[jumpleby]

George I must say that your point is spot on. It seems that there are many who are not of the mind that we should move to better the situation of ALL home inspectors in the industry, rather, they only wish to better the situation for a select few, and this is why they fear those two words.....GRANDFATHERING and DEMOCRACY!.

By benchmarking, settting a standard, and then working to ensure that ALL home inspectors meet the standards set out, we would effectively be eliminating the "hiarchy" that so many are hoping to hold on to. This erroneous assumption is what the so called "leaders of the industry" are using to put down the capabilities and prospects of newer home inspectors who are striving to gain experiance and love this industry every bit as much as the veterans.

Wouldn't it be great if we could all work together for the betterment of the industry and help each other grow and learn so that it is our CAPABILITIES that make our industry strong, and not our individual drives for ego that seperate us.

John.

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by jumpleby

By benchmarking, settting a standard, and then working to ensure that ALL home inspectors meet the standards set out, we would effectively be eliminating the "hiarchy" that so many are hoping to hold on to. This erroneous assumption is what the so called "leaders of the industry" are using to put down the capabilities and prospects of newer home inspectors who are striving to gain experiance and love this industry every bit as much as the veterans.

Wouldn't it be great if we could all work together for the betterment of the industry and help each other grow and learn so that it is our CAPABILITIES that make our industry strong, and not our individual drives for ego that seperate us.

John.

John:

The words I have high-lighted in red describe exactly what the National Certification Program is all about.

It solves the entire problem, but people want to disregard it.

Bill Mullen