Second open symposium on home inspector licensing in ontario

[Claude Lawrenson]

Good question Gerry - fact is GTA will be included and is scheduled. In the initial planning stages a number of strategic locations were pinpointed. London for Southwestern Ontario, Peterborough for the Eastern Ontario region, and GTA - Toronto region - Central Ontario region. There are other locations being considered.

Regards, Claude

[Claude Lawrenson]

Once again its no secret - the real estate community and the concern from consumers was echoed from the panel in the London venue. Representatives from OREA, CREA and BBB are all key stakeholders in the discussions.

To downplay their role, and opinions would not only be foolish but could prove dangerous. Remember BC. Some say it had no bearing, but the end of game score proved otherwise - the government listened.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Here's an example - http://www.bcrea.bc.ca/news_room/200...Inspectors.pdf

Since 1998, the Association has recommended the government license home inspectors. Now, BCREA looks forward to the development of meaningful standards to ensure consumers receive adequate protection.
"Solid information helps consumers have confidence in their home buying decisions," added Veitch. "And confidence and protection are necessary for the excellent quality of life we enjoy in British Columbia."

[George A. H. Luck]

"OREA, CREA and BBB"

Claude, these are nothing but special interests with their own agenda. The real estate industry would like nothing more than to control the home inspection industry. Shame on all involved who would knowingly promote this huge conflict of interest! Can anyone believe that the real estate industry is interested in anything but a more "Realtor friendly" home inspection profession? It is unbelievable for a home inspection organization such as PHPIO who have regularly scorned inspectors who merely market to agents to turn 180* and invite Realtors to take a place at the table.

And the BBB is a toothless paper tiger. Their inclusion in any progamme about the future of the home inspection profession is a mystery.

[Allen Cavdek]

Claude.
As being a home inspector for many years myself and as many of us know Real Estate Agents do play a large role in the home inspection industry, most of us do get a lot of referrals through agents to help our business. Agents do seem to control the process of home inspector selection for their clients.
Do you believe that if agents are major players (stakeholders) in the future licensing of home inspectors in Ontario that it would/could play a role in conflict of interest between us the inspectors and them the agents having some control in our industry?
Remember we conduct inspections for our clients who hire us, not the agent and our inspections should be non-bias and fair.
What do you think of this? And what may happen in the future of our industry if agents have any say in our licensing?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gluck

"OREA, CREA and BBB"

Claude, these are nothing but special interests with their own agenda.

George, do you have some statistical data to back up your point? I recall how Bill Mullen had tried to use such data to prove the need for licensing and failed.

[Gerry Pallotta]

Originally Posted by gluck

"OREA, CREA and BBB"

[/COLOR]
And the BBB is a toothless paper tiger. Their inclusion in any progamme about the future of the home inspection profession is a mystery.

With this statement I have to agree. It puzzles me what they have to do with anything, especially in the GTA where there is no such thing as the BBB.

[Yuri Olhovsky]

Originally Posted by gpallotta

With this statement I have to agree. It puzzles me what they have to do with anything, especially in the GTA where there is no such thing as the BBB.

Gerry, GTA is part of the Better Business Bureau of Mid-Western and Central Ontario http://www.gta.bbb.org/ However the statement that they do not have teeth is very much true.

[Gerry Pallotta]

Yuri
Thanks for the info.
My understanding Toronto was closed down a few years back for corruption and mismanagement???
So mid west and central took over. I don't think I know anyone in this area who belongs to BBB and I sure as heck don't see it advertised on any of the businesses anywhere.

[George A. H. Luck]

Hi James. I think that this is the data to which you referred;
On another message board, Mr. Bill Mullen provided the following data and illustrated how it is being misrepresented to anyone in government who will listen in an attempt to demonstrate a need for licensing. Our correspondence follows -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN PART;
“At the Symposium last week, several people argued that our industry has few problems, and the 'it ain't broke, so why try to fix it.?'

I contend that it is in trouble on several levels, and the more investigating I do, the more troubles I uncover.

This morning, I was reviewing a study commissioned by CMHC and CAHPI in 2004 on insurance claims by and about our industry. I know some will argue it's old data, but I contend the percentages are likely still similar today.

The study suggested that there were 1,037 active CAHPI members in 2003 and about 1,265 other unaffiliated home inspectors practicing in the country, for a total of around 2,302 Canadian inspectors.

The data collected indicates there were 321 insurance claims in 2003 against Canadian Home Inspectors, and that a total of $ 719,835 was paid out on settled claims.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interests of accuracy, my response;
Very interesting data Bill. But I and I think many statisticians would argue that the interpretation is wrong or based on incomplete information.

Let's assume that the quoted 2302 inspectors completed an average of 200 inspections a year ( I know, I know! Low number for some and high for others) that means that there were a total of 460,400 inspections completed that year. Of that number of inspections 321 generated insurance claims. That means that there was a staggering .06972% 'failure rate.

We can argue over whether or not all of these 321 claims were genuine claims, or whether some were nuisance cases given up by the inspectors to avoid numerous trips to the court room, legal costs etc. We can argue about whether the 200 inspections / year is a fair number and if you want we can cut that down to 100 inspections / year giving us .13944% failure rate.

While the figure of $719,835 is impressive it is also misleading. It represents $ 1.56 / inspection completed that year ( using the above figures) or $312.70 / inspectors, which could be used to justify the establishment of an inspector insurance fund rather than a useless licensing scheme.


However you look at it the numbers are minuscule and certainly do not justify the establishment of a huge bureaucracy to solve a problem that does not exist.
__________________
An Independent Home Inspector.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gluck

Hi James. I think that this is the data to which you referred;
On another message board, Mr. Bill Mullen provided the following data and illustrated how it is being misrepresented to anyone in government who will listen in an attempt to demonstrate a need for licensing. Our correspondence follows -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN PART;
“At the Symposium last week, several people argued that our industry has few problems, and the 'it ain't broke, so why try to fix it.?'

I contend that it is in trouble on several levels, and the more investigating I do, the more troubles I uncover.

This morning, I was reviewing a study commissioned by CMHC and CAHPI in 2004 on insurance claims by and about our industry. I know some will argue it's old data, but I contend the percentages are likely still similar today.

The study suggested that there were 1,037 active CAHPI members in 2003 and about 1,265 other unaffiliated home inspectors practicing in the country, for a total of around 2,302 Canadian inspectors.

The data collected indicates there were 321 insurance claims in 2003 against Canadian Home Inspectors, and that a total of $ 719,835 was paid out on settled claims.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interests of accuracy, my response;
Very interesting data Bill. But I and I think many statisticians would argue that the interpretation is wrong or based on incomplete information.

Let's assume that the quoted 2302 inspectors completed an average of 200 inspections a year ( I know, I know! Low number for some and high for others) that means that there were a total of 460,400 inspections completed that year. Of that number of inspections 321 generated insurance claims. That means that there was a staggering .06972% 'failure rate.

We can argue over whether or not all of these 321 claims were genuine claims, or whether some were nuisance cases given up by the inspectors to avoid numerous trips to the court room, legal costs etc. We can argue about whether the 200 inspections / year is a fair number and if you want we can cut that down to 100 inspections / year giving us .13944% failure rate.

While the figure of $719,835 is impressive it is also misleading. It represents $ 1.56 / inspection completed that year ( using the above figures) or $312.70 / inspectors, which could be used to justify the establishment of an inspector insurance fund rather than a useless licensing scheme.


However you look at it the numbers are minuscule and certainly do not justify the establishment of a huge bureaucracy to solve a problem that does not exist.
__________________
An Independent Home Inspector.

Typical mole hill.

It really makes you wonder .... with so much effort expended in creating the illusion of a problem where no problem really exists....what the real motive behind these licensing laws are.

Certainly, you have no persons who make a living by selling education to home inspectors trying to convince legislators of the need to mandate students in their classrooms, do you?

[tneyedli1]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Thank you at least you have noted your points.

On the other side perhaps the message was missed, and the real problems were downplayed in the minds that choose to face the facts brought out by the presenters.

I also believe in choice, but given the fact that other forces are at work the opportunity to band together, privide an open forum and have voice, in my mind is at least a counteraction. If home inspectors are so apethetic to want to believe that even if licensing is not the point than perhaps "regulation" will fit the bill!

As some may claim if its not broken why fix it? The reality is like it or not, other professionals clearly indicated there are problems, and why is the "sector" not trying to fix it. At what point does the need to fix it become legislated.

Once again call it what you want - but its up to all home inspectors to find that common ground, or else some will still be left out.

BTW: CAHPI was not the only major player in BC, just look at ASTTBC - do you really think they did not have a part? To me the BC licensing made it perfectly clear that those with a high enough certification process received recognition, while others fell by their own weakness. BC set the precedent and others considering such regulation are watching.

Claude:
Your assessment of the situation is bang on!

B.C licencing did not just happen, in part it was consumer driven by purchasers of a home inspector's report who hung their shingle, did little to perfect their reporting, gave (often) erroneous information to their clients, claimed to be fair in their reporting, did little to upgrade their reporting technique and generally "rode the wave" to some easy money.

All that changed with our provincial mandated licence. We are now seen in the public's eye as a credible force in the real estate market. Some inspectors fell by the wayside but most plied their trade, made an effort to become part of the growing trend, attained the provincial designation of a licenced inspector and now the phone is ringing off the hip.

I am proud to be called a 'Certified House Inspector' by ASTTBC/BCIPI.

I ENCOURAGE ALL HOME INSPECTORS to think long and hard about licencing.
Let your thoughts and actions guide your future for the benifit of your clients.

T.Neyedli CHI
BPCPA #47827
ASTTBC/BCIPI # PI 0297
www.alphahomeinspections.ca

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by tneyedli1

We are now seen in the public's eye as a credible force in the real estate market.

That is your perception, today.

Inspectors in Arizona and North Carolina felt the same way after eliminating some of their market, too. They waived their licenses in the air as a phallic symbol in the same manner....until.....twenty three year olds who graduated from "inspector school" started waiving his license, too.

Then came the need to re-educate the public that a license did NOT represent competence....but merely "entry level" skill. New criteria needed to be introduced to distinguish the reason why you could get a licensed inspection for $129 from a newby but you're wiser to pay me more.

Before that struggle could be fully addressed, though....came the changes in the laws introduced by other special interests that dictated what an inspector could/could not put in his report, etc.

You are drawing conclusions while you are still in the embryonic stage. You are still Sean Penn and Madonna on their love-filled honeymoon.

Pay attention, Canada.

There is already a track record of where this leads. You do not have to re-invent a wheel. It has already been developed and evolved here.

In the USA, we are now at the point with some licensing laws that the inspector who wishes to ethically serve his client must choose to disobey a law in order to do so. Others, through ASHI and other organizations, have to buy media space to inform the public that licensing means nothing.....it is entry level.....not an indication of skill or competence.

Licensed fishermen are not guaranteed to win a tournament. Licensed marriages do not always make it to the sixth month. Licensed home inspectors do not always write accurate, unbiased and complete inspection reports.

Licensing solves nothing.

[George A. H. Luck]

Thanks James. All licensing accomplishes is to place the inspector with 20 years of hard earned experience on the same level as the newly minted graduate inspector with the approved papers. It removes, in the eyes of the public, any reason to use the experienced inspector because 'they are now all certified to a new (minimum) standard." leaving price as the only point of competition. And that is the reason that years of experience in the field are being virtually ignored by those who wish to institute licensing in Ontario / Canada.

[tneyedli1]

Then George:
You will have to learn to sell yourself.

What makes you stand out from the crowd?
What do you have to offer that the others do not?
Why would the client choose you from all the other inspectors?
I have no fear of any newly minted inspector competing with me anywhere.
Those who cannot compete on quality, service or indepth knowledge will
compete on price alone. They will fall by the wayside soon enough.
Just mho.

T.NeyedliCHI
BCIPI #PI 0297
BPCPA #47827
www.alphahomeinspections.ca