Penalty Matrix

[kweiss]

So i got another email about this PM from TAREI today.

I really do not understand the motivation behind this thing. I was under the impression that as a whole percentage wise there were very few actual complaints against inspectors. Is that wrong? Given that the numbers are so low, why not continue to deal with them on a case by case basis? It makes no sense.

The numbers they show in the email are ridiculous. Where and who is coming up with this crap? The TAREI idea seems somewhat reasonable but also like a huge hassle. Why is this thought to be necessary?

How will this make any difference in quality? Are they going to start auditing reports? How on earth would they do that? How can they have a matrix with such specifics, when so much of the SoP is couched in terms like - "if it is wrong - you must report it." With no definition as to exactly what qualifies as wrong.

Who makes the money on the PM - TREC or the complainant?

Are you still able to disclaim in the report?

What is the statue of limitations on this type of complaint?

How can this coincide with the ability to set the limit of liability in your agreement? (which I believe Mr. Cahill has said has been upheld in court.)

This seems to be traveling farther and farther from the basic inspection tenet of "an inspection is a great way to LIMIT or REDUCE your risk when purchasing a house. It does not and cannot completely eliminate it.

I honestly question that the consumer really wants this type of minutia and a $1000 inspection. Most of my clients, while they want very thorough, understand and accept reality and the trade off of a reasonable fee for a half a day one time inspection and all the limitations that go with that. I cannot believe this is consumer driven.

[John Onofrey]

The whole thing is a farce. The only people that will benefit from this are those that want something for nothing and know how to work the system.

TAREI's response is a good one though, I'd have to agree.

[Ben L. Garrison]

Why should a state "regulatory" agency make money off what they deem to be the inspector's possible "negligence?" Last time I checked, they had no skin in the game in the form of being responsible for claims agains inspectors the way E&O insurance companies do.