Applied Science TRADEMARKING everything inspection related!

Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



clawrenson wrote:
The argument in favour of licensing always has been that it protects the public from incompetents, impostors and quacks. The main outcome of licensing, however, is simply to restrict entry and reduce competition in the licensed occupation. The issues of licensure of an occupation are very complicated and rest on two factors: 1) a person?s fundamental right to engage in his or her chosen occupation; and 2) protection of the health, welfare and safety of the public. Interestingly enough the driving force behind a legislature to take action to license an occupation is the health, welfare, and safety of the public; not protection from political differences over association politics.
Perhaps reviewing past posts on this forum, will shed other opinions that licensing is not a guaranteed slam-dunk to solve these issues you have noted. http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=14912&highlight=licensing


Thanks for sending me back to those posts.
It shows me why you and CAHPI/OAHI are so against licensing.
It also shows me why the OAHI directors do not have time to look after questions from their members. They spend all their time on CHIBO11.

If what nick said earlier is true ( Figures show he is correct ) then Licensing could be the best thing for us Canadians.



Roy Sr



Posted: Aug 19, 2005 12:02 AM Post subject:




Licensing hurts the profession by roughly tripling the number of inspectors in the state where licensing is adopted. Yes, you heard right... every time a state adopts licensing the number of inspectors multiplies by 3. Licensing sets such a bare minimum standard (for example, the dumb NHIE which everyone has the answers to) that everyone can get a license... and everyone does. The new licensed list wipes out the market share of the existing inspectors who have established themselves and their reputations over the years. For example: Recently ASHI Tampa figured this out for themselves and fought licensing in FL.

Licensing helps NACHI of course for the same reason, that being that it triples the number of inspectors. Licensing also helps NACHI because it damn near destroys the do-nothing associations in competition with NACHI. ASHI for instance hangs on tooth and nail to the only benefit it offers its members... a credential. ( I might be wrong, I think ASHI offers a discount on a magazine too ) Anyway, once government takes that purpose away from the do-nothing associations and creates their own credential (a license)... only associations (like NACHI) that offer their members a gazillion other benefits that the government doesn't offer, and will never offer, (marketing and support for instance) survive. Texas, which has had licensing for years is a perfect example. In Texas every inspector's report is legislated to be nearly identical. The only thing that distinguishes one licensed inspector from another is support and marketing power... which is why all the NACHI members in Texas kick a$%.



Any of the do-nothing but offer a credential associations that argue FOR licensing and succeed… soon find themselves with 3 lone members sitting at a bar wondering what the hell went wrong.


Nick Gromicko
Founder


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I think licensing would be a good idea. Particularly if we can steer the process. Are we not in control of our own destiny? We should be dictating terms for our mutual benefits in regards to licensing.


Fwiw I have letter from The Honourabe Jim Watson Minister of Consumer and Business Services and the Ontario Government has no plan for licensing. I don't know about the new Minister Gerry Phillips because I haven't had a reply yet on that matter. He may have different plans. Mr. Phillips office has been helpful thus far on other matters I have taken up with him.

Cheers.
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: clawrenson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
"Licensing is not a bad thing if it is done correctly and for the right reason. It creates more problems than it solves in the states that have applied it, according to most published reports."

"What it did in Texas was make sure inspecting wasn't done by hairdressers. But the real benefit has been that virtually all resale homes are inspected. Licencing made home inspections legitimate and agents universally recommend that buyers get the home inspected. Of course this says nothing about the kind of inspection the agent wants; that varies all over the map."

"....there will be special interests that try to carve out pieces of it for their own cause" "These interests can be as diverse as already licensed architects, engineers, appraisers, REALTORS", code officials and others, as well as semi-related tradespeople who want to perform home inspections in some manner. "

"Even in well populated states, there are so few home inspectors compared to most other regulated professions - that once HI's get licensed it seems that almost every other group with more people and more political clout, and more money (which is just about everyone - builders, realtors, other trades, etc) start trying to change the laws."

"the catalyst behind licensing laws is NOT the consumer but certain factions within the home inspection industry who feel that licensing will help to limit competition and neutralize the differences between inspectors who can market themselves and those who cannot."

What licensing does depends entirely on how the law is written, and to what standards. Equally, it is not our governments job to license us to protect the consumer. So bottom line it can work for some people some of the time, but its definitely not the cure to solve all issues, or necessarily give home inspectors the respect that they deserve. As stated earlier - licensing is not a bad thing if it is done correctly and for the right reason. The tough part is getting it done correctly.


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



We are just going around in circles .


If as it seams to me OAHI and CAHPI do not have time now to listen to their members .


How can we expect them to be any different to have them look after 1000 inspectors .


They just do not realize their members should be looked after.


They have not done a very good job in the past are doing not very good now.


Why should we expect them to be able to do it in the future.


They did not and do not give information .


This has come from above for so long “just trust us”.


I guess I am cynical but see no advantage to even consider ??? it.


Roy sr.


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Claude the same concerns you express about licensing and the pit falls, short comings are exactly what are taking place now and will take place with National Certification because it will be self regulated. No one has shown in over 10 years that self regulation works.


The fact is you are still left with people who have no idea how self regulation is to work, nor do they want it to work.

Again I will submit myself to licensing before I would ever consider Certification through CAHPI or affiliates.

Good discussion. Thanks for your input.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Ever so slowly more information comes out Regarding CHIBO 11.


I keep receiving more informationabout the secret society.


It looks to me that OAHI/CAHPI has been completly ignoring all the members concerns and question because they are trying to pull all the National ? Certifaction? ends together so they can present it to the members in the First of the year.
I have the feeling that the members will have no say or will not be allowed to present their ideas or opinions..
Many come to NACHI to see what is going on and too find the truth .

I hope all look close at what is given out and think do you wish these who have shown in the past they can not be trusted will be trying to run this CHIBO11.

Roy sr

It again looks like Ray and Roy are really the only ones you can trust.

We are not trying to get into your pockets like it looks others are trying to do.


Originally Posted By: John Bowman
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Claude wrote....If anything it will force those outside of associations to join in the process, or close up shop; that is assuming the licensing model includes a named association or its plural derivative. That same growth potential is also a potential with or without licensing. Until licensing is on our doorsteps, we all need to be diligent about those who put such a suggestion forward and their ulterior motives.


Claude,

Please explain yourself further on this.


Originally Posted By: clawrenson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Those paraphrased comments are with respect to the general impact of “licensing”. If an inspector chooses to stay out of “licensing” where it is mandated by the government, at least in Canada - it would seem that closing up shop is likely the only option.


If not, would the inspector than not be in essence "breaking" the law?

It also common for "licensing" legislation to recognize certain specific requirements including language such as membership in "specific" association(s). It would seem that once again there would be growth expected in those specific associations.


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



clawrenson wrote:
Those paraphrased comments are with respect to the general impact of "licensing". If an inspector chooses to stay out of "licensing" where it is mandated by the government, at least in Canada - it would seem that closing up shop is likely the only option.

If not, would the inspector than not be in essence "breaking" the law?

It also common for "licensing" legislation to recognize certain specific requirements including language such as membership in "specific" association(s). It would seem that once again there would be growth expected in those specific associations.


Can you give an example of when the Government in Canada brought in Legislation "Licensing" that a person was forced to join an association. I am not familiar with any . I have A little experience to when they brought in Auto mechanics In the late 50s and electrical in the late 40s and many construction trades followed. These trades people where allowed to practice then and are still allowed to with out being associated with any Trade union or other association.
Why should things be any different now?
Roy Sr


Originally Posted By: vmitchinson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I’ve been a member of ASET (THE ALBERTA SOCIETY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGISTS) a certification association that certifies technologists. It was formed 43 years ago and has over 16,500 members in Alberta and the NWT.


We have been trying to get the Alberta government to pass legislation for the last 30 years to give us the authority to self regulate and have the legal right and responsibility to perform professional services in our areas of expertise. We came within a hairs breath two years ago but were shot down by the professional engineers in this province.


Tradesmen here are given a certificate of proficiency when they complete the training and experience (apprentice program). There are no regulations or trade groups that I am aware of that control the conduct of the members of the various trades.

This government passed a blanket act that allows the various professions in the medical field to set up their own groups to set standards and certify members. They also have disciplinary powers to discipline members. ASET was and is working for the same type of legislation that would apply to the construction industry.

I believe that this type of legislation is provincial jurisdiction and the feds would be shot down if they tried to bring in national legislation in this area. I may be wrong but the feds are limited to recommended standards such as the Nation building code. Each province then enacts this code with local conditions.

If this government will not bring in legislation that will cover 16,500 professional technologists I seriously drought they will be interested in legislation for 25 or 30 home inspectors. (24 NACHI members in Alberta). Most of whom are CACHI members as well.

The point of the above rant is that in spite of all the noise out of Ont. I do not believe there will be any legislation very soon that will regulate the HI business and the people that are in this business, at lease not on a national scale. Ont. gov for Ont. maybe I can not say.


Originally Posted By: John Bowman
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Vern,


Nice post. ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



vmitchinson wrote:


The point of the above rant is that in spite of all the noise out of Ont. I do not believe there will be any legislation very some that will regulate the HI business and the people that are in this business, at lease not on a national scale. Ont. gov for Ont. maybe I can not say.


Well said .
I agree with what you say, this is what we have been saying all along .
The leaders of CAHPI are trying to convince their members that we are all wet and it is going ahead as they wish.
OF Course they have made mistakes before ,
I have never known them to admit it or say sorry.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out .

Roy Cooke sr. A Happy NACHI member,

More and More are finding out how much NACHI does for its members.


Originally Posted By: clawrenson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Clearly it was not me who suggested that licensing would be the viable solution to or for home inspectors in Canada. However, I will stick to my earlier statements about the impact of licensing. Doctors, dentists, teachers, architects and professional engineers and many more professions are prime examples of sectors with licensing. In these professions, practice is clearly defined, and who and under what conditions one may practice.


I did not state that one must join an association. My earlier reference was more in line with suggestions of the "what if" scenarios - if licensing did come to fruition. Equally consider the impact of licensing typically experienced in various U.S. states.

As suggested earlier - associations in general come in many shapes in forms. Aside from notorious claims and politics, it is boils down to a matter of choice and personal opinion on what association one chooses to belong to. Equally, it's simply not mandatory to belong to any if one so chooses!


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Can Professional Associations Be Held Liable in Negligence?


Professions, such as law, accounting and engineering, are self-regulated to some extent by professional associations, which govern and discipline their members and protect the public. In consideration of these
responsibilities, it is interesting to ask if a professional association could be held liable for failing to discipline one of its members or for failing to warn the public about the conduct of one of its members.

Few legal authorities in Canada have considered the liability of a professional association to individuals who suffer a loss, economic or otherwise, from a member's negligence. This seems to suggest that, under
existing law, individuals would have a difficult time establishing liability against a professional association for failing to discipline or warn about a member. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed the
position that "the categories of negligence are never closed." They have broadened the categories and, with them, broadened when a duty of care may be owed and to whom. The rationale underlying the establishment of self-governing professions is the protection of the public. It is this rationale, coupled with a professional association's enabling statute, that could engender a private law duty of care being owed by an association.
Most professional associations, under their enabling statute, have the power to license and discipline their members. This power, often joined with an ethical code of conduct, defines a "self-governing" profession.

The public is protected by ensuring that only qualified, competent individuals are permitted to practise and that those individuals conform to standards of professional conduct established by rules and bylaws.
Any claim against a professional association for failing to discipline a member or failing to warn about the negligence of a member would be framed in negligence. If the enabling statute imposes a positive duty on
the association to investigate or discipline its members, then arguably that association could owe a private law duty of care to a person in the public who has used the member's services. As for any claim in negligence, the person making the claim would have to establish a sufficiently close relationship between the association and himself or herself, such that it was reasonably foreseeable that a careless act or omission by the association could result in damages being suffered by that person. Further, one must weigh any policy reasons or considerations that would limit the scope of the duty and the class of persons to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.

It is arguable, in certain circumstances, that an association is akin to a public authority. As such, there are public policy reasons to negate or limit its duty of care because of the potentially indeterminate number of
claimants.

As well, the association's disciplinary powers may well be deemed quasi-judicial and therefore exempt from any liability. The enabling statute may include clauses protecting the association from actions brought
against it as long as it acts in good faith. The wording of the enabling statute is of critical importance.

It is likely that an association, like any individual or public body, is also subject to a standard of reasonableness. Failing to act at all may be unreasonable. Failing to initiate a review or to discipline a member when the association knows, or ought to know, of his or her negligence or misconduct may also be unreasonable. The facts of each case will obviously affect the reasonableness of the alleged act or omission
of the professional association.

Notwithstanding policy defenses, the potential for liability exists in the current negligence climate.

Accordingly, it is in an association's best interests to ensure that its statutory obligations are clearly identified and adhered to in carrying out its role as a self-governing body.

For more information on this topic, please consult Bob Hodgins. (Frida Tromans assisted in writing this article.) http://www.singleton.com/lofl20001.cfm#part7

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



clawrenson wrote:
Those paraphrased comments are with respect to the general impact of "licensing". If an inspector chooses to stay out of "licensing" where it is mandated by the government, at least in Canada - it would seem that closing up shop is likely the only option.
.


I might be wrong but there is now way this will ever Fly unless CAHPI can get NACHI and its members to go along with CAHPI .

Unfortunatly CAHPI /ONTARIO has shown they do not care for its members and many continue to leave .



I guess I was the quickest RHI to ever leave Two months after getting my RHI I left because of the many lies and Irregularities in the OAHI Association. They still have not improved .


Today I received a letter from a Government Official which confirms what has been said all along below is part of it



Quote "The National Association of Certified Inspectors ( NACHI) is one of several organizations which,because they emerged following the extensive industry consultation and following the creation of a national alliance of private home inspectors and associations, did not participate. While CMHC and the Government of Canada have no role in the certification equivalency agreements between CAHPI and other certifying organizations is key to the national implementation. I understand CAHPI will be exploring this with NACHI. "


I read that( extensive industry consultation) 60 is? extensive? This is enough to creat a national alliance ?
I read (CMHC and the Government of Canada have no role in the Certification )

This sound like as been said all along, some want a way to squeeze more money from Home inspectors and make money for WHO.

The word I hear is OAHI is in Big trouble with their finances and are going to raise the dues to try and cover their shorts.
I wonder why they have not yet produced final the year end for 2004.
Soon we will be into 2006.

Roy Cooke sr A HAPPY NACHI MEMBER


Originally Posted By: clawrenson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Roy I suggest respectfully, checking on the issue of your claim of 60. For clarification -that specifically refers to the number of responses received regarding input on a “task” priority ranking for most important or least important inspection tasks.


Task = a required skill normally performed on a house inspection. Example checking the electrical service capacity or condition opposed to a broken window seal. (Example: Which is the most critical task required?)

Equally on another anecdote - I read an article in a Canadian magazine in the dentist office today indicating that CMHC captures 2/3rds of all household mortgage insurance in Canada. I found that quite a compelling fact.


Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



clawrenson wrote:
Roy I suggest respectfully, checking on the issue of your claim of 60. For clarification -that specifically refers to the number of responses received regarding input on a "task" priority ranking for most important or least important inspection tasks.

Task = a required skill normally performed on a house inspection. Example checking the electrical service capacity or condition opposed to a broken window seal. (Example: Which is the most critical task required?)

Equally on another anecdote - I read an article in a Canadian magazine in the dentist office today indicating that CMHC captures 2/3rds of all household mortgage insurance in Canada. I found that quite a compelling fact.


This is the old fact figures lie and liars figure .
What I mean is when you give us that statement I and others would think that CMHC is involved with 66% of the Motgages in Canada.
I do believe what it means is CMHC is involved with 66% of the high risk mortgages in Canada. This is very VERY far from 66% of all mortgages .

You talk about 60 replies . Yes I can except that you only got 60 replies . But how many home inspectors where asked for their opinion .
I know of None ZERO.
Why do we not have the privledge of knowing who ( the extensive industry consultants are ).

Reading between the lines I feel it could be those who in the past have shown their word could be slanted in their favour.

I expect many are starting to get nervious from this JUST TRUST US attitude .
This has been presented too many times by the leaders of CAHPI and OAHI .
Sounds like the Liberal Party to me .
It is unfortunate that the home inspectors who should have a say in this are given no information from OAHI/CAHPI .
NACHI and its members seem to be the only ones who have got the info out .
You can accuse us of not telling the whole story but we do put out more then the Canadian associations are .

We have invited the Pres Of CAHI and Bill to present and tell their side the silence and replies tell the story

From what I read there is no way this can go with just the CAHPI inspectors involved.
CAHPI sure has not done any thing to convince me that Non CAHPI inspectors should get involved.

I think I see what this says CMHC and the Gov want no part of this?




Quote "The National Association of Certified Inspectors ( NACHI) is one of several organizations which,because they emerged following the extensive industry consultation and following the creation of a national alliance of private home inspectors and associations, did not participate. While CMHC and the Government of Canada have no role in the certification equivalency agreements between CAHPI and other certifying organizations is key to the national implementation. I understand CAHPI will be exploring this with NACHI. "


Roy Cooke sr One of Many HAPPY NACHI MEMBERS
NACHI is GROWING ( not shrinking ) I know WHY (do you?)


Originally Posted By: clawrenson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Thanks Roy - very peceptive. It is good to see that one cannot always accept all comments at face value, even if there are two parts to this story. Indeed they also cover the largest part of the high risk mortgages.


C’est la vie! icon_biggrin.gif


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
I might be wrong but there is now way this will ever Fly unless CAHPI can get NACHI and its members to go along with CAHPI .


Not only Nachi but those in OAHI and CAHPI itself, only sufficient interest and numbers will make this work in my opinion. CAHPI, I believe is only one third of the equation wanting certification. As to the rest of inspectors aligned with one association or non aligned, the other two thirds are going to have to get on board in order for this Certification to work. Given the overwhelming lack of interest both in Nachi Canada, OAHI members and Cahpi members, it would seem no one is in a rush to run out and get certified. No one has shown any benefit or advantage to do so. How many will want to be certified to a standard that no one knows much about? Not to mention the costs which must be borne by a substantial number of participants in order to lower the costs of certification on per person cost? Seems to be a case of Economics 101. ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Just my opinions and thoughts. I think the author of the letter has alluded to my views expressed many times. It's all in the numbers.

Cheers,
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


Originally Posted By: rwand1
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



When is self regulating not self regulating?


Is a body self regulating when they can't reply at all or in a timely manner to complaints?

Is a body self regulating when it can't follow the by-laws?

When they can't provide financial statements as required by law?

Is it still self regulating when some are allowed to act outside the confines of the by-law?

If you have no attempt at self regulation is it still self regulating?

If members are not allowed to have a say in the affairs of a self regulating body is it still self regulating?

If there is no self regulation does that mean it is a club and has no clout?

If it is self regulating and picks and chooses which by-laws to follow is there a duty of care required by a self regulating body?

If a body has a proven history of not self regulating, is there any interest in self regulating?

Yes I am glad CAHPI and OAHI and Certification will be self regulating, for a minute there I thought there would be no self regulation.

Membership sure has its privileges! For everything else there is Nachi!

![icon_redface.gif](upload://f7DX2EWhmUfsDapWaYT3oJHMCj1.gif) ![icon_redface.gif](upload://f7DX2EWhmUfsDapWaYT3oJHMCj1.gif) ![icon_redface.gif](upload://f7DX2EWhmUfsDapWaYT3oJHMCj1.gif)

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON