Thread: NHICC approved!

In yet another example of the credibility and value of the NCH (National Certificate Holder) through the NHICC, the BC Government has now approved the NHICC to credential inspectors for licensing.

Consumer Protection BC will become responsible for the designation of associations deemed appropriate to assess the qualifications of home inspectors.

New Home Inspector Association Designated in BC

Designated Associations

Similar Threads:

• Approved horizontal PVC pipe supports
• Is the copper elbow an approved fitting?
• IICRC ANSI-Approved S520 Standard and Reference Guide for ... - dBusinessNews Seattle
• Hail Damage/Who can be approved.
• NACHI Members Now Approved to Perform Citizens Four Point Inspections

Here are the lastest numbers from BC as of January 12/11

CAHPI - 223

ASTT - 92

CanNachi - 33

Others (have until March 31, 2011 to join one of the above associations) - 43

The CAHPI numbers include a number of Nat. Cert. holders and non certificate holders.

The only province in which the NHICC has had even a modicum of success is B.C. and they had to have their credential legislated into the system to do it. The fact remains that in the country as a whole, this failed national programme has attracted less than 10% of Canadian home inspectors and has been rejected by over 90%. The only way that the NCP ( or whatever it is called this week) will ever be grudgingly accepted is if every province legislates it into a position of dominance as the one and only required credential and that is not going to happen.

After years of work, the expenditure of millions of dollars, the investment of untold volunteer hours, threats, attacks, innuendo, lies, name calling and grasping for recognition of a government body, any government body, this whole programme is a complete and total failure and is dead in the water. Even one of the major stakeholders recognizes that. In fact, the only people who do not see through the smoke screen are the people creating it.

But the winds of change will blow the screen away.

First the NCP is a National Program. Secondly the NHICC is a certification body for home inspectors. Thirdly gaining recognition as an accepted body to certify home inspectors for licensing is a "provincial act". Yes, perhaps only today and but for some over the past 2 years in British Columbia.

Is success based on quality or quantity? Or is it based on bragging about who is bigger or better? Bigger or better than what? Even those that are claim they are bigger need to clear out their "deadwood".

Or perhaps is it based on performing 1000 unsupervised home inspections, or 100 that have been under supervision or mentoring that actually might meet a recognized "industry" standard?

The only failure of the NCP was the handling and control in its previous tenure. It's called short sightedness, those that failed to relinquish control looked out for the best interest of their provincial units. That is one of the major reasons why the NHICC came into existence, control by big brother. That is also why many saw the need for independence and support the NHICC.

The NHICC is not looking for dominance. It's looking for upholding a valid and defendable certification program for home and property inspectors. Like it or not, the recognition in BC is only one of many steps in our business and programming plan for a even more success as we move steadily forward!

Perhaps it's obvious, but yet unfortunate at the same time that some will view that as a threat to their existence. Are you concerned you may loose all or some of those 43 potential non-aligned members?

We already know where many of them and more from BC and the fringes of Alberta, and other areas of Canada are headed. So the NHICC must be doing something right!

Re: NHICC approved!

Certification Body?, It hasn't even met the requirements of CAN P9 or ICE at this point in time. It also appears to be an association with a disciplinary process. Further in the mission statement it claims to be not associated with any home inspection association, however there is more than the appearance that PHPIC is associated with NHICC.

If success is based on quality or quantity, it appears the National has less than 10% of home inspectors on board. Further your same group is pushing its agenda on outdated and incomplete data based on only a very small survey - statistically insignificant.

Further press releases and other statements from your camp painting all home inspectors in Canada as incompetent and cowboys was a mistake. It was put down.

Unfortunately there are conflicts at the top, which quite frankly are conflicts because the leaders own active home inspection businesses plying wares to home inspectors and having at least one employee of the business on an advisory role.

There is also the matter of an ongoing lawsuit wherein applicants for the TIPR under the ole regime of the National have been refused refunds, yet CAHPI and the leaders managing the National at the time knew what was going on and said nothing. Now there are allegations of missing monies. Lets also remember that the taxpayer put considerable funds into this endeavour.

The only failure of the NCP was the handling and control in its previous tenure. It's called short sightedness, those that failed to relinquish control looked out for the best interest of their provincial units. That is one of the major reasons why the NHICC came into existence, control by big brother. That is also why many saw the need for independence and support the NHICC.

Independence of the NHICC and support? This reincarnate has the same faces, same attitudes and through at least two spokes people who quite frankly need to learn to stop calling people liars when they don't like the questions, and the lack of decorum by purposely inferring people are sick. The NHICC has always and will continue to have an image problem because of the people you know very well have a problem with public relations. This was the same problem that plagued the first attempt at the National.

Your comment that the National is not looking for dominance is not the message being sent out by your friends at PHPIC whom have openly stated that any provincial licencing outside BC will be based on the National Cert. model. PHPIC already attempted to bend the arm of the Ontario government by getting in bed with CREA who at PHPICs urging would lobby the government for licencing based on the National.

I along with others are not concerned about numbers rather about conflicts, and misinformation and those in your camp who quite frankly have done more harm for your program than you would ever admit. The national in BC is one of four bodies that were approved, it was not the only one.

We don't know how the other provinces will handle licencing and under what standards that remains to be seen, but we do know that it will not solely be the National, and CAHPI in Alberta has been caught making false statements about its role as supreme.

As for Ontario I know that licencing is not on the radar, nor is it defacto that the National if and when will not be the only body pushing its agenda due to the fact you will have a very hard fight against OAHI which wants nothing to do with the National and has subsequently come up with is own competing national like program to compete with your group.

There are just too many special interests in your camp for my liking and that of others.

This sounds like the states with the Dems versus Republicans and there cannot and never will be an agreement on anything. What would you folks do if the Government sat down one day and said "This is how we are going to handle Home Inspectors". Or each Province (state) take it upon themselves and just said "Enough already. This is what is going to be."

Well, I guess we all know the answer to that. You would just do it. Maybe kicking and screaming but just do it.

Kinda like our President. Well folks. We are all going to get along now and compromise and oh, by the way, this is what we are going to compromise on (not actual asking the other side of the choices for compromise).....in case you were wondering. Oh, and by the way. We are going to compromise on the 2012 budget. We are going to spend a whole butt load of money and then raise taxes on some so we can spend that money as well. We won't actually lower or try to balance the budget but this is your choice to compromise on. We will also throw some make believe numbers in there that we have already figured for other reasons so it will look like we are actually saving money....even though it has already been figured in.

And on, and on, and on, and on. I guess it don't matter that we are broke and heading to bankruptcy and are already 14,000,000,000,000.00. Sorry, I did not mean to throw that big number at you folks. That is probably Canada's expenditures for the next 50 years

Sorry Canada. I have been listening to the Canadian battles over home inspectors for ever. Just thought you wanted to see how it sounds.

The Master Inspector Certification Board took over NCP last month and now manages it.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Sorry Canada. I have been listening to the Canadian battles over home inspectors for ever.
Just thought you wanted to see how it sounds.

Unfortunatly you are correct Ted but if a few had not kept these
(" Battles ") going then the self appointed loud mouth minority would have taken over our industry .
We have not won yet but at least we also have not lost.
Please Ted wish us Luck they have no facts and are trying to convince the Canadian Home Inspector how they are the answer .
Many of those who are pushing this are not at arms length and refuse to answer any questions.
Roy Cooke

Ted

I think your expertise is required up here!

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

The Master Inspector Certification Board took over NCP last month and now manages it.

Lisa

I don't know how that could be as no one in the government has spoken to anyone in Nachi.

Further any association can readily use the Nat. Cert. program.

Can you provide any further info as to when Nachi will make it available? Its not an easy program to manage nor implement.

Lets start with a few points you raise.

Is recognition for licensing in BC significant or insignificant?

Is the failure rate through the practical test inspection of 18 to 20% of the claimed qualified, certified, registered or master inspectors - significant or not?

Statements regarding allegations of misdeeds are equally as unprofessional and damaging in the industry. Some cannot sort out "truth" from what they believe as facts!

The NHICC has never claimed ownership of the National Certification Program. It has only contended with the permission of the Construction Sector Council (in Canada) and working with the other stakeholders, the right to utilize it as a national certification platform.

Generally what all associations needs to consider, who grants them their right to certify. Which makes most of what you and others may claim equally lacking in independence and free from influence and or conflicts.

But most of all I agree with Ted, the battlesonly become battles when people cannot face the fact that the original post was just that - providing information, and not intended to become flaming wars intending to start another "pissing" match.

But thanks for caring!

Is recognition for licensing in BC significant or insignificant?

The real question Claude is; "After 15 years, millions of dollars and untold volunteer hours is inclusion as one of four other associations in the B.C. licensing fiasco something to crow about?". I guess if that is all you have then crow away.


Is the failure rate through the practical test inspection of 18 to 20% of the claimed qualified, certified, registered or master inspectors - significant or not?

We don't have an answer for that because we have no other numbers to compare your 18 - 20% to. Before anyone can make a reasonable assessment of those numbers we need comparables. If another system is failing 90% or 1% then we could make that comparison. But like most things to do with the national, these are numbers picked out of the air and bandied about as significant when they are anything but.

Statements regarding allegations of misdeeds are equally as unprofessional and damaging in the industry. Some cannot sort out "truth" from what they believe as facts!

Enlighten us Claude. The industry has been asking for answers for years so this is your big chance. Tell us how there are no conflicts of interest, no principals involved in running home inspection schools, no persons of questionable background. Certain members of your organization have been engaged in character assassination of any inspector who stood up and asked questions for years. The entire premise of the national is based on supposition, guesses, estimates and Ouija board readings, but now is the time to give us the facts.

So let's start with a few answers to some very basic questions;

HOW MANY INSPECTORS ARE THERE IN CANADA?
HOW MANY INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED / YEAR?
HOW MANY OF THOSE INSPECTIONS LEAD TO MINOR / MAJOR CLIENT COMPLAINT?

If you cannot establish the basic failure rate of Canadian Home Inspectors ( and you can't) then you should not have spent most of the last 15 years running around trying to convince government, the public and the press that we are all cowboys, incompetents, dangerous and unqualified. And you did.

The NHICC has never claimed ownership of the National Certification Program. It has only contended with the permission of the Construction Sector Council (in Canada) and working with the other stakeholders, the right to utilize it as a national certification platform.

"While it was recognized by the CSC that not all home inspector organizations were involved, we hoped that through this initiative all home inspectors would eventually coalesce around this initiative and work together for the betterment of your industry. Unfortunately, it appears that the fragmentation of the home inspector industry has been linked to the implementation of the model." It seems like at least one of the stake holders has lost confidence in your ever making the national a success. Now even the so called 'stake holders' are seeing that the national is a non-event.

Generally what all associations needs to consider, who grants them their right to certify. Which makes most of what you and others may claim equally lacking in independence and free from influence and or conflicts.

Registering with an American accreditation business ( I.C.E.) neither replaces CAN P-9 nor gives the national any credibility. That and the adoption of an American Home Inspection exam, which is not highly regarded in the States is a clear indication that the national is floundering.


But most of all I agree with Ted, the battlesonly become battles when people cannot face the fact that the original post was just that - providing information, and not intended to become flaming wars intending to start another "pissing" match.

When Canadian tax payers see their money used to develop and promote a system designed to put their fellow Canadians out of work; When they see that this system is based on fabrications and that those fabrications have been used to damage ever inspector in the industry; when it becomes clear that the main objective of the national is to limit the number of inspectors entering the industry by setting 'the bar' so high that it prevents applicants from practicing, ignores new inspectors and abandons them to their own devices, provides no apprenticeship programme and no grandfathering programme, you will have to allow us a certain latitude to complain and contest.

You can call it a pissing match or flaming. The 90% of us not in your system call it getting the truth out.

But thanks for caring!

Your are welcome Claude. And that is the problem; we DO care.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

Lets start with a few points you raise.

Is recognition for licensing in BC significant or insignificant?

But thanks for caring!

.

I do not think is significant .It is costing the taxpayers a lot of money and is trying to fix a problem that is extremly small .
We have courts for this purpose.
These are some figures I have gathered from the BBB .
The complete report is very large and if any one wants a copy I can mail it to you . Roycooke@sympatico.ca

BBB Complaints list 2008

Actual Complaints............. 27
Complaints Settled .........14
Complaints Not Settled.. 13
These are Canadian Figures for the full year 2008
BBB list of Complaints Home Inspection Ranked #108
Canada BBB 2008 Statistics Sorted by Complaint
Industry Description Inquiries Report Rank Complaints Complaint Rank Complaints Settled % Complaints Not Settled % Complaints Unable to Pursue %

Originally Posted by Roy Cooke sr

.

I do not think is significant .

So far, every association that has asked to be recognized in BC has been given the thumbs up, regardless. We have been hoodwinked into thinking this raises the standards.

Ray, InterNACHI has nothing to do with it. MICB is the one rebuilding the previously defunct NCP.

Lisa

What is MICB?

Originally Posted by John Kogel

So far, every association that has asked to be recognized in BC has been given the thumbs up, regardless. We have been hoodwinked into thinking this raises the standards.

John,

And here I thought you were another pretty face!

That is a very good point you raise John.

They even let CanNachi in and CanNachi doesn't even have the number of members it claims it has. As a matter of fact CanNachi directors also serve as teachers for the inspection school run by the president of CanNachi.

Can you say conflict?

So far, "every association" that has asked to be recognized in BC has been given the thumbs up, regardless. We have been hoodwinked into thinking this raises the standards.
__________________
John Kogel, RHI, BC HI Lic #47455

So was it fact or fiction the iNACHI was not approved?

One can only fairly view if standards are or were raised by comparing the lowest common denominator.

The other point being, are inspectors held accountable if a consumer files a complaint to BPCPA? Can one loose their license to practice in BC?

Or is it about accountability?

Regarding the post on the BBB - who do they track? Largely members, based on complaints by "consumers". It's not the end all be all resource to track "consumer complaints". It is one of many.

One example: OHIO INSPECTION LICENSURE STUDY
Ohio homeowners rated the home inspector they dealt with 7.7 on a scale of 1 to 10 on the accuracy of the inspection report, while real estate agents from licensing survey states rated home inspectors 8.3 for report accuracy.

Let's see that's 77% - not bad, but leaving significant room for improvement.

Ohio homeowners rated the home inspector they dealt with 7.7 on a scale of 1 to 10 on their overall satisfaction, while real estate agents from licensing survey states rated client satisfaction 8.5.

Not bad, but in need of attention!

Or how about this statement in the OHIO Report
Because of the present lack of regulation among home inspectors in Ohio, one of the primary issues is the concern over “fly-by-night” home inspectors. These inspectors may be defined as practitioners who are not committed to a long-term career in home inspection but rather see an opportunity to make “easy” money without having sufficient qualifications. In the event that a different opportunity comes along or in a worst case scenario, that they are accused of negligence, the “fly-by-night” inspector moves on to another venture. Without regulation, there is nothing preventing such an inspector from preparing inspection reports for a fee.

Would licensing minimize the number of “fly-by-night” inspectors? Yes. Licensing, if modeled after the states that were studied in this report, would minimize the number of “fly-by-night” inspectors simply through the sheer volume of time and effort necessary to obtain a license.

A multitude of issues within the home inspection and real estate industries create a need for home inspection regulation despite the evidence that such regulation will not reduce the number of inadequate inspections. To address the basic issues, a minimal home inspection regulation program might be sufficient, but a larger licensing program in keeping with the licensing
requirements placed on real estate agents would be the most effective. Such a program should include a range of requirements in education, testing, experience, and other areas, while addressing such issues as ethics, penalties, and reciprocity. The logistics of implementing such a program entail creating a regulatory board, hiring staff, and generating revenue.

So if some choose to ignore those independent reports, what proof do you have to offer that "no problems" exist?

So was it fact or fiction the iNACHI was not approved?

In the interests of accuracy, Claude is right. The statement should have said no CANADIAN associations have been rejected.


One can only fairly view if standards are or were raised by comparing the lowest common denominator.

??

The other point being, are inspectors held accountable if a consumer files a complaint to BPCPA? Can one loose their license to practice in BC?

You tell us.

Or is it about accountability?

Accountability implies wrong doing. Who decides what is right or wrong?

Regarding the post on the BBB - who do they track? Largely members, based on complaints by "consumers". It's not the end all be all resource to track "consumer complaints". It is one of many.

One example: OHIO INSPECTION LICENSURE STUDY
Ohio homeowners rated the home inspector they dealt with 7.7 on a scale of 1 to 10 on the accuracy of the inspection report, while real estate agents from licensing survey states rated home inspectors 8.3 for report accuracy.

Let's see that's 77% - not bad, but leaving significant room for improvement.

Why should a home inspector have any regard for what a real estate sales person thinks of their performance? We work for our clients not the agent. Why do you and your friends have such a concern for the opinions of agents and want to involve them in the governance of our industry?


Ohio homeowners rated the home inspector they dealt with 7.7 on a scale of 1 to 10 on their overall satisfaction, while real estate agents from licensing survey states rated client satisfaction 8.5.

Not bad, but in need of attention!

What were the inaccuracies? Chipped paint? Blown light bulb? Hard to open kitchen drawers? You have no idea what the inaccuracies were and once again are jumping to the conclusion that the inspector must be in the wrong. When are you and your friends going to support and encourage Canadian Home Inspectors instead of trying to tear them down?

Or how about this statement in the OHIO Report
Because of the present lack of regulation among home inspectors in Ohio, one of the primary issues is the concern over “fly-by-night” home inspectors. These inspectors may be defined as practitioners who are not committed to a long-term career in home inspection but rather see an opportunity to make “easy” money without having sufficient qualifications. In the event that a different opportunity comes along or in a worst case scenario, that they are accused of negligence, the “fly-by-night” inspector moves on to another venture. Without regulation, there is nothing preventing such an inspector from preparing inspection reports for a fee.

Would licensing minimize the number of “fly-by-night” inspectors? Yes. Licensing, if modeled after the states that were studied in this report, would minimize the number of “fly-by-night” inspectors simply through the sheer volume of time and effort necessary to obtain a license.

Again you assume that the unlicensed inspector is a dangerous, unqualified, incompetent cowboy ( to use just some of the names that you and your friends have used to defame every Canadian Home Inspector for the past 15 years). Every Canadian Inspector has been damaged by these claims and you and your friends continue to make them without proof.

You and your friends make these claims while at the same time being unable to answer three simple questions that would enable us to define the failure rate of Canadian Home Inspectors;

HOW MANY INSPECTORS ARE THERE IN CANADA?
HOW MANY INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED / YEAR?
HOW MANY OF THOSE INSPECTIONS LEAD TO MINOR / MAJOR CLIENT COMPLAINT.

Until you can accurately define the 'failure rate' of Canadian Inspectors then your claims about our incompetence are meaningless and you owe us all an apology.

A multitude of issues within the home inspection and real estate industries create a need for home inspection regulation despite the evidence that such regulation will not reduce the number of inadequate inspections. To address the basic issues,

What exactly are the "basic issues"?

a minimal home inspection regulation program might be sufficient, but a larger licensing program in keeping with the licensing requirements placed on real estate agents would be the most effective.

We as an industry need to know what the "basic issues" are before any claims can be made that certain actions will solve them. Then we need to know whether or not these actions will actually address them in a relevant manner. Proof Please.

Such a program should include a range of requirements in education, testing, experience, and other areas, while addressing such issues as ethics, penalties, and reciprocity. The logistics of implementing such a program entail creating a regulatory board, hiring staff, and generating revenue.

Your blatant disregard for new inspectors who are left to their own devices and experienced inspectors who are treated without real regard for their experience and training is astounding. You left out grandfathering, mentoring and apprenticeship. You also left out the need for all associations to divest themselves of their connections to 'inspector mills' whether owned by members of their boards of directors, or through the owners of those associations. Telling indeed.

So if some choose to ignore those independent reports, what proof do you have to offer that "no problems" exist?

You are attempting to set up a straw man argument. Nobody has said that there are not problems with the industry or that Inspectors do not make mistakes. All we have asked for is proof of your claims of rampant incompetence. Instead of trying to deflect the question with this sort of silly diversion, why don't you supply us with the answers to the above three questions so that we can all be assured that the so called national was not based on a lie?

For your interest

Where can I obtain a copy the bylaws of NHICC?

I would like to see what powers NHICC has granted itself via its bylaws and how its discipline process is worded in such bylaws.

Lisa

What is MICB?

Master Inspector Certification Board.

"Where can I obtain a copy the bylaws of NHICC?"

Bylaws - likely the same place and process that one can obtain one openly from ACHI.

QUOTE: Again you assume that the unlicensed inspector is a dangerous, unqualified, incompetent cowboy ( to use just some of the names that you and your friends have used to defame every Canadian Home Inspector for the past 15 years). Every Canadian Inspector has been damaged by these claims and you and your friends continue to make them without proof.

You and your friends make these claims while at the same time being unable to answer three simple questions that would enable us to define the failure rate of Canadian Home Inspectors; END QUOTE

Assumptions - Once again your wrong in your "assumption"! Those words never came from me.

7.7 out of 10 - It must be the new math - You seem to easily dismiss and undermine the reporting of "accuracy rating". Old math - that's almost 25% of home owners were dissatisfied with their "home" inspector. What is the accepted limit?

Realtors - you seems to gloss over that realtors have a large part to do with home inspectors. An inspector who receives work (employment) either directly from a Realtor or his/her firm or by some other disguised method (such as the realtor handing out to prospective purchasers 3 or 4 inspectors' business cards) has as his main client the realtor. Successful home inspectors receive referrals from Realtors.

Once again you dismiss the fact that Realtors do and can form opinions, whether you like them or not about home inspectors and their services. That's also part of business.

But more to the point - If you are offended by my original post in this thread - that's also very unfortunate! It's a fact, it's reality and it's what's happening, so it's news. It was not my intent to offend. But it seems some are quick to jump and rain on "any" news and turn it to controversy.

"On March 31, 2009 the Solicitor General of B.C. announced that all home and property inspectors in that province must be licensed. It’s the first province to offer any kind of consumer protection that helps protect homebuyers."

It was a step in the right direction, perhaps not doing everything for everybody.

Shouldn’t all homeowners impacted by home inpectors have the same protection? Currently no other province has any requirement. No other government body exists at the federal, provincial or municipal level to protect homeowners from bad home inspectors. Far too often it becomes a dirty little secret when a home inspector causes damages.

I've seen many come and go, or perhaps support their home inspection business with other conflicting services, which can equally cause concerns.

Many home inspectors, both good and bad, already belong to associations, and the inspectors still make mistakes. So to deny that there is not an need to clean up the home inspection industry, is equally an act professional negligence - at least in my opinion.

Bylaws - likely the same place and process that one can obtain one openly from ACHI.
The ALLIANCE of CANADIAN HOME INSPECTORS is a home inspector association with paid members. The NHICC, by your own admission, is not. All of our articles of incorporation and by-laws are available for members to view at the ACHI corporate offices. The NHICC's are not.

QUOTE: Again you assume that the unlicensed inspector is a dangerous, unqualified, incompetent cowboy ( to use just some of the names that you and your friends have used to defame every Canadian Home Inspector for the past 15 years). Every Canadian Inspector has been damaged by these claims and you and your friends continue to make them without proof.

You and your friends make these claims while at the same time being unable to answer three simple questions that would enable us to define the failure rate of Canadian Home Inspectors; END QUOTE

Assumptions - Once again your wrong in your "assumption"! Those words never came from me.

"You and your friends..." as has been said before "You are known by your lieutenants." or perhaps you would prefer "Birds of a feather, flock together"? If you wish to publicly state that you do not believe there is a problem with inspector competence then please do. But you may want to look at your previous publications before you commit to that pronouncement.

7.7 out of 10 - It must be the new math - You seem to easily dismiss and undermine the reporting of "accuracy rating". Old math - that's almost 25% of home owners were dissatisfied with their "home" inspector. What is the accepted limit?

As you well know Claude, the question is not about the 25%. The question is "What did the home owners define as problems that caused dissatisfaction?" Was it simple things like dripping taps, loose carpets, a discovered drywall blemish found after the furniture was removed? You have no idea what the parameters were that defined the client's dissatisfaction. Until we know that this 25% was caused by something substantial, it is and remains a meaningless figure. Your assumption is that it represents major faults overlooked and again you attack the reputations of every Canadian Inspector without proof.

Realtors - you seems to gloss over that realtors have a large part to do with home inspectors. An inspector who receives work (employment) either directly from a Realtor or his/her firm or by some other disguised method (such as the realtor handing out to prospective purchasers 3 or 4 inspectors' business cards) has as his main client the realtor. Successful home inspectors receive referrals from Realtors.

Claude, even you must understand that the client is the one who signs the contract and pays the bill. Your premise runs contrary to hundreds of years of contract law. While it would be foolish to deny that the Realtor is a part of the real estate transaction, it is equally foolish to accept that the Realtor has a place in the administration of our industry. The attempt by PHIPIO / NHICC to involve Realtors in the misguided attempt to force licensing on Ontario was one of the biggest miscalculation you and your friends have made to date.

Once again you dismiss the fact that Realtors do and can form opinions, whether you like them or not about home inspectors and their services. That's also part of business.

Non sequitur

But more to the point - If you are offended by my original post in this thread - that's also very unfortunate! It's a fact, it's reality and it's what's happening, so it's news. It was not my intent to offend. But it seems some are quick to jump and rain on "any" news and turn it to controversy.

Not offended at all Claude. It might surprise you to know that I admire you and Bill for having the strength of your convictions no matter how misguided. However, you should not turn every disagreement with your public pronouncements into a personal issue. Furthermore, it is the right, indeed the duty of every Canadian Inspector to oppose those who would attempt to dominate and control our industry through the use of dis-information.

"On March 31, 2009 the Solicitor General of B.C. announced that all home and property inspectors in that province must be licensed. It’s the first province to offer any kind of consumer protection that helps protect homebuyers."

It was a step in the right direction, perhaps not doing everything for everybody.

Shouldn’t all homeowners impacted by home inpectors have the same protection? Currently no other province has any requirement. No other government body exists at the federal, provincial or municipal level to protect homeowners from bad home inspectors. Far too often it becomes a dirty little secret when a home inspector causes damages.

Please explain how licensing that consists of a requirement to complete courses that may not have been approved by any ministry, to subject oneself to the arbitrary and subjective assessment of so called peers, to attain a certification that is based on an unproven need, protects anyone. Seriously, Claude, please supply us with proof that being nationally certified makes one a better inspector and how that process works.

I've seen many come and go, or perhaps support their home inspection business with other conflicting services, which can equally cause concerns.

Agreed. The provision of 'education' through education mills owned or operated by board members or principals of various home inspection organizations comes to mind.

Many home inspectors, both good and bad, already belong to associations, and the inspectors still make mistakes. So to deny that there is not an need to clean up the home inspection industry, is equally an act professional negligence - at least in my opinion.

Again, nobody is making that claim as you well know. However a lot of people are beginning to question the claim that the problem of inspector incompetence is as dire as the authors of the 'national' have been claiming and upon which that programme was built. Without being able to provide us with the actual failure rate of the Canadian Home Inspector that claim is unproven and in another context libelous.

I cannot for the life of me understand why people have to use this forum and others to continually take cheap shots at one another. Read the original post!

Perhaps it too simple - stick to the issues, and stay on topic.

I did not want to quote the book above but

Seriously. The Ohio stats about home owners rating the accuracy of the inspection report...based on what persons knowledge, book, standard, actuality, kn ow how etc etc etc etc

Seriously. Based on a Realtors account. I won't even go there.

Home owners know squat (sorry home owners) about what should or should not be inspected or standards or anything even after being told such. They are not home inspectors, tested as home inspectors, have not studied anything about home inspection other than looking at a few web articles and inspectors websites. That is like saying the home owner did not agree with an engineers assessment of anyth9injg. No knowledge or training about anything. They base inaccuracy solely on what they feel an inspector should have written up in his report.

Realtors accuracy findings,,,oh wait,,,, I already went there.

Realtors should have absolutely nothing to do with the referral of a home inspector or association. The clients can be handed a paper to sign stating that the buyers should, for their own good, have a home inspection for as much disclosure about the property as possible. Then they shoulkd turn them loose on the internet or ask neighbors for advise on past home inspectors....Oh wait....Just like everyone finds any other business or professional service.

True story that just happened...last Friday and today when the inspection was booked.

A potential client emails me about an inspection and gives me his mothers (x sales woman for a builder for years in Arizona) phone number for further info. I talk to the woman and the first thing she says it

"Are you one of those Realtor friendly Home Inspectors? The reason I ask is that I have been involved in property sales for years and my husband was a Realtor forever......I know all about the Realtor friendly inspectors. I do not want one of those for my sons home."

That was out of the horses mouth. Today I help a friend do some work on a McMansion in Dallas. He is an x Realtor. I told him the story after the phone call for the final booking of the inspection. He laughed as he told me of his past years as a Realtor of how Realtors talked of Home Inspectors. The stories that went around. He agreed in kind of the blatant soft picking of home inspectors. They want one that says things like this and makes statement like that, Nothing is a big deal and no absolute direct referrals just referrals softly to tradesman but nothing is a big deal. He showed me past reports he had on file and the difference between the ones that were referred to a great number of inspections and those that were about never referred to inspections.

Not much major difference but if you look and listen closely you will see a massive difference. They (the soft inspector) will right of cracks in drywall, doors out of square, cracks in the brick, and there were no signs of repair in the past and the home had all the signs that at the very least a foundation company should follow up. The only thing that was written was either just the concerns (to cover themselves ) or a more direct " This is very common for a home of this age and should be expected. This is normal movement for a home around here"

First off there is no such thing as normal or just expected movement. There is a reason for the movement. Most of the time it may just be grading and drainage problems but in most cases if the home was measured by a foundation company or engineer the totals would have revealed that repair was needed. Sometimes into the thousands or even 10s of thousands.

Enough of that for now. It is a crying shame that Realtors still have so much control and influence over inspectors. The inspectors know that if they do not play softly then they get no referrals. Eat, don't eat, I would say that has a massive influence and and complete conflict of interest.

Thanks Ted well said much appreciated ... Roy Cooke

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

I cannot for the life of me understand why people have to use this forum and others to continually take cheap shots at one another. Read the original post!

Perhaps it too simple - stick to the issues, and stay on topic.

Cheap shots? Well at least we don't have the "three amigos" from your camp over here telling people they are liars or are 'sick' when they don't like the questions.

Bylaws - likely the same place and process that one can obtain one openly from ACHI.

Claude,

Unlike ACHI the NHICC has had taxpayer monies put into it, and the least you could do to back up what NHICC is is to provide the bylaws.

You do have bylaws do you not?

The only thing that needs to be cleaned up is the corruption and conflicts of interest at the top.

Again there are presidents of three associations who are actively involved with running their businesses full time!

There is one president and one of his employees as an advisor on PHPIC.

We have one director on PHPIC who was convicted of defrauding a school board of $300K.

There is a lawsuit as a result of applicants to Test Inspection Peer Review (TIPR) whose money was taken, only for them to find out due to politics, infighting, money, and territorial issues were screwed out of their monies under full knowledge of the past directors who now are the current directors of PHPIC and NHICC.

Legal Action

We have been working on behalf of our Provisional Members that were registered with CAHPI's National Certification Program and awaiting their TIPR when CAHPI canceled the program.

To-date CAHPI has refused our requests to refund your money in full and after several attempts by your executive we are now starting legal action to help recoup your outstanding balance.

We have been advised by the RCMP that this action would be our best approach as a criminal investigation would be unfortunately very low on their priority due to cutbacks and staffing issues nationally.

Our corporate attorney will be filing the required documentation with the courts in early September. If you would like more information on the proceedings contact info@phpic.ca


PHPIC is actively recruiting inspectors who must gain their Nat. Cert. in order to keep their membership active/alive in the Nat. Cert.

Yes Claude do clean up the mess at the top, it stinks and there are just too many special interests telling the rest of us what should be.

Ted wrote in part:

Enough of that for now. It is a crying shame that Realtors still have so much control and influence over inspectors. The inspectors know that if they do not play softly then they get no referrals. Eat, don't eat, I would say that has a massive influence and and complete conflict of interest.

FACT.

PHPIC two years ago held a symposium for all home inspectors. The moderator of that meeting was a friend of PHPIC and sits on PHPIC advisory committee.

Taken directly from the PHPIC website:

Laura is a current Director of CREA (Canadian Real Estate Association) and Past President of OREA (Ontario Real Estate Association), past Chair of the Ontario REALTORS® Care Foundation and currently a director on the MPAC and holds Membership in the Huron Perth Real Estate Board. Laura has served the home inspection profession as a founding member of the NCC (National Certification Council) and is committed to helping PHPIC® raise the bar for the home inspection profession in Ontario. The Board of Directors is honored to have Laura as a Special Advisor as we move to license our profession.

PHPIO Advisory Council - PHPIC- Professional Home and Property Inspectors of Canada

National Home Inspector Certification Council

This director made it clear at the symposium that on behalf of PHPIC she would have the 4,000 members of CREA lobby the federal and provincial governments to push the governments to licence home inspectors!

PHPIC and the National have made it abundantly clear who they will get in bed with to achieve their agenda!

Yes lets have Realtors have home inspectors licenced so their friends at PHPIC and NHICC can continue to have their cake and eat it too.

PROJECT REPORT: REVIEW OF ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION OF HOME INSPECTORS

FOR THE HOMEOWNER PROTECTION OFFICE FINAL REPORT September 16, 2005

The number and nature of consumer complaints against home inspectors in BC are not known. From speaking with Better Business Bureaus and individuals involved in consumer complaint processes, it appears that many consumer complaints arise when consumers expect more than may be reasonable from a 3 or 4 hour, non-invasive observation of a property. Only a minority of complaints arise from either serious negligence or the failure of the home inspector to observe something that should not have been missed. While cases of serious negligence may be relatively rare, when they do occur the financial implications for the homebuyer can be enormous.

Interesting 51 replies and these few are how they made their decesions ???????.
Thanks Ray
---------------------------------------------------------------


Those surveyed were asked if they felt that consumers were adequately protected under the current system of no regulated standards. A large majority, 37 (73%) felt that consumers were not adequately protected. Only five respondents felt that consumers were adequately protected, another 2 felt that only new homebuyers were adequately protected, and two felt that consumers were partly protected. Three respondents either did not know or had no opinion.
When asked if they believe that the industry in BC should be regulated, nearly all respondents (46 out of the 51, or 90%) believed that it should be. Four do not believe it should be regulated, and 2 are not sure.
The questionnaire asked recipients who should administer the regulations. Three different governance models were listed, as well as an "Other" category, and an opportunity to indicate if they needed more information before forming an opinion. The responses to this question were far from conclusive:
• Many respondents supported more than one model.
• 6 believe that government alone should administer the regulations.
• 2 believe that government together with a specially created institution with a government appointed board of directors should administer the regulations.
• 4 believe that an industry association should administer the regulations, while another 4 believe that a specially created institution and/or industry association should administer the regulations.
• 8 believe that the regulations should be administered solely by a specially

The numbers indicate apathy is rampant. Seems it not an issue, until it is smack in their face. Than they bitch and complain about not being part of that decision, or entering the profession a decade or half decade to late.

But back to the "original" post in this thread - the approval was not a rubber stamp by any means. There was a report submission required (approximately 200 pages, an audit by BPCPA, and checks and verifications.

It was not a slam dunk, and took approximately 4 months to get the approval. This does not include about 2 months of prep work to complete the report from the NHICC.

It would appear that BCPCA has had a lot of wool pulled over their eyes, and just because they approve something does not absolve the other issues I and others raised.

As long as you're postulating, it's likely because those allegations and assumptions claimed are flawed. Assuming the worse creates mistrust, and perhaps even paranoia!

I know these threads are now becoming somewhat predictable, but what's the point of calling out people for things they haven't even done? It's tough to be in a discussion where most of the other people disagree with you, but there's no reason to preemptively assume that anyone here is going to be "posting on speculation". Shall I rally my troops and you can respond in kind. What a waste of time!

Everyone's free to comment about their views in good faith and hopefully the result will be a civil discussion.

However, the disproportionate high rate of false allegations on these alleged claims are exactly what they are - "allegations". Oh wait, then we wouldn't be able to vilify innocent people for the amusement of the public and increased forum ratings, or attracting more membership.

Perhaps a lie or misleading told often enough, for some becomes the truth for those that create allegations not backed on evidence. Is it now guilty before an opportunity to deal with an allegation in a fair and rationale manner. Or just another "kangaroo" court? Requiring physical evidence before firing off BS to your MP and others; actually following up for real, and not losing it.

Again without PHYSICAL EVIDENCE it still remains an HUGE ASSUMPTION. How 'bout that? I will offer my assumption - most of your claimed letter writing only ends up in the paper recycling bin! As noted before crying wolf often enough and providing evidence to prove the contrary is not supporting your indeavours. Both sides can play that game.

But thanks for caring.

The only assumptions here are those created by your friends.

Please also don't deny there are conflicts and paint the discussion as anything other than what it is thus far, - civil.

I might remind you that your friends over on the other board have been anything but civil. Accusing people of being 'sick' and making unsubstantiated allegations to suit the agenda are all well documented.

Its even stranger because when the conflicts are pointed out I have yet anyone say they do not see it as a conflict other then those who are actually in the conflicts.