Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    imported_John Smith's Avatar
    imported_John Smith Guest

    Default New TREC RULE 535.219 on Sep 01 2011

    I have quickly looked through this rule and the TREC advisor this afternoon. I didnt see anything that seemed too outrageous, but wonder why the need for monetary penalties instead of just reprimanding or cancelling licensees of those with infractions.
    Is this just a money grab by TREC?
    Will TREC inspectors be raising rates to stash cash away for potential fines?

    I guess I will have to read/digest this a little more to fully comprehend the intent and logic behind the new rule.

    What do others think?

    Similar Threads:
    Inspection Referral

  2. #2
    Ted Menelly's Avatar
    Ted Menelly Guest

    Default Re: New TREC RULE 535.219 on Sep 01 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by imported_John Smith View Post
    I have quickly looked through this rule and the TREC advisor this afternoon. I didnt see anything that seemed too outrageous, but wonder why the need for monetary penalties instead of just reprimanding or cancelling licensees of those with infractions.
    Is this just a money grab by TREC?
    Will TREC inspectors be raising rates to stash cash away for potential fines?

    I guess I will have to read/digest this a little more to fully comprehend the intent and logic behind the new rule.

    What do others think?
    It is a revenue stream. This insures that those that get paid for the job they have and the benefits they receive will always be there.

    I found it a load of garbage. No one should have an automatic fine or penalty for anything. In the daily life of the inspector the inspector is caring for the client and doing the best they can to find what they can to reduce the risk in the home buying process. Exactly what is says in the TREC preamble. It is easy not to mention this or that if there is nothing wrong with this or that. To fine someone for not mentioning something that does not need mentioning is outrageous. The clients want to learn the concerns in there home. They could care less if there is a must in the TREC standards that somethig must be mentioned even if there is nothing wrong with it. This also gives lawyers ammunition to go after how bad that nasty old inspector is because he can point here and there in the report and say "see this and this and this. It was suppose to be mentioned in the report even thought there is nothing wrong with it. This just shows what a poor inspector this inspector is"

    These are not the things that anyone should be concerned with. What should concern anyone is the factual goods that are concerns in the home. Not " the report is the letter of the law and if you do not follow it explicitly then we are going to fine you.

    How about. It appears you are doing a great job and never had a complaint but we just want to bring it to your attention that there are a couple items that you did not mention even though you found nothing wrong.


  3. #3
    imported_John Smith's Avatar
    imported_John Smith Guest

    Default Re: New TREC RULE 535.219 on Sep 01 2011

    Does the same fine matrix apply to real estate agents/brokers and appraisers?

    Inspectors are too easy of targets. Rates should be raised to adjust for this silly rule.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,847

    Default Re: New TREC RULE 535.219 on Sep 01 2011

    All state licensing authorities in just about every single licensed profession have stepped up their monetary fines. It is or has been a forgotten revenue stream for those empty state coffers.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  5. #5
    Ted Menelly's Avatar
    Ted Menelly Guest

    Default Re: New TREC RULE 535.219 on Sep 01 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    All state licensing authorities in just about every single licensed profession have stepped up their monetary fines. It is or has been a forgotten revenue stream for those empty state coffers.
    Revenue stream my but. They need to learn to keep all revenue intake down and the things they wish to spend it on down, not up. Home inspection is part of the housing industry that brings revenue into the state and federal government.

    They say, and I have no clue at this moment if it is true or not, that the sale of a home brings about 60,000.00 into the revenue stream. I think that is quite enough. Soon they will find it necessary to tax home inspections even though there are no goods sold or left behind.

    If a company cannot afford all the employees it has they lay them off. The fed and states cannot afford the employees they have now and the benefits afforded all those employees. It is time to vote on exactly what past laws that have been enacted to be terminated so we do not have to continue to find ways to bring more revenue in to afford all those employees and benefits.

    I heard in the news that California is just about stopping death penalty trials due to it costing some billion and a half per death penalty trial. The first thing that a man being interviewed said was " They should take those billions and give it to the teachers" Not, "they should give all that money back and or reduce revenue collected from the people of California removing the burden from our strapped citizens."


  6. #6
    Darrel Hood's Avatar
    Darrel Hood Guest

    Default Re: New TREC RULE 535.219 on Sep 01 2011

    I sent a comment to TREC a couple of months ago that said I disagreed with the matrix. I also mentioned that it seemed unjustified because very few inspectors received complaints any way.

    A TREC attorney actually replied. He said I should support the matrix because it limits the penalties I can be charged for a complaint. Apparently, there have been no limits in the past. So, according to him, the matrix is a necessary protection provided by Big Brother so Big Brother won't shaft me too badly.

    It is clear to me that TREC, especially the inspection committee, believes we are all evil crooks that are determined to steal from our clients. However, when I look at the published lists of disciplinary actions by TREC I see:
    1. Only 1 - 3 inspectors mentioned.
    2. Almost all of the complaints against inspectors are either administrative stuff or unlicensed "inspectors".
    3. It has been two years since I have seen a complaint about something that occurred during an inspection.

    I would not be surprised if the next TREC step is to advertise to the general public for complaints against inspectors. . . and they will levy a fee on us to pay for the ads.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,797

    Default Re: New TREC RULE 535.219 on Sep 01 2011

    One thing that always strikes me when I read accounts of disciplinary actions here in IL are the minuscule numbers of HI disciplines related to the actual performance of home inspections, especially compared to most other professions regulated by IDPR: on the most current report there were were nine for failure to meet the CE requirements and one for an unrelated tax liability, none related to the quality of inspections or reports, and the list of HI disciplines is one of the shorter lists, for example there are 17 for appraisers and 20 for RE salespersons and brokers.

    OTOH, it seems to to be pretty difficult to get disciplined even for egregious behavior, there is only one occasion on which I reported such behavior by another inspector (I won't go into details, but it was related to criminal behavior at an inspection as opposed to the quality of inspector's work, and I don't think the behavior would've been condoned by anyone here) and despite the fact that I submitted documentary evidence that the crime that occurred, I've never heard back from the IDPR, and it never appeared in the discipline reports, and based on that experience I suspect you have to misbehave pretty badly for the state to pay attention unless the state itself had been the victim in the sense that it not received revenue due it.

    Last edited by Michael Thomas; 09-04-2011 at 08:44 AM.
    Michael Thomas
    Paragon Property Services Inc., Chicago IL
    http://paragoninspects.com

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •