Thread: MCS releases final report - A Closer Look - Qualifying Ont. Home INspectors

On December 11, 2013, the home inspector panel submitted their final report titled, “A Closer Look: Qualifying Ontario’s Home Inspectors” to the Minister of Consumer Services.

This report represents the consensus of a 16-member volunteer panel of home inspectors, consumers and representatives from real estate, law, education and insurance across Ontario.

The consensus-building process included eight panel meetings over four months; each meeting was facilitated by SEG Management Consultants. The panel meetings followed a process of focusing on a key theme related to home inspector qualifications and reviewing and confirming consensus points. The key themes assessed were:
- consumer protection and professional needs for regulating home inspectors
- technical knowledge needs and a review of the various standards of practice in Ontario
- professional entry to practice requirements and competency needs
- consumer protection and education needs
- governance and oversight needs for the home inspector profession

The final report makes 35 recommendations, including: regulating the home inspector profession, introducing uniform qualifications, standards of practice and code of ethics to be followed by all home inspectors. All recommendations are focused on increasing the integrity of Ontario’s home inspector profession and strengthening consumer protection for home buyers who purchase home inspection services.

I would like to thank the panel for their commitment to the process and providing this public service. I would also like to thank SEG Management Consultants for their professionalism and support to the panel.

The panel’s report is now posted on Ontario’s Regulatory Registry for public review and feedback. Here is the direct link to the posting and report: ServiceOntario: Making It Easier - Government of Ontario, Canada

The ministry will be collecting public feedback on the panel’s report until January 27, 2014.

David Brezer, Director
Consumer Policy & Liaison Branch, Ministry of Consumer Services

Thanks Raymond - this is a critically important document that needs the attention of ALL home inspectors in Ontario. It's likely your last chance to have a say in what appears to be the future of practice for Ontario inspectors.

Claude,

I was pleased with the report. Covered all the important aspects and issues. Well done. Thank you.

Of particular interest was the recommendation to set up a regulatory body made up of home inspectors and outside parties, with ability to discipline members.

The other item was the mention of 'level playing field..'

Grandfathering.

Concerns remain with liability and errors and omissions insurance. Other options need to be explored. Perhaps the government should mandate a maximum inspectors are liable for. Alternatively or in addition occurrence based insurance policies. Which provide coverage when the occurrence occurred. Bond?

More than 1,500 home inspectors operate in the province and there will soon be technical and ethical standards for them to meet.

Meaningful change coming to home inspection industry: Weisleder | Toronto Star

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

More than 1,500 home inspectors operate in the province and there will soon be technical and ethical standards for them to meet.

Meaningful change coming to home inspection industry: Weisleder | Toronto Star

It's not a slam dunk - yet! Hopefully the MCS & Consultant will realize the value of raising bar and consider the key concerns brought forward from the public feedback and consultation process.

PLA - Prior Learning Assessment should be considered. I'm not against grandfathering, but that more or less implies most everyone will get a free pass that operates a home inspection business today. From our panel discussions I got the feeling that was not what was intended. Both BC and Alberta provided a provision for those in the industry to meet specific requirements by a certain deadline.

Regarding E&O coverage and bonding - again the panel had lots of input and discussions regarding how to reduce liability, but how to fairly compensate those wronged by error and/or omission. Again the status quo seems to be looking at what BC and Alberta benchmarked.

I am tired of hearing so called responsible people (in this case a lawyer) who should know better writing articles which are anything but truthful. Further he should have researched further rather then what appears to have been dialogue with one individual at Carson Dunlop.

I have asked repeatedly where MCS got its numbers as to court cases (390) indicating there is a huge problem within the HI profession. No answer. Yet MCS continually tell 'us' to write them for answers, but no one seems to get answers other than 'yes we rec'd your email.' The numbers simply don't portray the industry as having a huge problem and the facts back that up.
Frankly the Liberals are not a truthful bunch and this has been borne out repeatedly.

No complaints about grandfathering, otherwise the process becomes burdensome and convoluted to administer.

Regardless whether one has E&O or not the client still must sue, as now. So how is the consumer protected? Why should inspectors beheld hostage with high rates, payouts for expediency and then have the insurers paint us as a bad risk. In the end the consumer is going to pay with higher rates for insurance. Talk about a monopoly by the insurance industry..

Pleased it levels the playing field and puts associations to the rear. We all know the games, lies and conflicts and missing monies that have gone unaccounted for by these so called professional associations.

I must say I do question how MCS will react to the feedback they requested. I liked the report but I am dismayed no one seems accountable as the facts and figures they used to reach the conclusion.

My retort to the author.

Meaningful change coming to home inspection industry

Good morning Mr. Mark Weisleder

As per your article at above link. Licencing of home inspectors is not a done deal. Research was conducted by MCS in order to ascertain if licencing is required.

As you may also know its not a done deal since its in the research/feedback stage. Secondly if the current liberal government calls an election the matter may never see the light of
day should one of the other parties be elected.

So, in my opinion its erroneous for anyone to state 'meaningful change coming to home inspection industry.'

Secondly the government states there is a huge problem within the industry due to number of complaints, but repeated requests to provide stats proved fruitless. As a seasoned inspector with 23 years experience and as an expert witness its pitiful to see the lack of response given that experience shows otherwise. Complainants must still sue to seek restitution, many may be be meritless, insurers are in most cases settling out of court simply based on economics, and expediency then painting the inspector(s) as a bad risk.

Thirdly where are all these reprobate home inspectors everyone keeps referring to? The Better Business Bureau stats show home inspections are the least complained about, and even case law indicates the number of suits is extremely low in comparison to the number of property transactions per year. When researching case law I find it rather interesting that the cases found in 99 percent of cases are inspectors who are members of the associations and well qualified.

I have asked repeatedly from MCS where they got the numbers they quote, but have not even received the time of day, nor have others who have asked.

However I do support the recommendations from MCS and the assembled panel, particularly outside oversight much like the RECO model since as a past discipline chair of Ont. Assoc. Home Inspectors I know of first hand the conflicts associated with the problem of buddies overseeing buddies, and home inspectors overseeing themselves. It does not work and did not work as there were to many conflicts presenting themselves due to special interests.

Unfortunately the panel assembled was obligated to conduct business under Chatham House Rules hence no one outside of the panel was able to get any information in so far as accuracy of stated facts by so called industry experts.

Rather interesting was the fact that large home inspection companies found their way onto the panel, which as far as I am concerned should not have happened for obvious reasons. These include Carson Dunlop and Pillar to Post. Both had their vice presidents on the panel. Two associations OAHI/CAHPI had multiple representation on the panel.

Thank you.