Thread: Summary Report on Home Inspector Licensing Consultation

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/local/haveyour...ult_report.pdf

Summary Report on Home Inspector Licensing Consultation Sept. 2014

Similar Threads:

• Summary Report on Home Inspector Licensing Consultation - BC Canada
• Alberta Home Inspector Licensing
• Home Inspector Licensing 2007 Scorecard
• The Net Sum of Home Inspector Licensing

Here's a few of my concerns specified in the inspectors responsibilities.

"The home inspection contract must not exclude garages or carports, whether or not they are attached to the dwelling."

"The home inspection contract must not purport to limit the liability, or the amount of the liability, of the home inspector, and must not limit the time frame for making a claim against the home inspector."

Simply put - added another layer of RISK on the backs of you know who!

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

Here's a few of my concerns specified in the inspectors responsibilities.

"The home inspection contract must not exclude garages or carports, whether or not they are attached to the dwelling."

"The home inspection contract must not purport to limit the liability, or the amount of the liability, of the home inspector, and must not limit the time frame for making a claim against the home inspector."

Simply put - added another layer of RISK on the backs of you know who!

Claude,

The correct response would be something to this effect: "Sure, absolutely no problem. You do realize that the cost of the inspections will now have to up to cover that increased liability ... don't you? Your average inspection fee of $350 for a small house just went to $3,500 to pay for that liability. The choice is yours."

Don't come back all negatively, just respond with realism - explain that they are getting what they are paying for, if they want more they have to pay for it ... it is as simple as that.

What I noticed in there, common to both inspectors and consumers, was about more clearly defining what the consumer should expect - and that address the risk you responded too.

I viewed that as two questions about the same 'coin' ... one asking about whether the coin was heads and the other asking about whether the coin was tails ... like the old saying about blind men describing an elephant with one at the trunk and one at the tail ... if one cannot see the elephant in the room ... er ... excuse me ... the coin ... one does not know what they are speaking of and cannot define what is being discussed - those two things are opposite sides of the same coin.

Thought I might as well add this: managing a client's expectations is, and always has been, the main thing an inspector does.

Even more important than be thorough ... how thorough does the client expect?

Communication is key - 'promise' less than you will give ... then give more than they 'expect' ... that equals a happy client and many referrals ... regardless of what the inspection cost is.

Claude

It's noteworthy to point out there is no mention of CSA 770. To my liking that may be a good omen for Ontario licencing.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Claude

It's noteworthy to point out there is no mention of CSA 770. To my liking that may be a good omen for Ontario licencing.

Actually Consumer Protection BC has commissioned an independent 3rd party (Consultant) that is well along in the development of a BC SOP, and Home Inspector Competency Outline.

It certainly is not going to be anything like CSA 770. So expect another announcement soon on this from BC.

And I bet it won't be copyright protected in the sense that the public won't be able to view it as with CSA.

Raymond, whom rehashed this old material by the by.
Is this how governments work?

It appears to be from The Office of Housing and Construction Standards.

I can see they are either woefully underfunded or have an amusing side by publishing this as 2014 dated, but in reality an 8 year old material rehash, although I have not read the whole thing.

Thanks for the laugh.
Maybe not... Is this where are tax dollars go

Hi Robert

The report is from 2014 September.

The reason I posted the article is two fold.

1. It shows that licencing (new improved licencing announced within the last weeks) has been based on this report.
2. It also shows the level of complaints rec'd which is indicative to earlier discussion about the number of complaints rec'd overall considering the number of home sales.

Thanks, Ray.
1: The new improved licencing announced last week leaves out much information.
After three years of discussions and committees that is it?
Inadequate to a degree IMO. But again, I am in Quebec where RE laws are different.

2: The level of complaints rec'd is an inaccurate benchmark as you will know.
An accurate reading would be successfully litigated cases and not complaints.

Let us not forget, the largest revenue stream in Canada appears to be housing. If you think the consumer needs protection I agree but the rules for protection must include ALL PLAYERS in the real estate sale.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

2: The level of complaints rec'd is an inaccurate benchmark as you will know.
An accurate reading would be successfully litigated cases and not complaints.

I disagree with your "inaccurate"/"accurate" definition.

"successfully litigated" has nothing to do with "complaints".

"Complaints" would include "successfully litigated", unsuccessfully litigated (you don't consider being taken to court as a legitimate complaint?), a complaint which makes it to the association, even a complaint to the inspector.

The term used was "complaint", not "won a court settlement against".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I disagree with your "inaccurate"/"accurate" definition.

"successfully litigated" has nothing to do with "complaints".

"Complaints" would include "successfully litigated", unsuccessfully litigated (you don't consider being taken to court as a legitimate complaint?), a complaint which makes it to the association, even a complaint to the inspector.

The term used was "complaint", not "won a court settlement against".

In hindsight, I may have been hastily focused on legal complaints and not focused on the wider scope of complaints, consumers may have.

Let us/me say justifiable complaints.
Remember, there are 3 sides to a complaint/truth.

In all fairness,though a complaint can be levied for invalid reasons. Ignorance for one.

The real data that is needed is held by insurers. Their database is held very close to their chests and that data is shared between underwriters/brokers.

I wonder if anyone from the insurance representatives on the licencing body actually provided any data to the panel at some point.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

In hindsight, I may have been hastily focused on legal complaints and not focused on the wider scope of complaints, consumers may have.

Let us/me say justifiable complaints.
Remember, there are 3 sides to a complaint/truth.

In all fairness,though a complaint can be levied for invalid reasons. Ignorance for one.

A "justifiable complaint" can only be deemed "justifiable" AFTER a "complaint" has been made.

The question was, and rightfully so, plain and simply "complaints".

No justification, clarification, resolution, or anything else needs to have taken place - was there something which caused a client to "complain" about the home inspector and/or the home inspection.

Plain, simple, and clear cut ... was there a complaint lodged/filed/logged in/whatever/to whomever - at least to me it was that simple.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A "justifiable complaint" can only be deemed "justifiable" AFTER a "complaint" has been made.

The question was, and rightfully so, plain and simply "complaints".

No justification, clarification, resolution, or anything else needs to have taken place - was there something which caused a client to "complain" about the home inspector and/or the home inspection.

Plain, simple, and clear cut ... was there a complaint lodged/filed/logged in/whatever/to whomever - at least to me it was that simple.

I disagree.
Unjustified, false, lies are considered complaints?

Complaints must be examined for validity.
If not, the collected/collection/assemblage/compilation of said complaints are, speculative, assumptions,hearsay,word of mouth complaints without evidence and can be considered, all of them, malafede/inbad faith.

A poor way of conducting/collecting information for such an important purpose in my opinion.
The BBB use to be very good at weeding out unsubstantiated complaints and seeking resolution as a mediator for complaints that are/were justified.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

I disagree.
Unjustified, false, lies are considered complaints?

Complaints must be examined for validity.
If not, the collected/collection/assemblage/compilation of said complaints are, speculative, assumptions,hearsay,word of mouth complaints without evidence and can be considered, all of them, malafede/inbad faith.

A poor way of conducting/collecting information for such an important purpose in my opinion.
The BBB use to be very good at weeding out unsubstantiated complaints and seeking resolution as a mediator for complaints that are/were justified.

You are almost, but not quite there - "complaints must be examined for validity" - YOU just acknowledged what a complaint is ... then you went in a different direction.

It is still a complaint ... whether checked out or not ... whether valid (in your mind) or not.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You are almost, but not quite there - "complaints must be examined for validity" - YOU just acknowledged what a complaint is ... then you went in a different direction.

It is still a complaint ... whether checked out or not ... whether valid (in your mind) or not.

I am trying as best as I can.
Thanks for the patients.

A complaint is not a complaint when is is an allegation.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/local/haveyour...ult_report.pdf

Summary Report on Home Inspector Licensing Consultation Sept. 2014

After reading much of the document I am left asking many questions.
Methodalogy for one.

Also from page 13th.
Have you hired a Home Inspector in B.C. in the past?
Response Chart Percentage Count Yes, since March 31, 2009 when new home inspector regulations were enacted 38% 275.
Yes, before new regulations on March 31, 2009 36% 260 No

This was published in 2014.

I will try to find the time to post my questions/observations about the survey.
Much appreciated.

I am cynical about such surveys. They can be misleading steering the attendee to an answer.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

Here's a few of my concerns specified in the inspectors responsibilities.

"The home inspection contract must not exclude garages or carports, whether or not they are attached to the dwelling."!

Claude, I could never understand that clause. Do carports and always have done most structures on the property.

A quick story. A prospective client calls asking do I include the fence. I replied, "Of course. Why? Did you encounter inspectors that would not?" Appears he did. Hmm.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

"The home inspection contract must not purport to limit the liability, or the amount of the liability, of the home inspector, and must not limit the time frame for making a claim against the home inspector."
Simply put - added another layer of RISK on the backs of you know who!

That's a real red herring that must be dealt with. Undue risk!
We are not allowed to move objects.
Seen many a well staged home. I move an item, the agent gets furious, I point out the hidden now documented defect. I do not fool around.
A painted wall will hide past/present continued material saturation.
Sealed off attic hatches hide mold, rodents, nesting.
Missing legends, painted tags, the word SERVICEABLE in a report.

A home inspection is a limited, non-invasive examination of the condition of a home, often in connection with the sale of that home.

Good morning Robert

Perhaps you might consider handing this out to those pesky Realtors who tell you how to conduct your inspection.

https://www.houselogic.com/buy/house...ing-checklist/

I bet the agents would be really upset!

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

A complaint is not a complaint when is is an allegation.

Robert,

You appear to be so caught up in being right that you keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

A complaint is, plain and simply, a complaint.

A complaint is not necessarily alleging anything, it may be a simple statement that one does not like, does not approve of, was not satisfied or fulfilled by, ... something.

If you are in a restaurant with other people and they bring out nice warm bread for everyone ... and you say 'ug, this bread is cold' ... you are not alleging that the bread wasn't heated, you are simply complaining about the bread not being as you expected it to be ... especially given that everyone else is looking at you like you are crazy because the bread is nice and warm.

It's just not what YOU EXPECTED, so you complained about it.

Robert Y stated "Claude, I could never understand that clause. Do carports and always have done most structures on the property.

A quick story. A prospective client calls asking do I include the fence. I replied, "Of course. Why? Did you encounter inspectors that would not?" Appears he did. Hmm."

Claude states - Robert good for you, I don't necessarily disagree, but you may want to consider what others "do or not do". One point being I have seen limitations on H.I. Reports that states "detached structures" are not included. Likewise the same holds a similar limitation on anything "not attached to the structure". (So that in the opinion of said inspector could exclude detached garages, carports, fences, sheds, gazebos, etc.

Just saying.....like you indicated, other inspectors limit these as "beyond the scope of work".

The only real important point here is to follow your SOP to the letter, and where required make sure that it meets with the legal (regulatory) requirements if it is mandated.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

The only real important point here is to follow your SOP to the letter, and where required make sure that it meets with the legal (regulatory) requirements if it is mandated.

Claude,

For clarification: ""The only real important point here is to follow your SOP to the letter

Are you meaning: a) "as a minimum" or b) "as a minimum and a maximum"?

I agree if you are meaning "b)" above.

If you mean "a)" above, then you will need to show me in the SOP where it says to "only do" what is in the SOP - I have not seen one which says to "only do" what is in the SOP.

In fact, most SOP also state to the effect of: 'this SOP is not intended to limit an inspector from ... blah, blah, blah'

English is exasperation to many due to the different application/meanings of the same word. Context is an overriding element.

Complaints and allegations are not always a bad thing.

complaint
: a statement that you are unhappy or not satisfied with something,
: the act of saying or writing that you are unhappy or dissatisfied with something, an expression of discontent

allegation
: the act of alleging
: a positive assertion
: charge, accusation; claim, contention.

Examples:

Complaint: The Inspector took an exceptional amount of time to complete the inspection.

Allegation: The inspector devoted an exceptional amount of time so the inspection report would be of a higher standard than other inspectors.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Claude,

For clarification: ""The only real important point here is to follow your SOP to the letter

Are you meaning: a) "as a minimum" or b) "as a minimum and a maximum"?

I agree if you are meaning "b)" above.

If you mean "a)" above, then you will need to show me in the SOP where it says to "only do" what is in the SOP - I have not seen one which says to "only do" what is in the SOP.

In fact, most SOP also state to the effect of: 'this SOP is not intended to limit an inspector from ... blah, blah, blah'

Thanks Jerry, basically I agree with perhaps one exception. That being where a person has other expertise or knowledge and the skill to accept that responsibility as part of their scope of work.

But to me the safer M.O. is certainly is obvious.

Cheers.....

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

Thanks Jerry, basically I agree with perhaps one exception. That being where a person has other expertise or knowledge and the skill to accept that responsibility as part of their scope of work.

But to me the safer M.O. is certainly is obvious.

Cheers.....

Not clear as to your answer, but this should clear it up if there is no rebuttal from you:
- It is obvious that an SOP is a minimum standard, and that exceeding the SOP is "the safer M.O."

Also, obviously, a person needs to stick to what they know or can educate themselves on, and, just as obviously, if a person does not have the knowledge the minimum SOP, that person should not be inspecting by themselves (with another who knows or can fill in the gaps is okay).

And, just as obviously, if a person knows more than what the minimum SOP covers, that person should exceed the SOP and address what they know (to the extent that their knowledge is applicable to the home inspection).

Yes, that puts knowledgeable people in the position of being held to a higher standard, which is obvious and makes complete sense because those people know more, and to not address what they know means that they are concealing information (some of which may be meaningless, but some of which may be very meaningful).

Catch 22:
- don't know anything ... don't inspect;
- know just the minimum ... report just the minimum;
- know more ... inspect and report more;
- any inspector who has done more than 10 inspections should know more than just the minimum as they should have known the minimum before they started inspecting, and they have now increased their knowledge.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

English is exasperation to many due to the different application/meanings of the same word. Context is an overriding element.

Complaints and allegations are not always a bad thing.

complaint
: a statement that you are unhappy or not satisfied with something,
: the act of saying or writing that you are unhappy or dissatisfied with something, an expression of discontent

allegation
: the act of alleging
: a positive assertion
: charge, accusation; claim, contention.


Examples:

Complaint: The Inspector took an exceptional amount of time to complete the inspection.

Allegation: The inspector devoted an exceptional amount of time so the inspection report would be of a higher standard than other inspectors.

Thank you. Well put.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Not clear as to your answer, but this should clear it up if there is no rebuttal from you:
- It is obvious that an SOP is a minimum standard, and that exceeding the SOP is "the safer M.O."

Also, obviously, a person needs to stick to what they know or can educate themselves on, and, just as obviously, if a person does not have the knowledge the minimum SOP, that person should not be inspecting by themselves (with another who knows or can fill in the gaps is okay).

And, just as obviously, if a person knows more than what the minimum SOP covers, that person should exceed the SOP and address what they know (to the extent that their knowledge is applicable to the home inspection).

Yes, that puts knowledgeable people in the position of being held to a higher standard, which is obvious and makes complete sense because those people know more, and to not address what they know means that they are concealing information (some of which may be meaningless, but some of which may be very meaningful).

Catch 22:
- don't know anything ... don't inspect;
- know just the minimum ... report just the minimum;
- know more ... inspect and report more;
- any inspector who has done more than 10 inspections should know more than just the minimum as they should have known the minimum before they started inspecting, and they have now increased their knowledge.

I concur.

Good points everyone!

Robert
The 'standard of care' is the SOP as stated in Cdn. case law.

Best,