C.A.H.P.I. Urges Canadawide H.I. Licensing

[hausdok]

By Marlene Habib / Source: CBC News Canada

The case of a B.C. consumer who bought a home that required $50,000 in water-leakage repairs after the seller signed a disclosure statement and the home was inspected stresses the need for national inspection standards regulated by the provinces, some industry members and educators say.

To read more, plus more than 240 comments made by readers of this article, click here.

[Jim Katen]

Yes. Everyone knows that once national standards are in place, no one ever receives a bad inspection again.

[John Kogel]

One thing licensing has done is put part-time inspectors out of the game. Licensed inspectors must show proof of E&O coverage, GL insurance, experience and/or training and continuing education. It is simply too costly to do this job as a sideline now that we have licensing. The license fee in BC is going to jump to $475 next year. That's another story.

It has also made it tougher for new inspectors to get started.

[hausdok]

Hi,

Of course licensing can't guaranty that nobody will every receive a bad inspection again. Does a doctor's medical license guaranty you'll never receive shoddy medical care?

Critics of licensing often like to say that licensing solves nothing. I think that boiled down to its basics a licensing program simply ensures a basic level of competency. Much the same way that your state's drivers' licensing program and driver's test ensured that you were competent enough behind the wheel to do what you claimed to be able to do - drive a car safely - a well thought out licensing program needs to ensure that those practicing this profession have sufficient training to be considered minimally competent, and it needs to test every inspector to ensure that the inspector has retained enough of what he or she has learned to be able to ensure that the inspector has the minimum level of competency needed to do what the inspector claims to be able to do - inspect homes properly.

Beyond that, it's no more possible to ensure an inspector does in fact perform a proper inspection than it's possible to ensure that every person holding a driver's license that climbs behind the wheel of a car is going to drive safely.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Jim Katen]

Hi,

Of course licensing can't guaranty that nobody will every receive a bad inspection again. Does a doctor's medical license guaranty you'll never receive shoddy medical care?

Critics of licensing often like to say that licensing solves nothing. I think that boiled down to its basics a licensing program simply ensures a basic level of competency. Much the same way that your state's drivers' licensing program and driver's test ensured that you were competent enough behind the wheel to do what you claimed to be able to do - drive a car safely - a well thought out licensing program needs to ensure that those practicing this profession have sufficient training to be considered minimally competent, and it needs to test every inspector to ensure that the inspector has retained enough of what he or she has learned to be able to ensure that the inspector has the minimum level of competency needed to do what the inspector claims to be able to do - inspect homes properly.

Neither a home inspector's license nor a driver's license achieves that. Washington and Oregon both have licensed home inspectors who are not minimally competent. The roads certainly have plenty of drivers who are not minimally competent.

The real purpose of a license in either case to allow the state to keep track of the individual.

Beyond that, it's no more possible to ensure an inspector does in fact perform a proper inspection than it's possible to ensure that every person holding a driver's license that climbs behind the wheel of a car is going to drive safely.

Exactly. But that's what Marlene Habib and lots of others say all the time. That is the argument that is *always* used to pass legislation. And it's false.

[kurt]

There are no good arguments for or against licensing.

[John Kogel]

There are no good arguments for or against licensing.

Maybe not, but Jim and Mike have a good discussion started. []

In the end, it won't be up to the inspectors anyway. In BC, we were lucky to have at least some input, and the legislation is still in transition mode. The bureaucrats need to learn more about what they're trying to accomplish.

To obtain a license, a BC HI needs to demonstrate a reasonable level of competency. One test of that is the peer review of a test inspection. We pick a house, the candidates inspect it and submit their reports to a board of home inspectors for review. I don't have a problem with it myself.

There used to be handyman yard clean up guys here that would advertise home inspection along with reno and yard work. That faction is no longer inspecting houses in BC. That's consumer protection.

If the costs keep going up, so will the cost to the consumer. Sorry about that.

[Jim Katen]

There are no good arguments for or against licensing.

I'm not arguing for it or against it. I just believe that home inspector licensing laws get passed because people believe that such laws will lead to better inspections. They don't. And home inspectors often support such laws because they think that the laws will limit competition. They don't do that either.

I'll also take this opportunity to point out that while the initial law is rarely a big problem, the subsequent tinkering often is. That's when you get into the petty little rules about what *must* or *must not* be reported, what you *must* and *must not* write in your reports, and what specific words you must write. It's the result of the a small number of inspectors trying to impose their inspection ethic on everyone else.

As a state's licensing rules age, they tend to get worse as every new crop of committee or board members attempts to add a little something to the stew of rules.

[Marc]

There are no good arguments for or against licensing.

I'm not arguing for it or against it. I just believe that home inspector licensing laws get passed because people believe that such laws will lead to better inspections. They don't. And home inspectors often support such laws because they think that the laws will limit competition. They don't do that either.

I'll also take this opportunity to point out that while the initial law is rarely a big problem, the subsequent tinkering often is. That's when you get into the petty little rules about what *must* or *must not* be reported, what you *must* and *must not* write in your reports, and what specific words you must write. It's the result of the a small number of inspectors trying to impose their inspection ethic on everyone else.

As a state's licensing rules age, they tend to get worse as every new crop of committee or board members attempts to add a little something to the stew of rules.

Licensing does help but not much. It's the proverbial 'foot in the door'. The question is...How do you 'up the bar', raise the standard, tighten the SOP without ending up with what Texas has, which is a lot of realtor engineered 'gotta do this, gotta do that' that doesn't translate into any good for anyone at all?

Who knows?

Marc

[kurt]

Licensing substantially reduced competition....more than half the inspectors evaporated at the last license fee update. All benefit on that end.

As far as everything else, I don't think about it much.

[Nolan Kienitz]

I'll also take this opportunity to point out that while the initial law is rarely a big problem, the subsequent tinkering often is. That's when you get into the petty little rules about what *must* or *must not* be reported, what you *must* and *must not* write in your reports, and what specific words you must write. It's the result of the a small number of inspectors trying to impose their inspection ethic on everyone else.

As a state's licensing rules age, they tend to get worse as every new crop of committee or board members attempts to add a little something to the stew of rules.

Jim K.

=========================

Licensing does help but not much. It's the proverbial 'foot in the door'. The question is...How do you 'up the bar', raise the standard, tighten the SOP without ending up with what Texas has, which is a lot of realtor engineered 'gotta do this, gotta do that' that doesn't translate into any good for anyone at all?

Who knows?

Marc

I was going to comment, but Marc already noted the mess we have to deal with in Texas.

FWIW - The TREC inspector's committee is "again" reworking the SOP. It was just re-written and put into play on Feb-2009. The new one will likely be blessed and into rule sometime in 2012.