The Licensing Forum

[hausdok]

I'll be moving all discussiong pertaining to HI licensing to this topic area.

Participants are advised that this is just an internet forum. You can't lobby anyone from here, so keep discussions relevant and avoid beating a dead horse and continually repeating the same argument over and over again. Get it said and then let others have their say.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[hankspinnler]

Okay. Does anyone have an update on the House Bill introduced by Benefield last year for licensing in GA? It died in last year's session:

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2005_06/search/hb903.htm

I have mixed feelings about licensing coming to GA. Will it really help protect the consumer? Will it help bring credibility or create more red tape and expense for the inspector? Will it create an illusion to the customers and referring agents that all inspectors will be on a level playing field?

Regards,

[kurt]

No help to the consumer, more red tape & expense to the inspector, and yes it will create the illusion that everything is good.

[randynavarro]

Does anyone know if any legislation anywhere has ever helped the consumer?

[Richard Moore]

Hmmm...

Consumers elect the politicians.

Politicians like to enact legislation that purports to protect the consumer, whether it actually does or not.

This gives the politician a good sound-bite during the next election.

And this "helps the consumer" re-elect the useless bastards.

[Brian G]

A good law is better than no law.

A bad law is worse than no law.

Everthing depends on the law you get.

Brian G.

Same As It Ever Was [:-wiltel]

[Chad Fabry]

New York's requirements are a joke that lend false credibility to the profession.

The idea of a licensed, credible profession that is entirely available for 140 hours of time and the tuition of one semester at a state college has drawn even more (was that possible?) people in for the fast buck.

Competition is fierce because our numbers are exploding and the realtors are getting more "appreciation" tokens than ever before. Buyers are being screwed at an unprecedented rate and the reward for a job well done is contempt even from the buyer's agent.

[Scottpat]

How can you say a law does or does not help the consumer? I don't really know of anyway to measure it. A good law will protect the home inspector and will also insure that some protection is award to the consumer.

[ozofprev]

Chad, you are correct. A really bad joke! Everything you say is true. The one's making a bundle in this deal are the lousy HI schools. (No, not all are bad, but way too many are.)

How can you tell if a law is good for a consumer? Simple, it doesn't let an unqualified person into a position serving a consumer. NY's law is BAD for the consumer. If I know of anyone moving to Rochacha from Buff, I'm sending them your way, Chad.

Originally posted by Chad Fabry

New York's requirements are a joke that lend false credibility to the profession.

The idea of a licensed, credible profession that is entirely available for 140 hours of time and the tuition of one semester at a state college has drawn even more (was that possible?) people in for the fast buck.

Competition is fierce because our numbers are exploding and the realtors are getting more "appreciation" tokens than ever before. Buyers are being screwed at an unprecedented rate and the reward for a job well done is contempt even from the buyer's agent.

[dspec]

As an inspector on a State committee that reviews complaints, I agree with Scott.

From what I see state enforcement [ yes minimum ] is better than no enforcement when the customer has a place to file a complaint, this alone can often prevent the customer from going the legal route if the inspector did in fact meet the State Standards.

As far as all being equal in the public's eyes. I also agree with the exception that prior to Licensing we did not have a clue who our competitors were, and what, if any training they had.

To me licensing beats competing with an inspector that only qualifications may be taking an on-line quiz and paying for an on-line certification.

[ozofprev]

Originally posted by dspec

As an inspector on a State committee that reviews complaints, I agree with Scott.

Being on a state committee, you are likely to agree. Could you fill out your profile to show which state (USA isn't much help)? Thanks.

From what I see state enforcement [ yes minimum ] is better than no enforcement when the customer has a place to file a complaint, this alone can often prevent the customer from going the legal route if the inspector did in fact meet the State Standards.

How is that better for the client?

As far as all being equal in the public's eyes. I also agree with the exception that prior to Licensing we did not have a clue who our competitors were, and what, if any training they had.

So, it's better for the state to mislead the public by implying that someone who is licensed has the appropriate qualifications? They don't, you know.

To me licensing beats competing with an inspector that only qualifications may be taking an on-line quiz and paying for an on-line certification.

If the state's qualifying standards were any better, I would agree, but they aren't. That's why it's bad for the consumer. The consumer can only be let down by the state's low standards.

[dspec]

Being on a state committee, you are likely to agree. Could you fill out your profile to show which state (USA isn't much help)? Thanks.

Arizona... Formally from yours and Chads cold part of the world.

The reason I agree is that there are always two sides to a complaint, having an unbiased forum to address the complaint often helps all involved, opposed to both parties resorting to hiring an attorney.

How is that better for the client?

From what I've seen a lot of complaints are on items what we, or most do not provide, or the defect was not present or accessible at time of inspection. After the customer understands our limitations of what we do, most have a more positive view of our profession.

So, it's better for the state to mislead the public by implying that someone who is licensed has the appropriate qualifications? They don't, you know.

Maybe it's just me the way I see it the states

[ minimum ]requirements are far more than most HI orgs, not to mention state requirements are enforced if the inspector did screw up.

I agree that it would be great if we governed ourselves, with instant online questionable training and certifications I'm going to stick to my opinion that state enforcement is better than none.

If the state's qualifying standards were any better, I would agree, but they aren't. That's why it's bad for the consumer. The consumer can only be let down by the state's low standards

Agreed if we only inspect to the minimum standards, inspectors that don't meet the customers expectations will be gone sooner or later as long as established home inspectors continue to inform the customer that there are inspectors that go the extra mile.

Are the state standards lower than none? I know when I looked into being an inspector I had no clue of what was really involved/required, until I completed the required state training, joined my local professional HI org and read home inspectors BBs like this one.

[ozofprev]

Originally posted by dspec

Arizona... Formally from yours and Chads cold part of the world.

Cool, put that in your profile.

The reason I agree is that there are always two sides to a complaint, having an unbiased forum to address the complaint often helps all involved, opposed to both parties resorting to hiring an attorney.

Can you describe the unbiased forum to which you refer?

From what I've seen a lot of complaints are on items what we, or most do not provide, or the defect was not present or accessible at time of inspection. After the customer understands our limitations of what we do, most have a more positive view of our profession.

That's sad. The expectations should be established prior to the inspection. Even so, it seems strange that people have a more positive view of our profession after discovering that their expectations need to be lowered.

Maybe it's just me the way I see it the states [ minimum ]requirements are far more than most HI orgs, not to mention state requirements are enforced if the inspector did screw up. I agree that it would be great if we governed ourselves, with instant online questionable training and certifications I'm going to stick to my opinion that state enforcement is better than none.

Well, NY State's standards are the ASHI standards. The problem is that the licensing requirements are not preparatory for the performance of that standard. Although the NHIE is simple, the NYS exam is half as long and easier still. So being licensed in NY is easier than being an ASHI associate with logo privilege. That's another reason I think the current licensing law is bad for the consumer.

Agreed if we only inspect to the minimum standards, inspectors that don't meet the customers expectations will be gone sooner or later as long as established home inspectors continue to inform the customer that there are inspectors that go the extra mile.

Not necessarily. The inspectors who don't meet clients' expectations will quickly become some RE agent's best friend.

Are the state standards lower than none?

Almost. That's the problem I have with current licensing. Clients ask themselves the same question. I state on my website that licensed and certified do NOT mean qualified. Some poor homeowners have discovered that the hard way. Licensing gave them a false sense of security.

Where's Walter?????

[Chad Fabry]

Hey Dan and Gary... you're not yet aware but you're on the same side. Please, feel free to hash it out for my entertainment.

[ozofprev]

Damn, I hope you're right.

Originally posted by Chad Fabry

Hey Dan and Gary... you're not yet aware but you're on the same side. Please, feel free to hash it out for my entertainment.

[randynavarro]

The term "licensed" means nothing. Unfortunately, it deceives the consumer.

How many times have you heard somebody got a "licensed" (and "bonded", for that matter) contractor, inspector, electrician, whatever and they were ultimately dissatisfied with the service for some bone-head reason or another?

People think just because they're licensed means they're competent and qualified.

Just because governments require licensing does not a good, ethical, competent professional make.

originally posted by Scott Patterson

A good law will protect the home inspector and will also insure that some protection is award to the consumer.

I don't disagree Scott, but what state is this proving true?

[dspec]

Originally posted by ozofprev

Originally posted by dspec

The reason I agree is that there are always two sides to a complaint, having an unbiased forum to address the complaint often helps all involved, opposed to both parties resorting to hiring an attorney.

Can you describe the unbiased forum to which you refer?

In Az if a consumer files a complaint, the home inspector and consumer have the opportunity to present their sides to a group of 3-4 inspectors, a member of the public and an employee of the BTR, the state licensing agency.

Originally posted by ozofprev

Originally posted by dspec

From what I've seen a lot of complaints are on items what we, or most do not provide, or the defect was not present or accessible at time of inspection. After the customer understands our limitations of what we do, most have a more positive view of our profession.

That's sad. The expectations should be established prior to the inspection. Even so, it seems strange that people have a more positive view of our profession after discovering that their expectations need to be lowered.

True, many times the consumer is often misinformed by the real estate agent or a contractor on what the inspector should or should not do.

Originally posted by ozofprev

Originally posted by dspec

Maybe it's just me the way I see it the states [ minimum ]requirements are far more than most HI orgs, not to mention state requirements are enforced if the inspector did screw up. I agree that it would be great if we governed ourselves, with instant online questionable training and certifications I'm going to stick to my opinion that state enforcement is better than none.

Well, NY State's standards are the ASHI standards. The problem is that the licensing requirements are not preparatory for the performance of that standard. Although the NHIE is simple, the NYS exam is half as long and easier still. So being licensed in NY is easier than being an ASHI associate with logo privilege. That's another reason I think the current licensing law is bad for the consumer.

Heck if if I had any say I would suggest all inspectors need to be a full member of ASHI and

(this may also raise a few eye brows), all inspectors should be required to carry E@O and liability ins.

Originally posted by ozofprev

Not necessarily. The inspectors who don't meet clients' expectations will quickly become some RE agent's best friend.

That will happen with or with out licensing.

Where's Walter?????

I don't think he comes on this site, if so I suspect I probably earned a grammar and spelling

lesson.

[Tom Corrigan]

The New York State Home Inspector licensing law is more than sad!

The law became effective 1/1/2006, there is still no standard of practice. Also of interest:

The state accepted a nonproctored online test as part of the path for a grandfathered license. Several state lawyers were presented with thier "certification" during a meeting. Thier comment was "woops, well it's too late now".

NYS developed thier own HI test because there are state employees that write tests.

The difficulty of the test questions is adjusted up and down based on the pass/fail ratio. The test is not a demonstration that the applicant posses some recognized minimum level of knowledge.

The senate sponser was a sales lady.

NYS licensing has not been good for the consumer

Tom Corrigan

[ozofprev]

Originally posted by dspec

In Az if a consumer files a complaint, the home inspector and consumer have the opportunity to present their sides to a group of 3-4 inspectors, a member of the public and an employee of the BTR, the state licensing agency.

Ok, we will just have to disagree about the meaning of unbiased.

Originally posted by dspec

True, many times the consumer is often misinformed by the real estate agent or a contractor on what the inspector should or should not do.

And, the consumer is misled by the state that meaningful credentials exist.

Originally posted by dspec

Heck if if I had any say I would suggest all inspectors need to be a full member of ASHI and(this may also raise a few eye brows) all inspectors should be required to carry E@O and liability ins.

But, sticking to the point... The state requires next to nothing - and that's bad.

Originally posted by dspec

That will happen with or with out licensing.

Not true, if licensing were meaningful.

Originally posted by dspec

I don't think he comes on this site, if so I suspect I probably earned a grammar and spelling lesson.

He would have a field day.

[Gerry Beaumont]

Hi to all

Originally posted by Scottpat

How can you say a law does or does not help the consumer? I don't really know of anyway to measure it. A good law will protect the home inspector and will also insure that some protection is award to the consumer.

I spent a huge ammount of time last fall studying the issue of the effects of licensing in all the states who both regulate inspectors, and whose State boards publish the results of discipinary actions, I have to tell you that I could find no corrolation what so ever between State licensing and consummer protection, the reported incidence of inspector failure is so small that it is statistically invalid.

I personally keep flip flopping over the licensing issue, I believe valid licensing to be a good thing, if it offers protection to both the client, and as you say the inspector. I cannot find an act anywhere that can be demonstrated to do that.

It escapes me as to why various groups in our industry are so hell bent on licensing, but fail to even lobby for limitation of liability clauses in bill proposals.

I am sorry but all I ever see in licensing is protectionism.

Regards

[hausdok]

Hi Guys,

Please, if you don't know how to use the reply with quotes feature properly, just cut and paste the post you want to respond to into your answer and then use quotes around the portions that you are quoting.

First dpec attempted to quote osofprev and forgot to use the code in one spot. Then osofprev quoted him, and then osofprev quoted the quotes, causing the whole thing to snowball. I just spend 45 minutes cleaning up this thread, so that anyone reading it could follow each responder's train of thought.

I know it wasn't done intentionally. The reply with quotes feature is there to try and make it easier for everyone to answer someone else directly. However, if you don't know how to break up someone's quote and insert your own answers, so that the person's words are clearly quoted and your words are your own, it's extremely hard to follow each person's argument.

Let's try to be a little more careful. Preview your thread before you post it and use spell check if you've got it. If you need spell check, you can get a free spell checker program by going to the Powertoys for Windows site.

Thanks, I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled and pretty interesting discussion.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[kurt]

I'm an HTML moron. Is there somewhere on site w/a lesson plan for quote thing?

[hausdok]

Sure,

On the menu bar above, click on "Help FAQ" and then on "General FAQ". It should be in there. If not, just remember to place the word quote between brackets, these are brackets - [ ] - at the beginning of what you want to quote and then place /quote between brackets at the end of each portion of the quote.

Don't forget to preview your responses first. That way, you can correct your mistake before it gets posted and then someone else replies to it with quotes and causes the error to snowball.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[ozofprev]

Sorry, Mike. I thought I did preview my stuff, but I'll be more carefull.

Gerry & Tom,

I agree.

[jbushart]

Originally posted by randynavarro

Does anyone know if any legislation anywhere has ever helped the consumer?

It has not. Licensing has failed in every state to achieve any of its desired outcomes.

Licensing solves nothing.