Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Michael Brown

Home Inspector Licensing

Recommended Posts

Wow,

I'm surprised at the results of this poll. I'd actually thought it would be 3 to 1 in the other direction, 'cuz I've always believed that the majority of home inspectors were against mandatory licensing.

For the record, I have not voted in this poll but I am against it. Nonetheless, I am working with others in my state to try and put together something that inspectors on both sides of the issue can live with, should we find ourselves up against the wall and facing it whether we like it or not.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prospect of licensing in every state has ASHI running scared. It is fighting to remain relevant with this whole "Branding" garbage and is going to end up shooting itself in the foot. One of the reasons that I joined this forum is because I am going to be kicked out of ASHI (because I won't pay for "Branding") and I enjoy these discussions online.[:-slug]

Mike-Thanks again for putting this together!

I would like to see a real poll of ASHI members about how many of us wanted "Branding" and not one of these vague survey questions that ask things like "Would you be willing to pay $250 to increase your business?" and have that twisted into us stating that we asked for "Branding". (of the many ASHI members I know, I still don't know any that were asked any survey questions)

How about this question: Do you want ASHI to help you run your business, get involved in your company marketing, borrow money to help pay for this program, put together the program and keep the details a secret until after it is a done deal, raise your dues in an attempt to develop and increase public awareness of ASHI and do all of this without a clear plan? How many of us would agree to that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've talked to literally hundreds of guys about licensing and the vast majority have no real concept of what licensing will or will not do.

We're doing a HI seminar in Kansas City in late January and we'll have a Round Table discussion on licensing. Many people sending in their registrations or calling for more info have naively made comments on the licensing issue that are so far out in left field you want to cry.

For example the last 4 people calling have commented how great licensing could be because: (1) it will get rid of the cheap inspectors; (2) it will lower the number of home inspectors so they won't have as much competition; (3) the realtors, sellers or repair contractors won't be able to call them dumb or complain about what they say or do anymore, because then they'd be licensed inspectors; and (4) because in the midwest most contractors or builders are not licensed - the inspectors will be more legitimate and their words will carry more weight because they're licensed inspectors.

I don't know whether to cry or throw up. It does make me realize we've got a lot of really naive or stupid people doing home inspections.

Dan Bowers (Kansas City)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never would have gone into this business if there had been no licensing here (Mississippi). It made going into business more expensive, but at least I don't have to compete with every jackass with an extension ladder and a box of cards. Before licensing there was a guy in the next town who was a hairdresser / home inspector...seriously. If nothing else, it filters out morons like that. [:-dunce]

Frankly I was really surprized when I joined ASHI and found that they fought licensing at every turn. Since they had a huge influence on the legislation passed to govern home inspection here, I assumed they were in favor of professionalizing the industry across the board. Not so.

Licensing is not a cure for all that's wrong with home inspection, but I believe the industry would be significantly advanced if all states had the same tough laws and regulations we do. In ASHI's first ranking of states with regulation, Mississippi tied for #1 with Connecticut. The SOP and COE are law here, you must have training, you must pass the NHIE, and you must have both general liability and E&O...all before you can perform a single inspection.

If you live in an unregulated state, ask yourself how many of your competitors would be able or willing to clear those hurdles. I think the NHIE alone would thin the ranks noticeably.

Brian G.

Mississippi ASHI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've carried E&O Insurance since 1986. Never had a claim. Think its a great relaxer to help me sleep better at night. I've never marketed it to realtors, clients, etc like "Use me cause I have a big E&O Insurance policy". IMHO, I think anybody doing that deserves to get sued a few times. I see many other inspectors do this as an advertising gimmick (and many of them get get sued regularly over petty BS).

No other profession in my states (Missouri or Kansas) requires E&O or anything similar for a license. That statement includes engineers, architects, realtors, doctors, lawyers, termite inspectors, lead or asbestos inspectors, septic inspectors, appraisers, nurses, etc, etc.

I think every inspector should be required to carry liability insurance (your ladder falls over and lands on the sellers car and damages it), before setting foot on someone elses property - but making E&O Insurance mandatory is dumb and prejudicial if other professions are not required to carry it to get a license.

Dan Bowers (Kansas City)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Moly!

Looks like I plucked the right string on that guitar. There're some pretty strongly held opinions here!

I know it's all kind of tied together, but lets try not to let thread drift take us to the next planet in our solar system by morphing into ASHI politics, E & O and branding.

Steven, you obviously have strong feelings about ASHI's branding and the politics behind that, so how about if you begin a thread to discuss the pros and cons of ASHI's branding campaign? I'll even see what I can do about putting a poll up for you, although you're going to end up with a lot of non-ashi folks voting I'm afraid.

Brian, you seem to be in favor of E & O and Dan is obviously opposed. How about you guys beginning a separate Hannity and Colmes type thread on the pros and cons, and the necessity (or lack thereof) of carrying E & O insurance? If I can do it, I'll throw a poll up there for you as well. The only question is: Which one of you looks like Sean and which like Alan?

This is only a suggestion guys, you don't have to do it if you don't want to. I just thought it might make it easier for some of the newer inspectors and independents, who aren't familiar with the debate going on within ASHI over branding or with E & O, to follow the debate. I'll do what I can to make it more interesting for you.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O'Handley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan Bowers said in part:

For example the last 4 people calling have commented how great licensing could be because: (1) it will get rid of the cheap inspectors; (2) it will lower the number of home inspectors so they won't have as much competition; (3) the realtors, sellers or repair contractors won't be able to call them dumb or complain about what they say or do anymore, because then they'd be licensed inspectors; and (4) because in the midwest most contractors or builders are not licensed - the inspectors will be more legitimate and their words will carry more weight because they're licensed inspectors.

I voted for licencing on the poll. Licensing won't do any of the things above. What it did in Texas was make sure inspecting wasn't done by hairdressers. But the real benefit has been that virtually all resale homes are inspected. Licencing made home inspections legitimate and agents universally recommend that buyers get the home inspected.

Of course this says nothing about the kind of inspection the agent wants; that varies all over the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Dan and I are that different on E&O as a solo issue. I only favor it as part of an overall licensing package. He says HI's shouldn't have to have it if no other professionals do, and I can't argue with that.

Dan, are you saying that doctors there don't have malpractice insurance (the E&O equivalent)? [:-bigeyes]

I also don't agree with having licensing where anyone can just pay a fee for a piece of paper saying they can inspect (state cash cows). What licensing does depends entirely on how the law is written, and to what standards. On Dan's list of "left-field comments", all became true here after licensing except #3 (nothing will ever stop that). Set the bar high and you will get the same effect anywhere else (IMHO).

I also don't advertise or market my E&O as an asset. That ain't smart. All I say is "licensed, bonded, and insured". I think (& hope) that says "I'm not an amatuer" to most people.

Brian G.

AccuSpec, LLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with state license; I feel it protects ME even more than before. At least now it clearly states the standards & MOLD is outside the scope of a home inspection (even though I've lost business because I can't do septics and water testing).

I must admit, here in NJ it will be tougher to get licensed after the law is final. To become an associate inspector(non grandfathered) one has to attend class, have 50 practice inspections (under a licensed inspector) and pass the ASHI type test. Then he must conduct 250 inspections under the direction of a licensed inspector (and the licensed inspector is responsible for the report), sort of an apprentice. That is dangerous in the long run as it pertains to the E & O policy, does the associate obtain the policy or is it under the licensed inspector.

I am currenty a mentor for someone; he's done about 20 practice inspection with me a is learning on the job training; clearly the classroom didn't prepare him for what he's seeing. I can't imagine him going into business without this mentoring program.

Darren

AmeriSpec

Morristown NJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Licensing in Illinois has been only positive, in my experience. While it is an "artificial" endorsement, it has created all the sorts of desired effects in my customers.

I have not had my statements questioned by the spin doctors due to my not having any license to operate as an HI. Inspection agreements are required by the licensing act, so I no longer have to go through the 45 minute explanation of the contract. I've raised my prices and blamed the State for complicating things [:-bouncy].

So far, it is all relatively inoccuous. For those facing licensing, don't panic; I've seen nothing but benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Brian or Anybody Else Listening:

The question about Doctors carrying malpractice insurance is similar to HI's carrying E&O Insurance. I'm sure many Doctors carry it for peace of mind or a good business decision - But in Missouri & Kansas they're not required to have it to get a license, Some hospitals require it to operate there - but again its not required for their license.

People hear bum info some times and believe it. About a year ago on one of the ASHI Forums, I heard a young man that was instrumental in his state (of Mississippi or Alabama) in getting licensing passed tell everyone that E&O Ins. was required of most professions in his state. He then went on to list several professions, one of which was engineers. A recent HI student of mine had just moved there, so I called him to ask about that - the student of mine just laughed and said the young man in question frequently relayed info that was off base - and no he did not have to carry E&O as an engineer.

Dan Bowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Arizona we called it Certification.

It went into effect a year ago this month.

We had about 1000 people doing inspections in the state before it went into effect. Jan.1,2003 there were 283 state certified inspectors. That number is just over 500 now but we still have a few that refused to get certified and they are being punished with hefty fines when caught.[:-fight]

We require that you pass the same exam as ASHI and that you are bonded or insured. #0 parallel inspections with a certified inspector. 80 hours of school with an approved curriculum, FBI background check (Fingerprints) and a $400 annual fee[:-jump]. Other the $400 it has only helped me.

Psst [:-psst], Hey Scott, I fixed the bolding in your post. Next time, just highlight the area you want to be bolded and then click on the dark B above. The software'll do it for you. [:-golf] - OT-OF!!! Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish people would read the arguments before they voted. But why should this be different. In Washington State we are required to be licensed as pest inspectors. This is a mixed blessing but it does nothing to keep the real estste agents form calling you dumb and choosing a less critical inspector. Linceing is bunk, and I hope those who want it realize that the real estate lobby is one of the largest in the country. If we are licensed it will be on real estate frendly rules. Unless the few inspcetors can fund a loby that will conteract 25 years of R-Pack monies. If I had millions of dollers I would retire and not waist my time fighting the big R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Roy Angevine

I wish people would read the arguments before they voted. But why should this be different. In Washington State we are required to be licensed as pest inspectors. This is a mixed blessing but it does nothing to keep the real estste agents form calling you dumb and choosing a less critical inspector. Linceing is bunk, and I hope those who want it realize that the real estate lobby is one of the largest in the country. If we are licensed it will be on real estate frendly rules. Unless the few inspcetors can fund a loby that will conteract 25 years of R-Pack monies. If I had millions of dollers I would retire and not waist my time fighting the big R.

Roy, I respectfully disagree with you on your opinion of licensing, home inspector licensing is working in several states. Many states have fairly good license laws on the books that are protecting the inspector and the consumer. As for the real estate agents, being licensed takes a lot of the argument out of any conversation about the qualifications of a person inspecting homes; however this only holds true for those states that require an examination, insurance and the law is enforced by a regulatory board that has the powers to do so.

As for the quality of inspectors; Meaningful license laws do cull out the weekend warriors and the bucket heads. If a person can pass the NHIE and meet the insurance requirements chances are they are going to be fairly competent. As for giving soft reports, this will never stop until the inspectors who do this go out of business due the number of claims or complaints against them. In my state we have already revoked several home inspector licenses and we are entering into our third year of licensing.

The home inspectors in Washington need to get together and introduce a “Real Home Inspector licenses law billâ€

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Roy Angevine

Linceing is bunk, and I hope those who want it realize that the real estate lobby is one of the largest in the country. If we are licensed it will be on real estate frendly rules. Unless the few inspcetors can fund a loby that will conteract 25 years of R-Pack monies.

The real estate lobby didn't get "friendly rules" here, and there was no in-state organization to fight them. ASHI did it. I hate to sound like a "homer", but they're really the only HI organization out there with the resources, experience, and connections to win a battle like that.

Does that mean we don't have white-washing bucket-heads? Hell no. But it does mean that when they practice as they do, they're on the wrong side of the law. Even the dirt-poorest can file a complaint with the state, no lawyer needed.

Brian G.

Governed by the SOP & the COE, Not the NAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys - The part about "hairdressers" not doing HI's because of licensing is possibly true, but not because of licensing - if it is true, its just because one hasn't joined yet.

Besides doing Home Inspections, every 2 months we put on a 12 day seminar in KC for NEWBIE's. Most of our Trainees come from other states. One of my last class had a 60 year old remodeler from Florida, a framing contractor from Arkansas, a home builder from Colorado, a licensed electrician from Illinois, a foundation contractor from Oklahoma, a retired civil engineer (P.E.) from Tennessee, a building material salesman from Texas, a code inspector from Utah or Idaho, a graphic artist from Missouri, a computer programmer from Kansas, and a lady Ph.D.(education) from Maine.

The lady Ph.D kicked the guys butts so bad it wasn't even funny. Her and the graphic artist were among the 2 best Trainees I've ever seen (which includes other local Trainees and Past Graduates of ITA, AHIT (Newcomers), NIBI, the old Leonard Hawes School in Dallas, Midwest Inspectors Institute, Franchises, etc).

Most of the Newbies I see or talk to in this or other states, are not going "Full-Time" into HI - with or without a licensing law where they're at. They're trying to ease into it while holding down another job (which is how 9 out of 10 of the over 10 year veteran HI's I know anywhere in the country did it too).

What I'm really saying is when one of you talk about how licensing keeps out the part-timers, you're talking about wishful thinking not reality.

Dan Bowers (Kansas City)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massachussetts has required licensing since 5/01/01. I'm an ASHI member and a former gratefull student of the Scaduto Family School of Home Inspections. In Mass. this profession is moving from a technical trade to a profession. These are my observations and are probably not endorsed by the more vocal societies. It is very difficult to become a quality licensed inspector.There are large multi-inspector firms that will train (sponser) people to inspect houses. Most of the card carring licensed professional inspectors operate from very small firms. These inspectors are not interested in training thier competion. It is counterproductive-costs money-takes time. I did not train to be a teacher of inspectors or babysitter of newbies. It takes me 4+ hours to complete an inspection-without explaining my every move to a newbie. I'm sure my customers are will not tolerate an 8 hour inspection.

At this point,there are enough inspectors in Mass. but with natural attrition there may be a shortage.We have lots of card carrying AARP members in our chapter. Short run, that is goooooood!!-long run???

In my area they are bulldozing 400M houses for the lots. Much money being passed around for the priveledge of living in Taxachussetts. We got bigger and faster sharks in our RE Industry and Litigation Industry. As a profession, we need to be thoroughly & properly trained and adequatly insured. ASHI training helps-license requirements helps-continueing education helps. This area is active, but it isn't the wild west--"we gots lots of rules".

Sorry to vent -this stuff has been on my mind for a while. Go Pats

Jack Ahern from Needham on the Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not opposed to part-timers Dan, assuming they are required to meet the same high standards and make the same financial investment I am. Technically, I'm still part-time myself. I'm in a small market, and we have lulls in the action here. I haven't inspected anything but the wife since the 2nd week of December, so carpentry it is.

What good any law does or does not do depends on how it is written and enforced. With any licensing law, if the bar is set high less people will make it over. Can we agree on this much?

Brian G.

Seeking Common Ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with setting the bar up a little. I'd like to see mandatory licensing in Kansas with the following requirements. (1) A BS Degree in Civil, Structural, or Architectual Engineering or a BS in Architecture or a BS in Construction Management; (2) Mandatory Code Certification by either ICBO, BOCA or ICC as a Combination 1 & 2 Family Dwelling Inspector; (3) a minimum of 10 years VERIFIABLE Home Inspection Experience; (4) a minimum of 5,000 General Home Inspections that meet or exceed the NAHI, TAREI or ASHI Standards; (5) a field Peer Review by a 4 man committee of Senior Inspectors; and (6) mandatory passing of the Texas Home Inspectors Exam for everyone including the above people.

I feel that should thin out the ranks a little.

Dan Bowers, CRI

Hey Dan, what's a CRI? Just kidding.....

Do you really think a BS degree in the above is necessary for HI work? Having had the classes, I can't recall any of the classwork providing much of anything in the way of HI training. I like the peer review & code certified parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Jim Morrison

Why is it every inspector I've ever met who wants licensing thinks the bar should be set exactly high enough so he's the last one over?

JM

That is an astute observation, getting into that "human nature" thing. The simple reality is that there is going to be (shortly) too many home inspectors for the available job market. (Too many schools cranking out too many applicants for too few positions; ouch.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Well, maybe it is possible to raise the bar, not have licensing and still have enforceable standards for home inspectors.

There is presently not an ASTM standard for residential home inspections, but there is one for commercial inspections. If there were an ASTM standard for residential inspections, do you think states would adopt such a standard as their law, the way they have with plumbing codes and so forth?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Ironically enough, the Australians, though they do not have licensing for home inspectors, have Australian standard 4349.1-1995. (The Australian Standards are their equivalent of our ASTM.)

AS 4349.1-1995 was put together through a cooperative effort of a number of folks who I guess we could say are the dreaded word 'stakeholders' in the process. They sat on a committee BD/85 that represented:

  • Association of Building Consultants (As close to an ASHI/NAHI/NACHI/AII/CREIA/TAREI as they have.)
  • Association of Consulting Engineers, Australia
  • Australian Concrete Repair Association
  • Australian Environmental Pest Managers Association
  • Australian Federation of Consumer Organizations
  • Australian Institute of Building
  • Australian Institute of Building Surveyors(Sort of cross between appraisers and engineer/inspectors)
  • Clay Brick & Paver Institute
  • Concrete Masonry Association of Australia
  • Housing Industry Association
  • Local Government & Shires Association
  • Master Builders Australia
  • National Association of Forest Industries
  • Queensland Law Society
  • Royal Australian Institute of Architects

To quote the standard it: "Sets out recommendations for the visual inspection of residential buildings, including pre-purchase inspections and for the preparation of the appropriate property inspection reports."

The standard defines what a consultant is; what the inspection criteria is; what is considered a minor defect (A matter which, in view of the age, type or condition of the residential building, does not require substantial repairs or urgent attention and recertification.); What a pre-purchase inspection is; What a property is; What is considered to be reasonable access, including the minimum size of access covers for attics and crawlspaces(in mm), minimum vertical clearances required in crawls for access, and the maximum height attic or roof that a consultant must access (Accessible from a 3.6m ladder).

It also sets out the minimum requirements to be contained in residential and special reports, but doesn't limit inspectors from adding to these. It also requires all inspectors to carry a minimum amount of E & O and professional liability, as well as life insurance for employees.)

Another feature I like is that it tells the customer that they must specify what else about the site, besides the building, that they want inspected for defects. Sections 2.3.6. and 2.3.7 state:


2.3.6 The Site The person requesting the inspection should specify any items and areas on the site which have to be inspected for defects, in addition to the items listed below which form part of the standard property inspection. Items, which are in addition to the following list, may fall within the scope of a special-purpose property inspection report:

  • (a) Car accommodation, detached laundry, ablution facilities and garden sheds.
  • Small retaining walls (i.e. non-structural).
  • Paths and driveways
  • Steps.
  • Fencing.
  • Surface water drainage.
  • Storm water run off

2.3.7. Smoke detectors The person requesting the inspection should specify any items which have to be inspected for defects.

Note: The inspection should be limited to the location of smoke detectors and number installed only. Checking the operation of the smoke detector is not part of the standard property inspection.


As an example of what is required, section 2.3.3 specifies what the inspector must look at on the roof exterior. Here's that section.


2.3.3 The Roof Exterior The consultant should inspect and assess the condition of the following for defects:

(a) Roof For example ---

  • (i)tiles;
  • (ii) shingles and slates:
  • (iii) sheet roofing; and
  • (iv) roof flashing.

(b) Skylights, vents, and flues

© Valleys

(d) Guttering

(e) Downpipes

(f) Eaves

It should be clearly stated if no access was available, or access to limited areas only was available at the time the inspection was carried out.


Their reports include the interior and exteriors of buildings, the attics, crawlspaces, exterior roof and site and (oddly enough) smoke detectors.

Section 3 describes the report requirements.

3.1 SCOPE This section sets out recommendations for the basic content of a standard property report.

3.2 GENERAL Although it is necessary to inspect each of the areas in Clause 2.3, it is not necessary to report on each one. Individual consultants may choose to report only on an 'exceptions basis' e.e., listing only defects, rather than also reporting items which are in an acceptable condition.

3.3 THE STANDARD PROPERTY REPORT A building report should not be seen as an all-encompassing report dealing with a building from every aspect. Rather it should be seen as a reasonable attempt to identify any significant defects visible at the time of the inspection. Whether or not a defect should be regarded as significant, depends to a large extent upon the age and type of building being inspected.

It is unrealistic for the consultant to comment on minor defects and imperfections in the standard property report, although this may be required for a special-purpose property report.(see Section 4).

A standard property report provided by the consultant should include the following:

  • (a) A statement of who requested the report and the purpose for which it was requested or is intended
  • The date or dates of inspection
  • The scope of the inspection
  • Any area or item which is not inspected and the reasons which prevented an inspection, and if appropriate, a recommendation for further investigation.
  • A summary which includes an opinion as to the overall condition of the residential dwelling in the context of its age, type and general expectations of similar properties.
  • A list of any significant matters which requires attention or rectification.
  • If necessary, a recommendation that a further inspection or assessment be carried out by a suitably accredited specialist, e.g. pest inspector, electrical authority, water authority, structural engineer, geotechnical engineer, surveyor or solicitor.

The summary is possibly the most important part of the report. The important points should be extracted from the body of the report to provide the reader with a brief summary of the major faults found int he building. The summary should also put the overall condition of the building in the context of the average condition of similar buildings of approximately the same age.

3.4 LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS

3.4.1 LIMITATIONS The standard property report should not contain any assessment or any opinion in relation to---

  • (a) any item which is the subject of a special-purpose property report;
  • (b) any area or item which was not, or could not be inspected by the consultant;
  • © a matter which is not within the consultant's expertise; or
  • a matter, the inspection or assessment of which is solely regulated by statute.

What I especially like about their method is that is spells out clearly what an inspector is not required to inspect. Although there system is much less comprehensive than ours, the details of what they are not required to inspect are indisputable. The standard states:


For example, the consultant normally would not check the adequacy of the following:

  • Footings.
  • Concealed damp-proof course
  • Electrical installations, smoke detectors and residual current devices.
  • Plumbing
  • Drainage
  • Gas fitting
  • Air conditioning
  • Garage door opening mechanism
  • Swimming pools and associated equipment
  • The operation of fireplaces and chimneys
  • Alarm systems
  • Intercom systems[*]Soft floor coverings including carpet and lino[*]Appliances including dishwashers, insinkerators, ovens, ducted vacuum systems.[*]Paint coatingsHazards

Whether or not services have been used for some time prior to an inspection being carried out will affect the detection of leaks and other defects. For example, in the case of a shower enclosure, the absence of any dampness at the time of inspection does not necessarily mean that the enclosure will not leak.

Sprayed subfloor areas should not be inspected without suitable protective clothing and apparatus such as a replaceable cartridge respirator. IN any event, sprayed subfloor areas should not be inspected unless it is safe to do so.

If the subfloor area has been sprayed and is not ventilated, it is extremely dangerous to inspect it without a full-face mask.


This is kind of cool too:


A3.3 THE STANDARD PROPERTY REPORT A standard property report is not intended as a certificate of compliance of the property within the requirements of any Act, regulation, ordinance, or by-law, or, as a warranty or an insurance policy against problems developing with the building in the future.

Estimating the cost of remedying defects is not included in a standard property report, although it may form part of a specific-purpose property report.

A4.4 THE SPECIAL-PURPOSE REPORT If the cost of work estimates are given, it should be clearly indicated whether the estimates have been carefully calculated or if they are merely opinions of possible cost. The cost of work is ultimately dependent on what a contractor is prepared to do the work for.


Okay, I'm not advocating we change our whole way of inspecting to what the Australians do, what I'm saying is they've put together a system there where realtors are not even part of the home inspection equation, where the law spells out clearly what will be inspected, what is required in the report and what an inspector is not required to do.

Their standard is a form of blanket protection for all home inspectors while at the same time ensuring consumer protection and establishes a consistent standard across the country that all inspectors know they must comply with and one which the vendor (seller) or the purchaser can't dispute. All without any licensing of HI's whatsoever.

If any of you folks are curious about how they write their reports down there, you can view one at this link: Australian Pre-Purchase Inspections

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Jack Ahern

[br

At this point,there are enough inspectors in Mass. but with natural attrition there may be a shortage.We have lots of card carrying AARP members in our chapter. Short run, that is goooooood!!-long run???

Jack Ahern from Needham on the Charles

Jack,

I'm a card carrying AARP member. What am I going to do with the 2 to 3 people (previous clients and client referrals) who contact me every day after I start using my AARP card?

Of course I would only pass those potential clients on to inspectors who are fair to the house and put things in perspective and help facilitate the sale. Don't want to pass those leads to one of those pro-consumer inspectors who charges $750, takes 50 photos, documents all the defects and only does one inspection per day and gives the potential home buyer way too much info.[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...