Furthermore, licensing that relies on a low passing cut-off score exam (like the NHIE), harm consumers. Read: http://www.nachi.org/examsthatharm.htm
**You guys are missing the point. The whole thrust and lobby for licencing is from CAHPI. They want control of who can be a home inspector and they have a horrendous fee structure and the proposal the government has put on the table calls for all existing inspectors to meet the CAHPI standard and follow the CAHPI method. CAHPI will have the sole authority to make the decision of who is qualified. When they fail you will have no choice but to close your business and pay a CAHPI inspector to work for him until you can pass their exams. In the past they have failed people and refused to tell them why. **
The following is (government comments in blue bold) part of the proposal.
**My comments are in black. **
-
Home inspectors should be required to meet educational standards based on the National Occupational Standards or other reference sources.
**Not unreasonable and INACHI exceeds this standard. ** -
Home inspectors should be required to meet a prescribed Standard of Practice.
Again not unreasonable on the face of it but CAHPI has lobbied hard to be the so be the soul authority to set this standard. Completely unacceptable for CAHPI to have complete authority. -
Home inspectors should have a “good reputation.”
What does this mean? INACHI and CMI calls for a background security check for any past criminal convictions. -
The government should be allowed to appoint an outside organization to develop educational criteria when it believes that greater expertise is available externally.
Read CAHPI. This would put all INACHI inspectors out of business. -
Home inspectors should be licensed.
If the Government wants licensing them the government must take responsibility for it and set up standards and exams etc. and manage the process. Farming it out to CAHPI is unacceptable to INACHI.
By the way INACHI has 73 certified inspectors and CAHPI has 53 as of today.
**CAHPI number includes students thus an inflated number. ** -
To qualify for licensing, home inspectors should have completed a prerequisite number of peer-reviewed inspections.
**I have no quarrel with this so long as INACHI is given equal rights to do the review for its own members. The Alberta chapter has set up and test run a peer review process. We can do it if the Government decides that it is the thing to do. Nick has committed to help and assist us. ** -
A three-tiered licensing system should be used with a top level (Level 1), an intermediate level (Level 2) and an entry level (Level 3).
I can not believe that the government would propose this nonsense. You are qualified or you are not. You are a student or a professional. Having three layers is another way for CAHPI to suck money out of future inspectors. CAHPI has convinced the government that the CAHPI member should be paid by the student and the student does the work. Slaves had it better. The master had to provide food and shelter. This is extremely regressive and totally unacceptable. This proposal has to be a violation of the labour act and minimum wage standards.
**If the government deems that licencing is required then only qualified inspectors get licenced. All students, apprentices, interns, associates etc would have their work signed for by qualified inspectors. This is the practice for all other professional associations. Why would home inspector students be given a licence and be aloud to work independently when they are not qualified. For instance if a student does an inspection or part of and inspection they would be paid for their work but the professional would take full responsibility for that work. **
It is unreasonable.
It is more than unreasonable.
With 225 inspector businesses (some with multi-inspectors on board) and only 18 complaints over a 4 year period…it is outrageous.
It is an insult to our profession to have inspectors with such small penises and large egos who want to be in control over what could easily be bragged as one of the greatest groups of home inspectors in the world.
CAHPI should be striving to achieve what the the inspectors of Alberta have achieved…not vice versa.
Don’t drop your knickers for these bullies…use the media attention that you have to show that CAHPI has a worse record, nationally, than the inspectors of Alberta. You can run them clean out of your province if you put your mind to it.
If you buy their mantra that licensing is inevitable…and strive for equality with a group of punks who apparently have more troubles than your entire province…you are throwing away a winning hand. Stand up to them. Your government, the media, and your consumers are all listening.
You will never have a bigger audience than you do today.
Will you use it succumb…or to win?
The choice is yours, but the clock is running out.
It’s time to take the gloves Off. I expect all 73 members to attend our meeting on the 25th
[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]
And for this the government is considering legislation that is going to cost everybody money.
Independent inspectors will be forced to pay CAHPI unreasonable dues (500.00 per year) inflated fees to take redundant tests that will be used as an excuse to fail you because they mistakenly believe that by limiting the number of inspectors they will inflate their income.
The government will collect money from inspectors for the licence fees.
The consumer will have to pay inflated inspection fees and the quality of the inspection will decline because the competition incentive will be eliminated.
And what does the consumer get out of all this? Not a thing unless you count higher costs, lower quality inspections, and no more protection then they have now.
There is absolutely nothing in all this that is of benefit to the consumer.
All this because of 18 complaints in four years!
There is nothing in all this that will reduce the complaint rate
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
The fraud that CAPHI is attempting to perpetrate upon the consumers of home inspections will never be more obvious than it is, now.
This will be the greatest opportunity that you will ever have to demonstrate…with the figures provided to the media by your own government…how CAPHI is motivated by greed to use legislation to reduce competition under the guise of consumer assistance.
This should be enough to kill whatever credibility that your legislators has afforded this group of ambitious thugs.
Wipe them out with their own deeds. Put the spotlight on them…NOW!!!
It’s interesting to see your alleged claim of fraud thast you claim perpetuated by CAHPI. There are many more stakeholders involved in this that have concerns. That is why licensing is not done without “public” consultation.
The same thing was done - like it or not in BC.
The government has stated, through your media, that this push for legislation in the absence of a demonstrated need is being done by CAPHI. While there are carpet baggers in the background waiting for their slice of the pie, CAPHI has taken the lead in this fraudulent act and should be credited for it.
CAHPI is affiliated with ASHI as you may know due to your membership with ASHI. In 1996, CAHI and American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) developed an agreement whereby CAHI was its own organization, not a chapter of ASHI. The agreement positively reflects the cooperation between ASHI and CAHI. In 2002, CAHI changed its name to the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (CAHPI). This was done to align our association with the national association, which is now named the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors.
CAHPI has been actively and locally lobbying for legislation for several years and their hard work and effort has paid off in Canada. I believe the intent is to protect the consumer although self preservation is always a contributing factor for any organization. I do not believe that CAHPI’s motive is driven by a fraudulent act.
In fact, the role they have played has pioneered the industry in Canada and played a significant role in standardization. Other associations that are not recognized in Canadian Provinces are due to lack of proctored testing and local representation.
In my humble opinion the real issue is the opportunity that exists for Real Estate Agents to influence the workload of their local inspectors. This creates opportunity for conflict of interest and does not serve in the best interest of the consumers.
That’s a nice way to spin it.
Tell me this…
In Alberta, over 225 home inspectors have managed to have fewer than 15 complaints made against them in tens of thousands of home inspections conducted over a four year period.
Where is the effort for the rest of Canada to try to “standardize” that?
They did it without any significant membership in any one particular home inspection association.
They did it without licensing or any form of government regulation.
They did it as individual businessmen competing for the business of consumers who would know them by reputation, only.
As an association, CAPHI has never and will never achieve the level of expertise and customer satisfaction than the 225 home inspectors in Alberta. Nothing in its proposed law would do anything to improve the high standards that the Alberta home inspectors have already established for themselves and others. This is what makes their actions, totally of self interest in an ill-disguised hyperbolic affection for the consumer’s benefit, fraudulent.
15 complaints in a 4 year period?
You know just as well as I that there is always going to be a percentage of consumers rapidly unsatisfied with their home inspector. I think I have heard more than 15 complaints about home inspectors from my friends, family, Realtors and the general public in the last 3 months on Vancouver Island never mind the Province.
More like 15 recorded complaints due to lack of consumer knowledge regarding the complaint process.
InterNACHI should be accepted in our Province as far as I am concerned, maybe with a proctored exam. Our association has great value.
CAHPI sunk its roots in deep with local representation in Canada. It is not fraud it is free enterprise and democracy in action.
Another nice spin. It would work better if you had supporting facts, such as these government produced statistics (I know how much guys who support licensing laws are enthralled by govt), to support your conjectures.
You should discard your license and strive to achieve what the home inspectors in Alberta have managed to do without one.
I am always trying to improve and learn in particular from veteran inspectors like yourself. I never said, I am a pro license inspector. There is no Canadian Government statistics or data regarding the inspection industry as it has only recently become law. All I am saying is the actions of CAHPI are not fraudulent.
The consumers of home inspections in Alberta, according to your government, require no protection.
Your friends with CAHPI insist that their self serving actions are being done for the “protection” of the consumer whom they, themselves, have failed to serve with such a high satisfaction rate in other areas of your country.
If not “fraudulent”, then disingenuous.
Their false claims reek of the same self-serving promotion as Mike Holmes’ claims of “thousands” of calls, letters and emails from all across Canada complaining of home inspectors. The official voice of the consumer (the BBB and his government) show the problem to much less serious than those who are trying to sell (for their own financial gain) a totally different story.
If you check with your local BBB you will find that they get very few complaints from buyers about HI’s The BBB specializes and advertises that fact. If you guys in BC had done your home work you would have found that out. From where I sit it looks like BC is now saddled with laws that will cost everyone more money. The next thing that is going to happen in BC is a whole bunch of new Inspectors in about 18 months after the schools gear up and graduate a new crop of inspectors that have been specifically trained to pass the new government regulations.
Of course, Vern, you are assuming that any of the established CAHPI guys will give them the required hours of mentoring. Oh look! A squadron of cows just flew by!
Claude continues to refuse to address the fact that mentors have an incentive to lie about the actual amount of time they devote to their apprentice (take the money and rubber stamp the training) and that there is no way of validating the accuracy or quality of this part of his “fool proof” scheme of assuring quality.
James - Isn’t that what you said? At least that is what you claim.
How do you validate, other than by the word of the mentor being paid, that he provided the services that he was paid for? The word of the applicant who will be receiving the certification?
The same way you do with apprenticeship. It has worked for decades.
The same as educational validation in public and private institutions - it to has worked for centuries.