Please don’t misquote me!
There are a lot of scumbag, bottom sucking, commission chasing real estate agents!
I simply choose not to associate myself with them. =;
Hate it.
Like most others have stated, I perform my inspection for my client.
Most of the time it is the buyer, sometimes the seller and even sometimes the bank is my client.
I always perform the best inspection possible (no matter who the client is).
I like to tell clients, I look at all homes as if I am buying the home for myself.
I’m not a fan of this idea and the nice thing about NACHI is that Nick put it our for us to voice our opinion about it and not just implementing it because he can. I’m also not going to beat up on Jim for coming up with an idea because doing so may prevent him and others from bringing up ideas that might be good. Some are going to be good some are going to be bad but at least someone is trying.
Debate should never be a reason from “preventing” you from bringing up ideas.
Everyone here that has been around for a while (like Jim) know where each other stands on a lot of issues.
Nick asked for opinions, opinions have been given.
It sounds like you’re a little uncomfortable not going along with the proposed agenda.
Believe me, you’re not going to make Jim run away and hide because you disagree with him on something!
Jim has a constitution based upon facts (as he sees them). He doesn’t make things up. Much better than I can say about many.
At least when he spouts off, it’s about the home inspection industry!
Just because we don’t see things from the same side of the street does not mean I don’t have the utmost respect for the man.
Hate it! Why would we do this within our organization? If you want to stop agent referrals, go after the NAR to make it unlawful for the agent to refer. That will not ever happen, so live and let live.
I work for my client and have no relationship with the agent whatsoever. I do not even supply the agent with a copy of my report nor discuss my findings with the agent without written authorization from my client. It does not matter where the client got my name as the inspection and report are always the same. Complete and unbiased.
I have a number of agents that refer me and they know very well that I don’t care if the sale goes through or not. I do my job and if the sale does not go through due to my findings, they work with the client and find them something else. Not all agents are unethical, money grubbers. Some actually care about their clients.
To the contrary.
My response to Nick in an unrelated conversation regarding sellers’ agents that led to our discussion that led to this post … (phew)… was a day after I had completed an inspection for a client that was referred to me by a seller’s agent who was representing both sides of the transaction.
She is a wonderful lady with whom I have worked with for a couple of years and we have a good relationship … but this house was a disaster. Charred and termite eaten floor joists that had been concealed with paint in a basement that had a sump pump sitting in the middle of the floor (no pit) with all of the basement freezers, pool table, mechanicals etc elevated 1.5 feet off the floor with bricks.
She argued on behalf of the seller who had only disclosed that the gutters did not extend far enough into the yard causing minor moisture issues, but the evidence clearly indicated that the basement was perpetually wet and was collecting water in significant amounts. I think her expectations were for me to support her and … in her presence … I basically explained everything to my client that is contained in the wording of the first post on this thread. I intend to incorporate for future referrals from selling agents it into my agreement.
Nick liked it and thought it would be worthy of discussion. I agree with Nick and I can certainly see how some might feel threatened by this language … and, frankly, should be.
Lots of guys like to talk about taking control of our “profession” and restoring it to what it was before it became a commodity managed by real estate agents but talk is cheap.
I am particularly pleased that Nick chose to post this debate in the public domain since awareness of this conflict of interest is important to the consumer whether NACHI incorporates this into its code of ethics or not.
Well said!
And I will add my “hate it” vote.
There is too much liability in this business for soft reports that appease any agent, buying or selling. I only work with agents who understand that the condition of the home will never be understated. And fortunately I don’t have a problem with agents understanding this. It is what it is.
Besides adding another line to our already lengthy contract, that many people likely do not read, does nothing.
JB - This whole thread sounds like Nick threw you under the Bus to get an answer and not look like the bad guy… and of course all of the JB haters came out of the wood work to have a free pass in posting their grade school intellect comments… truly unbelievable
I don’t cater to RE agents and so I really don’t care if its in the COE… but in my opinion I can see why the RE influenced/biased home inspector would not want to see this in a COE and would “Hate It”…:roll:
I personally never cater to agents in a manner to try and get their business from soft reports. I do find it easier to make them understand when I explain why I wrote something up the way I did.
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
So far we have…
2 Missouri inspectors “Love it”…
All others “Hate it”.
That’s my math… do your own!
Apparently, some of the posts that my “Ignore” feature has blocked are from the usual band of mental midgets wanting to take shots at me instead of debating the issue. That is to be expected.
Frankly, whenever the topic of removing the conflict of interest that exists between many home inspectors and the real estate salesmen upon whom they depend for their very livelihoods is introduced … resistance is anticipated. Many others, such as yourself, are not as threatened.
This is not to say that all who disagree with this idea are guilty of any wrong doing, but it is to say that an inspector who *will *sell out his client to keep a relationship with a sales agent will not want to see anything done to interfere with that. Having such a disclosure in our code of ethics would, IMO, set our members apart from them and those members who might choose not to comply would deal with their clients through their attorneys, individually, should problems arise later.
It is this very resistance to attempts to remove the conflict of interest that, IMO, needs to be published in the public domain so that consumers can be made aware that it exists — right along with the conflict of interest, itself. In that sense, I think Nick’s thread has performed a public service whether the amendment is ever actually incorporated into the COE or not.
I don’t mind that he chose to use me to play a part in that, but thanks for watching my back. I appreciate it.
BS Bushart. You fool nobody. Anyone that has been here for more than 11 minutes knows the games you play. With all the puffing you do, I’m surprised you havent exploded yet.
Do as you always do. Nobody cares.
Carry-on.
That’s what you see. What I see is intelligent REA non-influenced/unbiased home inspectors that feel there is no legitimate reason in adding this “verbiage” to our COE or PIA.
Nick, James Bushart, anyone
Seeing as how this is in public section and for the betterment of consumer protection please cite who is actually on the InterNACHI Ethics Enforcement Committee and how many times have InterNACHI inspectors received sanctions or expulsions for violation of the Code of Ethics currently in place.
Where can the general public or members go to find this information?
I suggest you direct that/those questions to the Chairman of the Ethics Committee (Joe Farsetta) who is probably the only single source who has been directly involved in all such complaints and their resolutions. Perhaps an email to him would be more appropriate and less off topic…or you could certainly start another thread on this subject in any forum you like.
JB is doing some PR work here, because Missouri home inspection laws will be introduced this next 2012 session. He needs to make statements, make himself look good, important, all to make points at hearings coming up.
Myself, I do not know if this verbage is good or bad. You can add all the wording to any report you want. Bottom line is that home inspection laws allow for soft, basic, say-nothing reports, and these reports will be the norm; just like Kansas, and dumbs-down our profession. Inspectors doing all the business are abiding by these soft reports, and the laws that support them. All the language in any PIA or report will not change that.
Lawmakers only care about their next election and the amount of campaign funding; not the people of Kansas or Missouri. Home inspection laws are proof of that.
Gary… the verbiage is for your inspection agreement, not the report.
IMHO, the InterNACHI PIA that most inspectors use is out of date. If this InterNACHI PIA does not cover what JB discussed in post #1, I suggest a seperate PIA addendem that any inspector can use; such as radon, termite, etc. or an InterNACHI PIA update.
Suggestion taken under advisement
Do you personally know the answer to any of my questions?
A Yes or No reply is sufficient