Raymond Wand posted:
"The national certification and accreditation model for home and property inspectors is intended to comply reasonably closely with CAN-P-9 criteria as published by the Standards Council of Canada. This ***does not guarantee or ensure that the model is in complete compliance with CAN-P-9 criteria.
In order to determine whether or not this model is in complete compliance with CAN-P-9 criteria, it would be necessary for the National Certification Body to undergo a comprehensive audit conducted by a firm qualified to conduct ISO audits.* Such an audit is outside the scope of this project.
So if there is no audit and its outside the scope of of the National why is it being promoted as meeting CAN P9 when in fact it doesn’t?"
The first two paragraphs, which are in the NCP documents for all to see, explain the intent fully. The National Certification Model was designed using CAN-P-9 only as a guideline so that we could use some parts of an accepted and known protocol. Rather than create new protocols and guidelines from scratch, it made sense to adopt parts of the CAN-P-9 protocol that fit into the National Program. CAHPI has always made it clear that the Certification Model does not comply with CAN-P-9, but is designed to be ‘reasonably compliant.’ That just means that we didn’t merely make up the rules and the procedures. We referenced patterns that were already in place and tested.
The NCP has not and will not be promoted as ‘meeting CAN-P-9’. Any accusations that it is being promoted as such by CAHPI National or the National Certification Authority are untrue and intentionally misleading.