Here is my comment Nick!
-
Mr.Inspector
Good Home Inspectors have years of training and continue to train everyday. The Company you mentioned has minimum training required and that is what many do. As far as someone providing the Oversite of the industry it will always be a problem. The biggest problem is the media perception that all Home Inspectors due the same.
If Real Estate Agents and Brokers were removed from commenting on Home Inspectors and if the Bank provided the Home Inspection with the mortgage it would solve allot of problems.
Oh yes one other thing is needed by the Government, that would be easier access for Professional Home Inspectors to be further educated on a daily basis as a requirement to be the best.
And this is the same company which has an executive sitting on the Ontario MCS licencing panel. Also this same executive sits on the Discipline Committee of OAHI and apparently sat on a discipline hearing of one of his P2P franchisees. If that is not a conflict I don’t know what is!
And further Blaine Swan who is resident of Nova Scotia is sitting on the same MCS panel even though he doesn’t live in Ontario! How does this happen and why is it permitted given there are plenty of CAHPI members living in Ontario. How does someone in NS attend meeting in Ontario? We were told by MCS that there would be meetings held in Ontario. So the question is how is the MCS managing to have him represent CAHPI in Ontario, via video link/conference call or is CAHPI paying his airfare back and forth?
Transparency? Sure doesn’t look that way!
And these folks are determining your futures?
Not surprised by this at all.
He must have used this home as one of his “practice” homes for CAHPI full membership.
Dear CAHPI,
Get lost.
Signed,
All Canadians
Exactly.
I’m less concerned about CAHPI or Pillar to Post and more concerned about the effect this has yet again had on the Home Inspection Industry.
I’ve just been handed a CAHPI document entitled “It’s time to recognize the Registered Home Inspector (RHI)”. If this is the sort of response CAHPI gives to the consumer when one of it’s RHI’s is incompetent, then that’s exactly what they are going to be recognized for.
As for Pillar to Posts response “the report was adequate” this is unbelievably crass! Just because a report was “adequate” doesn’t necessarily make it accurate.
But the real problem behind all of this, is that the Home Inspector is the brunt of the bad press. Does CBC actually look into the poor practices of the Home Builder, the Architect, the site engineer all of who earn way more out of the property sale and all who were equally incompetent for building a new house in a flood plain with inadequate flood protection?
No, let’s just stick it to the Home Inspection industry because they don’t have a powerful lobby!
How many times have we inspected a basement packed full of stuff? Inspector probably did the best job he could under the circumstances. If water damage should have been obvious (to a professional inspector), then he’s got a problem, but he, nor anyone else saw any previous damage. Blame should rest on the seller for non disclosure.
This is the response in every case where P2P has had a complaint.
You can be right and do a great inspection .
The client can still get a lawyer and take you to court .
Seen it happen more then once .
Being right does not always stop the frivolous laws suits.
Are consumers really aware of what we do, and equally as important what our job entails?
Often consumers expectations are that we will be the guarantee ticket if anything goes wrong. Of course the other one being “the belief the inspector with insurance will provide” some form of protection if there’s an error or omission.
I’m not saying things can or cannot go wrong and that the odd inspector can possibly fall short on meeting even a minimum “inspection standard”. But having been involved with 100’s of test inspections, it was not uncommon for 20% of the claimed “experience and qualified” inspectors to score less than 80% accuarcy rate on their TIPR (Test Inspection). Even at 80% accuracy - that still leaves room for improvement!
Seller is not obligated to disclose, unless of course there is a Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS) completed. Even then if the form is completed and the vendor can be on the hook if he did not answer the questions honestly and accurately in an effort to mislead.
The law in realestate transactions is still Caveat Emptor.
Not a good report for any of us Home Inspectors but especially for Pillar to Post.
Jim
Interesting article. But if there is one thing about these types of articles, it is that there is always more to the story than is written. You have to wonder about all of the missing details.
Glenn Thorne
www.guardianhomeinspections.ca
[quote=“Glenn_Thorne, post:13, topic:81444”]
Interesting article. But if there is one thing about these types of articles, it is that there is always more to the story than is written. You have to wonder about all of the missing details.
Glenn Thorne
www.guardianhomeinspections.ca
[
Welcome Glen if as you say there is more to the story ,we NACHI would love to listen to the other side .
This section is open to all ,unfortunately many are not like you and do not come here and post their thoughts .
Please come back often and voice your opinion and thoughts .](“http://www.guardianhomeinspections.ca”)