Originally Posted By: psisler
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
--
Gerry Beaumont
NACHI Education Committee
e-mail : education@nachi.org
NACHI phone 484-429-5466
Inspection Depot Education
gbeaumont@inspectiondepot.com
"Education is a journey, not a destination"
Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
--
"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared"
Louis Pasteur
Originally Posted By: psisler
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Originally Posted By: bsumpter
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| Quote: |
| Dear Senator :
Please note my concern regarding AB 293. I am a home inspector and an advocate of consumer protection; I do not oppose consumer protection legislation, providing that it is fairly written. AB 293 concerns me deeply. In a nutshell, there is a double standard regarding what must be disclosed by a home inspector if he/she is a single inspector company or part of a multiple inspector company. The single inspector company must give meaningful disclosure regarding the inspector's qualifications, education and insurance. However, multiple inspector firms can give the qualifications of the inspection company regardless of the individual inspector's experience, or lack of experience. Multi inspector companies will not be required to disclose whether they carry any insurance. The disclosure which is allowed for a multi inspector firm would permit a misleading disclosure and the consumer being given a false sense of security. The following two brief scenarios illustrate how a consumer will be misled if AB 239 is passed: Example 1: A company could state that ABC Inspections has conducted xxx number of inspections over xx number of years and all our employees have received a minimum of xxx number of hours of training prior to doing any fee paid inspections. The inspector that shows up at a site to do an inspection may have never done a single fee paid inspection and who knows if the training was of any quality. They are not required to disclose the source of the training. They are also not required to disclose whether they carry any insurance or have passed any exams. Example 2: An inspector with a long history in the industry might set up a small enterprise by offering to become an employee of a number of different inspection firms so that these firms can beef up their disclosure. The enterprising inspector would not be required to actually do inspections for the firms, or might just do one or two per year. I am sure that others can come up with other examples of why this separate disclosure structure would be unfair to individual inspector firms and be misleading to the consumer public Thank you for taking the time to register my concern. If inspectors are to be required to make a disclosure of their experience, education and insurance coverage, those requirements should apply equally to all inspectors. Anything less is not fair to the consumer or inspectors. I think you will agree this bill is not good consumer protection. |
--
"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared"
Louis Pasteur