Generally on a safety note InterNachi tries to get both. You can’t be faulted if you are using the InterNachi training as long as you do not apply the code. We are all in this together so if you see some extreme difference then please go to InterNach fast reply and they will change anything within reason.
Although home inspectors typically do not apply code - it also begs the question regarding what standard does the inspector apply to determine a defect and report the implication to their client?
None of them. We observe, report what we observe, and comment on those observations. We don’t try to figure out where within some code book that was in use in that particular jurisdiction at the time the installation off the system or component took place says it’s unsafe.
So what standard is used to determine a safe, or acceptable condition?
One example - stairs. Riser heights on a stair, height of guardrail, depth of tread, headroom clearance, etc. Yes, we do not quote code, but even most including your own inspector training materials refer to a “standard”. Standards generally come from two sources - code or established/acceptable testing characteristics for building standards.
In my post I never meant to imply that we (inspectors) need to check the code or imply whether a condition met code or not. I intended that the inspector have a defensible standard when or if challenged in court. Perhaps I see it differently when appearing in court as an expert witness against a negligence claim.
That is a good way to look at it Claud. I use According to Safety Standards today. Now with that said you should be able to back that up by understanding what is reasonably acceptable.
But not everything applies to safety so Standards Today applies for me at least.
There is nothing wrong with quoting the actual code if you know where it is… but you don’t have to. You can just say it in hyper-plain English “Stair risers are at different heights which may cause someone to trip.”
Code merely codifies issues that were already unsafe. Codes are the result of injuries and deaths. When you see an addition to a code… you can assume people got hurt or killed.
The reverse is true as well. Something can be unsafe without it being a code violation. Remember, Being “up to code” in a jurisdiction that adopted a code is a lot like being “licensed” in a jurisdiction that adopted licensing. They are both such bare minimum standards that anything less would be illegal. It should almost be called “Down to code.”
Anyway, in summary, whether something is or is not addressed in some code book is almost irrelevant.
XXXX
I don’t know anything about the man, but according to the page below Mr. Van Loosen is also “the first EVER Certified Inspection Expert in the WORLD”.
Does that mean anything to anyone here, or did he make up the title himself?
http://www.canadianhomeinspectortraining.com/our-partners.html
Tyler Thompson-Love writes:
After reading your post, I retrieved and reviewed his application documentation this morning. I have in my hands, signed, independent, hard evidence of him having performed a home inspection on January 27, 2010 in Oshawa, one in August of 2009 in Bowmanville, and one on May 22, 2004 in Manilla.
Sorry Nick, but I personally met him in my Inspect4U course and judging by his experience at that time, conversations with him about how long he had been in business, his LinkedIn and Facebook pages both stating he has been in business since July 2012, etc. I find that hard to believe those documents are very true…
The MICB doesn’t require the applicant to have been in business for 3 years or more. It requires the applicant to have been in “the” inspection business (in our industry) for 3 years or more. See text under “Established” header of http://certifiedmasterinspector.org/ and #2 of your post #27.
One can be working as a home inspector in our industry (as the independent documentation I hold in my hand and revealed in my post #29 is evidence of) without being in business for oneself.
This in an interesting point Claude. I recently did an inspection for a home that was built in 1945. Inside it was designed in the Art-deco style. The stairs had railings without any balusters, but ornate scrolls and flowers, with large gaps in between. Clearly a modern “code” violation, yet when talking to the 92 year old Great grandmother seller, she informed me at least 4 generations of Kids had grown-up and played in the house, not one had got it’s head stuck, not one had climbed over a fallen to it’s doom or even injury.
Are we not getting to the point where we are designing codes just for the sake of designing codes, instead of teaching our kids that life is dangerous, and they’d best learn from an early age how to identify and manage risks?
Or are we going to get to a situation where we have the state rule everything we do? What’s next? Codes on what Ice Cream I’m allowed to eat…Oh! sorry forgot, I already have that one. 
Good points Len, beside considering ergonomic factors, building codes did not exist until approximately 1950 in Canada. Even Part 11 of the code deals with renovations to existing structures.
However, I still believe that building code is the mandated minimum acceptable building standard. As home inspectors we are not empowered to enforce code, nor expected to by any home inspection standard to inspect to code. I view it as a “guideline”, since what other “legally” acceptable standard would a “judge” consider as the rationale benchmark for a legal challenge.
I think you trully need to go to the source and see how many accidents are a direct result of minimum codes. Talk to nurses and you will get the real story.
My point - Kevin - minimum code is much better than - no code. It is recognized in the case of both the National Building Code of Canada and as an example in Ontario, the Ontario Building Code as the minimum “legally” acceptable building standard.
Going beyond code is discretionary, and certainly has a financial impact. So for my house - YES (that’s a personal choice), but for reporting that someone else must be better than, can be misleading. I have heard many complaints from Realtors where some home inspectors got carried away on this subject. It ended up at the home inspectors detriment.
In another case a local municipal building inspector was successfully sued for requiring that a builder go beyond code.
Well really I’m not trying to argue the fact of how ling the person in question has been in business, my biggest concern is the fact that they are practically using all NACHI documentation to run these courses at 4x the cost of a NACHI membership where all course materials are FREE for members. How is this fair to unsuspecting future home inspectors? I was personally involved in the Inspect4U courses and 90% of their material was just copied from NACHI, why support this?
So Tyler, based on your information it “seems” …
I’m stating someone is “abusing” the system and I’m not arguing that we don’t need more great schools to teach new, even experienced home inspectors…but at the same time, in my opinion, I would have rather done my training through NACHI since this community has given me way more than any school, which has been said by other members in the past about every other ontario training course also ie: Carson Dunlop, Humber and Seneca, etc. They all seem to end up at NACHI and be very happy with all the course materials offered!
I was contacted by Inspect4U and told to keep all comments to myself, I have removed all posts and have no further input on the subject.
Gee this is interesting sounds almost blackmail to me .
What a strange industry we are in we have an association that had courses taught by some who had many BBB complaints .
I will see if they also contact me for posting what a disaster their teaching system was.
One of their teachers contacted me and told me how they used him and did not pay him fully for his services and transport costs.