You may not abuse the position of being an inspector and a contractor but others might. That’s the reason for preventing this conflict of interest. I agree, it makes perfect sense that a qualified and honest contractor could do the inspection and properly perform the repairs which he called out. But the law and the NACHI COA isn’t written for the honest and ethical in the world.
Tell Nick and Chris to throw me out. I got off the phone with Nick 15 minutes ago.
Tell me not to pull this “crap”? What crap is that Nathan?
First and foremost, I have been given no suggestion nor instruction not to speak about any of this, by anyone, at anytime.
What, exactly, am I not supposed to talk about again?
What, exactly have I been overridden on again?
You can spin… but I cannot make this stuff up. The latest revisions to policy have been suggested and are being reviewed and approved by NACHI Counsel. I guess no one is playing lawyer, Nate, though from what I have been told, Mr. Cohen agreed with my position that burying a clause with an opt-out feature is not informed consent.
Let’s have him explain to you and your attorney what consideration is. That can be next. A benefit to the client and consideration to the inspector for providing information are mutually exclusive.
C o n s i d e r a t i o n. In case you couldn’t spell it. Key concept.
Nick informed me that NACHI has decided to make it a slightly higher bar to ensure compliance.
Call Nathan for an explanation (right…). Better yet, ask Chris Morrell or Nick himself.
Then is is nothing more than crap.
Honest until proven otherwise .
You don’t keep a contractors license in Florida very long being dishonest.
I’m not going to have anyone dictate how I run my show. Nope !
I’d like to remind scummy vendors everywhere that benefit on the backs of inspectors in this organization that enticing a member to violate the COE is a violation of the Vendor COE.
Members can contact Nick or Chris for clarification.
For legal opinions on these matters, a suggestion is to contact NACHI legal counsel Mark Cohen or your own attorney. You may engage Mark on this message board.
One should not take my word for anything, or the word of anyone with a financial interest in what you do, how they perceive you should conduct your business, or what products and services you sell or do not sell.
Qualified resources are at your disposal. Use them.
I think we need a different COE for each state .
Since laws vary from state to state.
The COE should not superseded the laws of any state as it tries to do in my case .
A Code of Ethics has nothing to do with what is legally permitted, as opposed to being a condition of membership.
One is based on law, and the other based on policy.
As an example, in NY we are barred from EVER working on something at a house which was inspected as a part of the SOP. NACHI provides a 12-month window.
They are mutually exclusive.
One either chooses to abide by the org’s conditions of membership or does not. No one is holding a gun to your head to stay a member her, or to have joined in the first place.
If NACHI offers you nothing, then why put up with this requirement of membership. If the benefits to your business outweigh the restriction, then you have a choice to make.
If membership is worthless and you don’t want to abide by the COE, you have another choice to make.
No disrespect intended, but it amazes me how folks join and then ***** about this provision, which has always been in the COE and is in virtually ALL association COEs.
I believe ASHI, NAHI, FLACHI, FABI, and most other HI orgs have similar restrictions. How your state legislature missed the boat is what is truly ponderous.
You are absolutely free to do whatever you please in this regard. Build away. Use the inspection as a springboard to repair work. It does not matter to me.
Lets look at this from another angle.
You joined and now want to change the COE.
Sounds like what I want just a different topic.
I wasn’t complaining until you started to make changes and I suggested you change something additional while you were at it.
However , I imagine since it has nothing to do with the vendor debate it will get shelved , if that.
There are already enough rules/laws to last us another thousand years .
Truly… I asked for absolutely NO changes to the COE. They were not by me, they were not suggested by me, they were not justified by me, they were not written by me. I was asked to approve them. I requested that a single word be added for clarification, to eliminate tap dancing.
I am only engaging to add clarity that what a particular vendor is touting is fairly inaccurate.
