I would just point out that any organization like NACHI has to deal with 50 different standards, and the simplest method to accomplish this is to have one rule. I’m not sure the general public would agree with the idea that contractors and inspectors are “honest until proven otherwise”.
Personally I would market my repair services to all the other Realtors who are always looking for small fixes to be performed.
Understood.
There isn’t a day that goes by without the client asking me if I would do the work for them knowing that I’m a contractor as well.
Frankly, I have turn them all down , because I have to many irons in the fire as it is.
However , It would be nice if I could without violating a COE .
I’m with Mike…
If the New & Improved CoE won’t prevent 3rd party service providers from data mining our clients reports, or home inspectors from trading their customers information for consideration of value, then why bother. It draws attention to a solution which has no real-world value if home inspectors are just going to continue to sell their clients data anyway.
Look at it this way… What if Nathan turns to be one of the 3rd party vendors who is really trying to work within the system to get it right, now imagine dealing with 3rd party service providers who have no ethics whatsoever… Something to ponder.
Joe,
Things have apparently gotten more stringent overnight, according to Nick and Chris. NACHI will require separate documents for each deal involving client data, which is being crafted and approved in conjunction with NACHI counsel, which will require all the salient characteristics as outlined for compliance within the new Section 7.
The COE is live and published. it is in effect, and the disclosure/consent forms will soon be available on-line.
Nick and I also had a brief discussion with regard to the meaning of the word consideration and how it may apply to an inspector.
Notice the dead silence from Mr. Thornberry with regard to his comment on a lack of consideration to the inspector.
He cannot revoke these words. I have asked for clarification as to what product based services are.
The silence is deafening.
Ask your attorneys is a contract can exist absent of consideration. You may be shocked at the answer.
If one were to enter into a contract which had specific terms, conditions, stipulations, warnings, restrictions, penalties, and of course locks anyone in… and there is no consideration… is the contract enforceable in any court in the land?
Ask an attorney.
Of course, I am no attorney, but then again, neither is the other guy, so I guess we’re even. This is why sound advice would be to ask your own attorney, or ask NACHI counsel a general question on this message board.
You may also want to ask how it may affect existing contracts
Then you affirm there is no consideration to the inspectors.
Joe, I haven’t ever gotten a straight answer for this question and the more I read up on “consideration”, the more I am questioning the opinions that any consideration specifically for providing client information is occurring when an inspector uses Recallchek.
The consideration has to be based on something of value, which has currently been argued on here as being the client information. The question is, who is providing that information, the client or the inspector? If it is the inspector then I get it, that is something of value the inspector is giving to RWS. But if the client is giving informed consent, is it the inspector sharing the information or the client themselves? If I get my taxes done and filed by an accountant, it is still my information and my taxes being filed *by myself *even though someone else is typing that information in and hitting “send”.
I think of Billy’s situation the other day when a client declined the recallchek. All his other client’s could do the same but RWS would still be getting something of value from Billy which is advertising and marketing. That advertising satisfies half the consideration needed to make the contract between RWS and the inspector valid. But what about the item of value for the inspector? It is still not the actual recall report, which goes to the client; perhaps the follow up email advertising or the permission to use the service in the first place?
I don’t see that it matters all that much what the item of value is given to the inspector unless it is being given as a result of the inspector providing client information. Billy showed us this is not the case as RWS still got the valuable advertising which Billy provided even though his client declined to offer their information.
Not that this will help the current tone of the discussion but it reminds me of a car dealership where the salesman connects the dealer to the buyer but no one would ever say the buyer purchased their car from the salesman or that the salesman unethically shared his clients information by ordering the car from the manufacturer. (Yeah, I can hear the jeers already on that analogy):roll:
Thoughts?
The forthcoming COE changes (not yet adopted) were designed to put a wall between report authoring and repair contractors. We don’t want any consumer information being sold to repair contractors for fear that it would lead to repair contractors creating a pay-per-lead offer that could influence an inspector’s report. This is about the future. We want to ensure that our industry’s reports remain accurate. This is the main purpose of the work we’re doing in this area. It would be nice if we also procured the consumer’s permission to have a used car salesmen call the following week… but that isn’t anything I’m worried about because used car salesmen don’t care what we write in our reports.
Saved
I seriously doubt that our COE will use the term “second sheet of paper.”
This change is miniscule. It basically requires that you do what you should already by doing if you are selling your client’s information… that you tell your client about it. If you are so ashamed of what you are doing that you don’t want to tell your client… I recommend you not do it.
Saved
Too easy to play games Nick and “hide” the secondary agreement.
Why would anyone oppose a separate piece of paper?
I think every word should be a separate piece of paper.
If we disagree with the mandatory methods of how we run our small business set forth by the people outside my business, is there a full refund on dues paid and will each member be sent a certified letter stating the changes?
Many many members don’t come here and I just want to be sure we are all notified properly and professionally and the notification can be proven.
Now that is some interesting news…
Also we all knw Joe doesn’t run NACHI, that’s why these new changes came from Nick and his powers to be.
Jm
Nick, I share your concern about inspection reporting that could result in lead generation for contractors.
But shoudn’t the COE apply to everyone?
Is there some impossibility with getting into compliance with the revised COE when it gets released?