Compliance with Rule #7, COE

Nick … please read the following statement that a contractor’s rep is requiring in home inspection contracts that he says is compliant with Rule #7 of the COE.

“Your inspector may have an affiliation with a third party service provider (“TPSP”) in order to offer you additional value-added services. By entering into this agreement you (a) authorize your inspector to provide your contact information (including telephone number) to the TPSP, (b) waive and release any restrictions that may prevent the TPSP from contacting you (including by telephone), and © authorize the TPSP to contact you (including by telephone) regarding special home alarm system offers.”

For the record, does this statement in the inspection agreement fulfill the requirements for an inspector who is providing this vendor with client contact information under Rule #7 of the COE?

Assuming the consumer signs off on the clause, a member of InterNACHI could not rely on it as the sole method to fulfill all of #7 of our COE. Don’t misunderstand me. It is not in conflict with #7 of our COE, but does not fulfill #7 by itself. Members use of it is fine and may actually be required by some vendors as an assurance they are not violating Do-Not-Call laws. However, members should not believe that its use is all that is required to fulfill #7, particularly #7. a. www.nachi.org/code_of_ethics.htm

P.S. I will run this opinion by our legal department tonight and if they ask me to modify my stance, I will immediately.

What else, in addition to this clause in their agreements for those using it, do you feel to be required in order to be compliant?

Something to fulfill the requirements listed in #7. a. which all alone, this clause fails to do by itself.

Legal already chimed in. My post #2 is a stance they have no objection to.

I agree.

Do you plan to have a sample form prepared for inspectors to use to make a disclosure that is compliant with Rule #7 since the language I posted is not compliant with the new rule?

I disagree with the premise of your question and so won’t answer it. Again, I think the clause is fine to use. It simply doesn’t accomplish everything on its own.

It is not out of compliance, it lacks sufficiency.

So … inspectors who are contracted to provide client data and who are using this required language in their inspection agreements (as required by their contract) … are not providing the required disclosure to their client that is consistent with Rule #7 if this is the ONLY written disclosure that is being provided. Correct? They need to do more.

Jim… you snuck 2 questions in there so allow me to sneak 2 answers in my reply… lol.

You are not necessarily correct because InterNACHI does not dictate that 7. a. be fulfilled by “written disclosure” (your words), and yes they need to do more.

What more must they do?

Just so we have it here:

The InterNACHI member shall not release any information about the inspection or the client to a third party unless doing so is necessary to protect the safety of others, to comply with a law or statute, or both of the following conditions are met:
[LIST=a]
[li]the client has been made explicitly aware of what information will be released, to whom, and for what purpose, and;[/li][li]the client has provided explicit, prior written consent for the release of his/her information.[/li][/LIST]
If I get what Nick is saying the Inspector is/would be lacking in 1 a

Nif that is correct Nick could you give us an example that would comply with 7a ?

Thanks

Jim

If the member is releasing his/her client’s info, the member must take some action that causes their client to be made explicitly aware of what information will be released, to whom, and for what purpose to fulfill #7. a.

Jim K: InterNACHI’s COE does not dictate how that task should be accomplished.

Home Inspectors who contract with him are not allowed to do this.

The very next clause in the contract that requires the telemarketing waiver that is often referred to by the contractor’s rep as a “disclosure” says the following:

Presumably, if the inspector revealed to the client that he was providing this information to “RWS” instead of the generic “TPSP”, he would be in violation of his contract with the contractor’s rep.

Since the “purpose” would also include his participation in the alarm leads program, that too would have to be concealed.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I don’t know anything about that Jim. Maybe ask the vendor to comment. I am here to explain our COE as many times and as many ways as it takes.

I will say that there is no third-party contract that a member (who is releasing client info) can enter into that alleviates that member from the duty of explaining to his/her client what information about the client is being released, where it is going, and why.

Nick disagrees. I agree with Nick.

Jim, I never said that. I said what I said.