CSA's A770 Standard

[dcossar (Douglas Cossar, CMI. NHI)]

@sharrison1

So the competition bureau said they would be getting back to me as well. Just so it looks like we are a preparing a uniform argument what points do you guys intend to raise?

-lack of reasonable representation of home inspectors on the panel (this I think is the big one–as mentioned above–why are real estate agents and insurance providers offering input–don’t they have their own standards by which they operate??)

-redundant creation of standards that dramatically increase cost to the consumer while providing no appreciable benefit (square footage of house, make and model number from every device tested, other good ones?)

-inclusion of items that have never been part of a home inspection(horticultural issues and wood boring insects outside the home). This again would add significant costs to consumers and have the affect of deterring consumers from having a home inspection done. I liken this to hiring a dentist to look at other bones in the body…

-presenting poorly written draft standard with the expectation that we (the home inspection industry) would re-write it for them at no cost so that they in turn could turn around and sell it back to us.
That is likely the most astute observation I have ever seen!!! Fantastic!

-Inevitably some of the persons on the board (those that offer home inspection education) will be offering courses to meet the standards which they helped to create, which seems to be a huge conflict of interest.

In a nut shell, they have inserted themselves into the home inspection process, thereby creating a revenue generating stream for themselves where none existed before, while significantly altering an industry that they have no stake in.

Stuart:
You hit the nail right on the head!!!

Carson Dunlop and directors of OAHI are well known for doing and proposing things that will only feather their own nest!

Time to stop this nonsense.

[rcooke (Roy D. Cooke, Sr)]

@dcossar

Stuart:
You hit the nail right on the head!!!

Carson Dunlop and directors of OAHI are well known for doing and proposing things that will only feather their own nest!

Time to stop this nonsense.

It is to bad the Ontario associations in this industry do not communicate with each other so we all can work together to improve things.
Carson Dunlop , OAHI ,CAHPI ,NHICC, and PHPIC can see exactly what we NACHI members post .
Unfortunately I have no idea what they are doing to help this industry.

[mwaldon (Mitch Waldon, CCHI)]

It makes perfect sense to me that you’d want some realtors and insurance reps on a committee designing a new Canada wide standard for the Home Inspection industry. These are groups that are at least related to the end users of the reports. You could ask Sam and Suzy Home Buyer to be on the committee, and perhaps some of them were, but RA’s and insurance dealers deal with thousands of people who have dealt with reports from many inspectors and would probably have good third party feedback on the value of those reports and what makes a good inspection and what doesn’t. They would also know what information is important to them in regards to furthering the close on the property.

I grow weary of “THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!”. A national standard makes sense to me.

People seem to continue to miss the fact that it was provincial governments that asked the CSA to get involved. (I’m sure because there was too much infighting by the various HI organizations in Canada to create one themselves. Ontario can’t even decide on one InterNACHI organization for crumb sake!)

Perhaps a poor process, certainly a poor launch, but we should take some cleansing breaths and work with one another to make a national standard happen, for the benefit of us all.

Gilles, you sat on this committee. How many Homies were on it? How did the process work from your perspective? Supposedly it was a group based on consensus building. Was it that in reality? Did HI concerns get buried by the other members of the committee? There are some pretty heavy hitters from other HI organizations in the group. What was their response to all of this? I don’t understand why you are so silent on this issue. Surely you could shed some light on these concerns? Or are you bound by your membership on the committee not to comment?

Cheers,

[sharrison1 (Stuart Harrison, P. Eng.)]

I agree that there is way too much infighting and that a good unified standard would be welcome but to me the CSA is NOT the person to do it.

In the spirit of Christmas, I liken their process to this:

I’m standing in line waiting to purchase something, they butt in front of me in line, strike up a conversation about what I am here to buy, turn around, buy all of that very same thing. Then, they turn around and try and sell me all the stuff that I could have gotten had they not been there and for a higher price.

They add nothing but cost, confusion and red tape to the home inspection process–while lining their pockets.

[dcossar (Douglas Cossar, CMI. NHI)]

@mwaldon

It makes perfect sense to me that you’d want some realtors and insurance reps on a committee designing a new Canada wide standard for the Home Inspection industry. These are groups that are at least related to the end users of the reports. You could ask Sam and Suzy Home Buyer to be on the committee, and perhaps some of them were, but RA’s and insurance dealers deal with thousands of people who have dealt with reports from many inspectors and would probably have good third party feedback on the value of those reports and what makes a good inspection and what doesn’t. They would also know what information is important to them in regards to furthering the close on the property.

I grow weary of “THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!”. A national standard makes sense to me.

People seem to continue to miss the fact that it was provincial governments that asked the CSA to get involved. (I’m sure because there was too much infighting by the various HI organizations in Canada to create one themselves. Ontario can’t even decide on one InterNACHI organization for crumb sake!)

Perhaps a poor process, certainly a poor launch, but we should take some cleansing breaths and work with one another to make a national standard happen, for the benefit of us all.

Gilles, you sat on this committee. How many Homies were on it? How did the process work from your perspective? Supposedly it was a group based on consensus building. Was it that in reality? Did HI concerns get buried by the other members of the committee? There are some pretty heavy hitters from other HI organizations in the group. What was their response to all of this? I don’t understand why you are so silent on this issue. Surely you could shed some light on these concerns? Or are you bound by your membership on the committee not to comment?

Cheers,

Mitch:

There already is a standard mentioned numerous times before “The National Occupational standard for home inspectors”
There is no doubt a standard should be in place but NOT the crap CSA has proposed!

BTW I’ll bet Gilles is prohibited from commenting on the process just like others were prohibited from commenting on the Ontario discussions.

[eschmidt (Erik Schmidt)]

@dcossar

Mitch:

There already is a standard mentioned numerous times before “The National Occupational standard for home inspectors”
There is no doubt a standard should be in place but NOT the crap CSA has proposed!

BTW I’ll bet Gilles is prohibited from commenting on the process just like others were prohibited from commenting on the Ontario discussions.

Not to agree or disagree, but the above mentioned National Occupational Standard (NOS) is not a standard for home inspection, it is a standard for home inspectors. The difference, using another occupation, an occupational standard for police would include being able to drive a patrol car, or shoot a bank robber, but a standard for policing would say how a patrol car should be driven, and when it is acceptable to shoot a bank robber.

If you read down the first few pages of the above NOS you will find this;
“Standards of Practice
As a rule, Professional Home and Property Inspector work is performed under Standards of
Practice developed by professional associations, franchises and other organizations. Standards
of Practice describe the scope and limitations of a home and/or property inspection. Standards…”.

Point two, the aformentioned NOS is not a national standard, because CAHPI has the copyright on it, see page one. If it was a true national standard, the copyright holder would be her majesty the Queen, as in this example.

[rcooke (Roy D. Cooke, Sr)]

@eschmidt

Not to agree or disagree, but the above mentioned National Occupational Standard (NOS) is not a standard for home inspection, it is a standard for home inspectors. The difference, using another occupation, an occupational standard for police would include being able to drive a patrol car, or shoot a bank robber, but a standard for policing would say how a patrol car should be driven, and when it is acceptable to shoot a bank robber.

If you read down the first few pages of the above NOS you will find this;
“Standards of Practice
As a rule, Professional Home and Property Inspector work is performed under Standards of
Practice developed by professional associations, franchises and other organizations. Standards
of Practice describe the scope and limitations of a home and/or property inspection. Standards…”.

Point two, the aformentioned NOS is not a national standard, because CAHPI has the copyright on it, see page one. If it was a true national standard, the copyright holder would be her majesty the Queen, as in this example.

Good info thanks for the update… Roy

[dcossar (Douglas Cossar, CMI. NHI)]

@eschmidt

Not to agree or disagree, but the above mentioned National Occupational Standard (NOS) is not a standard for home inspection, it is a standard for home inspectors. The difference, using another occupation, an occupational standard for police would include being able to drive a patrol car, or shoot a bank robber, but a standard for policing would say how a patrol car should be driven, and when it is acceptable to shoot a bank robber.

If you read down the first few pages of the above NOS you will find this;
“Standards of Practice
As a rule, Professional Home and Property Inspector work is performed under Standards of
Practice developed by professional associations, franchises and other organizations. Standards
of Practice describe the scope and limitations of a home and/or property inspection. Standards…”.

Point two, the aformentioned NOS is not a national standard, because CAHPI has the copyright on it, see page one. If it was a true national standard, the copyright holder would be her majesty the Queen, as in this example.

What you say is quite true, however the NOS would form a viable base for creating a national SOP. Unlike the one currently under review, that was developed over time with significant input from practicing home inspectors.

[rcooke (Roy D. Cooke, Sr)]

@mgratton

[FONT=Arial]I encourage all to respond.

From: Marcel Gratton [mailto:marcel@onthelevelinspection.com]
Sent: November 24, 2014 9:03 PM
To: ‘paul.gulletson@csagroup.org’
Subject: CSA’s A770 Standard

Dear Paul,

I wish to inform you that I’ve forwarded a complaint to the Competition Bureau of Canada under Abuse of Dominance Guidelines.

The structure of CSA’s committee that is bringing this proposed standard forward is comprised with less than 1/3 of its members from the home inspection profession. Dominance within CSA’s committee structure developing the A770 Standards is of concern to me.

The National Occupational Standards (NOS): A number of occupational reviews have been successfully completed over the past decade within Canada by subject matter experts and qualified facilitators. Two of these were substantially funded at the federal level by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Human Resources Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). The industry has already created National Standards, but the NOS appear to have been disregarded in the creation of CSA’s A770 Standard. Home inspectors have operated for well over 3 decades performing to a recognized, reasonable and fair Standard of Practice. All that is needed is for everyone to consider the value and framework based on years of commitment, development and research that applies to what the Canadian Home Inspection sector already created.

CSA’s A770 Standard in its present form is significantly flawed, drastically changes my profession and most likely would be the end for my profession.
[/FONT]
***Members:**G. Yates(Chair), R. Guinn(Vice-Chair), D. Aylward, D. Babott, M. Barnes, R. Brady, G. Clarke, J. Eakes, G.R. Genge, R. Hanberg, J.A. Huzar, R. Jobin, D. Kendall, G.R. Larin, L. Leyser, M. Lio, J. Londerville, S. Low, D. Mah, J. Mills, P. Sayne, K. Smith, B. Swan, J. Thomson, T. Welby-Solomon, M. Wellsch, J. Wright
[FONT=Calibri]Associates: B.M. Collie, S. Hood, B. Mullen, J. Urquhart
For Information: K. Fenning, J. Ko[/FONT]
(RAC)
**Members:*D. Aylward, M. Barnes, D. Brezer, K.E. Hanson, S. Hood, J. Ko, G. MacKinnon-Peters, D. Murray, M. Wellsch, G. Yates, B. Greer, A. Nicholson, A. Skelton, C. Stewart, B. Valido

Sincerely,

.

Please all home Inspectors need to reply like Marcel has done .
You need to read just what you are going to be doing and responsible for
.
This info sent out looks to me to be a disaster .
They best thing for those in charge is to stop throw away what you have get a new committee and start over .
They need to get some good leagle advice before even thinking on passing these regulations .
This is your future that will be impossible for home inspectors to follow .

[pauriol (Patrick Auriol)]

Did you also read the document Roy?

Best regards,
Pat

[rcooke (Roy D. Cooke, Sr)]

@pauriol

Did you also read the document Roy?

Best regards,
Pat

Yes and it scares me big time .

[clawrenson (Claude Lawrenson)]

DACUM, SOP and NOS

The process of analyzing occupations, jobs, professional practices, and tasks results in the establishment of work and worker requirements for multiple purposes (Brannick, Levine, & Morgeson, 2007). A DACUM is an occupational analyses process that can be and has been used to create “performance” standards. DACUM refers only to the job/ occupational analysis workshop.

A standard is a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, which provides rules, guidelines or characteristics for a product for common and repeated use. All standards establish a baseline of performance. “A Standard is an outcome, not a claim about how to achieve an outcome. The Standards define what a worker is expected to know and be able to do, not how teachers/trainers should teach.” Some standards that are proposed as ISO standards come from industry standards organizations.

Standards must be impartial, and not be used to restrict commerce. Standards are commonly used as the basis for government regulation.

The movement towards a standard commonly come from frustration by an authority to deal with the fragmentation and differences (gaps) that exist in delivery of a product, such as home inspection services. In my words - “we” are our own worst enemies when it comes to the politics of association bragging rights. Just look at the “fragmentation” that currently within the home inspection sector.Why can’t we use common sense and find common ground?

A Standard of Practice is defined as the minimum acceptable level of performance against which actual performance is compared.How many do we already have?

National Occupational Standard (NOS) describes what an individual needs to do, know and understand and what attributes they need to possess in order to carry out a particular job role or function.How many of these do we already have?

National Occupational Standards can be used to offer a framework for quality assurance. Likewise NOS can be used to design and develop robust based curriculum.

So why bother with a DACUM process? It is the legally defensible basis provided for developing competency and performance tests. We need this to start down that path. After all, if the ultimate goal is to create a universal “standard” for home inspection “practice” than perhaps the prospect of obtaining a license or alternatively a recognized “certification” will be based on acquiring sufficient “competency” in order to successfully administer and pass a “competency” based exam or assessment to validate what we can or cannot do.

Further reading: http://www.canadianskillsalliance.ca/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pub4.pdf
See page 1 of the reading – regarding National Occupational Standards.

As stated before, the NOS have been in existence since the mid 90’s in Canada, undertaken by a CMHC study by SAIT (Southern Alberta Institute of Technology). CMHC and HRSDC funded a national initiative to create compare 3 sectors in early 2000. (Home Inspectors, Municipal Inspectors and Building Officers – hence the acronym coined CHIBO). http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/publications/en/rh-pr/tech/tech00-131-e.html

“CMHC research has shown that currently there are a number of private inspection associations and organizations across the country each with different inspection standards and levels of qualifications. The difference in standards for certifying private inspectors in Canada has caused confusion in the minds of consumers as well as within other sectors of the housing industry. Also indicated in the research, is the considerable variation in the availability and quality of the home inspection service offered across Canada, with large regional differences. At the time of the research, the majority of practitioners appeared not to belong to any professional inspection association or a qualified private firm. As a result, the consumer and the housing sector could not be assured of a minimum standard of private inspection services.”
http://www.ashireporter.org/HomeInspection/Articles/Safeguarding-the-Credibility-of-the-Canadian-Inspection-Industry/529

The downside of standards is too much rigidity. Once in place, and particularly accepted by licensing requirements, you must adhere to that standard, like it or not. It also discourages “differences” in services. The emphasis will be placed on a basic level of skill to meet just that standard. Furthermore, just because such a standard may be the accepted norm for places like Ontario, BC or Alberta does make it mandatory for other provinces to follow. But being a CSA standard will likely be hard to contest once its established and finalized down the road.
Again my take, the current SOP’s are pretty near the same. The proposed CSA standard in its current form is overkill and filled with lofty expectations, coupled with a heavy dose of more risk, and increased time to complete such a list of detailed work. To me it will be a time to anticipate culling in the herd!

Perhaps what’s really needed is to understand that all consumers, and obviously based on the draft CSA standard document, that stakeholders are creating a proverbial mountain out of a mole hill. Those expectations expand the role of home inspector into now being a super inspector! This will ultimately have an impact on education and training, as well as upgrading and need for continuing education.

Need I say more? I think I’ve said enough for now!

[stremblay (Stephan Tremblay, CMI, RHI)]

Well said Claude. I only hope CSA gets that message.

[David_Asselin]

From what I read it seems like they added a lot more work to the inspection. Would it be possible to have a base price for a regular inspection as it is today and add-on prices for the added areas of inspection? If the client doesn’t want to pay for the barn, fence or security systems to be inspected, we could add it in the limitations that the client did not want these areas inspected?

[pauriol (Patrick Auriol)]

@David_Asselin

From what I read it seems like they added a lot more work to the inspection. Would it be possible to have a base price for a regular inspection as it is today and add-on prices for the added areas of inspection? If the client doesn’t want to pay for the barn, fence or security systems to be inspected, we could add it in the limitations that the client did not want these areas inspected?

This is why it’s important to make your voice heard on the feedback system!

Best regards,
Pat

[clawrenson (Claude Lawrenson)]

David what if the CSA Standard in its present form or anything extremely close to it become the accepted base standard for regulation or licensing?

I don’t disagree with having alternative approaches, but it would seem to defeat the pick and choose Ala-carte menu that already seems to exist. That is one of the main reasons behind this CSA Standard - to offer consumers one consistent standard.

[dcossar (Douglas Cossar, CMI. NHI)]

Hi folks;

I just got off the phone with a lady from the Competition Bureau. It had been suggested that we make a complaint regarding “dominance”.
The suggestion was that only one third of the members of the CSA committee had anything to do with home inspectors bla bla bla .

Apparently the provisions of Section 79 of the Competition Act as it relates to dominance don’t apply in this circumstance. She did explain where it does apply but it would be just a waste of time to explain it here.

We are our own worst enemy in that we can’t get together and form a united front, as Claude has said in the past.
We as home inspectors and HI associations HAVE to start working together for the common good.

Cheers

[David_Asselin]

Disclaimer: I’m not yet a certified inspector but I’m almost done with the C&D course. I have no experience doing any inspections and not aware of all the issues that home inspectors have been facing in the passed and in today’s market. I’m learning as much as I can about the industry right now.

Isn’t the client King when it comes to deciding what gets inspected and what doesn’t? What doesn’t goes in the limitations. I can picture a price calculation page on my website where the price start at lets say $800 for a full CSA standard inspection showing all inspections services with a check box where the client can uncheck the box to reduce the price. If they know the fence has to be replaced or is in perfect condition or don’t care, they might not want to pay for that to be inspected, uncheck, save $25. The contract would describe the limitations based on the inspection services picked by the client.

Does it make any sense or am I way off?

Thanks for your time,

David

[rcooke (Roy D. Cooke, Sr)]

@dcossar

Hi folks;

I just got off the phone with a lady from the Competition Bureau. It had been suggested that we make a complaint regarding “dominance”.
The suggestion was that only one third of the members of the CSA committee had anything to do with home inspectors bla bla bla .

Apparently the provisions of Section 79 of the Competition Act as it relates to dominance don’t apply in this circumstance. She did explain where it does apply but it would be just a waste of time to explain it here.

Cheers

Thanks for the info Doug …
I wonder what % of Ontario home Inspectors even know what is going on or even care enough to become involved …

[sharrison1 (Stuart Harrison, P. Eng.)]

I just got off the phone with her and what it boils down to is this: home inspectors don’t have a product that the CSA is competing against. meaning they aren’t in direct competition with home inspectors… I asked whether it made a difference whether was a product you could hold versus a set of standards that you have to purchase and it sounds very much like its more geared towards physical consumer products then and standards.