Dang ZZZZZZZZ

Local Inspection Issues Florida and SUNachi Inspectors
21

No.

The intent of the form was never a permit verification, but a “verification inspection” of properly installed mitigation techniques. I have yet to attend or review a single course that actually taught the FBC when the content of the course was advertised as a “wind mitigation” course, which is where these techniques are located. I have reviewed the inachi course via a member who allowed me to do so…it’s pointless and provides essentially no useful information on a structures potential to actually mitigate wind damage.

Most of the methodologies within the course were derived from old school methods that failed miserably. This is well documented. There are folks that were involved, and some still are, in this process who had no business being involved, they inserted themselves as a “workgroup” and for some reason think they understand the intent of the form and how to produce it when they had absolutely nothing to do with the formation or adoption of the laws that govern the form. The methods and practices they taught are still being taught today and will cause the form to be removed as it teaches inspectors to provide insurers with essentially useless information that is in no way viable for assessing risk.

I was asked to be part of producing the course for inachi but declined as it’s impossible to teach someone even the basics in 8 hours. You could spend literally a week on opening protection alone. Florida already has/had wind mitigation specific training available through the state via FSS 553.841. ALL LICENSES listed under FSS 627.711 are required to have wind mitigation training…not just home inspectors.

Your license requires you to attain training on two levels, “mitigation techniques” and “completion of the form”…no place in your licensure does it require or imply that you have training on how to apply credits. Credits, properly referred to as “rate differentials”, are promulgated by the OIR for insurers, not inspectors. Your job is to assess the structure for the client and provide information on where the structure may be deficient for mitigation purposes and inform the client of how to strengthen their home.

But the form doesn’t end there. It is also being used to assess building code enforcement. Lack of building code enforcement was a major contributor to the damages during hurricane Andrew, this is well documented. Under FSS 627.0626 insurers are REQUIRED to submit with their rate filings rate variables based on building code enforcement by region. But, they must offer reduction in these rate filing variations based off of a inspection provided by a “licensed home inspector”. Isn’t that a kick in the teeth? A home inspector can override a rate filing variation on building code enforcement by simply inspecting the structure…go figure.

But remember…it’s not a “code inspection”…:roll:

22

Marvin,

I have said many times take more than one course. This weekend three instructors are teaching the course together and they agree on almost every aspect of the course. I am one of them. These classes have been compared to other classes by multiple people.

Other classes that I know of are:
Dr Uz
Dennis Bonner(InterNachi)
Bill York(no longer teaching, but still answers questions on a limited basis, super nice guy)
Inspection Depot(Citizens preferred vendor classes)
Miami-Dade College(FABI)(Manny)
The Home Inspector Academy(FABI)(Jon)
The Contractor’s Institute
IFREC(I don’t recommend it)

I know there are probably a few more including AAA construction school and the Gold Coast construction school.

I have personally discussed wind mitigation with the instructors for most of the courses multiple times. The Inachi class is still the most comprehensive.

23

LOL

No, I am done again. He just like to come here because nobody wants to hear it at the other locations he hangs out. So he comes here, calls me out, just to start something.

24

LOL…your commitment to the industry inspires us all John.

Specifically, how exactly are the facts “twisted” when they are reinforced with authoritative documents and statutes? These are the things I have on my side, what’s on yours?

The people you listen to did not write, nor were they involved one bit, in the implementation of the rules and statutes that govern the licensees or the form they complete. Simple irrefutable facts John…

It’s not that I twist the facts, it’s that you can’t accept them…period!

25

I consider the question asked on the form as incorrect as posed.

The use of the word perimeter is improper.

It should be, take for instance on a two story home, the distance of all the fascia for hip areas, and the distances of fascia for non hip areas used in the formula.

So, on a 2-story home, the length of the fascia on the second story is x, then you add the length of the first story to it. Then divide that by the length of the non-hip fascia.

And, in reality what does it matter? The studies state that up to 25% of the roof can have non-hip features and be just as effective as a hip roof. How did 10% become the magic number?

26

They just picked 10% out of the wind. I to also wondered how that became the magic number. I see the perimeter different than you. I think a new form is in order.

Does anyone know if one is in the works?

27

Perimeter is the improper term and measurement. That was my point.

No new form is in the works…it will cost too much and if anything is done with the form, it will be the discontinuation of the form.

28

John,

I was asking Robert to see if we could all agree on a single source.

The authors of the NACHI wind mitigation course should be able to interpret the questions about the form.

The NACHI course appears to be widely accepted and therefore may be…or maybe…should be… the judge.

Just a thought.

If not the authors of the certified and accepted course then who? If we all followed that lead…backed by NACHI…all would be protected.

Written answers…precedents set.

29

Every course out there is just the teachers OPINION anyhow.

Those who wrote the form should make the decisions on what = what. They refuse to do it.

30

Agree, a group of instructors are working on it. Hence, the combined class this weekend.

31

Just so happens your in luck, there is one authoritative document that will answer any and all questions you have about mitigation…can you guess what it is?

32

A single source for definitive answers… backed by NACHI education system?

33

A single source backed by several instructors and “others” not just associations. As I mentioned earlier several of us are working on it.

34

All of our online courses continually get better, bigger, and more robust over time.

35

All they need is me in them :slight_smile: Come on Uncle Nick I want to move to Colorado. Just think we can do Continuing ed for ALL TYPES OF CONTRACTORS as well.

36

Mikey as an instructor…hmmmm, let me think about that one for a bit…

37

I got PERSONALITY :slight_smile:

38

I have been giving this some thought over the last few weeks and have come to a few conclusions over John and his cohorts working to produce any standard for the wind mitigation form. First off, who are these “experts” and what are their qualifications? Do they share the same opinion as John, that wind mitigation inspections do not require an inspector confirming that mitigation techniques are installed according to the Florida Building code? That the form isn’t a “code inspection? I’m not even sure what a “code inspection” is, does he mean a “building code compliance” inspection?

We already know home inspectors are required to be trained in both mitigation techniques and completion of the form, this is what the statute of our license says. We already know that the term “mitigation techniques” is defined as located within the Florida Building Code, this is what Florida statute 553.844 says. Pretty simple stuff if you asked me. I’m still trying to figure out John’s intention here, is it to produce a document that states an inspector completing a wind mitigation form doesn’t have to confirm that installed mitigation techniques, specifically designed to reduce damages to a structure, are in fact installed correctly?

Perhaps he and his merry band of experts can enlighten us?

It has been John’s position that my work with the state showing that the form isn’t providing the information for the intended purpose, risk assessment and assumed building code compliance, and will have home inspectors removed from the form. He has stated that I am the “most dangerous home inspector in the state of Florida”. A quick question for the masses, is it the least knowledgeable person or the most experience and educated person that usually spoils these for the lot? John hopes to do what? Have the OIR, and insurance regulation body, tell us what wind mitigation is? I know what it is and what techniques are used to mitigation wind, seems to me he should too.

Let’s lay out this great big bag of snakes for what it is. The 1802 form is used to assess risk of wind damage to a structure over a predetermined time period. Don’t take my word for it, ask any insurer how they use the information from the form. Installed mitigation techniques reduce wind damages and limit an insurers exposure to a claim. How hard is that to understand? Insurers need accurate information on installed mitigation techniques, this includes what is there and if it actually has a chance of reducing their exposure during a wind storm. They (insurers) are counting on the fact that the information you provided them included the fact that the mitigation techniques were in place and installed correctly.

Ask yourself this: Would mitigation techniques not installed according to their approval still be considered approved mitigation techniques? Nope.

Specifically, if John and his merry band of cohorts produce a standard for the form that reduces its’ effectiveness to provide key information on installed mitigation techniques, such as proper installation and building code compliance, what usable information would the form then provide to the insurer to properly assess their risk of exposure during the next major storm? It’s a good question, isn’t it? My method hopes to provide insurers with useful information on building code compliance, John’s hopes to reduce the forms effectiveness and limit inspector liability. He simply forgets the fact the inspectors are not “required” to complete wind mitigation forms, they elect to voluntarily.

If the form is reduced to a simple permit verification with pictures, its’ effectiveness will be reduced significantly and insurers will stop using it. It’s that simple. Florida statute 627.711 simply states that an insurer shall accept an 1802 form one of the listed qualified licensees, but it also states they can accept it from whomever they want. If he continues down this road it may be the end of the form for the state of Florida. John has always approached the form from a monetary standpoint, never a public safety standpoint. His main concern has always been “how can I limit my liability”? He has never considered how the form is used and its’ intended purpose. That is extremely dangerous and slippery.

Properly installed mitigation techniques, those installed according to their approval and inspected, have the potential to save lives. A wind mitigation inspection performed by an educated and experienced inspector provides that information to a home owner, take it away and……well, you put two and two together. If John continues trying to reduce this form to a blunt instrument that provides essentially no information of value, the form will be lost. It’s that simple. The methods and practices he and his cohorts are teaching inspectors are proven to be inaccurate and worthless.

Now he wants to stick his nose someplace he is neither educated or qualified to comment simply to reduce his liability and continue his money stream. Very selfish and dangerous, for all inspectors who complete the form and the general public of this state. The public depends on inspectors to provide key information on installed mitigation techniques that have the potential to save lives, not just reduce wind damages. All I ask is that for once you forget about your money stream and consider the people and families who live in the homes you inspect. I’m born and raised in this state and will not see Florida families put in harms’ way simple so you can limit your liability and generate revenue for yourself.

39

Yes sir, you are unique.:smiley:

40

I’d Rock the job to the best of my ability.
I want to live there anyhow. If I have a well paying job waiting on me I’m the heck out of here.