I feel that is a more sensible amount to be charged across the board.
If that had been set and followed it might have worked .
At this time I kind of think it is too late .
The self appointed group obviously did not do their home work .
They have now alienated many NACHI members with the way they have been treated that I do not think CAHPI can get the numbers they require to make this succeed.
They continue to give smoke and mirrors and talk about how great it will be.
This is exactly what went on with Whistler and it flopped .
NACHI and its members have asked many questions and got few answers and many have been treated very poorly.
Diplomacy has been missing completely by CAHPI.
Claude would you please post some of the Canadian Surveys with all the information gathered .
I am sure some of these Canadian surveys have been used to help those who feel we need a NC to make up their minds.
I think these might be very usefull for all to see .
Thanks… Roy Cooke
The information used is based on stats from the CMHC home inspector insurance study, and based on interviews conducted with Canadian home and property inspectors during the course of working on that CMHC study. In addition other outside sources such as several insurance studies received through ASHI insurers were referenced.
If the feeling is that 3% is the real figure, I still welcome a posting of the exact reference source that provides the stats to back up that number. Some claim it comes from the same OHIO study, that I posted some of the stats from, but I beg to differ. Would that not negate the references to my earlier posts referencing stats from pages 50 and 68 of the same OHIO study?
Here is the problem, and we see this time and time again on mock inspections: When a home inspector misses a defect and is then shown the defect, he recognizes it as a defect and can explain competently why it is a defect. So competence testing is a solution in search of a problem. The real problem that is difficult to solve is what Claude called… on-site “complacency.” I believe the solution can be found in higher pricing, but that is a topic for another thread.
The best thing going for the Home Inspection industry is communication from the home inspectors them selves .
Unfortunately not enough do it .
We have many closed BB and these just tend to be used by a select few .
We are fortunate to have the NACHI site and it being mainly open and few restrictions much thoughts and information is freely given .
some posts tend to irritate , but it does tend to bring out many thoughs some not so good and some making us look in different directions.
The education for all Home Inspectors is second to none far superior then any other BB .
I guess this is why so many come to visit and ask questions .
( Example from one of my posts I received an email a few minutes from a Home Owner in Washington State for some information . I am sure many others do to , I received 3 this week .
I do know Nick gets lots some he posts.
Thats part of what I feel is wrong with the National Certification .
A self appointed group with not much information thinks they have the answers and go on their own .
If they had of comunicated more then their is a chance it could have succeeded .
Questions asked and ignored and has evaded not been a good idea.
… and also insurers who have been quick to hang the inspector out to dry by expediently paying off, and having the insurers turn around and tell us “the inspectors are a high liability.” Gotta love the insurers, they sure know how to spin the stories.
Inspector complacency is much more common than most want to believe. I found that out first hand - just as Nick noted through the test inspections. I won’t bore you with all of the details - but even the stats indicate similar findings to the OHIO study.
Whether it be a test inspection or mock inspection - would you rather have the bad news from your peer, or rather be challenged by the lawyer defending your unhappy client? As I stated before - there is room for improvement, and that is part and parcel of continuing to build our level of competence.
Certainly we can blame the insurers, but that is only part of the problem. But we also assume too much risk, for way too little reward! Risk is also the price of competition, and playing the odds with exploiting quantity or quality.
Thats all well and meaningful, but you will always have those unhappy clients and those lawyers who see a silver lining. Compentency won’t stop that, that is beyond any compentency.
Yes we certainly do assume alot of risk for the price many of us undercharge for.
#14 Did you find any defects the inspector missed. Yes replies 55 No response 81 - Define defect. Burned out light bulb? Crack in garage floor?
#15 Did any defects cost more than $500. Yes replies 39 No response 96 - Again define defect. Who determined that these so called defects were the responsibility of the inspector? Did they fall within the bounds of a “visual inspection”?
Such statements taken out of context are meaningless Claude and you know it.
I don’t know but when I do an inspection I am looking for big ticket items, items which would likely be labeled deal blowers. If I miss a missing cover plate am I negligent, am I going to be sued, is it going to blow a deal? If I miss the cover plate on the TIPR am I deficent, if I miss a dirty air filter in the furnace am I going to be called on it, or what about the dripping tap or the missing baseboard trim, or a dead battery in a smoke detector? Am I still competent to be inspecting?
Hey Realtors are highly trained and put through all sorts of competency tests. Look at some of them. Look at some of their ethics, look at some of the conflicts, or lack of disclosure; items they fail to mention or inform their clients of. Go to the RECO site, go the the Law Society of Upper Canada and read the case files, and charges against lawyers. These are professionals, their competency is measured by the least competent members who are also licenced.
Two good posts .
I do not need to spend $1,166:00 to help CAHPI survive.
It is just another money grab, like OAHI does every so often.
Same method, many of the same people, why should we expect them to be any different.
I did an inspection the other day on a circa 1976 town home. The electric panel is a CEB fused panel. Mixture of Alu and copper circuits but 90 percent aluminum, double taps of copper and Alu., 10 ga. wire tapped into the 100 amp buss bar. Virtually every circuit was overfused with 20 amp fuse, only three 15 amp fuses. The clients realtor was with me. She said, “Raymond this house was inspected four years ago by an inspector, I can’t believe what we see in this panel. How could they have gotten insurance on the house?” I informed both the realtor and client to have a ESA inspection performed because there was no way any insurance company would write a policy on such a concern, and likely the current owners insurer was not aware of the concerns in the panel and had they known the current owner would likely have not got insurance. The Realtor was flabbergasted as I was as to how this panel got passed.
You see competency is not always a measure of abilities but common sense. Just as an example.
George - I agree, but quite a few people have already indicated their beliefs in the same report. Seems some have hung their hat on that 3% number. All I was indicating is the report seems to provide a number of good and bad areas.
It is simply in my opinion a “general” guide of “issues” that were polled. How many reports indicate significant defects as $1000, or $2000 or more. How does even a $500 expense impact the client?
Like anything else - its likely based on “opinion”. Not yours, not mine, but from those who responded. I do not read into the what “ifs”, however, I accept the facts as indicating the things that we do well, and areas where improvement could be addressed. Otherwise what is you stand on the report?
