I agree. I used to do all kinds of single items inspections. Someone wants a particular component or system evaluated and does not want to pay for a complete home inspection they should not have to nor should they be confined to hiring only a particular tradesman to do it. There for years one of the major complaints I heard repeatedly was when the little old lady or man would call a “contractor” they would not be even remotely interested in coming out for a small job.
That is the point of my earlier post. The “law” as written is screwed up and puts the inspector in a box with some of its requirements and mandates, does not allow the inspector or the home owner, buyer or whoever the client is to make exceptions. It has all the earmarks of the typical “one size fits all” government thinking. Many times I get calls for a home inspection and they want a “free” four point or wind mitigation inspection because their realtor told them that “everyone” is doing them that way. I try to explain those two inspections are mutually exclusive of each other and more often than not can be at odds with each other, causing all kinds of problems for them when they go to offer, close or obtain insurance. As I said, too many people have had a hand in creating this ugly *** law and it shows. This is why my wife won’t allow me in the kitchen when she is cooking, one, I am not frigging help and just get in the way, two, she knows what she is doing and I don’t so I will screw up dinner if left to my own devices unless we are grilling then I manage to do fine. There have been too many ulterior motive inspired inputs from people who are not home inspectors.
I meant it when I said good luck…I have been involved in trying to fight licensing here for all the reasons above and trying to organize FL inspectors. Our experience was, lots of bold talk but most won’t back it up with their money, time, effort and spend all their time protecting their little rice bowl. It is just easier to stand back, criticize and find reasons not to get involved.
Most if not all those types of inspections are NOT part of a typical home inspection as outlined by the FL law. Those are what most of us who have been doing these for years call “ancillary” inspections. There is where some who have “included” these into a regular home inspection have literally created the problem(s). I have raised this concern for years in here on this very board, about moving the paradigm of what does and does not constitute a “home inspection”. Many new and some old inspectors have started including all kinds of “extras” into their inspections to beat the competition, to the point of “giving away” these extras just to get the job. In the end it has changed the public perceptions about what a home inspection covers. WE home inspectors have done this to ourselves. I have also been saying for years, the worst enemy of home inspectors are home inspectors. This goes right back to my last post about protecting what is MINE at the expense of the industry only to have it come back and eventually bite ME in the buttocks. Hoisted by our own petards so to speak. (Petards means “cleverness” or “devices” least someone think I was being unsavory).
The most true statement ever posted in the Florida section.
Maybe it’s the splintered approach and the lack of general agreement as to what is necessary. I’m not criticizing the people who are trying to do something but I am criticizing the approach. I would like to see time set aside at the upcoming convention for a convening of Florida inspectors to see if concensus could be reached on common goals/aspirations for the profession. I would volunteer some time to help and I’m sure there are others. Quite frankly, 99% have been left out of the “legislative” process. Things can be changed for the better with collective agreement and I agree with Russell, the way to implement change is by a few hundred inspectors hitting Tallahassee and writing/calling their representatives. We would be the hardest hitting lobbyist imaginable and we can do it cheaply. The key is EDUCATION/KNOWLEDGE. Elevate the profession so people see the VALUE. And, toss the BS SOP floating around and quit telling me “there is a process and you will be notified when you can provide input”. That dictatorial, dismissive, insulting, attitude is The Problem to date and leads me to believe the leadership is lacking or staged. Obviously, it has not worked but all I’ve heard is a bemoaning and belittling of those who would not send cash. Maybe the inspectors don’t believe in the agenda or the leadership and I have not heard any of this being tossed on the table. I’ve seen no attempt to form a committee to address any concerns (other than an offer to attend a FLHII meeting), no templates, no polls, no surveys, no attempt to organize anything other than fundraising for those who put themselves in charge.
Now before some of you go off about the time/money spent travelling to Tallahassee or meeting with an overpriced lobbyist (which the inspection community did not ask you to do) or tell me about your devotion to the “brotherhood”, maybe you need to take an honest look at the approach to date. I’m not attacking you nor am I accusing you of anything. I appreciate your interest in my profession. Now, you need to appreciate the professional community did not ask you to do what you have done nor has there been any communal agreements on what is desired or necessary. I applaud your attempt but not your approach. JMO.
Don’t you want the surgeon working on your child to be licensed/supervised? What about your CPA? FDIC insured accounts probably don’t mean anything to you, but I need it if my bank fails. What about equal right to education for your kids? What about daycare facilities for children? Electricians - shouldn’t someone agree they won’t burn the house down? Come on, even you can see the obvious need for licensing. Otherwise, every stucco home you inspect will need stucco - right?
Nope I do not agree. If I wanted to push repairs I would. I just do not care to.
Please do not put home inspectors in the same sentence as surgeons. Get real.
THINGS WERE BETTER FOR ALL BEFORE THIS CRAP WENT INTO EFFECT.
Especially those established home inspectors who had a good reputation. Poof now any idiot with a license is just as qualified in the eyes of clients ans such.
William I love the thoughts and input. Your thoughts and complaints are the same as mine and that is the EXACT reason for this thread. To get the input and thoughts of others to determine the census of the inspectors to determine the path of the profession.
Yours and ALL post will be read and then we will talk about them and then decide on an action to do.
As far as hitting Tallahasee, I drove there with Preston halstead and John Shishilla and it is a haul. But to cure that I thought, why not get two or more busses, one going up I75 and the other down I95 and pick people up and have a party bus there and back…Make it fun and productive. That is just my idea and it may be right or wrong, but at least its an idea and would love to hear others.
Speaking of drinking Mike, from one of the 1802 form discussions:
September 30, 2011
Mr. Mike Milnes
Deputy Director
Bureau of Product Review
Office of Insurance Regulation
300 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
RE: September 20, 2011 Hearing on Mitigation Verification Inspection Form
Dear Mike:
During the September 20 hearing, you raised specifically the issue of whether the safety of building
inspectors might be jeopardized through the photo requirements which have been in OIR Form B1-
1802 for some time. An association representing inspectors stated that it is common for inspectors to
injure themselves climbing into an attic or suffer from the extreme heat they will encounter up there.
You heard from several building inspectors that safety is not really an issue; photos in attic spaces
can be safely taken in the overwhelmingly majority of cases and when there is a problem, entry can
be made through the roof.
We also believe inspectors can safely secure photos. It is the Florida Insurance Council’s firm belief
that the requirement of photographs of mitigation features and other documentation supporting
findings in the mitigation verification form is possibly the single most important step to strengthen
OIR-B1-1802 implemented during the last two or three years of rule-making on the form. An inspector
cannot certify that mitigation features are in place in an attic without going into the area and providing
the photo documentation.
FIC continues to support photo requirements and other documentation requirements in the form.
We appreciate the Office’s hard work to develop a complete, accurate and effective mitigation
verification inspection form.
Sam Miller
Executive Vice President
Florida Insurance Council
Welcome to the Florida Insurance Council’s website. The Council has been covering Florida insurance matters since 1962. As Florida’s largest insurance trade association, FIC is the voice of Florida’s insurance community. We’re committed to providing consumers, media, and public officials with information that’s pertinent and real-time.
Gee who’s side do you think they are on ?
It is hard to believe that the folks at the OIR are foolish enough to even take their opinion
Thanks, Russell. I knew you would get it. I love the bus idea but I think we need to organize some thoughts on paper first (otherwise they may call in the Guard). I think we should offer a free inspection of the Governor’s mansion to highlight our trade or the old Capitol Building or both. Or maybe even, offer 40 free home inspections for the elderly or poor. I would love to see this type of coordinated effort. Even gives us an excuse to make up some cool hats or Tshirts! I’m sure we can get some legislators to help and maybe even the OIR - free wind mits for the poor. We could periodically do this across the state. Wouldn’t take long and Tallahassee would be asking “what can we do for you?”. No lobbyist required! I’m all in - anybody else?
I just sent mike an email of my own.
I KNOW IT WILL DO NOT GOOD. BUT HEY I TRIED.
Mr. Milnes,
Below in red is an old email I came across. I just hope you are aware that this individual is not an inspector and is only looking out for what he feels is best for the insurance companies.
The practice of requiring photos of items that are not VISIBLE or ACCESABLE is a deadly practice. Someone will get killed trying to provide photos of things that do not matter. Trying to find a shiner which by code should not exist can be extremely dangerous in an area the is not designed to move about in. Photographing marks on trusses mean absolutely nothing as the metal detector beeps on any and all metal. The act of trying to get a couple trusses in a frame can be equally deadly as when in attic our main concern should be safety. Before pictures were required I verified the presence of clips, wraps, etc… with the use of a monocular. Trying to get close enough to get a shot of that is very hard maybe 50% of the time. The angles are tough and the low light and how far the flash works can make it darn near impossible. Please if you ever get the chance to remove these requirements do so. They are not needed and someday someone will die as many have already been injured. I doubt you would want to think someone died trying to photograph a nail with a ruler next to it when they could easily identify the nail from the safety of the hatch. Most items can be verified safely from the hatch if photos were not required.
Also a great many folks seem to just use pictures from other inspections when they are not able to photograph items that they know exist. This practice of requiring photos is causing the fraud it was supposed to fight. It is my opinion that the OIR should be regulating the insurance companies but it seems the insurance companies tell the OIR what should be done. It reminds me of the fox guarding the henhouse. It just is not right. Safety of those inspecting and trying to protect the homeowners property should be a major concern of the OIR not something that should just be dismissed.
Thanks for taking the time to read this letter,
Michael J. Meeker
Meeker Industries, Inc.
954-922-0584 mike@meekerindustries.com
September 30, 2011
Mr. Mike Milnes
Deputy Director
Bureau of Product Review
Office of Insurance Regulation
300 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
RE: September 20, 2011 Hearing on Mitigation Verification Inspection Form
Dear Mike:
During the September 20 hearing, you raised specifically the issue of whether the safety of building
inspectors might be jeopardized through the photo requirements which have been in OIR Form B1-
1802 for some time. An association representing inspectors stated that it is common for inspectors to
injure themselves climbing into an attic or suffer from the extreme heat they will encounter up there.
You heard from several building inspectors that safety is not really an issue; photos in attic spaces
can be safely taken in the overwhelmingly majority of cases and when there is a problem, entry can
be made through the roof.
We also believe inspectors can safely secure photos. It is the Florida Insurance Council’s firm belief
that the requirement of photographs of mitigation features and other documentation supporting
findings in the mitigation verification form is possibly the single most important step to strengthen
OIR-B1-1802 implemented during the last two or three years of rule-making on the form. An inspector
cannot certify that mitigation features are in place in an attic without going into the area and providing
the photo documentation.
FIC continues to support photo requirements and other documentation requirements in the form.
We appreciate the Office’s hard work to develop a complete, accurate and effective mitigation
verification inspection form.
Sam Miller
Executive Vice President
Florida Insurance Council
I have been reading this message board for sometime trying to figure out if this is a field I wish to pursue and I just cant figure out why you all arent falling over yourself to have a lobbiest to help you protect your interest. Mr. Meeker you seem to be one of the most vocal about issues you think arent right so why would you not want someone to help to protect your interest? Mr.Hensel I commend you for your passion to preserve the rights of your profession.
We have had a lobbyist…and you can see just how much has been accomplished:
The worst home inspection licensing law in the country.
No SoP
No COE
What we need is unity, but that probably won’t ever happen. Most inspectors became inspectors to run their own businesses. To be independent of others.
Tim those seeking representation do not have the same concerns as I do. I cannot join a group that wishes to stop me from doing all I am legally and licensed to do. They also want the same rights and privileges I as a Florida Licensed General Contractor has earned. They simply do not have the same qualifications General Contractors have and therefor should NOT have the same rights and privileges. I am not much of a joiner anyhow and am surprised i even joined this org. I do not feel the way to succeed is to stop the competition from doing what I do or what I see as competition. I believe we have the right to do and offer all that our licenses say we can do and offer. A great many in this org only want what is best for those who only hold one license and that is the Florida home inspector license.
I hope that cleared up my feelings and actions for you. Good luck.
I guess I joined here for the outstanding educational opportunities and not the camaraderie.
