I have had a lead broker and a few of his customers “tell” me such on the message board, that there are no telemarketing waivers being slipped into home inspection agreements … but this is what the lead broker requires inspectors receiving his kickbacks in exchange for private customer data to publish in their inspection agreements…
This, in case you do not recognize it, is a waiver to a “Do Not Call” list.
Actually, it is an “attempted” waiver in that one state attorney general who read it said that it is “legally invalid” and that he will prosecute with or without this clause when anyone in his state on a “Do Not Call” list is contacted … but it still says what it says, “legally invalid” or not.
Harassing telemarketing calls from alarm systems salesmen are hitting consumers all over the country. Reading the comments from consumers in this article, I couldn’t help but recall Thornberry’s claim that he is using telemarketers from all over the country making 30,000 telephone calls per month.
Here is the FTC, in a court action against an alarms systems company, describing in their petition how the lead brokers work.
And here is my personal favorite that I think you will find familiar …
How “ethical” is it to allow a lead broker to use your home inspection agreement for this nonsense?
Nick and Chris are of the opinion that no one is called until they agree to be called by email.
Nick and Chris assume that everyone who buys a new home has an email address and that all of their unsolicited emails are read by them.
Now … if you believe what Nick and Chris believe … that only those who agree, by email, are contacted by Thornberry … what do you think happens to those who do NOT respond to the email and do not agree to be called?
Could they be resold as described by the FTC … ?
Remember … the “TPSP” in the signed agreement is still unidentified. Thornberry, for unstated reasons, insists upon it.
It’s also important to note that, just as the attorney general wrote to me, the FTC has also found these telemarketing waivers to be “legally invalid” and are prosecuting telemarketing violators. What individual inspector wants his clients to be victimized in this manner through his contract?
NACHI won’t punish you for doing it … but that does not make it “ethical”, IMO.