I'm preparing comments for the government. Does anyone have any to include.

http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/showAttachment.do?postingId=14645&attachmentId=22811

Speak now or Don’t complain later.

Already sent my comments in!

Regulation of home inspectors
Do you have any comments regarding recommendation #1

  1. Why are recommendations being made based on CSA A770 which has not been completed? Putting the cart before the horse?

Professional Qualifications for Home Inspectors
Do you have any comments regarding recommendations #5 to #16

  1. There should be mandatory college education for home inspectors. Currently there are too many questionable businesses by home inspectors and others offering home inspection courses. Leave education strictly to colleges, not associations. Standardized courses. No more 2 week courses!

  2. All home inspectors through regulation should clearly state their name, licence number and contact info on biz cards, websites and other forms of advertising. There are many inspectors with websites of which you would be hard pressed to find a contact/owner name. That does not help the consumer.

  3. Competencies – should NOT be based on an unproven and not widely used standard such as the National Occupational Standard.

Consumer Protection Requirements
Do you have any comments regarding recommendations #17 to #30

  1. Realtors should provide a list of licenced inspectors only and should not be recommending any inspector. The current regime by Realtors is all over the map. One referral, three referral names, others leave it up to the client to find an inspector. Other Realtors play favourites or inspectors who are known to be less than thorough aka Realtor friendly, yes even kick backs (referral fees). That is not indicative of professionalism. Stop the conflicts of interest and keep the hiring of a home inspector at arms length from the real estate fraternity.

  2. Under code of ethics, simply, there should not be any referral programs or incentives permitted. Prof. Engineers and other professions don’t even get involved with such nonsense. Why should the government permit it and why do you think it should be okay for inspectors to do so? Stop pandering to special interests.

  3. Mandatory insurance may be a good idea, but the liability should be capped at minimum $500K up to $1 million. The insurance if made mandatory will permit the insurance industry to run a monopoly and insurers are known to pay out rather than fight claims because of expediency and financial reasons, then paint the inspector(s) as bad risk. This is the current way things operate by insurers and its not acceptable.

  4. Prof. Engineers are permitted to opt out of insurance if disclosed to their client, why shouldn’t home inspectors be able to do so? My contract between my clients is a privilege and if client does not accept the contract terms they are free to retain an inspector with more favourable contract terms. I do not need the government dictating what and what I cannot put in my contract.

Regulatory Governance for Ontario’s Home Inspection Industry
Do you have any comments regarding recommendations #31 to #35

  1. Best idea to come out of the research and recommendations!

  2. No home inspection associations, group of home inspection associations, franchise, partnership, related group of inspectors or the likes should be a regulatory body.

Other – general comments regarding regulating home inspectors

  1. Its unfortunate that MCS ignored questions sought of them during the consultative period via the composed panel. Too many times emails of concerns/questions to the MCS were never answered or simply an email stating the email was rec’d. No answers! Not acceptable! If I ask a question or concern I expect at the very least a proper answer. So much for professionalism at the top by those at MCS who for whatever reason think they are not answerable to anyone but themselves and the Minister. The Chatham House rules imposed had no place. Openness was not at the forefront despite what MCS promised!

  2. Simply it appears figures used to justify licencing are skewed and no one at MCS had the courtesy to reply to queries about the numbers of complaints which were quoted.

  3. Based on my own research it would appear MCS has used skewed unverifiable facts to justify their position that licencing is required. If you make statements in the research they should be able to be verifiable. NO ONE has clarified the use of 390 law suits against home inspectors wherein SEG quoted that number. Was it pulled out of thin air? What research did they base this number on? NO ONE has given an answer!

  4. There should be a advertising policy placed on inspection companies and their advertisements. 1. No statements claiming to be the largest or best, 2. We do more inspections then anyone else, 3. Nor should associations be able to state ‘we are the voice of the inspection industry’, as examples.

  5. While there should be no restriction of inspection fees, fees should be clearly stated.

The Government should realize that at currently an average cost for a home inspection ranges from $350 to $500. Each additional cost pressed on to the home inspector such as a five percent cost for licensing fee means at least a 7 to 10 percent fee increase to the home owner. Not only does the home inspector have to add the increased fee into his cost they must add payment to themselves/ company for the time and resources taken to generate the paperwork, banking fees incurred, time spent in or with agencies to process proper documentation etc. , etc. The same goes for Insurance costs it all must be added in and as the home inspector is not on the job while buying or completing insurance paperwork the payment for the time must come from increased fees to cover the cost of the insurance and the costs of dealing with the purchase and maintenance of the forms and documents that go along with them. Legitimately the government should expect the consumer to be faced with an average inspection fee of between $500 and $750. They and I may believe this to be reasonable I am just not sure the average consumer will.

. There should be mandatory college education for home inspectors. Currently there are too many questionable businesses by home inspectors and others offering home inspection courses. Leave education strictly to colleges, not associations. Standardized courses. No more 2 week courses!
**You have to be kidding? Have you seen some people out of college or even teach there lolol. **

Education for Home Inspectors is available everywhere. Colleges should not provide education for Home Inspection directly but more knowledge of Home construction, Green building design ect.
The Certification should stay where it is currenty being done in each Association but the curriculum and training for all Associations should be the same to become a licensed Home Inspector according to set rules and guidelines. This should be offered by each Association you belong too not for charge but as an upfront cost period. If that cost is 1000 dollars, so be it as long as it is a one time cost. Dues for Associations should not be balanced with this initial cost.
Than there becomes only one distinction. You are either a Certified Licensed Home Inspector or working to be one. License is only granted to those that can qualify to Certify according to a well thought out set of rules and guidelines set up and agreed by all Associations.
I also agree with Raymond about CSA A770 is not in any position to get this right.

In line with my last comment this still is on the internet under Certified Home Inspector
http://www.saultstar.com/2012/08/17/certification-right-for-inspectors-college.

                                                                     Sault College welcomes new national  standards for home inspectors a year after it launched the province's  first two-year diploma program for such training.

The certification will be granted through a partnership between Canadian Standards Association and National Home Inspector Certification Council.
The National Home Inspector Personnel Certification Program will be the Canadian standard.
“Sault College has been anticipating the regulation of home inspection and supports a national standard like this, as seen in many other regulated professions,” said Colin Kirkwood, dean of natural environment, technology and skilled trades, in an email.
The college plans to contact NHICC “to ensure our students meet and exceed national training standards in the field.”
A candidate will have to write a qualification exam to become a certified national home inspector. Based on the test results, the candidate may need further training.
“As is the case with some of our existing programs, certification or accreditation is granted by a third party and Sault College is fully prepared to undergo this process in this newly-regulated field of study,” said Kirkwood.
“We are responsive to the needs of industry, and believe that we provide excellent and thorough training to best prepare students for certification and success in this profession.”
TV personality Mike Holmes, host of Holmes on Homes and Holmes Inspection, helped launch the college program in a packed college gymnasium in January 2011. His endorsement is mentioned in a program fact sheet available on the college’s website.
The home inspection technician program teaches students how to recognize problems with a residence’s structure and systems. They also learn how to check that properties comply with laws, standards, bylaws and codes.
Sault Ste. Marie Real Estate Board president Linda Brauner also welcomes the new training expectations.
“It would be good to standardize it,” she said.
“There’s a variance in the degree of inspections. Tradespeople are usually more knowledgeable because they actually do the work on houses and understand how it works.”
On the web: www.saultcollege.ca
www.saultstemarierealestate.ca

  • with files from QMI Agency
    b.kelly@sunmedia.ca

The Certification should stay where it is currenty being done in each Association but the curriculum and training for all Associations should be the same to become a licensed Home Inspector according to set rules and guidelines.
I disagree some of the Canadian associations are not even close to doing a good job .
The Canadian association’s should be at arms length from the teaching .
They** all from how I see it are just out to make money for the association and a favored few who instruct .**
Been there and seen how they operated .

You Cant regulate what is on the internet. That is a well outdated article that has no relation to the question that was proposed for this thread.

Do you have any comments you would like to see InterNACHI make in an official reply to the report?

My comments have always gone directly to Nick and MCS from day one.
And it is very important info as the Licensing of Home Inspectors has already reared its ugly head more than once.
Even the info provided here shows the strong influence to License Home Inspectors and make it the most important when in fact it is the least important at this time.
Proper qualifications is the biggest issue and where you get those qualifications.
Licensing will not lead to better Inspectors.
Licensing will not lead to better protection of Home purchasers.
Licensing will cause nothing but more damage to the title many have fought hard to achieve.

Licensing will only provide a easy way for someone to fly more quickly to a minimum standard and then they will have no need to go any further.

Roy it should all be the same. The Certification is not done by the Associations but by proctored exam provided by a third party. Once you pass and qualify with the hours of education (at arms length) you than are granted a Certified Licensed Home Inspector Certificate. You do not pay for that title by the Government but each Association provides it with membership when you qualify.
What Association you belong to does not matter than.
You then have the option to pay for a CMI to mentor you anywhere in Ontario.

Comments to the Government ought to take into account all the information. We have just received the results of the Data Collection process. I can’t attach PDF’s here so I’ve posted it to the OntarioACHI website here: http://ontarioachi.ca/?p=1793

People who read this may see that it is entirely skewed in favour of OAHI. That’s because InterNACHI members were apathetic in responding to the original survey.

Nick is preparing a formal response for InterNACHI, and the board is preparing a formal response from OntarioACHI. This we hope will balance the responses that will come from the OAHI/CAHPI collaboration.

I know we have had people posting that OntarioACHI doesn’t have their permission to “speak” for the majority of inspectors in Ontario, but as the Ontario Chapter of InterNACHI, if we don’t then InterNACHI is one voice against two.

We owe it to our members registered or fully paid-up who have expressed concerns to respond to the MCS report. We hope that we will get the support of more Inspectors in Ontario by offering positive, constructive input at the OntarioACHI message board too. The message board address for the post is here: http://ontarioachi.ca/mb/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31

Very hash judgement called to say they were apathetic. Some just did not want to support the Licensing of Home Inspectors. Others may just have decided not to trust what info was going out to individuals that had no right to compile. Since this is now over with it does not represent the full spectrum of HI’s in Ontario.
That can’t be changed nor can the info spread out by the group who spent time on the venture. It still does not change what continues to be a big issue in Home Inspector Association’s. We are the biggest,we are the best, we are the oldest, we are the most open to the public, we have the best education, we are recognized by the government, we are endorsed by XXX ect ect.
Nothing will change until it is well established that a person searching for or selling a Home has no influence from this my association is better than yours mentality that has been ingrained in us from youth on.

Dave Bowman suggests:

This is financially impossible. InterNACHI spends upwards of 6 figures on some of our courses. We often build actual sets. We create graphics. We generate video. We take field photos. We procure industry comments. We hire course researchers. We hire editors. We hire subject matter experts We procure governmental approvals. There is no way a college can afford to produce quality inspection courses. Our industry is too small and InterNACHI spends too much money on providing education for colleges to offer competitive alternatives to InterNACHI. InterNACHI has spent decades and millions on www.nachi.org/education.htm Colleges would go broke trying to catch up at this point.

Colleges might offer a few dumbed-down, quickly throw together mini-courses for outrageous fees, but that weakens overall industry competence and creates a financial deterrent to education which ultimately harms the consumer.

Also, InterNACHI has many thousands of inspectors at any one time taking any number of courses, quizzes and exams. The administration of this education continues round the clock, 365 days a year.

For a college to provide this much education to our industry, it would need stadium-sized classrooms. It’s simply financially impossible for colleges to offer what InterNACHI already provides for the industry.

Will not open for me .

http://ontarioachi.ca/?p=1793

I expect this is just wishful thinking on your part .
Big Changes are necessary for any of this to work.

Please note I have belonged to 4 different groups
( Not Counting NACHI or the CMI) and seen much

The education in the College will not ever match what is available at InterNachi. The 10 segment portion designed by Carson Dunlop can’t match InterNachi, The 2 year College course endorsed by Mike Holmes himself can’t match what is available by InterNachi. Remember that InterNachi focuses on one area and one area only. Colleges and other courses concentrate on making it easy for a student to pass. Don’t believe! Then ask anyone coming out of College what the courses are designed to do.
Not that this is a bad thing but the reality of this world gets harsher every year and some coming out are not even close to harnessing the skills they have quickly learned.

I never said any thing about NACHI I was replying to your comment about Canadian Associations .

Do you think there is any chance that if licensing goes through that the Canadian Government would even consider a USA group over a Canadian Group .
I do not ,so we might have to get our basic learning from a Canadian group.

I still say we do not have a Canadian association that is capable of doing the training correctly so colleges’ could be the better of the two alternatives.

Remember I have been on the awards committee for 9 years so have a little knowledge how great thinks are.