Information On NJ Home Inspection Professional Licnsing Act

Originally Posted By: Lorraine Hutton
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Lorraine Hutton. I am VP of Operations/Regulatory Compliance of a home inspection firm located in Hunterdon County NJ. I, along with the owner of the firm, as well as a number of other NJ Home Inspectors, have been working with various members of the NJ Legislature for well over a year on amending the existing home inspection licensing law. I would like to take this opportunity to provide information to those who may be interested on the current state of affairs regarding home inspection licensing in NJ.


I had initially intended to post this on InspectionNews.com, since apparently there has already been quite a bit of discussion on this issue on that particular message board. However, more than a few people have advised me that there is a very strong chance that this presentation would be edited on InspectionNews.com, since I do not believe that a factual presentation of the current state of affairs with home inspection licensing in NJ can be made without reference to ASHI. Since the references to ASHI may be construed by some as being unflattering to ASHI's image, I was advised to post my assessment of the current situation on this board if I wished to avoid censorship.

In posting here, I am hoping this will prove to be the vehicle by which to reach all of those home inspectors, both in NJ as well as other states, who are opposed to the current licensing debacle in NJ, and who would like the opportunity to join together with others to work toward legislation that benefits the consumer, and not just the home inspector. It is my belief that the NJ legislation is indeed the harbinger of things to come for the entire home inspection profession throughout the country, if those who oppose such legislation fail to make a concerted effort to mobilize as a unit and make themselves heard. The following outlines the situation, as I know it. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read it.

As some of you may be aware, the New Jersey Home Inspection Professional Licensing Act, signed into law in January of 1998, has been determined to be a flawed piece of legislation by the original sponsor, Assemblyman Anthony Impreveduto.
In recognition of this fact, he proposed an amendment (A567) that would have rectified many of the existing problems with the original Act, the most egregious of which sanctions unlicensed practice. The Assembly Regulated Professions and Independent Authorities Committee passed this amendment unanimously on 1/9/03; on 2/13/03 the same Committee voted to unanimously to combine A567 with S1685, a Senate bill.
On 2/24/03 it passed the Assembly. In the Senate voting session on 2/27/03, S1685/A567 was Received In Senate 2nd Reading On Concurrence. There has been much debate about exactly what that means; apparently it can mean more than one thing, depending upon the "interpretation".
Senator Garry Furnari originally introduced S1685 as a bill in June of 2002 when it became apparent to him that there were serious problems with the grandfather provision of the law, since the rules to effectuate the Act were not promulgated until four and half years after the law was signed by then Governor Whitman.
There were a few different versions of S1685, one of which would have allowed a Home Inspector to qualify for licensure under the grandfather provision if they had completed 400 home inspections for a fee prior to 6/03/02, regardless of the number of years one had been in the practice of home inspection.
Regardless, the version of S1685 that went through the normal legislative process, and still existed up until about 4:00 PM on 3/20/03, was the version that had been combined with A567, inclusive of all of the amendments added by Assemblyman Impreveduto, with a few minor modifications.
At about 4:30 PM, we were told that there had been a meeting, inclusive of a representative of ASHI (an ASHI Legislative Agent was present outside the Senate chambers earlier in the day) and the result of this meeting was that all of Assemblyman Imprevedutos amendments had been removed.
We were told that the bill that would pass the Senate vote was the Senator Furnari bill that had already passed the Senate in October 2002, except with one change; the grandfather date would be moved out from June 3 2002 until June of 2004.
That is indeed exactly what did happen, so apparently our source had provided correct information.
At this point in time, the legislative website has not yet been updated with the version of S1685 that did indeed pass. Hopefully it will be updated within the next few days, reflecting the change in the date to qualify under the grandfathering provision. In addition, this bill still has to pass the Assembly, since it is dramatically different than the version of S1685 that passed the Assembly in February. The next Assembly session is not until May 15; then, if it does pass, it must be signed by the Governor in order to become law.
Sources indicate that the chances are very good that the Assembly and the Governor will approve. In addition, at this point in time, my understanding is that the eliminated amendments may not be introduced again in this year's session due to time constraints. This now provides some breathing room for all concerned to undertake a massive legislative education campaign.
It is clear that ASHI influenced the Senate action on 3/20/03. However, it is unclear exactly how that impact was achieved. I hear that there has been much back patting among those who personally lobbied to oppose S1685, who believe that the Senate vote was the direct result of their concerted effort to disseminate incorrect information regarding the amendments, some of which bordered on being nothing short of alarmist.
However, it is my opinion that these antics played little, if any part, in the final decision.
This is evidenced by the fact that ASHI apparently felt that they needed to utilize the services of a Legislative Agent, as well as the fact that nothing at all changed until the involvement of that ASHI Legislative Agent, immediately prior to the bill coming up for a vote. In addition, there were additional political dynamics indigenous to the legislative process that may have inadvertently served as an ideal setting for ASHI's Legislative Agent to attain her goal.
At this point in time, I believe that all things considered, because of our efforts, ASHI as an organization was forced to do a number of things that I am certain that they would not have needed to do otherwise. I think it would be prudent for all to review exactly what it appears as if ASHI National was forced to do because or our involvement in this cause:
A) Forced to make expenditures in excess of $30,000.00 in compensation for lobbyists.
B) Forced to openly support their chapters in lobbying for legislation that sanctions unlicensed practice.
C) Forced to openly support their chapters in lobbying for legislation that creates a monopoly for ASHI
D) Forced to admit that their own "model legislation" and "position" on licensing requirements is not their true position or true idea of model legislation.
E) Forced to admit that they condone limiting the growth of the home inspection profession by openly and actively lobbying for legislation that requires an aspiring home inspector to rely upon his competition for training.
F) Forced to lobby for legislation that defies their own Code of Ethics.
G) Forced to admit that they fully support the NJ ASHI Chapters position on the Home Inspection Professional Licensing Act, voiding their denials to the contrary.
H) Forced to accept a change in the grandfather date six months beyond the 12/03 date that Assemblyman Impreveduto's amendment called for.

If just a handful of Home Inspectors (and myself) were able to move this 800-pound guerilla to this extent, just imagine what hundreds, if not thousands can do?
I assure each and every one of you, that ASHI is most certainly emboldened by this small victory.
They will most assuredly continue to pour money, time and resources into becoming the entity that controls the Home Inspection profession in this country, simply because it is the only chance that they have of maintaining their membership numbers even at the present level; membership without which they would cease to exist. As we all know it to be, it will be the survival of the fittest.
They know this, which is why they will understandably make every effort to survive. Some of you may have even heard of their new campaign, called "Branding". An excellent concept, but also a clear indication that they recognize the very pressing need to be pro-active in every way in order to maintain their ability to dominate the legislative process of licensing Home Inspectors throughout the country.
One only needs to research both existing and pending legislation for the profession. When viewing the requirements, whether they involve board appointees, testing, training, SoP or CoE, it becomes glaringly apparent that there is one acronym that predominates. Left unchecked, it will be the ONLY acronym synonymous with the profession.
It is up to each and every Home Inspector to choose for himself. If you choose the right to remain independent, you have no choice but to become active in doing so now. Those interested please post or email me at CSCompliance@aol.com with any ideas and/or suggestions on how we can unite for this common cause.

Thank you for you time.

Lorraine Hutton


Originally Posted By: gbell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Lorraine and welcome to the NACHI message board.


I just found out yesterday that I am facing something similar in my state Florida. The house and senate have passed legislation which is very vague. The senator for my district did tell me that he wasn't sure how the final outcome would be. It is now off to committee.

Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. I would like to nip this in the bud before the sunshine state becomes the garden state.

Thanks


--
Greg Bell
Bell Inspection Service

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Lorraine,


Welcome to NACHI and to our forum. Be assured, there is no censorship, edits, or we-writes here.

As to legislative agendas, ASHI is trying (once again) to license HIs in NY. As they have been unsuccessful to date, their new tact appears to be moving their sites to individual counties, where local HIs may be able to bend some ears. Here in Rockland, I met with the County Exec and had the law stopped. They see it as I do, as pure protectionist BS.

Your assertion as for the need to have a national voice is refreshing. NACHI's Executive Director has fought some battles of his own on this very matter and has listened to the NACHI membership fopr the need to try and do precisely what you suggest. I forsee a coalition of the willing within our own industry. Let us know how we can help.

Joe Farsetta ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)


Originally Posted By: kbliss
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Lorraine,


These Senators names sound like they should be in the Mafia.


Kurt Bliss


Originally Posted By: gbeaumont
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Lorraine,


Many thanks for the post which seems to sum up the views of the membership here. many of us are already talking both in this forum and privately about what we can do to stop various States legislature steam rollering our Industry with ASHI’s help and acquiescence. I do feel however that you should also post this on the IN BB, or not object to one of us copying all but the first 2 paragraphs into that forum.


Regards


--
Gerry Beaumont
NACHI Education Committee
e-mail : education@nachi.org
NACHI phone 484-429-5466

Inspection Depot Education
gbeaumont@inspectiondepot.com

"Education is a journey, not a destination"

Originally Posted By: Lorraine Hutton
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Gerry Beaumont wrote:
Hi Lorraine,
I do feel however that you should also post this on the IN BB, or not object to one of us copying all but the first 2 paragraphs into that forum.

Regards


Gerry,

Please feel free to copy all but the first to paragraphs of my post and disseminate as you deem appropriate. I believe that the best chance of counteracting ASHI's initiatives to ultimately control the home inspection profession throughout the country via legislation, is by exposing that initiative to as many people as possible.
Information is indeed power. It is up to every Home Inspector to use the information made available to them to maintain the independence of the profession within the structure of licensing. Thank you for your interest.

Lorraine Hutton


Originally Posted By: Lorraine Hutton
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Thank you all for the welcome.


I have indeed heard of licensing initiatives in New York. It is my understanding that a very similar version to the current NJ law was actually rejected by the NY State legislature. It has been replaced by a version that I believe to be far more reasonable, although I do admit I have not had an opportunity to review the New York status as of late.
The last I heard, the bill did not yet have the sponsorship necessary to move it to the next level of the legislative process.
The news regarding the County initiatives is certainly a new twist and bears watching.

With regard to Florida, suffice it to say that I have indeed reviewed
their legislation; I do agree that it is extremely vague and subject to interpretation. This is most worrisome since this compromises a Home Inspectors ability to obtain accurate information regarding requirements for licensure. There is a chance that once rules are promulgated to effectuate the law, that the specifics will become apparent.
However, that may not be the case.
In NJ, although the promulgated rules only state that the home inspections performed in order to qualify for licensure must comply with the defined term "Home Inspection", and that those inspections must be performed for a fee, a number of applicants have been asked to provide additional information such as the name of the Realtor involved in the transaction, as well as the name of the Attorney who was involved in the sale as well.
Apparently, inspections performed for any other reason other than pre-purchase, and/or FSBO (for sale by owner) and/or absent the services of an attorney, may not be counted toward qualifying toward licensure.
However, oddly enough, there is nothing in either the law or the rules that supports such a request in any respect whatsoever.
It will be interesting to see of those who are required to provide such additional information, how many will receive a license absent such information as well as how many won't receive a license because they can not produce such information.
The demographics will certainly be even more interesting with regard to ASHI members vs. non ASHI members, as well as ASHI chapter members vs. non-chapter members.
Such ambiguities in any law and/or rules allows for the ability to selectively eliminate competition, regardless of qualifications, without consequence to those charged with the selection process.
This is, in my opinion, indeed one of the major problems facing the profession with any legislative initiative, and therefore definitely dictates that every effort be made to eliminate such ambiguities with clear, precise language and directives that are beyond dispute.
Any ideas that anyone may have with regard to how to rectify these issues are very welcome and much appreciated.

Lorraine Hutton


Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Guys,


And you told me I was just being paraniod. Thank you Lorraine.

I have noticed the recent push for legislation by ASHI. I have also noticed all of the legislation, with very few exceptions, has the ASHI name actually written into it.

Joe Myers


Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Another note:


I just got finished speaking with Nick. Yes I know he is in Idaho, I have all his phone numbers and most of the time I can reach him day or night.

I have just updated him on this situation and the recent post by Lorraine. I suggested to Nick that we form a legislative action committee to oversee legislation in every state in our nation. Nick has given the go ahead to do so. It is clear we must let these legislators know the truth of what ASHI is really up to.

Nick has also informed me that NACHI will be filing an anti trust lawsuit against ASHI national. Clearly it is against the laws here in the US to monopolize industry and this is one of those cases which clearly voilates those laws.

If you have any questions about this please feel free to email me.

Joe Myers


Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I am putting together a big protest trip to NJ State Legislature. I am renting a bus for the day. We have to make some noise in NJ. I just got off the phone with two different reporters who will meet us.


We won in PA and stopped ASHI and PHIC by using the legal system and that was fine for PA. I was happy to win quietly. But I think NJ needs to see inspectors coming to the rescue and support of other fellow inspectors. A more visible movement will have an effect on other States...an advantage the PA win didn't provide to inspectors in other States.

I'll keep all of you posted as I get this all scheduled up. We can probably meet or pick up a few members on the way from Valley Forge that day.

We must realize that this NJ battle is really a national battle which helps free all inspectors (yes, even ASHI members) everywhere. Slavery ended.

Nick

ps Email me at gromicko@msn.com if you are interested in coming.


Originally Posted By: Lorraine Hutton
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



The NJ Legislative website has finally been updated with the version of S1685 that actually passed the Senate on 3/20/03.


As promised, it does indeed move the grandfather date more than two years from 6/03/02 to 6/30/04.


In addition, there is an alternate path to qualifying under the grandfather provision.


As expected, one must complete 300 inspections for a fee and have been in the practice of home inspection for 3 years prior to June 30, 2004. However, there is indeed a second option: one must simply have completed 400 home inspections for a fee prior to June 30 2004.


This alternate path existed in one of the earlier versions of S1685; apparently the Senate wisely carried this option over into the amended bill on 3/20/03. Here is a link to the floor statement for those of you who wish to view it:


http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/S2000/1685_S4.PDF

This alternate path may prove to be extremely helpful to those Home Inspectors who may not have the ever changing myriad of paper work the Home Inspection Advisory Committee appears to require as proof that the applicant has been in the practice of home inspections for the prescribed number of years.

In addition, this emerges as another accomplishment, made through our efforts, despite ASHI's intense lobbying to the contrary. I believe that even we will be amazed at what else we will be able to accomplish in working together toward the common goal.

Lorraine Hutton


Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Lorraine,


It really sounds to me like ASHI national is hoping that all the people making a stink about this are just pissed because they did not qualify for the grandfather clause. I trust everyone here is smart enough to know better, this is more than just about grandfathering.

PLEASE DON"T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING THIS IS OVER AND ALL IS WELL!

Joe Myers


Originally Posted By: Lorraine Hutton
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joseph Myers wrote:
Lorraine,

It really sounds to me like ASHI national is hoping that all the people making a stink about this are just pissed because they did not qualify for the grandfather clause. I trust everyone here is smart enough to know better, this is more than just about grandfathering.

PLEASE DON"T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING THIS IS OVER AND ALL IS WELL!

Joe Myers



Joe,

I believe that you are indeed correct in your assessment that ASHI National is hoping that the extension of the grandfather clause will soothe the savage beast and thereby allow them to continue with their true intentions unopposed. However, if indeed that is their assumption, they are far more shortsighted than even I believe them to be.
There is no question that the extension of the grandfather date will enable a far greater number of existing Home Inspectors to remain in business, independent of having to become the employee of an ASHI member, at compensation that would most assuredly be at perhaps a third of their current earnings, before expenses. However, this extension, although meaningful by law, may not ultimately be as meaningful in practice.
First and foremost, those who have already obtained licenses and/or license numbers are apparently able to advertise those numbers freely. This will certainly have a negative impact on the ability of those who are in need of additional inspections to qualify under the new grandfather date extension to actually have much success in obtaining those inspections.
Personally, I find it rather unsettling that such a practice is actually legal (if it is); after all, if the law clearly states that one does not need a license to practice, it is illogical to issue licenses that are technically not yet valid as a qualifier, since in effect, as far as the consumer is concerned, they will perceive only licensed Home Inspectors as being legitimate, when that is clearly not the case, nor the intent of the law. This practice appears to be quite deceptive, and I will be very surprised if it is not challenged in the near future.
In addition, the issue of state sanctioned unlicensed practice still remains.
ASHI members who opposed S1685 have been deafeningly silent when questioned as to why they did not at the very least support the removal of the Statute/Chapter Law loophole that inadvertently allows state sanctioned unlicensed practice. In the recorded testimony before the Assembly Regulated Professions And Independent Authorities Committee, Pete Engle, VP of the Garden State ASHI Chapter, clearly and unquestionably stated that ASHI opposed all of A567 (which became S1685) except for the change in the language regarding the testing.
In addition, despite a written request to ASHI National on this matter on at least two separate occasions, as well as a few verbal requests, we have received literally zero response; nor have we received any acknowledgement whatsoever regarding their position on this specific aspect of the Home Inspection Professional Licensing Act.
This clear and absolute refusal to acknowledge the existence of this loophole by ASHI and some of it's NJ Chapter members is exactly the behavior that prompted my observation during my testimony before the same above mentioned Assembly Committee that the existing law is ripe for abuse by those with ill intent.
At this time, it appears that there are currently four Home Inspectors who serve on the Home Inspection Advisory Committee. The balance of the Committee is comprised of NJ State employees, inclusive of one Deputy Attorney General. Three of those Committee members are members of ASHI. Two of those members belong to the Garden State Chapter of ASHI, whose leadership spearheaded the opposition to S1685.
Applications for licensure under the grandfather provision were available as of the second week of June 2002. Since that time, it appears as if only 200 or so applications have been received; of those 200 applications, only 70 or 80 have actually been approved. Ten months to approve 80 applications out of 200 most assuredly is an indication of a problem, to say the least.
There are various reasons as to why it has taken the Committee so long to process so few applications, some of which most assuredly lie in the inevitable bureaucratic red tape inherent in government process. Other reasons include the fact that many applicants have had their applications returned time and time again; often due to application errors, but just as often, if not more so, due to requests for information that is not required by law or the promulgated rules.
The above situation is I'm sure what prompted the legislature to include a clause in S1685 that would require the Home Inspection Advisory Committee to report to them on a yearly basis to advise them of problems and issues that have surfaced with the licensing process.
Although ASHI's position was that this was unnecessary (notice how ASHI is speaking for a State Committee) since it would impose too much "hardship" on the Committee members, clearly there is, at the very least, a major processing problem that needs to be addressed.
The legislature observed that despite this problem, ASHI and the Committee still opposed any extension of the grandfather date, even though the deadline for licensing was only a few months away.
Clearly the Home Inspection Advisory Committee as well as their ASHI spokesman were perfectly satisfied with the fact that only 80 of so licenses had been issue out of 200 applications in almost one year, in a state with over 1,000 practicing Home Inspectors. This, unto itself, speaks volumes with regard to both their priorities as well as their utter lack of concern for the plight of the consumer.
Clearly even the Senate did not agree that the current situation was acceptable, which is why they elected to extend the grandfather date, inclusive of the alternate path for licensure.
This now leads us to the biggest nut yet to be cracked, and that is the issue of training. Assemblyman Imprevedutos' version of S1685 would have taken the control of the training of aspiring Home Inspectors, out of the sole control of their competition, and put that control under the auspices of an accredited educational institution. Absent this change, there is no proviso by which an aspiring Home Inspector can be assured that he will be able to obtain the training required for licensure. Therefore, as this point in time in the State of New Jersey, one can pass the EBPHI with a perfect score, spend close to $7,000 for the Carson & Dunlop course and textbooks, obtain E&O insurance in the amount of $500,000, but STILL not be eligible for licensure, UNLESS the competition deigns to provide the "50 training inspections", at a cost and method that is entirely of their choosing.
Even then, an aspiring Home Inspector is STILL not eligible for licensure even as an "Associate Home Inspector", unless his competition is willing to hire him for at a least one year; if within that year his "employer" does not provide him with the opportunity to complete 250 inspections, he must continue with that employer until that requirement is fulfilled, and hope that his employer does not let him go after inspection #249, leaving him unemployed, and still unable to perform Home Inspections on his own.
ASHI has apparently had some measure of success in bamboozling the NJ Senate into believing that the 250 inspections performed as an "Associate Home Inspector", while in their employ constitutes "training".
However, in reality, by law, the licensed Home Inspector needs only to sign the report, having never seen the house that the "Associate" inspected, which as everyone except the NJ Senators apparently knows, involves no training at all.
The extension of the grandfather date has only touched the tip of the iceberg. In no way has it served to offset the clear and present ASHI danger of ASHI being provided with the ability to control the entire Home Inspection profession through legislation; however, ASHI will only be successful in this endeavor if the industry hands that power to them through denial.


Originally Posted By: Michael Del Greco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



What do you mean by “removal of the Statute/Chapter Law loophole”?


If there are 800 or so home inspectors in the state and only 200 qualify for a home inspectors license, may be that is the problem. There are too many unqualified people out there misrepresenting themselves to the public as experienced home inspectors.

It is insane to lower the standards to allow people without field experience to become licensed.

By the way, for eleven moths I have been offering to provide free ride alongs on home inspections to any person in the state classes that wanted one. I gave 4 ridealongs away. Last week I started charging a nominal fee and have been a mentor 8 ridealongs this week.

I teach the classes and have no problem at all with there being more qualified inspectors out there, I have a problem with UNqualified inspectors!

If the state lowers the bar enough for you to get a license is that low enough or should it be lower still?


--
Michael Del Greco -Opinions expressed in this document are my own. I do not represent the Home Inspection Advisory Committee, The Division of Consumer Affairs, Office of the Attorney General or any other agency of state government.

Originally Posted By: jremas
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I knew I could not hold out too long on this so here are my thoughts on part of this problem:


No matter what job you are in, there will always be incompetent people, mediocre people, average people and above average people. It does not matter what job you have. We have crappy doctors, lawyers and home inspectors. We also have great doctors, lawyers and home inspectors. Just because someone went to school for 10 years, passed a series of test and worked as a resident does not make them a good doctor when they are released out of their own. Same thing with home inspectors. I don’t care if you have been doing home inspections since time began. It does not mean you are good at it. Although there is no substitute for experience, it is often not enough. Thorough training and experience will help but never guarantee a good home inspector. Many people do not have the personality and get by with the minimums or become lazy and complacent. There should be some sort of minimum requirements, but not unreachable goals to protect those who are already established.


I would guess that out there somewhere there are a few inspectors who started off a long, long time ago with ZERO experience, ZERO training and ZERO insurance. Worked themselves through the tough times and eventually established a successful business with no help from any home inspection organization. Now along comes a home inspection organization, they join and years later they are one of the most experienced out there. All of the sudden, they find themselves battling for legislation to improve the industry standards that they themselves never followed or even knew existed. This industry is becoming regulated more and more. The opportunity to start a business is getting harder and harder. The "bar" is being raised higher than it ever was before and more roadblocks are in the way of those who want to start their career. We have schools that cost thousands of dollars, we have all kinds of testing and now more hoops to jump through. I guess what was good enough for the old timer is not good enough for the new guy/girl because they are a threat. Don't forget where a lot of you came from and how you started. Many of you out there started when the only thing you needed to be a home inspector were business cards and an ink pen. Others may have worked for someone else then decided to go out on your own. HOW MANY of you would be able to go back in time and start your business all over again under the proposed legislation, no matter what state you are in?? I wonder.

Do we need some sort of regulation? I think yes. Do we need a monopoly to run the business? I think not. Do we live in the land of opportunity? Yes! All organizations have a standards of practice for their inspectors to follow. Those who follow them and do thorough inspections are serving their clients well. Those who do not and do not know what they are doing will not be in business very long. The ingrates will weed themselves out. Some will find out that they are not cut out for this business and leave. There is a difference between setting a standard for an industry and attempting to monopolize it.

There are plenty of inspectors with a lot of initials after their names who belong to big and multiple organizations, have been around for a long time, but are in the back pocket of real estate agents. Those inspectors who soften reports, try to never "kill a deal", and just go through the motions. This might just be a reason they are referred by selling agents so much. No matter what type of experience, training or credentials you may carry, they mean nothing if your work performance and ethics are not enforced on a daily level. There is a lot more that goes on inside this industry that the public does not know about and most will never admit too.

I don't have all the answers, don't claim to have them, I am not an expert but I do have an opinion. A good one I might add. All organizations need to work together to improve the quality of the inspection process and help the home inspector to succeed. There is turnover in all businesses and employment. Competition keeps you on your toes. How nice it would be if I could just sit back and charge whatever I wanted and work whenever I wanted just because I was the only game in town. Get realistic!


--


Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com

570-362-1598

Originally Posted By: Lorraine Hutton
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jeff,


Your response was extremely eloquent and very well thought out.
This is indeed the problem in a nutshell, with licensing and/or training, that all Home Inspectors are NOT created equal. The Home Inspectors in NJ who will be grandfathered do not have to prove competency in any shape, matter or form other than passing the EBPHI. Some of these individuals are indeed highly competent; others should be ashamed to call themselves Home Inspectors, and we have a number of reports written by various Home Inspectors that would prove this disparity. However, regardless of competency and/or ethics, as long as one has a grandfather license, one can "train". Now, as you realize, with that being a given, there is no "bar" at all, low or high, since there is no way to know if the training being given is good, bad or indifferent in any manner. Interestingly enough, ASHI as an organization concurs with this analysis, as evidenced by the following information found on their website, under "education":

"Some individual inspectors offer to train would-be professionals, charging as much as $10,000. Other training is not only far more cost effective, training with some of these costly individuals risks being mis-trained by someone who may not even be a top performer in the profession."

In addition, I believe that the ASHI Legislative Guide describes such training as "riff-raff producing more riff-raff"; if ASHI had taken their own advice, S1685 would indeed have passed the Senate, and "field training" would be conducted under the auspices of an accredited educational institution, not at the whim of just any Home Inspector with a license, that may, or may not be qualified, or ethical.


Michael,

Apparently you are unfamilar with the loophole in the law that inadveredently allows state sanctioned unlicensed practice; please conduct bit of research in order to become more conversant in the details of the law, the promulgated rules as well as the proposed version of S1685 that was scuttled at the 11th hour on 3/20/03.
In addition, consider the following:
The "800 or so" Home Inspectors in the state appears to be a low ball estimate.
If one conducts a search using either Verizon SuperPages.com or Switchboard.com, the number that appears is between 800 to 900.
If you consider that not ALL Home Inspectors advertise in the Yellow Pages or business listings, it is apparent that the count would be even higher than the numbers that appear on a web search. In addition, many of those firms are multi-inspection firms, and therefore acount for multiple Home Inspectors per listing. When one takes all of the facts into consideration, it is easy to see how the Home Inspection Advisory Committee sent out 1500 applications by request for licensure under the grandfather provision.
Of course, there is no way to know at this point in time HOW many Home Inspectors qualify for licensure, since out of those 1500 applications, only 200 or so have been recieved; and also as of last week, only 70 or so had been approved...since June of 2002.
It is commendable of you to offer "free" ride-alongs. However, perhaps you could clarify a particular issue. Pete Engle, VP of the Garden State Chapter of ASHI, of which I believe that you are indeed a member, vocally championed this "ride-along program" for quite some time now, almost a year, telling all, including the Legislature on 1/9/03, exactly how it would be executed.
However, on 1/29/03, he wrote a letter to the Home Inspection Advisory Committe indicating that he did not know how to execute "training", asking them to define the word "performed". In this correspondence, he clearly indicated that he did not know how to train and also meet the requirements of the law and regulations. There were also some questions regarding Workers Compensation implications, especially in relation to how it would affect the homeowner. Can you tell us if indeed these issues have been rectified, since you are now training?
In addition since you are now charging for your "ride-alongs" can you explain to us how this does not defy ASHI Code of Ethics #6?
You mention that you "teach the classes". Perhaps you can educate all those here on exactly how this course is taught. Do you posess any certifications or education documenting the fact that you have been trained to instruct, as you state that Home Inspectors must be trained to perform their duties in order to not "lower the bar"?
Did you first instruct while being directly supervised for the first 50 classes by a licensed educator to make certain that the bar was not being lowered in the field of classroom instruction?
Does your course include the 7,000 power-point hands-on component?
If so, do you not agree with both ASHI and Carson & Dunlop that this "hands-on component" is the better alternative than being trained by a Home Inspector who is not the "top performer" in his profession?
Michael, I am not implying that you are a poor instructor, or a poor Home Inspector, or poor at training aspiring Home Inspectors. You may indeed be at the top of the game in all of your endeavors. However, the point is, there is no requirement for you to be the top performer, nor any criteria by which to judge this fact.
Therefore, how can you assure the consumer and the Legislature, that the training given to an aspiring Home Inspector means anything at all? I believe that if you give this some serious though that you will most certainly agree that a bar can't be lowered that does not exist.


Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I would be in favor of a law that stated that only people named Russel Kirk were qualified to be home inspectors. I could be rich doing all the home inspections or trademarking my name and leasing it to people. I think I shall work on that.


Originally Posted By: gbell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Russel,


Welcome to Nachi. Did you forget which board you were on. That sounds like a message for the ASHI board. LOL


Since you have your juices running think about joining or legislative action committee. The west coast is open.


--
Greg Bell
Bell Inspection Service

Originally Posted By: rray
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Let me have a few days to see where I might be able to contribute. I still have company goals that must be met before I can spend too much time being politically active.



Home inspections. . . .


One home at a time.


Originally Posted By: gbeaumont
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi Russel,


I think you know what you’re doing so I’ll buy the next franchise. icon_lol.gif



Gerry Beaumont


NACHI Education Committee


e-mail : education@nachi.org


NACHI phone 484-429-5466


Inspection Depot Education
gbeaumont@inspectiondepot.com

"Education is a journey, not a destination"