The illogic behind a government solution to the Canadian argument is this…
What will you do when the government appoints a David Bottoms-like (or similar) representative to run your HI Board? And now, instead of being simply a pain in the keester, his word has the backing of law with the threat of shutting down your entire business. Over the course of time, it is destined to happen and there is nothing you can do…once the law is in effect…to change it.
But then, this is not a Canadian thread…there are more issues on the table than the Canadian desire for government control over their lives.
here are my thoughts on licensing, and before I start I am happy to admit that I have flip-flopped on this issue over the last few years, and I do still find myself left with something of a paradox.
Firstly lets look at who wants licensing and why:
Home inspectors: These appear to fall into 2 camps, those who genuinely believe that our business is under-performing and causing problems, and those who see it as a way to protect their own businesses by limiting competition.
Real Estate Community: Again seem to fall into variou camps, those who believe we are poorly trained “deal killers” who are incompetent feel that we need licensing to protect their clients, and those who see licensing as a way of mandating insurance requirements as a way of limiting or passing on a portion of their own liability.
Builders/Developers: I have never understood really why they even have a dog in this race as the % of inspections that are done related to new construction is minute, I can see that if they wished to employ us to help with their own QA that they would require inspectors to have attained code certifications, but that is outside of the scope of what most inspectors do/want to do. asthey own the property up to closing our involvement is their choice.
Financial Institutions: Other than some small interests these entities do not use our services for anything other than basic assett verification, which has always surprised me as arguably they have the most at stake. I have never yet heard of these groups lobbying for regulation of our industry.
Consumer Groups: Again I am not aware of any regional or national consumer group pushing for legislation of our business, which strongly suggests that they are not recieving complaints over inspections.
Legislators: I am not aware of any State that has looked into licensing based on complaints recieved from a disgruntled public, if anyone knows of one I would be pleased to hear of it.
So if the above can be held to be accurate (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) lets look at the pro & cons of licensing from the same interest groups.
Home Inspectors: With only 1 exeption that I am aware of licensing has expanded the number of home inspectors in any given area increasing competition and reducing pricing (this arguement is also supported by research done by Ms Swanby on behalf of ASHI). licensing has proven to be a conciderable leveller when all HI’s are required to maintain the same level of percieved competance under licensing.
Real Estate Community: Their own figures do not show that licensing has improoved either the reality or their perception of Home inspector quality (see the Ohio study, with 65% of agents citing inadeqaute reports in 10% or less of transactions in both licensed and unlicensed states, and 70% of agents reporting no difference in later reported problems missed by the home inspector) Yet 80% of agents in licensed states percieve that licensing has been beneficial. WHY??
Builder/Developers: No data exists that I am aware of that gives this community any opinion about our industry in either licensed or unlicensed states, nor is there any data that supprts that licensed HI’s do more new construction inspection in licensed states than others, as I asked above I don’t know why (other than to voice an opinion they are even interested)
Financial Institutions: Again ther is no data that I can find anywhere that shows that the banking or insurance markets benefit from licensing.
Consumer Groups: Againno know data from public interest groups, although funnily enough several of these groups are advocates for all homes to be inspected by our industry regardless of being in licensed or unlicensed states, particlulary when dealing with complaints against the construction industry (does anyone see a corrolation here?)
Legislators: here is the big one there is no data that I can find from any state or licensing body anywhere that shows either that licensing was required to protect the public interest, or that having enacted licensing that the standards of inspection improved.
On the last comment here is an interesting statistic from TREC (the oldest regulated state) in 2005 roughly 300,000 residential properties changed hands yet the commision only deal with (or took action against) 8 home inspectors.
Given that we believe that we have around 85% market penetration of “used” homes, and at best 10% of new homes are inspected the % of complaints is inconsequential. If on average we get to inspet 50% of all property that equates to 0.0005% which is statistically nonsense.
Now here is my paradox, I do fundamentally believe that all potential home inspectors should be required to demonstrate a minimum level of competance before hanging out their shingle, and if they are unable to do so then they should be required to complete sufficient Primary education to ensure that they meet that standard of minimum competence, I also believe that continuing education is a great benefit to all inspectors and in the best interests of the general public.
As Joe F stated in another thread, all of the above can be achieved through regulation rather than licensing (which has a huge associated cost ($650,000 in FL)) Should it be proven that there is a problem under say 3 years of regulation then by all means write a full licensing act to address those issues.
Gerry,
as usual coming from you, that is a great post!
the part of your paradox that I will add to is relative to not being
competent, I say if the inspector is not, they will not stay in
business.
I do believe that at least 80% of all initiation of licensing stems from
the competition for power between professional organizations, and has
nothing to do with protecting the consumer.
Never a truer statement made. Consumer protection is always an easy sell to legislators who wish to look good in the eyes of their constituents. Perhaps on some levels, some entring the business after licensing may appear to be more qualified, but the truth is never known until the inspector actually has to impart his knowledge in the field. The inspectors in my area that are licensed operate the same way they did prior to licensing.
Gerry’s comments on licensing are right on target.
But James that is exactly what appears to be the case. Mr. Bottoms is at the helm and being abetted by some in the membership and by all appearances the BOD. This is what happens without outside oversite.
It is happening in Ontario and I am the poster boy.
Reality is the public is lead to believe that licenced is an assurance that someone is qualified et cetera.
I believe the Ohio study quoted showed that a larger percentage of homes get inspected in Licensed states. PRO
The Ohio study also pointed out that there was no way to know exactly how many Home Inspectors there are in states with out licensing as there is no way to track that which is not tracked. :neutral: Hmmmm, so for anyone to say the number of HI’s increased is just making that up.
The inspectors answering the questionnaire in the Ohio study thought the NACHI online test was not too good. Not relevant to this discussion, but amusing nonetheless.
Licensing makes HI associations less relevant.
Non licensing also has nothing to do with protecting the consumer;)
you know what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics
Interestingly 55% of the real estate community in none licensed states believe that inspections protect them, whereas in licensed states that jumps to 67%. Cause or effect?
I live in a non-licensed state in a rural area. HI associations are not relevant in my neck of the woods. I joined more for the BB and the online classes, which were very good.
I thought some states required membership in an association. Wouldn’t that make them more relevant? (I may have that requirement wrong)
Gerry,
I know that you were asking Brian, and I hope I’m not out of line for answering…but I’ll say effect. A state license certainly adds clout to the inspector. As long as the inspector is careful to inspect to the state SOP, then I think everyone would feel their interest is protected.
I would have found the poll to be a bit more interesting had they asked the consumers of home inspection services whether they believed they are better protected by licensed h.i.'s. Did the poll you refer to have any information along that line?
Thanks,
Troy
How the questions are asked and worded are very important. We have become a nation run and manipulated by “polls”. Poll questions are often couched in such a manner in order to skew the answers in the direction desired. For example; ask a home inspection customer what would they rather have, a home inspector that is licensed or one that is trained and certified? See what I mean? One would automatically assume that one licensed would naturally be trained but very well may be there are many inspectors who are currently licensed and have never been trained or tested. Keep in mind, I am not arguing that point. I am pointing out not to put too much emphasis on Polls or questionnaires. All one has to do is look no further than this BB to see how polls or opinions can be skewed by the manner in how the poll is conducted. Often we see responses from individuals who say, “I didn’t see any answer that reflects my opinion, so I voted…”
I keep hearing a lot of people saying…licensing lends credibility to the inspector. That is because we have been taught as a society to think licensing came with some kind of assurances or guarantee of competence. We now know that not to be true. We, as inspectors see the kind of work done by contractors and sub contractors every day. I did some research a couple of years ago about consumer complaints. The number one position for complaints, at the time and for five years straight, was building contractors. Other years they were in the top five. The credibility they speak of is a perception, but a false one. Someone can get licensed, go get the “hours” of CEUs and never learn another thing for their entire careers. You can take the same BS basic courses year after year. Its the same in most “professions”. They “go through the motions” of maintaining professional proficiency but in reality it is not so.
Licensing works for many trades as you know,IMO it keeps handyman from bidding on any job that requires a permit[electrical,plumbing,hvac] It just might keep unsuspecting consumers from hiring a HI that has no credentials or knowledge about the “building envelope” if the licensing requirements are enforced and are stringent. I say this because as it is now in Canada anybody can print business cards and call themselfs a HI. Licensing or regulation might * change all this and weed out the fly by night HI. These are the guys that give professional HI’s the bad rap. Time for them to go.
</IMG>*
PRO
