Letter to all inspectors from Porch.com's CEO.

I do not know enough about this situation to accurately comment on what my view point is. I have not studied either sides opinion or looked into the statements made on any site.

That being said I am positive that each one of us, as I have seen in the past would attempt to defend our company name against a client making negative comments.

Is Thornberry response as a civil suit excessive? It may very well be, Again I do not know each example or conversation neither do you.

I believe that Mr Cavanaugh believes that the service was not in the best interest of his business; however it also appears that a common complaint among those who do not use the services has appeared. Mr. Cavanaugh knows of at least 4 of his 10 submissions used the concierge service making RWS a Nice Lump of Money.
Could there be some bitterness in feeling possibility that RWS made more money from the client that Mr Cavanaugh made from the inspection. We dont know.

Based on screeshots provided in the post I do see that allegedly Mr Cavanaugh was picking who to submit for the RWS services and not submitting all of his inspections as per the contract agreement.
at least 40% of his submitted clients utilized the services, and 10% filed a successful claim. Again we do not have proof that the claim was successful.

If there were indeed more claim attempts filed and those clients happened to not be part of the RWS service then they would rightfully be denied. Again we do not know those numbers.

In summary I can say from my own experience.

I have been using RWS for close to 3 years. I stopped using the service around 1.5 years ago but i did not close my account I simply stopped submitting.
RWS contacted me a couple of times to see why the submissions stopped or if there was anything that they could do to assist me. I informed them that I was taking a redesign approach of my business and working out some areas. I did not want to complicate things with added services and would be in contact when I was ready to move forward.
There were no threats or lawsuits just a simple Let us know when you are ready to get started again.

I have had 1 client during that time attempt to submit a claim to RWS based on information found on my site. RWS responded to the client went over the report with them and calmed the client down.
RWS also contacted me to follow up informing me that someone was trying to file a claim and asked if I needed any assistance.

I do not recall any of my clients that have seen active to the RWS programs submitting claims.
I do not know if any have ever used the Concierge services.
I do not know if any have ever had an alarm system installed.
I have never received a complaint about a third party contacting my clients.

In any of these programs there is usually an option of

  1. $$ kickback per alarm sale
  2. Discount on alarm intall to the client
  3. reduced pricing on inspectors cost
  4. Money back to the client.

I always choose the discount or money to the client rather than profit to myself.
These in my mind are an added service to my client not a revenue source for myself.

I think some inspectors are too obsessed with who is making more money that providing services.

In response to Mr. Cavanaughs current warranty offering there are state rules that outline a warranty or guarantee. I hope that those rules are being adhered to.

Maybe you should visit the members benefits page, scroll to the bottom and see what membership benefits your are supposed to be disseminating and publicizing. Take a lexapro or prozac first.

Interesting point of view and input. Thanks.

Obviously you are clueless as to the definition of ‘third party’ the ‘agents’ of both the buyer & seller are principals to the sales contract and you are releasing to them data which they already possess. :roll:

Let’s try and stay on topic. :mrgreen:

The agent is a third party to the relationship between myself and my client.
How do they possibly already have access to my inspection report prior to my release?
Try again

Nor have you taken the time to review and learn about the lawsuit filed by one of the businesses that bought the private information from the same lead broker that you provided for sale. Am I wrong to infer that you are selective in what you are choosing to know about lead brokers and their operations … or are you just too busy to read into these matters?

I ask this since you do appear to be interested enough in the topic to read this lengthy thread and respond to some of the posts.

In all honesty my interest in this post has nothing to do with the topic of the post.

I browse through many posts on the forums what I have found here irritated me to the point of responding otherwise I am normally quiet and just observe.

Each of you that has posted here feel strongly about your positions for or against the topic. I appreciate that.
My irritation came from the widely blanketed statements and blatant name calling of other professionals in this organization. I may have slipped a couple of pokes in here, if I have I apologize.

Unless you know every single inspector that chose to participate in any vendor program, and know how their business or interactions with their clients work then it seems very inappropriate to widely claim that everyone involved is a (Thief, Liar, Scam, Scum, bottom feeder, …)

The professionals in these forums that have a voice against these vendors and programs I believe can and should be able to act in a professional manner and find a better way to fight against the “invasion”

I have seen the post regarding the class action suit that you have attached your name to and hope the best for you if that is the direction you choose to take. I think that is a much cleaner approach that bashing and degrading our fellow membership.

As you have touched on the subject many of the inspectors that are signed on with the vendors are just trying to make a business run, they may have no idea about some of the past or current issues involved with these industries. Your cause can be better served through assistance of education rather than verbal abuse of ones character or business practices.

There was recently a thread started by a new inspector asking for assistance. I did not see one of you post to offer your view point and point him in the direction that you feel is correct.

Nick, I was still waiting on answers to these last questions. I reposted them just for you incase you happened to miss them sir.

Jim

  1. Yes.
  2. I don’t understand the question.

OK so you answered Yes to the question "1. Do you think it is possible to comply with this section (See Below) of your COE, in just 1 or 2 sentences ? "

Next you said you don’t understand this simple question, “2. Do you consider a person who reads an agreement online and checks a box confirming that they read the agreement as fully marring the meaning of them giving their: “Explicit Prior WEITTEN Consent””

So based on the above I now have 2 more simple questions for you please.

1. Please give us a Detailed examples in no more than 2 sentences of how an inspector can Release their clients information to a 3rd party and still 100% comply with your COE ???

2. Do you consider someone who simply checks a little “I have read the agreement” check box on a legal contract as completely fulfilling the implied meaning of them giving their: “Explicit Prior WEITTEN Consent” ??

(see COE section 7, a&b below)

"7 a. the client has been made explicitly aware of what information will be released, to whom, and for what purpose, and;

b. the client has provided explicit, prior written consent for the release of his/her information."

*Thank you once again *

Jim

  1. CLIENT agrees that INSPECTOR is trading private information about the CLIENT in return for discounts on crap from XYZ Company that then re-sells CLIENT’s private information to other companies who will contact CLIENT and attempt to sell CLIENT services and products like alarm systems.

  2. No. It means they checked a box saying they read the agreement. I don’t know what your hypothetical agreement says or does.

Nick,

  1. If an inspector is getting a reduced price or a free product for getting a buyer to release their information, would that not be considered bartering under the IRS regs and taxes would be need to be paid by the inspector on the value of that barter?

Now that was funny! :smiley:

Perfect !!! So we finally agree, the client just checked a little box, but did Not give there Explicit, Written Prior Consent to have there information sold on the open 3rd party market.

Thanks for finally stopping the loop of semantics and word play. I new you would get there eventually

Thanks Nick,

Jim

No. You don’t pay an additional tax on discounts because that gain is already realized in your bottom line which is taxed.

if this or similar verbiage to it, is added to a inspection agreement regardless of placement in the agreement (top, middle, bottom) as a stand alone clause or blended into an existing clause

  1. In your opinion when a client signs that agreement have they been substantially given proper notification allowing the inspector to claim, Explicit Prior Written Consent in relation to the COE requirements?
  1. Yes.

I have been using Porch for about 6 months. My concern when starting with them was they would become a Home Advisor type of company harassing my clients. I also added myself as a client and observed their actions. The Porch advisor assured me they did not do business that way, however I recently got a review stating that they were inundated by emails and calls even after asking to be removed as they were no longer looking for a home. The benefits of ISN being paid by Porch is not worth a bad review. We are always looking for ways to add value to our customers, Porch could have been a benefit if they could have just given the offer my clients and allowed them to select the services they need. As a result I deactivated my Porch account and manually opted out my clients.