Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
ekartal wrote:
Basic minimum standard perhaps. But I can assure you that the NHIE is a much tougher exam than the NACHI quiz.
Erol Kartal
Not here to debate that with you. Minimum standards are minimum standards. People who meet them are proven to be merely "minimally" qualified, in either case. Big deal.
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
(1) In all but 1 or 2 states, once licensing of home inspectors came in to that state, the numbers of home inspectors doubles, tripled or more.
(2) A few weak sisters may have fallen by the wayside due to testing or other requirements - but in general, we see the same dumb A$$holes after licensing that we saw before. We see the same sleezebags after that we saw before. We see the same 1 hour, don't make any wave home inspectors afterwards that we saw before.
(3) As Jim B. pointed out with the examples in NJ and MASS, there's been a lot of political BS going on's in many states, and some of the biggest HI offenders end up being the ruling class on the HI's Boards.
(4) Even in well populated states, there are so few home inspectors compared to most other regulated professions - that once HI's get licensed it seems that almost every other group with more people and more political clout, and more money (which is just about everyone - builders, realtors, other trades, etc) start trying to change the laws.
(5) I carry licenses in half a dozen occupations and the only one that I fear is when licensing of HI's eventually comes to my area.
Originally Posted By: ekartal This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
That’s why I’ve always pushed for the NACHI exam to be proctored. That would make NACHI the only association with a verifiable pre-requisite to joining. In my honest two bit opinion that would be a HUGE boost for NACHI’s credibility. Uh Oh I’m thread drifting…
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Interestingly enough, Phil H. just reported on another thread how New Jersey had to revise their law- today - after only 1 (you read that right) person was able to become licensed in the whole state under the old law. His (the one licensed inspector) dad owned a HI business (go figure).
Originally Posted By: rcooke This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jbushart wrote:
Interestingly enough, Phil H. just reported on another thread how New Jersey had to revise their law- today - after only 1 (you read that right) person was able to become licensed in the whole state under the old law. His (the one licensed inspector) dad owned a HI business (go figure).
Licensing is a joke.
James
Please tell us what you feel would be the best way to go .
Originally Posted By: ekartal This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Home Inspection is suppose to be a profession. Not a trade or a thing you just do because your buddy does it. Most if not all professions require that you be licensed.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Roy,
I believe that regulation is a good thing, meaning that a law that could hold all home inspectors accountable to a basic standard is necessary. To qualify, an interested party would register with the state.
A basic entry level exam with continuing education requirements would ensure that there was an acceptable starting point for all who hung their shingle out for business. After that, the market would decide who stayed in business and who would not.
No politics. No interpretations. No favoritism. No grandfathering.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
ekartal wrote:
Jim,
That's exactly what I've been saying for the last hour. 
Erol Kartal
ProInspect
With some embellishment, maybe. Your first post said that licensing is good because it provides a relatively challenging test. Licensing is not the only method of requiring a test and "challenging" is in the eye of the taker.
While Illinois throws in a few other hurdles (60 hour course before test, licensing fees, etc) they are pretty close to what you and I would agree upon.
But in Florida, there are those (most of their posts have been deleted, but I have a few) who argued for licensing and strict standards as a method of thinning out competition and increasing their fees. Somewhere in all that they would, now and then, throw in their concern for the consumer, as well, but no consumers in Florida were really complaining. There are folks like that in PA, as well, and in a few other states. They are the people pushing this agenda and finding their way on the Licensing Boards.
Originally Posted By: rwand This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Dan, I think you hit the nail on the head, but like Roy I would like to know what the alternative is. And James what do you suggest as an alternative? What is fair and equitable.
Either way it seems no one will or can win. When are members going to ensure their rights are protected from special interests. It seems large inspection companies have much sway in the overall scheme of things. Hmmmm????
Originally Posted By: Jay Moge This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I live in New Hampshire and the “law makers” are submitting a bill as we speak that will mandate all home inspectors have a license to practice in this state. now there also talking about a grandfather clause that will allow all “certified” inspectors to pay a fee and get there licence without any other pre requisites. I’m personally for licensing however they do need to regulate it carefully. currently HIs in N.H. need not even be certified. I think that if they want to regulate inspectors in N.H. they need to do so with a one time test, (monitored by a national certifying board)and maybe have it so that those who hold a nationally recognized certificate be exempt from any further state testing because to keep a cert. would most likely be more difficult than a state test.
Originally Posted By: bkelly1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
To insectors who are in a state that started licensing…Did your business improve, or stay the same? I wondered if the real estate community pushed it more.
Originally Posted By: tallen This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Here in Tucson, Az our #'s went from 33 HI’s to well over 100 as of the last time I checked. I get emails 2-3 times a week from people fresh out of school looking for a job.
I am one of the newbies, but from what the veterans I have spoke with say, it has hurt their biz due to the newbies offering much lower fee's.
So, in my area licensing has hurt the established companies, not so much in the # of inspections, but the price they can charge.
-- I have put the past behind me,
where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.
Originally Posted By: tallen This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
It’s not so much the licensing as it is the many, many HI schools that have popped up since licensing was enacted.
When I went to school there were only 2 choices in AZ, now there are many more. I do not know the exact #, but it's around 6-10. And they are pumping them out as fast as possible, maybe 20-40 a month State wide.
-- I have put the past behind me,
where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Todd,
Would it be fair to surmise, from what you just posted, that in a county of 100 fully licensed and "qualified" inspectors it would then be the "lowest price" that would attract a consumer?
Originally Posted By: rcooke This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If you are fully prepared then start at the top . I have always been the inspector who charges more then any one else. I get less work better homes and make a good wage and do not work as hard.
Listen to Russel Ray. Read all his posts and you too can make good money.
Originally Posted By: tallen This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jbushart wrote:
Todd,
Would it be fair to surmise, from what you just posted, that in a county of 100 fully licensed and "qualified" inspectors it would then be the "lowest price" that would attract a consumer?
Not really James, as very few( if any) of the low priced folks have any kind of insurence to help protect the consumer and themselves.
In AZ we are only required to carry a 25,000 Bond.
-- I have put the past behind me,
where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.
Originally Posted By: tallen This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Overall the consensus is that licensing is a good thing.
The uninsured and the undertrained will not survive ( undertrained being folks that by passed the rules), but at least you know when you hire someone that they have past the State requirements. IE:
NHIE, 80 + hours of education in Home inspection, 30+ parallel inspections certified by a Qualified Inspector and this is a big one.
Can you get 30 ride alongs in MO.?
-- I have put the past behind me,
where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.
Originally Posted By: tallen This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jbushart wrote:
Todd,
Would it be fair to surmise, from what you just posted, that in a county of 100 fully licensed and "qualified" inspectors it would then be the "lowest price" that would attract a consumer?
When you shop for a service, do you take the lowest price or do you go someware in the middle?
-- I have put the past behind me,
where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
tallen wrote:
jbushart wrote:
Todd,
Would it be fair to surmise, from what you just posted, that in a county of 100 fully licensed and "qualified" inspectors it would then be the "lowest price" that would attract a consumer?
When you shop for a service, do you take the lowest price or do you go someware in the middle?
You mentioned that the lower prices being charged by newer (licensed) inspectors were hurting the business of inspectors who had been at it for a while. To me, this means that area consumers were attracted to the lower prices of the newer inspectors. Enough of them, anyway, to hurt the business of the guy who was there first.
I would think that most people who shop for a service would put "quality" first. If I were to trust the state, I would determine that "licensed" and "quality" were the same thing.
Now, I am looking at 20 quality/licensed inspectors. What would be the next filter? Your older guys have indicated it to be "price", I would say.
