Hey everyone. I just read this news report from Vancouver BC regarding what they term as dual agency by a home inspector. I am currently completing the code of ethics course through Internachi.
Would this be considered a conflict of interest or just a smart marketing tactic?
Also does this happen in the U.S ?
Brother David Asselin is a member here. A good guy!
I don’t see anything underhanded.
The association that complained (he’s not a member) most likely have members that are losing work to him so they try to destroy him, all about the $$.
Asselin is taking work away from legitimate inspectors who would be working on behalf of the buyers to discover and report the important defects that will cost the buyers money or be a safety hazard to them.
David, please check with HIABC, they need more people that doesn’t understand the how pre-listing inspections work. We encourage the buyers all the way to get their own inspection. What the idiots did is they tried to make it sound like a pre-listing is there to protect the buyers. It’s a whole bunch of bitches who can compete and tried to make me look bad when in really I got about 50k worth of TV advertising if not more.
Carson Dunlop who train all of HIABC members have been pushing on-site review for buyers of houses they have pre-inspected. They have been doing this for years and it’s not problem. https://www.carsondunlop.com/inspection/services/sellers-home-inspection/
You are making yourself appear to be working on behalf of the seller, David, simply by admitting that you stack the report with “good features” at the start and bury (or downplay) the defects at the end of the report.
Yes i took the Carson Dunlop program and they recommend a pre listing inspection. My question for David is who pays for the report ?
Just trying to wrap my head around this. Who hires you to complete the pre-listing inspection and report?
.The report is prepared for the seller. The buyer is encourage the whole way to get their own inspection, if they don’t it’s there problem. We report on the deficiencies and positive items. Everything is on the report. I got tired of seeing buyers getting all stressed out about missing junction box covers. I want them to be able to balance the negative with the positive. I picked my clan, you picked yours.
Just join the pre-listing inspection group on facebook, all the info is there including marketing documents.
Thanks for the info.
I don’t see a very good command of the English language in your communications here. Someone else must be handling your publicity stunt. Good luck.
Seems to me that trying to bury the negative problems a home has underneath the good things is more trying to protect the seller in making a sale, and really sucking up to the realtors. Additionally, for anyone that downloads a report, you automatically share all of their private/personal information that they input in order to download a report. Also, the pre-inspected sign on the lawn thing to download the report will deter a lot of buyers from actually hiring a professional inspector to do an inspection, which you state in the video that buyers will skip their own home inspection 75 % of the time, if they see a pre-inspection has been conducted. I can see the pre-inspected thing taking the good out of it for other inspectors, who may have been hired to do additional inspections on a same property. It will be interesting to see what comes out of all of this.
I’m sure you know how a home inspection report look like, we have the positive in a section at the top, you scroll down a bit or change page if you printed, then you get the regular report with deficiencies for each system. The realtor is our target market, our customer, the client when doing pre-listings. No home seller info is available. The pre-listing inspection industry wasn’t created to give buyer inspector more work, it is design to give the company that specializes in pre-listing inspection the job before any body else.
You are giving out the private/personal information of anyone who is downloading your reports, correct? You are overloading the report with positive at the top, to downplay the negative at the bottom, correct? I don’t stack reports with how pretty/positive a home is at the top, and try to downplay the negative by putting it toward the bottom, that’s not my style. I can see why things are under fire. Like I said, it’ll be interesting to see how this thing goes. Good luck!
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would you want your mother, father, brother or sister (or any relative or friend) treated this way? What is the purpose of a property inspection?
“ 1.1. A home inspection is a non-invasive, visual examination of the accessible areas of a residential property (as delineated below), performed for a fee, which is designed to identify defects within specific systems and components defined by these ‘Standards’ that are both observed and deemed material by the inspector.”
So, would you say that the main purpose of a home inspection is to give you the information needed to make an informed decision on the purchase? How would you like that information presented to you or your mother or father or any relative or friend?
According to the SOP the purpose is not to highlight the positive points.
The InterNACHI Code of Ethics requires that a Home Inspector be an impartial judge of the home’s condition.
I don’t see how an inspector can maintain a position as an impartial judge if his/her financial compensation depends on the sale of the home. A Home Inspector performing a thorough and impartial inspection and report should be paid for services rendered, whether the home ultimately sells or not.
Keep on moving forward David.
What most don’t realize is you were not the first to market this valuable service…
I wonder who it was? ., . 
If it were entirely legitimate and bulletproof, this would be the standard for home inspections by now. Instead, it is a head-scratching anomaly that raises many questions and invites corruption of the Home Inspection industry.
In this age of Buy a Piece of Crap, Put Lipstick on It, and Flip It, there needs to be incentive for MORE due diligence- not LESS due diligence.