Our anonymous consumer poster from BC once again has asked me to offer the following:
“Just passing an on-line examination does not make anyone a Home Inspector.”
So much is self-evident.
However, had I paid the NACHI fee, it would have allowed me to claim NACHI status.
Surely even you can see how such certification is thus immediately de-valued.
“We have heard this argument from numerous sources over the years.”
However many times you may have heard it, does this automatically make my simple point invalid?
“Practical experience and doing the job provide the best training there is.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
Quite clearly, this must be why such qualifications are core to BC’s impending licensing requirements.
“being “licenced” does not make someone a good Home Inspector, Doctor, electrician, plumber or what have you”
But it does indisputably erect a minimal level of competence to a far higher degree than that expected by NACHI.
In response to James H. Bushart:
“When you seek an attorney for his professional services, is the fact that he is “licensed” serve to suffice your entire interest in his background?”
Certainly not.
“a “license” reflects, simply, an entry level of skill”
Are you suggesting that this entry level under BC’s new licensing regime is inadequate while that of NACHI is exemplary ? Surely not.
“The 16 year old driver can be “licensed”, but you would hardly expect to see him driving your ambulance, would you?”
I am unpersuaded by the obvious poverty of your metaphor.
If I was in desparate need to get to a hospital and required an ambulance, your age criterion would be perhaps far from my mind. In such sorry circumstances, my understandable tendency would be to trust in the entry level requirements for one to become an ambulance driver in the first place. Maybe it is different in Missouri, but the likelihood of being allowed to perform that function at the tender age of 16 lacks credibility.
“Licensing “dumbs down” the process."
Now anyone with any kind of a background (short order cook, gas station attendant, housewife, etc.) can use the licensing checklist to obtain simply the minimum required by the state…and suddenly become "licensed””
This is arrant nonsense.
“people like you who take it to mean a satisfactorily demonstrated level of competency ---- can be more easily fooled.”
Please do not take me as a fool, sir.
“use your time as an advocate to oppose licensing in your jurisdiction”
Why on earth would any sane consumer contemplate such a course of action?
Indeed, you do take me for a fool.
“Keep home inspectors professionally accountable and independent”
That is my very wish.
And with BC’s licensing requirements there is a greater chance of achieving both.
Without it, at present, there is no accountability, and industry practices thus far have mitigated solidly against independence. Licensing explicitly and effectively addresses these issues.
Please consider Mr Lawrenson’s subsequent responses to your posts.
“misled consumers … conclude that the license is their means of identifying equally qualified and competent home inspectors”
Do we?
Perhaps it is so.
I certainly know of numerous cases where consumers have been misled to their great detriment and cost by trusting the assertions of professional competence where there is no minimum standard.
At least, with licensing, we will have recourse other than costly litigation.
“Study any and all states in our country that are plagued with licensing bills and compare the average fee (not the BS you hear on the message board, either) to the selling price of the house.”
With the greatest of respect, British Columbia is not part of your country.
“The study that was actually done by a state Real Estate Commission looking for a reason to push a licensing bill…that concluded that licensing solves nothing.”
Are you seriously suggesting that the Real Estate industry is a disinterested party?
Their demonstrable collusion with inspectors has been detrimental to client interests and is central to the ‘conflict of interest’ principles at the core of this legislation.
Clearly, the transparent disregard for client interests evidenced by Messrs Cossar and Bushart contributes only to the justifiedly poor perception of the Home Inspection industry on the part of consumers which has served to fuel our demand for licensing.
It must be a tough challenge indeed for responsible and reasonable practitioners like Mr McKenna to restore our faith in the concept of professional standards.