Think what you want Marcel, but I suggest that is only second guessing.
Yes OAHI is part of CAHPI National, and Bill was past president of CAHPI National, not OAHI. That still does not equate to Bill supporting OAHI. OAHI speaks for OAHI and not CAHPI National.
The position stated(quoted) by Bill was reported. Simply, I am not trying to read between the lines or make something out of what Bill said, or what OAHI statements represent.
What appears to me to be the bigger issue in this article is should licensing be deemed as threat to Ontario home inspectors based on what the article suggests? Or is it perhaps just a wake up call for all home inspectors and/or associations in the province?
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong here.
Established iNACHI inspectors in BC can become NCH without too much trouble, but a new inspector with less than 150 paid inspections under his belt is SOL.
Click the link Jim…AZ has VERY strict Building Enforcement to the minimum standards of course, but some Builders are not even qualified to Build to even the basic minimum standards.
For the last 4 months I was inspecting a Concrete Tile re-roof, the AZ Registrar of Contractors where summoned by me to inspect the roof because the roofing company was arguing with me, and the owner would not pay him his $24,000.00, after the AZ Registrar of Contractors did a FREE inspection (which they always do when called), the builder was required to remove every stitch of material he installed on a 5000 sq ft house, he was there for another 2 months, re-roofing the re-roofing–:))
AZ Construction Laws, although the minimum standard, make the builders stick to those standards…or keep doing it until they get it right.
John I do not disagree, but it depends on the inspectors background assessment supplied on the application, reviewed by the National Certification Council.
Established inspectors that have 150 fee paid inspections and a verifiable background would be well positioned to become a National Certificate Holder. The 150 inspections is not the only criteria indicating knowledge, skill level and performance.
Assuming the inspector met the minimum acceptance level, the inspector Candidate would still be required to pass their TIPR - Test Inspection with Peer Review.
Claude, this is the issue I have been trying to . . . ah . . . discuss :shock: … on another message board. Can an experienced inspector who has gained the necessary knowledge through years of work experience, product manufacturer training and employer training, go directly to the test writing and peer revue level without being forced to take the " How to tie your shoes before entering your work vehicle" courses?
It seems to me and to many others, that experienced inspectors will be in open revolt if they are forced to take a load of basic courses that ‘teach’ them what they already know. Surly, no system can treat experienced and successful inspectors as ‘new-bees’? Some opportunity for an experienced inspector to demonstrate his acquired knowledge through ( for lack of a better term) ‘nontraditional sources’ must be provided? I am not talking about escaping the continuing education component of course as any education after establishment of basic qualifications is a good thing.
George:
Your second paragraph says it all for those of us who have “on the job” training.
Two, 5 or even 10 years inspecting as a true independent inspector IMHO should carry some credible weight.
T.Neyedli
www.alphahomeinspections.ca
From what I have been reading, the proponents of your “credential” (whether it be licensing or national certification) want it to represent a basic minimum standard. This credential is not there to recognize skill and expertise…it is there to denote the basic entry level requirement. People without this “credential”, in otherwords, are unfit to inspect a home.
With that being the case, it is logical for them to insist that every required step be taken.
What is so illogical to me is why a man would want to take all of his education and experience acquired over his lifetime, and represent it to be “the minimum acceptable standard” or as an “entry level” skill. Why would he not want to have it reflect so much more than that…and use it to entitle himself to higher fees for bigger jobs? This is what looks so nonsensical about this concept, to me.
As a member of the National Certification Committee I can say that there is a great deal of latitude given towards experience. For one thing, if you can prove that you have done over 500 inspections, this gives you the maximum number of points in that area of the assessment. Other experience is also graded accordingly, though more points are gained if you have an accredited training. An inspector with years under his belt should be able to get to the TIPR quite easily.
This, in my opinion is what sets National Certification apart from any of the organizations which depend more on standardized training (Carson Dunlop etc). The TIPR puts you in a real situation. You pass or fail according to what is there, not theory – practical knowledge is what will get you through. No experienced inspector should be afraid of putting themselves through the Test Inspection Peer Review.
Ok the following has been my concern all along when it comes to the National and I have never received a direct answer before. How about now?
I have been inspecting since Feb 05, have done almost 800 fee paid inspections, more that 600 hours of education, but not from an “acredited” education provider.
I have no fear of a TIPR and no boubt that I could ace the TIPR inspection.
I have a difficult time investing $1000.00 to have someone decide if my education meets some unknown criteria, only to be told it doesn’t and never get the chance to do the TIPR and loose the $1K
Could someone here shed some light on this for me.
BTW I have been getting some presure to enter the process but until I get an answer its no go for me.
Paul: How does the National obtain proof of the number of inspections completed
You know I’m CanNachi, but I have to say, " BRAVO " to these comments. If every association decides to focus on better education,
then the whole industry benefits, and the end users of our product benefit as well. Also, if you’re putting, " as much as you can " into your
choice of association; even if " it " fails to become all you’d hoped it
would; …" you " have not failed!
As Canadians, we need to put a little ( or a lot ) more passion
into everything we do; whether it be our business, our family, our
relationships, or whatever! What we get out of life is directly related
to what we put into it! Always try to go the " extra mile "
Doug in my opinion - based on the preliminary information you have noted, you would be in a very good position to complete the background review.
Yes the $1000 is bit hard to afford, but after that $1000 investment even being non-affiliaited would run you $200 per year for renewal. That is cheaper than most all other fees unless it was free.
Regarding the proof of inspections, the NCA and NCC can utilize the audit mechanism, if they choose. The NCP is based on following the CAN-P-9 certification and accreditation standards. Proof of comparable experience and accredited or non accredited education based on a point system - up until the end of 2009. After that the requirements become much more rigid.
Verification and compliance is part of the NCC mandate. That can be for education and for home inspections. Sort of the luck of the draw - so to speak.
I am not here to confirm your situation other than indicate it sounds that you “should” be able to meet the required criteria for your background review. Having fulfilled the background review the inspector MUST successfully complete the TIPR - Test Inspection with Peer Review.
If you can prove that you have put in the hours, even with a non-accredited educational provider, these are taken into consideration, though they are not as highly marked as an accredited provider. From what you have said (if you can prove it with some kind of documentation) you would most likely be given the go ahead to take the TIPR.
Get in touch with the NCA and print out the application form. It does cost more for iNACHI members to go through the process, but that is because iNACHI has chosen to distance itself, rather than to join with the NCA (even though they were invited), and that makes the process for those on the Certification committee more difficult.
The difference is this: if a CAHPI member applies to the NCA, all we have to do is check with the provincial body to see if the documentation is valid. That saves a lot of time and trouble because that group has already verified that person’s training. They still have to do the TIPR though, like everybody else.
I still haven’t given up on iNACHI and I think that if more members gained their National Certification then we would be able to lobby for iNACHI to get on board with the process, to the advantage of all.
Regarding previous comments of licensing and consumer protection. I have received and do have permission from the author to post this message.
As a consumer, an end-user, an ordinary civilian outside the arena of home inspection, I wished to make my own corrective input to the discussion but, despite registering, found I was unable to do so. Hence, I am choosing to communicate with you in hopes that you may feel able to pass my comments along to those other participating alleged professionals.
Firstly, this legislative initiative can clearly not be dismissed as merely the work of a cabal keen to monopolise the business and keep it all within a closed circle, as some conspiracy fantasists seem intent on believing. Rather, it is explicitly and intrinsically designed according to principles of consumer protection. And this is surely not before time in an industry where standards of practice are so wildly divergent, where ethics are often questionable, and where conflicts of interest had become institutionalized and endemic.
Secondly, to suggest that there is, or has been neither consumer demand nor need for licensing is a blatantly self-serving misrepresentation of the facts. I am a consumer. I myself have lobbied for full and proper professional status and standards to be applied – i.e. licensing. And, through this process, although I don’t have any individual list of fellow-travellers and can thus hazard no guesses about our actual strength of numbers, I learned at least that I am definitely not alone. Our concerns – and those of the profession itself – have quite self-evidently had influence on the framing of the act.
Thirdly, it is always my sensible personal preference as a consumer of professional services, that the practitioner be governed by a properly constituted regulatory body – just as we have the right to expect of our local veterinarian, dentist, auto-mechanic, doctor, child-care provider, lawyer, or chiropodist, for example – based on commitment that the primary duty of service be towards the client, and the client only.
And finally, it should be no surprise that NACHI membership fails as an acceptable criterion. In gathering ammunition and argument for my small piece of the consumer lobbying action, I took the NACHI test. Apart from a brief adolescent stint as a bricklayer’s labourer, I have no other relevant experience whatsoever. And yet even I, a musician, without any advance preparation for the test, passed with flying colours. Clearly, British Columbia’s Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority was correct in determining that the level of education and training required by NACHI was beneath their consideration.
Thank you.
I would be very happy if you were able to post this on my behalf – but am understandably reluctant for my personal contact details to be available to the more rabid members of the NACHI constituency. Or, if you are in a position to share how I might be allowed to post to the site personally, then this whole indirect procedure can be obviated.
Sincere warm regards, name removed as requested, from BC
Just passing an on-line examination does not make anyone a Home Inspector. We have heard this argument from numerous sources over the years. Someone even alleged his dog passed the on-line exam. Passing the exam, required for membership status, only opens the door to further training opportunities.
As I’m sure you know, the “book learning” is just the start. Practical exerience and doing the job provide the best training there is.
BC has chosen to licence Home Inspectors, and that may be a good thing, however being “licenced” does not make someone a good Home Inspector, Doctor, electrician, plumber or what have you.
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? Probably not, for we all know that a “license” reflects, simply, an entry level of skill.
The 16 year old driver can be “licensed”, but you would hardly expect to see him driving your ambulance, would you?
The same thing goes for home inspectors. In fact, it gets a little worse.
In a market where inspectors compete against one another for recognition and business, not only must one be consistent in providing excellent service (for word of mouth will kill a business before any government institution will), but he must also work to obtain skills and training in many areas so that he can stand out from among his peers.
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”---- where people like you who take it to mean a satisfactorily demonstrated level of competency ---- can be more easily fooled.
Protect yourself from the inferior inspector’s desire to hide himself among a state full of “licensed” home inspectors…and use your time as an advocate to oppose licensing in your jurisdiction. Keep home inspectors professionally accountable and independent to ensure you are able to tell them apart.
Although you present another side to this issue, I believe that it least it provides some level of protection for consumers. There is a mandatory insurance requirement, mandatory criminal check, and duty by the named organizations respecting and upholding professional practice, discipline and accountability.
Licensure is a means to protect the public from unqualified and unethical practitioners and to help assure that home inspection is practiced only by those who have the education and experience necessary to do the work properly. Licensing places a degree of legal accountability on those who engage in the public practice of home and property inspection. Up until now in BC, it was consumer beware. It is not as you claim a guarantee, but a lot better than the condition that made it the target of attention.
Legislation established the licensure program and defined the basic experience and educational requirements that all licensees must meet. The legislation also allows for civil penalties for violations of the licensing act.
Kinda…maybe…sometimes. It depends upon the law, how it’s written, and when it actually is tested in court.
The harm to consumers, however, comes in an immediate form. As you will gather from the press releases that splatter the same newspaper that, someday, will line a bird cage and actually gather less crap ----- the license will be touted as something described by you in the preceding post. When this happens, misled consumers then conclude that the license is their means of identifying equally qualified and competent home inspectors.
How then do most consumers choose to select between 100 equally qualified and competent candidates? The equally qualified and competent candidate with the lowest fee, of course.
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.
Read the study where licensing did nothing to improve the quality of the inspection or the inspector. 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.
