"My Engineer on Call" ...

I am curious how it might serve him to try to limit the unethical behavior of home inspectors who sell client data to him to only those who accept his $200 kickbacks while ignoring the others who are compensated and conceal it from their clients. It should be interesting to see why … and how he tries to spin this.

Nate, I’m curious, did ASHI national determine this program does not violate our COE, or do they just agree to take your marketing $s , and let each inspector fend for him/her self?

I admit I do not know the answer, I’m one that sticks with the old timers mind set, if you have to ask if something is legit or not, it’s best not to do it]
It does not sound right to me that ASHI national would determine and through a member under the bus, and openly state a Chapter Pres is wrong , on a topic that I think could go either way.

For some reason, Troy will not answer this question on this part of the message board where the public can read it. I’ve asked him several times and he evades it.

It probably has something to do with how ethical it is for him to do this and how it helps him to “grow his business”.

But then, he does require Thornberry’s written permission to acknowledge to anyone … including his client … that he is contracted to sell the personal and private information belonging to his client to Thornberry for the use of attempting to sell him an alarm system. By this, I am assuming that he is not allowed to discuss it with you or I, either.

Really?

Nathan doesn’t pay InterNACHI anything and we don’t sell ads. Instead, we’d prefer that he continue to give InterNACHI members exclusive deals and discounts unavailable to non-members. If you’re an industry vendor… I’m for sale. All you have to do is treat InterNACHI members better than everyone else. I admit… I’m a shameless whore for my members.

As the head honcho of NACHI, Nick … Do you support having member home inspectors sell the personal and private information of their clients to an alarm systems salesman and receive their compensation in the form of incentives or cash … while concealing from their client that they are being compensated and have a contractual relationship with the alarm systems salesman … and adding language to their contracts that allows the alarm systems salesman to bypass any “no call” list that the client may be on … for the purpose of selling alarm systems?

Is this something that inspectors should be encouraged to do to “grow their business”, in your professional opinion?

Ohhhh K
Since you chose to answer something I didn’t think or ask, I’m slowly starting to understand why several other inspectors think the way you run your business is questionable.

I’ll join the group of per you of stupid inspectors, or gromicko dumb stupid scumbags] and continue to promote my business by providing the buyers a professional inspection, opposed to offering gimmicks to get more inspections.

I generally don’t encourage what you described, but I make no determination as to the accuracy of your description.

My personal feelings about contracts (not just home inspection contracts) is that they should never be used as a tool to “sneak through” something. So in the scenario you described, I personally could only do it if I also turned to my client and said “Bob, I get $25 for hookin’ ya up with an alarm system company. Do you want me to have an alarm system company call you?”

That’s my thinking/feeling on the issue.

Fair enough.

I’ll tell you a funny story. Back when I used to remodel bathrooms, my plumbing supply house only charged me half of what they charged a person who walked in off the street. So I would send my clients down to that plumbing supply house to pick out all their fixtures first. The plumbing supply house had a sales lady who would help them do that, prepare my materials list, bill my account for half, and issue me a credit for the other 50%. The higher priced the fixtures my clients chose, the more I made on those fixtures. Obviously, I needed a way to get my clients to pick out their fixtures at my particular plumbing supply house and not shop at a place that didn’t kick me back my 50%. I came up with a slick trick to get them to do just that: I told them the truth. I used to explain to my clients exactly how I made extra money if they would visit my particular plumbing supply house. I would also remind them that the nicer the fixtures they ordered, the more I made, and used to say with a smile: “So pick out nice, expensive fixtures!” Guess what? They did exactly as I asked them and went straight to my supply house because they wanted to help me get my kickback.

Anyway, I have found over the years that when you are forthright and truthful in explaining to your clients exactly how you make money off of them (information that might be none of their business)… they become your willing partner in helping you make that money.

Did you have to get an okay in writing, from yourself, to have that conversation with the client? :p:mrgreen::smiley:

I agree, but from what I’ve read throughout this ordeal I’m not so sure Nathan would allow an inspector who is under contract to disclose to his home-buying client the truth regarding how the inspector is compensated… It’s all very confusing.

Home inspectors who agree to be compensated for providing their clients’ personal information to Thornberry are required, by their contract, to add the above language to their inspection agreements.

Thornberry and certain of his cohorts have referred to the above as a “disclosure”. It serves them to call it this … but what does it “disclose”?

Does it disclose that the home inspector is being compensated for the sale of the clients’ information or that he may be receiving the $200 kickback that Thornberry has referred to?

Does it disclose that the information is actually being provided to someone … or that it “may” be provided to someone?

Does it say who the third party service provider is, in the event that the client would choose to report harassment to his local authorities?

No.

But what it does do is … with the clients’ signature on the agreement he makes with his inspector to have the inspector perform his home inspection for him … to allow Thornberry to enter the lead into a telemarketing system and bypass any “no call” list the home owner may be on … indefinitely.

This language does NOT limit the information to be provided to only one entity since “the third party service provider” can be, virtually, anyone and the statement refers to “services” in the plural form.

A client who signs an agreement for a home inspection that contains this language has provided his personal information to unknown entities for an indefinite period of time to contact him in any manner they wish, whether or not he has taken action to protect himself or not. Is this what is really being disclosed?

In my opinion, an association or an industry that values its relationship with the public will not encourage inspectors to add such language to their contracts. To the contrary, they will discourage it.

Well thanks for clearing that up.

As the oracle of truth do we have to bow before you?

Are you saying that you do not require this language in an inspection agreement by a participating home inspector …

… or are you saying that it does not say what it says?

I believe that it is clear that a client who signs an agreement for a home inspection that contains this language has provided his personal information to unknown entities for an indefinite period of time to contact him in any manner they wish, whether has taken action to protect himself from unwanted solicitations or not. Is this what is really being disclosed?

What do you say it says?