OK
Originally Posted by dbonner http://nachi.cachefly.net/forum/images/2006/buttons/viewpost.gif
This crap has got to stop, You really should not be able to offer kickbacks in the inspection industry. Im pretty sure Nachi has a rule against it.
Sean,
BLOW ME ")
Bump:
Originally Posted by dbonner http://nachi.cachefly.net/forum/images/2006/buttons/viewpost.gif
This crap has got to stop, You really should not be able to offer kickbacks in the inspection industry. Im pretty sure Nachi has a rule against it.
All sleazy inspectors/companies offering kickbacks need to be reported
Are you serious Dennis? I just googled Miami Home Inspection and the first 5 sites are illegal. If your claiming to be licensed I think the license number has to be published and any marketing material has to have your license number on it.
Miami appears to be the wild wild west and people just say whatever they want!
True that!
I am serious. I dont think not advertising your license number is as scummy as offering kickbacks like the advertisement in this post.
True that 
We should turn anybody who offers any payments for any inspection
Dennis I am serious as well. The point I am making is you upset people are offering kick backs to people. Why not clean up the UNLICENSED people first. The sites I went to never mentioned a person by name, never mentions a license number NOTHING. I would bet these people are not what they say they are. Hell one company says the have PE, Licensed GC, Mold, Plumbing, Electrical…on and on…
I agree with you but lets clean up those who are performing unlicensed activity FIRST. Just my 2 cents…they are all scum.
Mike Meeker writes:
If you can see it, why cant you photograph it?
If this is the rule, then you have two choices: either comply or do not comply. When you fail to meet the rerquirement, however, you should not be able to receive compensation from the client.
In your opinion, you are correct. In others opinion, you are incorrect. Claiming you know the right way is only a claim. In your opinion, you may have a BETTER way, but not the ONLY way.
If this is what is required, then there are but two choices: comply of do not comply.
JOE, I guess you have never crawled into a low sloop roof and tried to photograph a roof strap from 15’ with a pole in one hand parting insulation.
There are many reasons why it is difficult and sometimes impossible.
Lighting, focusing on only the exact subject, to many things in view, etc…
Stick to what you know and it is not wind mits.
Mike,
While I may not know wind mitigation inspections, I am more than familiar with quality and compliance issues.
The requirement for photographic proof was born from somewhere else; it did not develop on its own. As to accessing low sloping attics, I have entered into more than my share. If you bothered to read what I have preached in the way of SAFETY over the past few years, and how I believe that inspectors put themselves in harms way for PENNIES, you’d likely change your mind. And, after falling off a roof within the past 5 years, I evaluste EVERYTHING prior to even stepping on a ladder to inspect things from the soffit.
I think we are the dumbest profession out there for putting ourselves in harms way for a few bucks. This is why I wrote and SAFETY class and insisted it remain FREE for everyone. As to safety, look at the comments I made to Kenton Shephard regarding his crawlspace inspection video.
While I dont disagree with your concern, the bottom line is that this is the current requirement. My suggestion, if you want to eliminate the requirement, is to mitigate the access issues and discuss things from a personal safety standpoint. Use OSHA confined space standards as the catalyst for your safety concerns. The legislature cannot ignore safety requirements by stating that those same safety guidelines do not apply to one-man operations. That would not play well in the media.
You’ll never win the argument as to the validity of photographs. You CAN win the argument when it comes to the ENTIRE inspection process and the safety issues if brings to light.
Until the issue finally raises public awareness, your only choice is to comply or not comply. There is no gray at this point.
Thanks for your insight .I would still like to do the inspections so I do not want to squash the whole program. I only wish the OIR to fix the mistake they made by putting the sentence on the form.
The OIR should force the insurance to give discounts based on what we observe because most everything can be done right near the hatch.
The insurance companies are interpreting the form to mean no pictures no credit. The form states that pictures are needed for VISIBLE and ACCESIABLE items… It does not mention that if they are not photographed then no credits will be given.
Its all politics right now. Maybe if an inspector were to fall and hurt himself trying to get one of those pictures that the insurance company rejected - then maybe we would have a lawsuit against them to stop all of this bulls–t. But dont look to me to do that. I am still recovering from my fall a year and a half ago.
By the way - for all you $75.00 guys, I am about to have a very upset client in Miami. They have a near impossible attic to access. I was able to get nailing pattern and a zoomed in shot of an 8D nail, but would not risk climbing through this attic to prove that there are clips or straps. There was no view from the hatch, but i am sure if one of you wants to break you neck you might be able to find clips on the other side of the attic. I told my client that they should take up the plywood and take pictures when they re-roof the home, which will be when they buy it.
ok. I know this may shock some here but I will have to agree with mikey here. Except for the impossible part. But there is nothing like what mike takes about and then the sweat is poring into your eyes and you start getting the shake, then you think you have it and your damn camera doesnt take the picture.
and just last week I moved an electrical box in the soffit from the outside, put my borescope up there and got a picture of a single wrap, not one but two. Took an extra 12min…5 people the guy knows scheduled with us for this week.
Bore scope… nice technique.
I bet you knew what it was before you did it. Did ya?
That is nice if there is an area to do something like that. This one was a Two story home.
That’s not the point…If ball parking the data was exceptable, Forget the whole industry. Everyone pays based on a B rating and clips.
No one wants that.
Your problem Meeker is your equipment. You said your using a MAGLITE. Buddy, no wonder you have to crawl into the the low of the attic!
I sent you a link for OLITE. If you are using anything that is rated less than 500 Lumens. You will have issues.
No one ever promised enforcement, that’ll take even more money, currently your licensing fee only covers administration. 