I did seem kinda like bait and switch to me too Michael.
I would say sour grapes we at NACHI do what is proper and let the rest do as they please .
I expect that NACHI will continue to grow and the rest I could care less .
Roy Cooke A Happy NACHI Member
California Real Estate Inspection Association. PRINCIPLE 4: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: “Members shall not perform or offer to perform, for an additional fee, any repairs or associated services to a structure on which the inspector, or the inspectror’s company, has prepared a home inspection report.”
FWIW CAHPI, and OAHI and prohibit repair by inspectors via the COE.
NAHI is full of manure!
Raymond, can you find the actual quote from CAHPI & OAHI for me?
Add Oregon to your list as well,
701.355 **Home Inspector undertaking repair work on inspected structure. **A business entity licensed as a home inspector with the Construction Contractors Board under this chapter may not offer to undertake or offer to submit a bid to undertake work to repair a structure inspected by an owner or employee of the business entity within 12 months following the inspection.
When I joined the Oregon Real Estate Inspection Association (OREIA) last June, I was told that OREIA used to be affliated with NAHI but chose to part ways with NAHI over this issue. I don’t know how many OREIA members were also NAHI members, but NAHI lost their Oregon chapter, which is the largest home inspection association in Oregon, with close to 400 members. OREIA is now independent.
See 4(A) OAHI BYLAWS
Article 18 Code of Conduct - Professional Practice and Conflict of Interest Guidelines
Members shall:
-
Carry on the practice of Home Inspection in accordance with law, integrity and honesty.
2 Maintain client confidentiality.
-
Not act for or accept payment from more than one party concurrently in connection with the subject property unless fully disclosed to and approved by all parties. -
Remain independent and at arms length from any other business or personal interests which might affect the quality of the service provided. In particular: (a) a member shall not repair for a fee any condition found during an inspection, nor use the inspection as a vehicle to deliberately obtain work in another field; (b) a member who sells real estate may not inspect properties located within the jurisdiction of the real estate board or boards where he, or the company with which he is associated, are active; (c) a member who provides public sector inspection services may not inspect a property within a jurisdiction where they have public sector authority or responsibility that would affect the subject property. -
Promptly disclose to the client any relationship to the property or interested party, business or personal interest which might be construed as affecting the member’s independence. -
Not solicit, receive or give referral fees. -
Refer trades or other specialists only when doing so is in the best interest of the client, and does not detract from the member’s independence.
8 Only provide an opinion on conditions and matters within the scope of the member’s expertise, education, experience and profession.
-
To ensure fairness to all concerned parties, not knowingly comment on the work of another member without discussing the observations with the member concerned. A member is free to provide an independent opinion of property conditions, but should if possible advise the previous inspector. -
Act in good faith to all. Uphold the integrity and reputation of the profession. Respond promptly to complaints.
Roy Cooke … Royshominspection.com
Prohibited in SC.
“The inspector may not perform any work or improvement to a residence upon which the Inspector performed a home inspection within the previous 12 months.”
Nick,from the Connecticut COE.
(h) The inspection work shall not be used as a vehicle for the inspector to deliberately obtain work in another field.
Nick
**http://www.cahpi.ca/ethics.html
I have to admit I thought CAHPI was the same as OAHI as Roy listed but as you can see for yourself CAHPI seems to have watered down their COE. Oh well so much for uniformity across Canada. **
The wording in the OAHI model may provide a hint to the the issue of discussion - “a member shall not repair for a fee any condition found during an inspection”. As stated earlier that does not prohibit an inspector for repairing something where a fee is not involved. There are other ways around this again stated earlier by manipulating business ownership.
Respectfully, I see it still as unprofessional, “regardless” of the circumstance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
The COE are open to wide latitude depending on who is doing the interpreting. However I do agree Claude that it is unprofessional to obtain any kind of work on the back of the inspection.
The question then remains why would anyone repair something and not charge a fee?
Not NACHI’s.
Illinos law does not prohibit it, but there is a clause that demands a written statement of any conflict of interest:
Section 1410.260 Disclosure of a Conflict of Interest
As set forth in Section 15-10(20) of the Act, a home inspector may provide services to a client in addition to a home inspection. The home inspector shall first, however, provide a written notice of the services intended and how such services may conflict with the home inspection services provided. Thereafter, the described additional services may only be performed upon securing the written consent of the client. The written notice of services and written consent shall not be contained in the written agreement with a client, but shall be provided in a separate document.
(Source: Amended at 27 Ill. Reg. 14180, effective August 15, 2003)
WV prohibits it…
87-5-8 Prohibited Acts
WV prohibits it…
87-5-8 Prohibited Acts
** 8.3 It shall be considered an unfair business practice for a home inspector, a company that employs the inspector, or a company that is controlled by a company that also has financial interest in a company employing a home inspector, to do any of the following:**
** a. To perform or offer to perform any repairs, or have a vested interest in a company that is to perform repairs, to a structure on which the inspector, or the inspectors company, has prepared a home inspection report within the preceding twelve months.**
Nick,
I am 99.9% certain Illinois is one that prohibits it. I will do some checking and get back to you on that.
Kevin
SAN FRANCISCO
Ethics panel OKs rules for building inspectors
Limits cover buying, remodeling property
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
<LI class=print>Printable Version
**
**
San Francisco’s Ethics Commission voted Monday to push forward conduct codes meant to stop city building inspectors from moonlighting as real estate developers.
In a 5-0 vote, the commission gave initial approval to rules submitted last week by Amy Lee, acting director of the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection. The guidelines allow building inspection employees to buy real estate in San Francisco, but prohibit them from directly or indirectly engaging in construction or remodeling work unless the employee or a family member owns and lives at the property.
The ethics standards also stop employees from buying property in San Francisco if it is under department review or has been within the previous 12 months, or if the employee has provided direct services for that property within the past year.
The new regulations, required of all city departments under a 2003 measure approved by voters, will now be presented to unions and eventually return to the Ethics Commission for a final vote.
Lee estimates that about a third of her 298 employees have an ownership interest in property other than their residence.
Last month, The Chronicle reported that Leo McFadden, a senior inspector, purchased and quickly obtained remodeling permits for a house at 838 Alabama St. in the Mission District. When McFadden bought the house, it faced enforcement action by his department.
Records show that McFadden earns $100,000 a year from his city job and has an ownership interest in seven properties in addition to his home, two of which are estimated to be worth more than $1 million.
Lee has said that she previously considered prohibiting inspectors from buying investment properties in the city but was convinced by inspectors and their union representatives that such restrictions might unfairly infringe on their property rights. *E-mail Robert Selna *
I will say it again:
And they complain about our conflict of interest!
Yes Will but we know we are doing the right thing for every body all the time and have no trouble sleeping well at night .
Roy Cooke