Which begs the question, is NACHI group A or B ?? Has NACHI met the equivalency portion of Group B??
Group A: Members of no organizations or members of organizations that
have not agreed to and met equivalency comparisons with the NCA.
Group B: Members of organizations that have agreed to and met equivalency
comparisons with the NCA. Signed agreements between the NCA and each
organization must be in place for its members to qualify for this fee level.
(Note: These organizations do not need to be CAHPI associations)
Is this Home Inspection Course on the approved Accredited Training Providers list? I notice its only a one week course. Hmmm
I noticed the inspector is also a National Cert. holder and TIPR examiner.
I do not think so . I think they mean CAHPI only .
From what I understand no matter what Bill Mullen keeps saying the National Certification is not doing well at all and they are scrambling to try and get more to sign up .
They are considerable behind what they said they would be at this time .
If it was going well at all they would be advertising it and all those who are NCA approved.
They would be getting as much millage and getting all enthused to join in .
Well stand by there is more info comming and it is not any better then what they have posted all along .
Group A is Nachi.
I can’t even find Accredited Training Providers. I would have thought the providers would be listed so anyone wishing to take an accredited course would be able to find one.
Seems kinda thin, don’t it?
Just keep chiping away… they’ll get the picture sooner or later:roll:
So what does NACHI have to do to meet Group B status? and, is it being done?
Nachi will have to submit its course criteria.
I did a Google search on Home Inspection Schools in Canada and couldn’t find any that were accredited, but know that Seneca is. I am sure there are a few others.
What I found ironic is that a TIPR examiner, RHI and National Cert. holder offering one week course, which is most certainly not accredited.
Besides anyone in Ontario would be well advised to stay away from OAHI who is administering the National. For reasons so often stated.
I received this message from El Presidente Mr. Lloyd. Secretary CAHPI/President OAHI.
Another cryptic message no doubt from OAHI.
Teaching institutions submit their course material so it can be compared to the National Occupational Standards. (NOS). If they meet them, they can be offered accreditation. However, any school wanting to be accredited must sign an accreditation agreement with the NCA. (Basically promising to retain the level of material, rather than changing it after getting accredited) Many schools now meet the criteria but the necessary paperwork is still pending.
BTW: Nobody has pointed out that I have delivered on my promise at the convention to try to reduce fees for non-CAHPI members. I’m not ashamed to take full credit along with Claude for making it happen. It was not easy, because even CMHC has agreed that the old fee schedule was justified, so the NCA had no incentive other than our constant pressure. (Claude and me). If Nick, Claude and I can pull things together, there is even a chance that NACHI members will pay the same as CAHPI members in the future, but it will require a lot of cooperation.
Strange about Seneca, because prior to the National being fully implemented/announced the Seneca course was already touting that it met the National Certification criteria. Which at the time seemed rather interesting considering that the course is taught by Carson Dunlop. I remember distinctly raising this question well before the National was implemented.
Thanks for the price reduction efforts. Interesting that the former pricing formula was agreed to by CMHC, I didn’t think they should be able to influence anything considering they wish to be seen at arms length.
I have no doubt that Seneca and several others ‘meet the criteria’, but it’s just that nobody (including Carson Dunlop) has been formally accredited yet. Until the NCA has signed agreements with a provider, they will not be given accreditation.
Maybe I wasn’t clear about CMHC. They have never ‘agreed’ to anything about the fees because as you mention, they have remained ‘at arms length’ or more. I guess I just wanted to make it clear that they have not objected at all to the difference in fees, even when they were higher.
Have a great long week-end.
Bill and Claude:
Thanks for your effort in making the fees more reasonable.
How about some info about the training component. I can’t see any reason to apply without knowing what training or educational institutions are acceptable.
BTW Carson Dunlop is professing to be accredited.
Not True Bill?:shock:
HAPPY CANADA DAY TO YOU ALL!
If Carson Dunlop and Seneca are stating they are Accredited, that is very misleading advertising in my opinion. Who is responsible within CAHPI and NCA for allowing that statement given these people sit or have on the National?
Also, when you go to the link of the course provider above, you will note he states he is accreditd by OAHI and CAHPI altough not specifically by NCA accredidation process. If this is the case would it not behoove OAHI and CAHPI from endorsing such courses now that the National is alive and quasi functioning and being touted as the new benchmark for inspectors and course providers. I somehow doubt a one week course would be accetable for accreditation?
No doubt the websites are out of date. wink, wink, nudge, nudge, if you know what I mean…
I went to the CD website and I couldn’t find where they profess to be accredited by the NCA. I’m not doubting you, but I just can’t find it.
We must also remember that there is a difference between claiming to meet the NOS and being accredited.
I can tell you that their course meets the requirements and is eligible for accreditation once the agreement papers are all signed.
As I said earlier, different courses can receive different levels of accreditation. Some will have enough wight to provide the full required 200 hours of education. However, some others might only offer 25 hours. These can still be accredited, but their accredited courses will only be worth so much towards the requirements. In fact, a two hour seminar could be accredited, but it would only provide two hours of value towards the total 200.
Bill I wonder why CAHPI has not posted the Names of these HIs so the public can see who they are.
This seems to be dragging on and on nothing si getting posted . I read where there will be a many his in 2005 well we about 6 months away to 2007 and there seems to be little if any advancement.
I also wonder why it is Bill Mullen giving the answers when he is retired .
I think the full story is not comming out and the future looks very grey to me… Cookie
The decision about where and when to post the names of National Certificate Holders rests with the National Certification Authority, not CAHPI. At present the decision has been made to set up the website so that anyone can verify an individual’s credential on the NCA site. In other words, if someone claims to be a ‘Holder’, this can be checked easily on the NCA website.
This will likely continue until everyone has had a fair chance to gain the certification. The NCA has decided for the time being not to give ‘Holders’ an undue advantage while hundreds are still in the system. This policy, like many others will no doubt change in time. (I am just reporting on their policy…I didn’t necessarily agree with it)
Things take time, Roy, when they are being done the right way. There have been hundreds of bumps in the road, as you know, so there have been just as many delays. If there were no crtitcism to answer and no opposition, the entire process could have been done in no time. However, a fair process listens and responds rather than just bulling ahead. The NCA owes no apologies for taking this long. In reality, it would have been unprofessional and unfair to act too quickly without absorbing relevant information and listening to even the harshest critics.
Why shouldn’t Bill Mullen give answers if he wishes? You keep complaining about getting no answers yet you complain when you get them. I have indeed stepped down from many active duties with CAHPI, but I am still CAHPI Past President and also the Official NCP Historian, so I guess I remain ‘the answer guy.’ If you can think of anyone else in Canada who knows more about the entire project, please name him or her and I’ll step aside. Claude is likely right up there with me in knowledge about this thing, but he is extremely busy right now being Chair.
I’m sorry your future looks so bad, Roy. The rest of us who are participating in the NCP are just thrilled at what the future holds. I can honestly tell you and everyone else that the applications for the program are actually running ahead of the NCA estimates for 2007. The future looks very bright for this program, as more and more outside organizations have now recognized that the NCP is making our industry a profession in Canada.
Bill Mullen RHI