I use to think that, not no more. You asked for a volunteer to go to the Missouri Housing Building Alliance meetings to represent NACHI. I accepted. I saw the ASHI chapter president kissing the A$$ of the some MAR leaders who was dictating what could or could not be said at the meetings. They sat there gloating on the fact on that they was able to push some bills through congress. Just made me sick just thinking how they was screwing over the unexpecting consumer. This was an eye opener to me.
I testified at the Missouri house committee meeting on the home inspection bill this year. I observed most members of the committee expressed that there was no need for a home inspection bill. When the meeting adjourned there was very little support for the bill. But weeks later through some back room deal the bill passed through committee. I heard the committee chairman passed the bill even thou the large majority of the committee still opposed the bill.
It was a shallow victory for MAR and ASHI because the bill soon died. But this gives MAR and ASHI hope that a home inspection bill of their favor will pass because of influence they have over some politicians. Their hope is that those politicians can influence the honest house and senate leaders to see it their way.
Realtors’ associations and ASHI has proven through their underhanded influence (money and lies) in many states that they write the laws and at the same time favor their association.
…but there was nothing in that bill that forbids NACHI Tv, James…thus, it was a good bill.
Seriously, as we can see from this thread, Nick is too far out of touch regarding matters affecting us at our level to be of any real assistance.
I hope that his title of this thread (by way of Google) does not hurt as a NACHI chapter as we continue to fight the efforts of these special interests wanting to control us.
Perhaps it is time to consider the use of the ASHI tactic of taking the association name out and forming a “coalition”.
Then Nick can endorse whatever else might be expelled from the bowels of the Kansas Association of Realtors with no reflection upon us.:twisted:
First, Nick, the law does not limit a Kansas inspector’s liability to $10,000. All the Kansas bill did was require Kansas lawyers to sue for breach of contract or negligence instead of errors and omissions. Then…they have access to unlimited punitive damages. This bill offers no protection to a Kansas inspector.
Second, your fantasies about licensing boards are also in left field. Of course they cannot make rules that are obviously biased…at least to the public eye. But they do make rules that favor their preferred vendors (Massachusetts, for a long time, was strictly ITA territory)…and qualifications (requiring NHIE testing for licensing)…and set other conditions that often coincide with the qualifications or standards of their association of choice (minimum number of inspections of 250, for example, for grandfathering of a new requirement). All very subtle, but all very real.
Third, in my opinion the only benefit of value that a NACHI member in Kansas has access to at this time is ADRS. I’ll explain:
The used house salesmen of Kansas are already touting to their prospects the implied $10,000 warranty of hiring a home inspector.
Say what you will in your contract…say what you will in your brochure or website…the homebuyer is going to remember the lies told to him by his trusted agent. You are going to cover any hidden damages discovered later up to $10,000. His agent would never lie.
Unless you want to hand out this money freely, through your deductable or from your savings, the $90 annual fee to enroll in ADRS will require that your client take an extra step (actually, several steps) to prove that you are actually in error. You really can’t beat the price and (I’ll let Joe Farsetta give you the actual statistics) virtually all of the complainants who originally thought they had a case against the inspector eventually saw where they did not, and walked away without taking further action.
This is your best defense against those who are trying to use you to carry their liability. Let the ADRS mediator re-direct them, when the situation warrants, right back to the salesperson who lied to them in the first place…who, along with their broker, offer even deeper pockets.
J.H., right on. Nick is perhaps out of touch. Note Sec. 1, about the pre-inspection agreement. What is one? Is it a pre-inspection agreement, or just an inspection agreement? Court will decide some time in the future. What is the difference between a “pre-inspection notice” and a “pre-inspection agreement”? Nick, have your attorneys read this section. The “notice” also requires “scope of the home inspection”. NACHI agreement does not have this. I advise any inspector in Kansas to not use the NACHI agreement. No scope. Nick, this is why my “inspection notice agreement” is three pages. All Kansas inspectors need to be extremely careful here. Look at the differences in the wordings. They are all in this bill for a reason. Read the whole bill fully, and notice the wording and different definitions. Paul, you have a case to be worried. I have talked to a few attorneys. They read the first pages of the bill, and would not even touch the thing, or help write a “notice”. Nick, what is the difference between a “notice” and an “agreement”?? Sec. 1, paragraph 4.
A thought on “ride-alongs”.
Unless the company providing that training is gonna hire the inspector, they’re training their competitors and deserve to be compensated for providing their expertise, time and knowledge to someone that may likely end up being their competition 6 months down the road. These new players should not expect existing inspectors to train them for the thrill of it.
An experienced inspectors income is their skill and knowledge. A little help for free - OK. You want to go with me and learn from my years of experience, training and knowledge - in short take up my time - you pay what I consider my time worth OR you go get it from someone else.
No inspector OWES his future competitors one single minute of his time unless he wants to.
Simple policy.
Dan, yes. Absolutely. Carefull in training inspectors. If they are sued, it can come back on you. Perhaps Mr. Bell wants to run his own school. Think about that. Oh, my. We are in deep **itrouble.
James B. -
What is this ADSR you keep referring to …
Look in the left column under Articles & Links - Dispute Resolution
So an inspector can be sued… what else is new.?
Welcome to the world of a “Professionals”.
Check your email
Actually, it does …
ADSR will not stop a suit, or protect the inspector from one.
It is a good service, but not required or a liability limiter in the Kansas situation.
Both parties must agree to arbitration before the problem presents itself, but in this case, the state seems to have skipped that step.
eh Hummm. I believe Dan might be questioning the acronym
It’s ADRS
Gary,
I have read the law and see nothing that permits a realtor from performing an inspection.
To Nick’s point regarding a Board changing the law, it depends on how much of the bill will be left up to the Board to determine. These types of gaping holes in these bills are quite common, and permit the process to become perverted along the way.
In principal, Nick’s comments are correct.
In practice, however, these laws are indeed changed along the way. Call it housekeeping or hoodwinking. It’s all the same in the end.
Gary writes:
Oh my God, is that why your inspection agreement is 3 pages long? You made your own SOP? You didn’t have to do that. The InterNACHI agreement does include a clear description of the scope of the home inspection by referencing the InterNACHI SOP. Read #1 in http://www.nachi.org/homeinspectionagreementkansas.htm and #2 in the actual agreement.
The new requirement to provide a clear description of the scope of the home inspection in your agreement doesn’t mean you had to try to sqeeze the whole SOP into the agreement in writing… or worse, write a new scope and stuff it in there. That is too funny… and dangerous if it isn’t the full SOP. A point of law: When a company has conflicting clauses it its agreement, the consumer can choose the one he/she wants to rely on in a dispute with that company.
If you are really freaked out about the requirement to provide a clear description of the scope of the home inspection to your client, print off the entire SOP and hand it to them, although #2 in InterNACHI’s inspection agreement already references the actual web address www.nachi.org/sop.htm .
Anyway, not a single inspector has ever lost a law suit because of InterNACHI’s SOP or pre-inspection agreements, and no judge has ever thrown out a single clause. Kansas will be no different. Don’t go too far off the farm writing your own scope.
Here is the scope of the inspection in my page and a half contract. I refer to NACHI’s SOP in the “Terms” section:
Jim, writes
That seems fine to me.
I personally don’t like to create what I call a “mini-SOP” with a preamble “scope” for fear that a consumer will argue that he/she wants to rely solely on the scope and not the full SOP. I like to have only one SOP which I can quickly point to in a short sentence (you could call it the scope of the inspection if you want to), but that might be just me trying to keep it clean so that there is nothing that conflicts with InterNACHI’s full SOP.
P.S. I never want to see a judge’s head boppin’ back and forth, left and right (like he’s at Wimbledon) looking at a consumer friendly, mini scope in his left hand, and InterNACHI’s full SOP in his right hand.
Force everyone to keep going back to InterNACHI’s full SOP in everything you write in an agreement, put on your website, include in your brochure, or say with your words. Keep them on the farm.
The SOP…how the inspection is conducted…appears on my website and in my report. It is referenced under the “Terms” acknowledging that the customer and I have agreed to conduct the inspection in that manner.
The “Scope” in my contract…as you can see…places particular emphasis on those items NOT included in the inspection to ensure that the client is aware of not only what an inspection IS…but what it IS NOT, as well.
The SOP states what an inspector is “not required” to do. My scope specifically states what it is I will not do so that there is no misunderstanding between the two.
Yeah, I normally don’t like doing that but yours seems fine.
I’ll tell you the scariest thing I ever saw. I was helping a member with a lawsuit and the judge did the whole Wimbledon thing looking back and forth, left and right between 2 documents. One was InterNACHI’s SOP… guess what the other was…
The inspector’s brochure!
He was going to hold the inspector to the claims made in his marketing material regardless (irregardless for you guys in MO, Jim) of what the SOP or pre-inspection agreement said.