Home Inspection Legislation Ontario
“It doesn’t mean anything, that they have a license or that they have errors and omissions insurance.”
…This says it all doesn’t it.
This legislation in its present form should never be adopted and should never be recognized by any organization such as RECO or lending institutions. (my opinion)
Home inspection should be a profession and should be dealt with like other professions… such as the AIC, CAFP, Engineering, etc. The current proposal argues in favour of the RHI as the only qualifying designation that has the existing structure reflecting the forward looking “trade”. This is a hollow view, in my opinion.
A home is typically a highly leveraged investment. Would you borrow $300,000 and take investment advice from someone who completed 8-10 courses on investing? Investing in a home is primarily agreeable because the purchaser thinks the home value will always go up. Also there is the physical aspect… the owner can see and touch the home unlike owning $300K of Royal Bank shares.
A home inspector needs to be knowledgeable, respectful and ensure that the client understands the true condition of the home.
8-10 home inspection courses are not sufficient to cover the depth and breath needed : neither a trade card. This is nuts. You are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars. The significance requires a university degree along with specific courses such as those already offered from UBC and others. The process of reaching the highest level of competence should take years along with continuing proctored studies.
This is a CBC report
Exclusive: Buyers left with big bills when home inspectors miss defects
"It doesn’t mean anything, that they have a license or that they have errors and omissions insurance."
Denton has filed a lawsuit against inspector C. S, who used to be the president of the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors of B.C.
In her notice of civil claim, she alleges C.S failed to follow the standard practices of his association.
Denton claims he missed the fact that her home was structurally unsound, with extensive water damage, a hole in the roof, asbestos in the air ducts, and visibly rotten sill plates and posts.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/buyers-left-with-big-bills-when-home-inspectors-miss-defects-1.1330879
…
I don’t think it is much of a stretch for a home buyer to conclude that “one hour or so” is not sufficient to perform any kind of a reasonable home inspection.
Worse, it appears that this is the standard practice of Mr K.L, RHI
The judge found in favour of the plaintiffs,
Here are some of the defects missed by Mr K.L. RHI
(i) pronounced settlement of the front porch;
(ii) cracking and settlement of the concrete driveway adjacent to the residence;
(iii) cracks in the masonry adjacent to the chimney on the south elevation;
(iv) masonry step cracking at the southeast corner;
(v) vertical masonry cracks below the east elevation window;
(vi) front entry door and frame not square;
(vii) significant deflection of the floor joists below the kitchen area;
(viii) load bearing walls within the crawlspace installed with concrete brick below each stud, with the bricks bearing directly on the concrete slab on grade;
(ix) as noted above, the floor framing within the kitchen is depressed with a slope clearly evident within the kitchen;
(x) cracks evident in the living/dining room interior finishes;
(xi) crack in slab on grade floor of crawlspace parallel to and approximately three feet from the south foundation wall and deflection of floor toward the south; and
(xii) doorway between the kitchen and foyer out of plumb.
Seems many inspectors tend to “make it up” as they go these days. The end result is that concerns (major or not) are overlooked and/or missed altogether.