Ontario Licensing proposal to be posted today.

[rcooke (Roy D. Cooke, Sr)]

@linkster

**If you have a better solution than that published, then now is the time to put your thoughts forward. **
And remember, the reason the statistics came out that OAHI had more members in Ontario than InterNACHI is because many of the
InterNACHI Inspectors couldn’t even be bothered to fill in the survey sent out by the Consultants.

Apathy never wins votes!

Sad to think we have many Ontario NACHI members who did not send in
their thoughts and ideas .
Its getting close to the end.
(" InterNACHI Inspectors couldn’t even be bothered to fill in the survey sent out by the Consultants. ")
Please take time to send in your ideas NOW!

[dpennell (Douglas C. Pennell)]

Mandatory E&O/ GL insurance is in. I get it. Consumers have a disput resolution process and appeal. I get that. So if the gov’t is making E&O/ GL mandatory how about a dispute resolution/ appeal process for HI’s. When consumers have a frivolous claim, in the HI’s opinion, and the insurance company decides to settle out of court, the HI should have access to an appeal process as well.

[rcooke (Roy D. Cooke, Sr)]

@dpennell

Mandatory E&O/ GL insurance is in. I get it. Consumers have a disput resolution process and appeal. I get that. So if the gov’t is making E&O/ GL mandatory how about a dispute resolution/ appeal process for HI’s. When consumers have a frivolous claim, in the HI’s opinion, and the insurance company decides to settle out of court, the HI should have access to an appeal process as well.

Send in your thoughts please

[dpennell (Douglas C. Pennell)]

Its unusual for a document to refer to a document that is not yet published and yet state that the Ontario standard should be consistent with the unpublished CSA A770 standard. How can anyone comment on an unpublished standard! (refer to pg ix)

[kwood (KEVIN WOOD, CMI)]

Are you reading my e-mails Doug! LOL

[tsmith8 (Timothy J. Smith, CMI)]

@kwood

Agreed Guys! I also use someone who is not an Inspector anymore for such documentation. And another who is not InterNachi for other sensitive files that can be posted with permission.
The document is well done and despite what I said about SEG they have lived up to the responsibility to accurately set out a very good document.

Good News Kevin, You don’t need a guy. Len and myself were restricted from posting as we worked on the panel. When released you were able to post, Len and I had to wait until we had statement allowing us to.

[tsmith8 (Timothy J. Smith, CMI)]

@gmathias1

The report was very well done and I agree with most of what was discussed.
My only worry is about this area:
The panel found that different approaches to regulation are used in other Canadian jurisdictions such as British Columbia and Alberta, and in the United States. The panel also looked at the Ontario model of a delegated administrative authority. This is an approach to regulation in which the government gives a not-for-profit authority the responsibility to administer a law that regulates a profession or business sector.
The panel concluded that a delegated administrative authority approach using a full range of regulatory functions would work best for Ontario. This approach would ensure the greatest amount of uniformity and consistency for home inspections and for appropriate consumer protection.
I hope this is a new Authority and not an association. It would kill me to see Caphi get there talons into it.
I know I am not from Ontario but thought I would throw in my two cents anyways.
Good luck guys.:)

It has to be a new DAA, such as the setup with WETT.

[sharrison1 (Stuart Harrison, P. Eng.)]

The one thing that jumps out at me is the mandatory insurance --yet ontario has effectively only 1 insurer. So the government will be in effect mandating a monopoly for HUB?! How convenient that a HUB rep sits on the panel. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against HUB but what I don’t like is it being a provincially appointed provider–they could do whatever they like to the rates after that point.

[tsmith8 (Timothy J. Smith, CMI)]

@kwood

My connections with Nick and Ben have been ongoing through the process. There are some things that will need to change but I do not have the power to do so. That part meaning the exam I have no doubt will be done right however the referral work and insurance is what will need work.
As for Real Estate referral this should not happen.
A list of Inspector’s that are Ontario licensed Inspectors should be populated and randomly shuffled everyday.
As for price adjustments it will prove to be very interesting and does not help out Home Inspectors in any way unless there is some way to compensate the Inspector and purchasers.
Each Association can have a list of Licensed Home Inspectors to do the same.

It already happens, only now if this is accepted of course, there will be a requirement to state your paying the realtor for them to refer you. That IS informing the consumer and they have the option to find there own HI. With licensing it will be easier to find HI’s that are not paying that realtor referral fee.

[dpennell (Douglas C. Pennell)]

Some quick math, Insurance coverage $5000, License fee $1000 = $6000. Average Cost of a home Inspection $375. You will need to do 16 inspections to pay for that alone. My prices will be going up to at least $450 when this comes in and probably reach the $500 per inspection shortly there after if not higher.
After all its to protect the consumer, right?

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

Seems like a very InterNACHI and CMI-friendly document to me. They put a lot of work into it IMHO.

[tsmith8 (Timothy J. Smith, CMI)]

@sharrison1

The one thing that jumps out at me is the mandatory insurance --yet ontario has effectively only 1 insurer. So the government will be in effect mandating a monopoly for HUB?! How convenient that a HUB rep sits on the panel. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against HUB but what I don’t like is it being a provincially appointed provider–they could do whatever they like to the rates after that point.

HUB is a broker, the insurer is North-bridge that most of us use, because they are the cheapest. There are others and I am sure Len would agree that there is more coming. I had a discussion with Nick awhile back and he said he was proven wrong. He believed that if a state was to make insurance mandatory the rates would go up, he was proven wrong and rates have been known to come down because it creates competition. Bring more insurers to the table because it is now mandatory.

[tsmith8 (Timothy J. Smith, CMI)]

@dpennell

Some quick math, Insurance coverage $5000, License fee $1000 = $6000. Average Cost of a home Inspection $375. You will need to do 16 inspections to pay for that alone. My prices will be going up to at least $450 when this comes in and probably reach the $500 per inspection shortly there after if not higher.
After all its to protect the consumer, right?

Why is your insurance so high???

[tsmith8 (Timothy J. Smith, CMI)]

@gromicko

Seems like a very InterNACHI and CMI-friendly document to me. They put a lot of work into it IMHO.

That was no accident.

[dpennell (Douglas C. Pennell)]

Mine is not that high. I got the numbers from the report

[kwood (KEVIN WOOD, CMI)]

Document does not mention just one, that being said Doug is dead on for what will happen. That is the reason I mention compensation for both Home Inspector and Clients buying a Home.
I also do agree SEG represented well in this document and it is obvious, Tim you did allot of work to make sure InterNachi was represented.

[tsmith8 (Timothy J. Smith, CMI)]

@dpennell

Mine is not that high. I got the numbers from the report

Lucky for us, our rates are not at the top end of there estimates.

[dpennell (Douglas C. Pennell)]

Tim:
I also believe you represented InterNACHI very well and CMI’s. But as a former Government worker I get very skeptical when the Government is involved and, there is still allot of work to do and details to iron out.

[tsmith8 (Timothy J. Smith, CMI)]

@dpennell

Tim:
I also believe you represented InterNACHI very well and CMI’s. But as a former Government worker I get very skeptical when the Government is involved and, there is still allot of work to do and details to iron out.

Thank You.

I wouldn’t argue with you. I personally believe that document is a great stepping stone for the future.

My nightmare was that they would skipped everything and give everything to OAHI. :shock:

That can’t happen now.

[linkster (Leonard Inkster, CMI)]

Doug, The CSA A770 Standard will be complete BEFORE the regulation goes into effect. It is likely from what we’ve heard that the standard will be ready for early comments before March 2014, with the full document ready by the end of 2014.

Remeber this is NOT a replacement for the Standard of Practice. It is more of a how-to document. (We called it a standard of care in the panel) There will be a unified SoP that all Inspectors must also follow which will be a plain language document for the clients.

This is designed so that the clients don’t get confused by the 12 pages of what we don’t, and only see what we do. The courts and insurers before them will no longer operate on subjective decision as now.

This two pronged approach will help reduce frivolous claims for Inspectors who adhere to the A770 standard, and penalise those who don’t. It will also enable clients to see quickly what we are forced to do as part of the client facing SoP. Anything over that is a business decision left to the inspector, and of course your liability coverage.