PA Membership

Archive Public Archive
61

Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C.


JAMES J. MUNNIS, ESQUIRE


ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 69691


882 S. Matlack St., Suite 101 Attorney for Plaintiffs,


West Chester, PA 19382 Nick Gromicko and National Association


610-431-3300 of Certified Home Inspectors



NICK GROMICKO
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED HOME INSPECTORS

Plaintiffs

vs.

JOE KELLY
and
PENNSYLVANIA HOME
INSPECTION COALITION

Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CHESTER COUNTY, PA







No. ____________________



NOTICE

You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP:

LAWYER REFERENCE AND INFORMATION SERVICE
Chester County Bar Association
15 West Gay Street
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
(610) 429-1500

CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C.
By:
Date: _________________________ ____________________________________
JAMES J. MUNNIS, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 69691
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C.
JAMES J. MUNNIS, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 69691
882 S. Matlack St., Suite 101 Attorney for Plaintiffs,
West Chester, PA 19382 Nick Gromicko and National Association
610-431-3300 of Certified Home Inspectors


NICK GROMICKO
518 Kimberton Road
Phoenixville, PA 19460 and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED HOME INSPECTORS
1220 Valley Forge Road
Building 47 - P.O. Box 987
Valley Forge, PA 19482-0987

Plaintiffs

vs.

JOE KELLY
156 Chapel Drive
Virginville, PA 19564 and

PENNSYLVANIA HOME
INSPECTION COALITION
187 Marlboro Road
Yardley, PA 19607

Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CHESTER COUNTY, PA







No. ____________________



COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Nick Gromicko and National Association of Certified Home Inspectors (?NACHI?), by and through their attorneys, Carosella & Ferry, P.C., file the within Complaint and aver as follows:
1. Plaintiff Nick Gromicko (?Gromicko?) is an adult individual and President of
NACHI who resides at the captioned address.
2. Plaintiff NACHI is a Pennsylvania corporation with a place of business at the
captioned address.
3. Defendant Joe Kelly (?Kelly?) is an adult individual who resides at the captioned
address.
4. Defendant Pennsylvania Home Inspection Coalition (?PHIC?) is a business with a
place of business at the captioned address.
COUNT I - DEFAMATION
5. On or about October 8, 2002, Kelly and PHIC began sending e-mails to home
inspectors who are listed as members of NACHI stating that ?you should be aware that PHIC is actively pursuing the unethical, and illegal practices of NACHI. Membership in NACHI alone does not make you compliant with Pennsylvania law and you may be exposing yourself to increased liability and possible legal action? which statement blackened the reputation of the Plaintiffs and exposed the Plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt and ridicule and injured the Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs? business and profession and did publish this slander, clearly applicable to the Plaintiffs, and clearly understandable to the recipients as being defamatory.
6. On or about October 9, 2002, Defendants sent e-mails to home inspectors stating,
among other things, ?NACHI is not compliant with PA law and does the consumer a disservice by providing a diploma mill? which statement blackened the reputation of the Plaintiffs and exposed the Plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt and ridicule and injured the Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs? business and profession and did publish this slander, clearly applicable to the Plaintiffs, and clearly understandable to the recipients as being defamatory.
7. On or about December 21, 2002, Defendants sent e-mails to home inspectors,
stating, among other things, ?in browsing your web site I find you have chosen to lend credibility to an inspection association which is not compliant with PA Act 114? which statement blackened the reputation of the Plaintiffs and exposed the Plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt and ridicule and injured the Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs? business and profession and did publish this slander, clearly applicable to the Plaintiffs, and clearly understandable to the recipients as being defamatory.
8. During the period in question, Defendants disseminated a false rumor that the
Attorney General of Pennsylvania had requested and/or required Plaintiffs to produce and submit various documents demonstrating compliance with state laws, and that Plaintiffs have so far refused to comply, which statement blackened the reputation of the Plaintiffs and exposed the Plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt and ridicule and injured the Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs? business and profession and did publish this slander, clearly applicable to the Plaintiffs, and clearly understandable to the recipients as being defamatory.
9. On or about December 28, 2002, Defendants contacted and made statements to
Gromicko?s employer, local politicians, members of NACHI, business partners, family members, co-workers, other associations to which Gromicko is associated, realtors, clients, companies Gromicko and NACHI have a business relationship with, and members of Gromicko?s church, which statements blackened the reputation of the Plaintiffs and exposed the Plaintiffs to public hatred, contempt and ridicule and injured the Plaintiffs in the Plaintiffs? business and profession and did publish this slander, clearly applicable to the Plaintiffs, and clearly understandable to the recipients as being defamatory.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Nick Gromicko and National Association of Certified Home Inspectors demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants Joe Kelly and Pennsylvania Home Inspection Coalition in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with the costs of this action.
COUNT II - PUNITIVE DAMAGES
10. The Defendants? actions of publishing multiple times slanderous information
about the Plaintiffs that was untrue constitute intentional and/or reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs in such an egregious manner as to justify the imposition of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Nick Gromicko and National Association of Certified Home Inspectors demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants Joe Kelly and Pennsylvania Home Inspection Coalition in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), together with the costs of this action.

Respectfully submitted,
CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C.
By:

Date:_________________ ______________________________
JAMES J. MUNNIS, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiffs I.D.#69691





VERIFICATION

I, NICK GROMICKO, hereby state that I am the President of the within-named Plaintiff, National Association of Certified Home Inspectors, and as such, am authorized to sign this Verification on its behalf and I hereby swear, attest and affirm that I am sufficiently familiar with the facts contained herein to say that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. ? 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Dated: ____________________ ____________________________________
NICK GROMICKO, President
National Association
of Certified Home Inspectors























VERIFICATION

I, NICK GROMICKO, hereby state that I am the within-named Plaintiff, an adult individual, and as such, am authorized to sign this Verification and I hereby swear, attest and affirm that I am sufficiently familiar with the facts contained herein to say that they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. ? 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Dated: ____________________ ____________________________________
NICK GROMICKO, an adult individual

62

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


NICK GROMICKO, an adult individual


Now there is a contradiction in terms! ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Joe Myers

63

Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


I can fake it for a couple days in court. Then its back to being a 10 year old. My 14 year old son doesn’t find me funny anymore, he’s outgrown me, but my 10 year old son thinks I’m the funniest guy on earth.


Nick

64

Originally Posted By: rwills
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Nick, If I can stop shaking my head in disbelief long enough to type this message…wai…t aaa.min…ute. O.K. Just wanted to wish you luck which hopefully you don’t need. This is the most absurd thing I’ve heard since being a member here. When this comes back in your favor contact me. I have someone in journalism that will plaster this in the papers all over the Eastern Coast. This has the potential to turn the membership numbers around. I believe it’s called a “phenomenon”. Best of Luck, BW

65

Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Thanks Bob:


Our Pros seem to think that my public positions as a corporate board member, REALTOR, author, etc. (ex: I just got unanimously elected to the board of directors of a local clinic) will mean the damages I suffered will, in the end, exceed the damages NACHI suffered. If I win anything personally I will donate it all to NACHI of course.

Obviously I'm biased, but calculating the damages conservatively, I come up with numbers many times the court's award limits.

We keep winning every battle we're drawn into (namely because we're right). Be patient (something I learned from the IRS years ago). We'll own PHIC.

Nick

66

Originally Posted By: Joe Kelly
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Update 3-1-04


After having yet again refused to substantively answer any of the questions of compliance with Pennsylvania?s ACT 114, the Home Inspector?s law, which have been asked numerous times since February of 2002, Mr. Gromicko filed suit against myself and PHIC for having dared to ask said questions.

I know that if my livelihood and professional stature depended on certain points of law I would demand nothing less than full disclosure from the organization I base my reputation on.

It has been NACHI?s defense that I, or we, have no right to ask these questions and therefore they do not have to answer. That is true, however the questions still go unanswered.

On July 24, 2003, Mr. Gromicko posted the proposed law suit against PHIC, and me personally. The complaint was actually filed on 8-1-03 and served several weeks later. As required, a timely response of Preliminary Objections was filed in mid September of 2003. These preliminary objections basically stated that the complaint filed did not meet requirements of the Pennsylvania rules of civil procedure, contain the actual writings described in the original complaint, and that as plead the counts are wholly inadequate. As required by law, NACHI was given 20 days to file a written response and as of yet has not responded.

At the same time of our response to NACHI?s complaint, 9-25-03, a counter-suit asking for Declaratory Judgment was filed. This complaint basically asks a judge to formally pose the same questions asked numerous times in hopes of finally having someone in a position of authority able to verify compliance of ACT 114. I will not post the complaint but it is a matter of public record in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Case #03-06100 for those who would like to investigate. Mr. Gromicko is now in possession of this document and may wish to post it for your information? One line from the complaint, and posed with every question, sums up the whole thing. Upon information and belief defendant NACHI was not at the time of the effective date of the Home Inspection Law and is not presently a National Home Inspection organization as defined in the ACT.

It has taken until now, almost a full six months, to be able to deliver this complaint because the physical addresses given by NACHI, 1220 Valley Forge RD, and 518 Kimberton Rd., are mail box facilities. After numerous attempts the Sheriff?s department was unable to locate a physical address for this cyber-space organization. A recent volley of email communications between Mr. Gromicko and myself, last weekend, gave us the authority to serve his attorney, which has now been done.

Among other things, this volley of emails asked that I not receive the unsolicited notifications of NACHI meetings, as I have done several times before yet still receive. While the door was open, Mr. Gromicko was again asked to answer the questions of compliance. His response was again less than complete referring to his unverifiable web site claims. Mr. Gromicko did propose a settlement, ?Give NACHI it's share of PHIC and call a truce.? My response was, ?I don't understand what you mean by this? There is no share to be given, NACHI has always been welcome to share in our efforts, all we request is that you answer those 7 questions. We met with Joe H. and would welcome him to our upcoming meeting but with pending litigation it is not possible. Drop the suit, answer the questions, welcome aboard.? And Nick?s response was ?We will agree to provide you with all this stuff (it's on our website) once I have been given a seat on PHIC's board.? To which I replied, ?No one can give anyone a seat, you must be elected by the membership.? To which he replied, ?Get me elected on the condition that once appointed to the board I will give you anything you ask. You can make it conditional, but since you drew first blood, you should put me on first.? This is where I ended our communication since it appears I am being asked to do something unethical to avoid litigation?

Draw your own conclusions from this information, I will not be responding to any further posts on this topic. Since the questions of compliance have not been answered in over 2 years, and it does not appear they will be soon, there is no other option than to have a Judge ask the questions.

67

Originally Posted By: Guest
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


A great opportunity for Nick and NACHI to get the recognition and respect they deserve.


A chance to publicly prove, once and for all that NACHI’s sole interest and intent is for the benefit of home inspectors everywhere.


If I were Nick, I’d be chomping at the bit to get this thing rolling and done with so that he and NACHI could get past the that shadow of doubt and be universally accepted by the profession.


Joe Kelly, since you'll not be posting any further comments to the thread, I'd appreciate an occasional email to keep me up to speed.
tkfabry@rochester.rr.com

I'll get to view nachi's position on the board.

Go get 'em Nick, show that there's nothing to hide. Prove em wrong.

68

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


PHIC has no standing in demanding questions to anything. Their attitude and actions in attempting to exclude NACHI from any and all business within the state of PA says it all.


For Mr. Kelly, he need only confirm that the City of Philadelphia accepts NACHI members who have passed the NHIE as eligible for licensure. In light of this, a precedent has been set within the state, by a large minucipality that established NACHI as being compliant within the State's licensing statute.

For Nick to demand a seat on PHICs board is most generous, in my opinion. It costs Kelly and PHIC nothing. The excuse that he must be elected is an argument of convenience. It would go something like this: If we vote Gromicko onto this board, NACHI shuts up, and this lawsuit business stops. If not, we need to hire more attorneys."

I dont know, but it seems like the only ETHICAL thing to do, if PHIC is truly interested in doing the right thing, and protecting the consumer within the state of PA.

I'd like NACHI corporate counsel to chime in here, it at all possible.

I'd just assume shut PHIC down, or have a cease and desist order sanctioned. They have harassed this org for far too long. They have no legal right to request anything from anyone. They have no actual authority. As the State Attorney General has refused to act for the duration of this pissing contest, the signs are quite clear: PHIC has no standing.

Period...

--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

69

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Chad,


I would like to take this opportunity to explain this matter a little further.

The PHIC is simply a group of home inspectors. The PHIC has no power to enforce, prosecute, reprimand, rescind or list any inspector that is in compliance with PA law to perform home inspections. Come to think of it, they have no power anywhere within the state, to do anything other than breathe.

PA law does not require any association to provide all, or any, information that they are asking for. PA does not have a list of compliant inspectors because the law did not require it, nor does it give anyone the power to produce or provide such a list.

If you are looking for this group to provide any respect or recognition for NACHI, you are looking in the wrong place. This group has no power to do anything, for anyone, let alone for our inspectors, publicly or privately.

Respect and recognition is what our members are giving us, in return for the help that their fellow members are giving them. Every time they write their legislature they are naming NACHI as the primary care giver and in turn the legislature is now listening to NACHI and their members. Would you want us to gain respect and recognition any other way?

Joe Myers

70

Originally Posted By: gjohnson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


What exactly is it that PHIC does anyway. I have been looking but I can’t seem to find anything.

–
Gary (Snicker’s) Johnson - Free NACHOS


The NACHI Foundation


Executive Director


301-591-9895

71

Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


PHIC is just 9 guys who got together and tried to bilk new inspectors using mentoring fees.


I answered their 7 stupid questions everytime they asked them and will again now on this board if I could remember them. I just don't recognize their authority to ask or demand them. There is a difference Chad.

PHIC worked hard for years to make PA an ASHI/NAHI only state. Here is the result of all their hard work:

1. The current existing PA home inspection law makes no mention of ASHI, NAHI, or PHIC.

2. The city of Philadelphia removed all mention of ASHI and NAHI from their application.

3. The city of Philadelphia never mentioned PHIC.

4. The new proposed PA home inspection bill makes no mention of ASHI, NAHI or PHIC.

5. The new proposed PA home inspection bill requires all new home inspectors to join NACHI.

Keep up the good work PHIC! ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)

We have over 1,000 times the members PHIC has. Who needs whom? We have more attorneys on staff or retainer than PHIC has members.

I asked Joe Hagarty to handle this... or Jim Munnis will. I think Joe Hagarty is cutting some kind of deal to make them go away but we don't need their recognition or respect. We're the largest home inspection association in the world.

Nick

72

Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Joe Hagarty succeeded in settling everything today.


I dropped all our inspection related lawsuits against every one including: Jeff DelGursio, NE PAHI, PHIC, and Joe Kelly.

I already filed Precipices to Discontinue at the court house for the former 2 defendants and I will file for the latter 2 on Monday morning.

Now, in the words of Rodney King... Can't we all just get along?

![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)

Thanks Joe. Nice work.

Nick

PS. A mutual release is unnecessary, I trust you all.

73

Originally Posted By: gjohnson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Good job guys…

–
Gary (Snicker’s) Johnson - Free NACHOS


The NACHI Foundation


Executive Director


301-591-9895

74

Originally Posted By: jhagarty
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


All issues are not fully resolved.


Our initial actions should go a long way in re-establishing the meaningful dialogue in resolving issues between NACHI, NAHI & ASHI in PA. We possess the same basic concerns for the Consumer and the Industry. Artificial barriers to negotiation only hinder our efforts.

Preliminary conversations with PHIC ( http://www.phic.info ) suggest that there may be a reasonable path to resolution that is Satisfactory to all parties.

--
Joseph Hagarty

HouseMaster / Main Line, PA
joseph.hagarty@housemaster.com
www.householdinspector.com

Phone: 610-399-9864
Fax : 610-399-9865

HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.

75

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


And what does that path consist of, at this present juncture?

–
Joe Farsetta


Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
76

Originally Posted By: gjohnson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


well I would think that any move in the right direction could help.

–
Gary (Snicker’s) Johnson - Free NACHOS


The NACHI Foundation


Executive Director


301-591-9895

77

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


I agree…

–
Joe Farsetta


Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
78

Originally Posted By: jremas
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Since this is a PA issue and my business is in this state I would love to know exactly what is going on. So, what is the current status of NACHIs involvement with PHIC and the proposed SB928? IF the lawsuit(s) were dropped by Nick I would like to know what the concession was from either side. We should not be having sides but we should have worked together from the beginning. NACHIs lack of involvement with the SB928 which is an amendment to Act 114 is proof enough that we are being kept out of the loop because of previous bad blood since the inception of Act 114.


I will admit that NACHI has some issues with PA law and some are legitimate gripes from PHIC and others, including myself. Even though PHIC has no power to enforce PA law, it is apparent that they are lobbying and looking for change in PA to "stiffen" the current law. My only hopes is that this will be a mutually beneficial endeavor for all involved, including the consumer whose protection should be #1.

I have proposed in writing to our President an idea that I believe would be liked by PHIC but right now I am unaware of the status of my proposal. All good things take time and I can only hope that this will be looked at seriously so that NACHI can be taken seriously in Pennsylvania. NACHI is a very popular and growing organization that is picking up tremendous market share in states that have their own licensing and no requirements to belong to any particular organization. Those who join NACHI are joining because you do get the best bang for your buck as far as I am concerned. Those of us in PA are required to belong to a National Organization such as NACHI and NACHI has become a catalyst for new inspectors to break into the industry because NACHI only requires 100 inspections VS ASHI who wants 250 for full membership. PA law only requires 100 and this has been detrimental to ASHI for all of the inspectors between 100 and 250 inspections.

For one thing, NACHI needs to eliminate the mail your report in for your 1st 100 inspections. The "Inspection Review Committee" should be disbanded or do verification only for compliance with the SOP and nothing more. If you fill out a PHIC/PAR PA Compliance statement it clearly asks you for your supervisors name and number because they are assuming responsibility for the report. The NACHI PA compliance statement does not have a spot to identify the supervisor and this IS a PROBLEM. When you send in your report to NACHI's Inspection Review Committee, we never know if it is being returned or signed. We don't know who is reviewing it and accepting responsibility. This is the root of the problem of NACHI's reputation with PHIC and others. We need to cease this bogus process immediately and require a verification process for SOP compliance, a list of the 100 inspections, randomly chosen inspections from that list for SOP verification and an affidavit that is Notarized. If anything will break the back of NACHI in PA, it is this bogus Inspection Review Committee. I hope that those who are signing the reports and sending them back (if at all) have E&O insurance that covers the new inspector who is actually performing the inspection.

Although I and others do not like this program, it is no different than some national inspection companies who hire candidates and send them on their own before they are full members. At least their employer is accepting responsibility by being listed on the PHIC/PAR compliance statement and hopefully signing the report. There are several other multi-inspection firms who do the same.

This IS for the good of OUR organization. I posted this in public because I know it may force changes sooner. It has nothing to do with my ASHI membership or other agenda. There are many top notch inspectors in NACHI and I have made friends with lots of great people. We need to legitimize this organization in PA and move forward.

--


Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com

570-362-1598

79

Originally Posted By: wpedley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


The NACHI PA compliance statement does not have a spot to identify the supervisor and this IS a PROBLEM.


Therefore I have added a signature line on MY compliance

statement that allows a supervisor's signature. All I have to do is

keep these on file and when I get 100 I'll simply notify NACHI and I

become a FULL member. RIGHT????

As far as insurance, my insurance only covers myself...only if I'm

actually doing the inspection. Therefore I can't really be on-site in case

something happens. I'm also sure that ANY person supervising me

on THEIR inspection is not covered by any insurance. Why would

someone else want to supervise me on THEIR inspection?


Simply stated I would think that if a person passed all the bullcrap

tests that one must take.....over and over and over.....and prove to be

efficient by a hands on test like I have taken.....and have actually

built and renovated homes and commercial and industrial structures

for 25 years or more.....need I say more?

I'm sorry if I seem a little steamed..I wasn't born yesterday...and this

just seems like one BIG joke!!!!!


See If I get any response now.

--
BPedley
Inspecting for the unexpected

80

Originally Posted By: jremas
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


You are right Bill, it is one big joke, BUT, this little issue with NACHI’s “Inspection Review Committee” is one of the biggest stumbling blocks with PA law. PHIC, some ASHI and NAHI folks don’t care for NACHI’s inspection review committee because it allows someone with no experience who passed an online test and sent in $289. to go out and perform a fee paid inspection as their first inspection. It has already been admitted that the NACHI online exam is an entry level knowledge exam, but that is a whole other issue.


We did not write the law but what is written is the law and we must comply. The bottom line that this is how the law reads exactly:

Quote:
A home inspection performed by a person who has not attained full membership(performed or participated in 100 verifiable fee paid inspections) in a national home inspection association satisfies the requirements of this SECTION if the person IS SUPERVISED BY A FULL MEMBER who AGREES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOME INSPECTION REPORT BY SIGNING THE REPORT.


This is why the PHIC/PAR PA compliance statement has a spot for the SUPERVISOR to sign and put in the supervisors member number. NACHI's PA compliance statement does not have it because it allows someone to hide the fact that they are supervised.

So WHO at NACHI is signing these reports and is returning them? They agree to be responsible for the report so their E&O needs to cover them because they also have to be compliant with PA law in order to sign.

This little back door program has caused NACHI a lot of headaches. The bottom line is that we all must do 100 ride along before we can go on our own. That is what I did, that is what others do and that is the "spirit" of the law. PHIC's mentoring program is also a pile of crap and is there to eliminate competition and groom people who will probably end up as employees is a multi-inspection firm. A true mentoring program would not charge and enslave people. By the time someone does a 100 ride alongs who has a full time job, they may just decide this is not the business for them anyway. I have no problems taking anyone with my for free and I have because others have done the same for me.

The PA law does not take into consideration anyones personal background and experience, only a membership in an organization by meeting their requirements and doing 100 ride alongs or being supervised. What a shame but that is the way it is, it just makes it a little bit harder, take a little longer but it is still very possible.

If we have a better verification process and a signed and NOTARIZED affidavit along with a list of the 100 inspections that are reviewed for SOP compliance we will be better off in this state and we will probably shut up the folks who are our biggest critics and detractors.

For the good of the organization in this state, let's move on this subject.

--


Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com

570-362-1598