My point is that the private sector wasn’t given hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent this from happening, the ‘preferred vendors’. There is one HUGE difference…
[quote=“staylor7, post:19, topic:80089”]
Not looking for an argument with you, but rather professional discussion based on facts and available information. You were the one that made the assertion that far more mistakes are made by retail inspectors. I did not make an assertion that errors are less on the retail side when compared to the “preferred providers”. As for a valid argument, I was not making an argument for either side of the issue, but rather asking for any valid evidence to support your assertion. With respect to your premise that all sections on the 1802 form require definitive verification, would that not be the case on the retail side as well as on the preferred provider side?/
[QUOTE]
Should be, but it was not happening in the past. The gap is getting smaller now, but some inspectors are still, for example, automatically assuming impact rating for windows with a MDCA sticker or just the glass etching…this is not enough to show impact rating. Others have the go ahead to call two embedded straps with 2 nails each, a clip rating. Still others are taking photos of truss hangers on a girder and calling this RTW…shall I go on.
I am not pumping up the Preferred Companies, but I did see first hand a lot of mistakes on the original reports when I was with one of them.
And I have seen mistakes from the ‘preferred vendor’ people as well. So what is your point?
Want to make it super easy, your liable for your mistake. Now lets see what happens.
No doubt, Russell. There were a few guys in that program that didn’t belong there, but their mistakes were usually caught by the QA department. And by the way, a lot of those guys that shouldn’t be there are still there…lol. The good inspectors all left the program.
Again, not trying to argue with you- but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Of course, I would agree with you (and Mr. Fricke) that there are people on the retail side as well as on the “preferred provider” side that should not be doing these inspections. If a lot of those guys that make mistakes for the preferred providers are still there, and the good inspectors all left the program, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that the error rate for the “preferred providers” would go up? And based on your knowledge and assertion that the good inspectors all left the program, I assume that they are now on the retail side if still doing inspections. If those good inspectors are on the retail side now, wouldn’t that make the retail side error rate go down? Again, just trying to gain a better understanding of how this thing works.
Steve, we are only talking about a few hundred inspectors that no longer do the reinspections or work for the preferred companies. There are over 8000 new home inspectors now doing these at some level. And again, the preferred companies are required to audit all reports to the carrier’s guidelines which do follow the 1802, but are usually more stringent and black & white…no grey areas or subjective opinions allowed.
Here is one example I just found today…
In a perfect world Russ it’d be great…mistake is one thing, fraud or not knowing what you are doing is another…although I suppose with this, plausible deniability makes either easy to get away with, and thus the fact that there is no real consequence.
Its a dog and pony show anyways. Statistics from buildfax show that like 80% of the state’s roofs have been replaced with a permit since 01FBC started, so as each year goes by and more roofs go on, you’re basically giving a discount away that everyone has, so in effect, it’s not really a discount at all, as the carriers will just adjust their rates to offset it.
I have worked both sides and would agree with Steve. Mistakes are all in the eyes of the beholder. I have seen many re-inspections just as bad as retail. Most re-inspectors will not go an extra inch for a client and a client will not do an ounce of extra work for the re-inspector.
Most of the major mistakes were early on, with the contractors and MSFH. Now that there is more and better training things are getting better.
How about when the QA department changes a signed report. Signed by a licensed person? Is that not fraud? It is illegal, but they have done it.
Bingo! I thank them for the thousands of inspections each year.
Here is a novel idea? Why not just let the insurance companies decide what they charge? This way they can decide who gets discounts and for what.
Bingo! I thank them for the thousands of inspections each year.
Here is a novel idea. Why not just let the insurance companies decide what they charge? This way they can decide who gets discounts and for what.
I would not call this fraud. Yes, it was done to an extent, but this was done to reports for minor typos and grammar blunders. If a material mistake was made, it was sent back to the inspector for revision. Also, only inspectors that signed up for QA editing (for a fee), were subject to revision without their knowledge. This was promoted to speed up the processing of the reports.
LMAO…I say Bull Sheet on this one. Inspector here has PROOF they changed it with HIS signature on it. They committed FRAUD…plain and simple. If it has MY SIGNATURE on it and YOU change stuff, ANYTHING without my permission, you are committing fraud.
With pdf fill they can and do do any thing they want to and you have no control over it. It is called FRAUD.And it happens
Since we are talking about wind mitigation inspections and retail providers and “preferred providers”- I have a question: Is a licensee’s signature who is authorized to complete a wind mitigation inspection per F.S. 627.711 less valuable when working for a “preferred provider” as opposed to doing a retail wind mit?
So exactly when does it become fraud or illegal? I can show you examples of punctuation changes that will change meanings. Bull**** about the QA I have examples, they do as they see fit. Did I mention “they” have the data and like to manipulate the statistics also.
Well, I guess you really didn’t understand my post. I agree that a report can not be amended without the licensee’s approval. But, if you had read my post, I said that these inspectors previously APPROVED the editing by signing up for this program (it was an optional service). Ask your inspector if he was on the QA program. The rest of us just got audited by QA and rejected if there was a mistake. We had to fix the mistake ourselves.
And if you did not sign-up for the QA(Added fee) then they changed them anyway.
Let’s see them John. I’m not saying in the least bit that mistakes did not get through the system and wound up in the policyholders lap, but no system is perfect.
They may have made us change them according to “their” guidelines, but I don’t recall a report of mine being changed without my knowledge, at least that I know of…I’m still optimistic about that.