Technically, a licensee of the Texas structural pest control board can recommend and perform a treatment for “preventative” reasons. Active termites are not a requirement for treatment. There are situations where preventative treatments are prudent.
The pest control operators in Texas have resisted an inspectors license that does not allow treatment. It is the way their business works and a good model for why we should not allow the same in home inspection.
John Cahill writes
Another excellent post! What is this the “excellent post” thread or what?
I think you’re missing something real important. Many inspectors I’ve known over the years in VARIOUS ASSOCIATIONS including ASAHI & NACHI simply sit up 3rd party corporations - then they do inspections - while sis’s company can do the repairs. Two separate legal entities - totally legitimate. Done all day long even in licensing states prohibiting repairing what the inspector has inspected.
While in the NAHI realm - their COE say:
**CODE OF ETHICS #6
The inspector may recommend or offer products or additional services to the client consistent with the provisions of this Code of Ethics. If the services or
products recommended or offered by the inspector are:
(a) to be purchased from or provided by the inspector, their agents or employees;
(b) to be purchased from or provided by any entity, organization, or venture in which the inspector has an interest; or
© will result in any compensation or benefit to the inspector, financial or otherwise, then the products or services may only be recommended or offered after a written disclosure to the client of the inspector’s interest in the transaction and advising the client to obtain competitive bids.
I just find that honest refreshing - rather than hiding behind smoke screens.
You also notice their COE state the Inspector MAY provide extra services - Not the NAHI inspector HAS TO Repair something OR HAS TO sell something.
**
ASHI spends a great amount of time disking NACHI and trying to convince the world that nobody but them is competent to spit on the sidewalk. People over at NACHI disk NAHI and thinks every NAHI member is a repair contractor in surprise. In looking at my fellow NACHI members in Kansas, I can see very easily 30% or so that are repair contractors of some kind or another. The way we slam each other, I’m amazed the general public trusts any of us.
I think you’re missing something real important. Many inspectors I’ve known over the years in VARIOUS ASSOCIATIONS including ASHI & NACHI simply sit up 3rd party corporations - then they do inspections - while sis’s company can do the repairs. Two separate legal entities - totally legitimate. Done all day long even in licensing states prohibiting repairing what the inspector has inspected.
While in the NAHI realm - their COE say:
**CODE OF ETHICS #6
The inspector may recommend or offer products or additional services to the client consistent with the provisions of this Code of Ethics. If the services or
products recommended or offered by the inspector are:
(a) to be purchased from or provided by the inspector, their agents or employees;
(b) to be purchased from or provided by any entity, organization, or venture in which the inspector has an interest; or
© will result in any compensation or benefit to the inspector, financial or otherwise, then the products or services may only be recommended or offered after a written disclosure to the client of the inspector’s interest in the transaction and advising the client to obtain competitive bids.
I just find that honest refreshing - rather than hiding behind smoke screens.
You also notice their COE state the Inspector MAY provide extra services - Not the NAHI inspector HAS TO Repair something OR HAS TO sell something.
**
ASHI spends a great amount of time disking NACHI and trying to convince the world that nobody but them is competent to spit on the sidewalk. People over at NACHI disk NAHI and thinks every NAHI member is a repair contractor in surprise. In looking at my fellow NACHI members in Kansas, I can see very easily 30% or so that are repair contractors of some kind or another. The way we slam each other, I’m amazed the general public trusts any of us.
In Texas… Inspectors are not to quote prices for repairs, do repairs,
or recommend anyone in particular for the repairs. If there is even
the appearance of a conflict of interest, it should be made known
before the inspection…
I don’t see anything in the NACHI COE that tells us to do the wrong
thing, so long as no one knows about it. Bad inspectors do not
make the NACHI COE bad. Bad inspectors make themselves look bad.
Just because NAHI tells people up front that they want to fix the
roof they just condemned, does not make it right. If NAHI writes
in their COE that it’s OK… then that is to their own shame. That
is not honesty… it’s just method to make a conflict of interest
look good.
If I tell you up front that I’m gonna take your wallet, does that make
me an honest thief?
What’s refreshing about that? :roll:
Dan Bowers just keeps hammering home the point. He writes
In law, violating the SPIRIT OF THE LAW is worse than violating it technically! Ask the executives at Enron… they’re all in jail.
And setting up a sham sister company (like Enron executives did) for the purpose of abiding by the law technically while violating the spirit of the law is certainly not “legitimate.”
Thanks Dan and John… this really has become the “excellent post” thread.
I know of a very honest and very competent general contractor in Southwest Missouri who also does home inspections. I understand where Dan is coming from and I agree with him that there is not always deceit motivating the small, rural guy who carries a clipboard…and also swings the hammer.
The difference, I feel, can be found in the nature of the communities.
In the small town of 300 folks where everyone knows everyone and many folks wear several different hats…there are few complaints.
But put these same contractors (who also do home inspections) in the heart of a major metropolis…and you now can legitimately question the credibility of the finding in the report that a window needs repaired or replaced when noted by a contractor specializing in window replacements.
I believe that the ethical stance taken by ASHI and NACHI in this regard is the only position a national association can take.
I think that the geographical areas that can accommodate a reasonable modification to the standard which is more suitable to their circumstance should - on a case by case basis - be allowed the flexibility to do so - provided that there are no consumer complaints to the contrary.
I think it perfectly fine for a man to be a REALTOR, a home inspector, and a contractor. I was all 3 at the same time in the 1990’s. I just never offered two or all three services on the same property for over obvious reasons.
My good friend, ex-partner, and NAHI member Dan Keogh said that he could conceive that in some rural areas a home inspector can’t survive on home inspections alone and so has to swing a hammer. I say fine. Just don’t do repairs on your own inspections.
The poor fella probably can’t find a date out there either but that is no reason to legalize rape across the U.S.
I don’t disagree. What you have described should be the standard for everyone.
I am only pointing out that honest men in small towns who are being asked to perform work on items cited in their reports, as Dan has pointed out, are being forced to recommend folks from miles and miles away - or inferior workmen - due to the small population.
It is not always the desire to deceive someone that would tempt one to deviate from the standard.
Exactly.
In small, rural communities there also may not be anyone else to do certain jobs. Should the whole town fall to the ground because some guy in a metropolis somewhere decides it’s unethical to do more than one job?
Watch the movie Baby Boom. Funnier than heck, and shows this exact dilemma. Also Snow Dogs.
It is unethical for him to do more than one job on the SAME property… and the whole world including NACHI, ASHI, and every home inspection legislation adopted and/or proposed agrees it is unethical. Scumbag NAHI is the lone hold-out.
I agree. But some would have them not wear anymore than one hat period and that isn’t rational.
It is even more unethical for inspectors to set up sister (as Dan Bowers calls them) repair companies to circumvent the spirit of the laws of their state.
Wendy… I don’t know anyone on the planet earth that has suggested home inspectors can’t have other businesses including contracting businesses. They just can’t offer their repair services to their home inspection clients. It is illegal in every state that adopted home inspector licensing… for good reason… it is wrong. And setting up sham sister companies to circumvent the law and use the home inspection industry to drum up repair work is a violation of the spirit of the law.
Last year when I started work on my Realtor’s license I was slammed repeatedly on this board for it and received several email warnings about the impropriety of it, even though I made it very clear that I would never think of inspecting a home I had listed or was selling, or a client of mine was buying.
But they got all up in arms anyway.
Not exactly. The big treatment companies here in BubbaLand will inspect for pest problems, but most will NOT issue a WDI certificate. For ANY amount. Too much liability.
Lending has gotten so loose in recent years that WDI’s are out of the spotlight. I don’t issue a certificate unless the buyer asks for it (maybe 1/10).
I remember a decade ago when mortgage money was tight, an underwriter would call with WDI questions once a week.
Sub-prime lending is about to foreclose a lot of houses, so this worm will probably turn again soon.
Russell
Thanks for posting that Dan. Somebody needed to say it. That is the essence of American business practice. The other manifestation I see in my practice is management companies that are silent partners in the maintenance contractors they hire. It is truly the warp and woof of effective business strategy.
While working on ethics rules in Texas we were AMAZED how players could find ways to circumvent ANY rules much faster than we could adopt them. Gotta love capitalism.
Also while working on the ethics rules we reviewed RECLA pretty carefully. The realtors and title companies have a work-around that makes the whole system toothless. Basically, parties to a transaction are not barred from pay-offs as long as it is for “marketing purposes” at reasonable rates. Whatever that means.
My overall impression is that inspectors (and engineers 
) are generally very ethical, to the point of being overly idealistic. But real estate in general is corrupt beyond even the most cynical of perceptions.
Too much money, VERY large, organized players in lending, title insurance and brokerage.
In a nutshell, it’s why they pick up 6-7% of every transaction and we get 0.1%. But guess which phone rings when the consumer feels ripped-off. We are the patsies.
There are too many inspectors in honest competition to make much money, but not enough of us to organize and meaningfully affect the regulatory systems.
Sorry, had cold eggs for breakfast. 
Russell in BubbaLand