When a group is pushing for licensing, simply follow the money and it will lead you to the reason why.
I’ve not seen any good legislation pushed by Realtors, Builders, Attorneys or even Home Inspectors. Once we are licensed the Realtors often say “pick one they are licensed, they are all the same”.
In general, most states see a drop in the number of inspectors the first year, then the flood gates open and there are more inspectors than before. The new guy is looked at as being the same as the guy who’s been doing it for 20 years.
Remember, every time a law is passed we lose freedom.
I know our collective best interests are not being served in Ontario. So the only way to break the collective yoke around our collective necks is to call for licencing and be proactive in its implimentation and to lobby for our rights in our collective businesses. We cannot unfortunately rely on those who have their own best interests and continue to do so.
I simply cannot imagine asking the government for “help” in regulating my business. More restrictions, more taxes, more penalties, and the government always plays to the lowest common denominator.
</IMG>
I am happy to let competition sort us out. I’ll take my chances by competing with the other businesses and associations, even if they are underhanded in their practices. Once the government gets in, it is there to stay.
I think that the term “good legislation” is an oxymoron. Socializing our profession is a very bad idea and, IMO, there is no really good way of doing it.
Historically, I think that Canadians have come to accept government control as a solution where we in America see it more as a problem. For instance, health care in Canada fell under government control a few years back. It has kept costs down, but has done little to improve or advance the quality of health care. In several licensed states, the same effect has come about…lower fees with no real improvement in quality.
I was not being critical - just pointing out the differences.
A little over 200 years ago, 13 North American colonies under Great Britain declared independence. Several more colonies north of them (where you presently reside, I believe) felt inclined not to join them in their quest to resist government control, and remained loyal to the crown.
Today, we still retain those cultural differences. Where you seek it for your security, we resist government control for the same reasons.
Our biggest problem is we less then ten % of the population of the USA and are trying to support a country that is larger then the USA.
Every thing is harder to do ,from transportation on and we have to build our infrastructure to stand the lower temperatures longer winters more heating more Insulation in the homes so the cost for most is usually more .
I also have a problem with the gov getting into our profession. The need is not there and some how I think that gov involvement should not be there if there is no need
From my observation of the home inspectors who lost control of their profession to the state, it was a result of their lack of resistance to a movement that few of them had little to do with.
Instead of asking “why”, as you are, they struggled for friendly language in the bill. Instead of arguing against it, they fought for grandfathering or other provisions that would take the sting out.
Much of the fight is lost when people fall into the trap of believing that it is “inevitable” that the goverment will control their profession. I hope that you guys in Florida are able to continue to lead the fight against socialization of home inspecting. You’ve done it, now, for 15 years.
Politicians of most stripes delight in “doing” something in the name of and "for the good of the people? We keep letting them and they keep doing it to demonstrate how effective they are on behalf on their consituency and of course to get re-elected and retain power and prestige not to mention the benefits. JMHOFWIW
This thread seems to be a little one sided so I’ll sound out for the “good”.
I think the State of Oregon got it right as the legislation is very fair to home inspectors. Check out the Oregon SOP, I think you’ll see that the home inspectors involved in helping with this legislation did a good job; it’s fair to both home inspectors and the consumers of home inspection services.
Oregon may have “got it right” in your opinion but what and who was the driving force behind getting enacted? James B. has stated, and I agree, that we give up some freedom when regulation is instituted. Would you do your job any differently if the state law didn’t proscribe what to do and not do?
Our HI law in Wisconsin is similar to yours but I would rather not be bound by it. I’d rather live in freedom and without this form of government interference. We should not pretend that there is no cost associated with legislation of any type. When we give up to government control of our business practice we have a little less freedom. IMHO
I would do things a little differently, in that I wouldn’t have to spend as much time “describing” sytems and components in my report as we are required to do. But I think that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The exam to become certified was a 5 part, 4 hour exam that was much more difficult than the NHIE, I was told that very few pass all 5 parts the first time (you only have to retest the parts you fail, but must wait at least one month to do so). The exam consists of one part each in electrical, hvac, plumbing, all other systems, and SOP/contract issues. In order to sit for the exam, you have to prove you have a certain combination of “ride-alongs”, h.i. education, construction or contracting experience, etc. and I think this keeps the number of people interested in becoming hi’s down to a minimum. I’ve had several friends interested, who chose not to give it a try after I explained the requirements.
I think very little was lost for what was gained, but I’m new to the game here, I might think differently down the road. One thing I do like is that if a client asks why I’m not inspecting a certain component, or why my service is not a guarantee, I can point to state law that says that I’m not required to do those things, which quickly ends misunderstandings.
I don’t know what the driving force was behind the legislation, but I know that experienced h.i.'s were heavily involved in the process of writing the law and are part of the Construction Contractors Board that oversee any changes or modifications to the h.i. law. I hear very little complaining from inspectors. I’m also a provisional member of the Oregon Real Estate Inspection Association (OREIA) which is the largest association of h.i’s in the state (ashi is a small player here) and they are all over any changes to the law. OREIA used to be the Oregon chapter of NAHI but parted ways with NAHI over the issue of inspectors working on homes they’ve inspected, which state law forbids for the first 12 months.
When I compare these two sentences, side by side, I think I can see what the driving force behind the legislation was…and the pattern is certainly not unique to Oregon.
I think in Ontario, the province should licence us all. After a certain date new licenced home inspectors will have to be college accreditied. Those that are already in the system will be grandfathered. Good bye inspector mills, good byd bad governance, good bye to high liability, and excellent time to legislate for limits of liability, hello to affordable insurance… hello to accountability…
**The National Association of Certified Home Inspectors **
NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE CHAPTER NEWSLETTER
PUBLISHER EDITION VOLUME DATE
Frank Carrio Six One August 29, 2006
Chapter President
Greetings to all!
I am happy to announce that at 2:00 PM on August 29, 2006 we had our first Public Meeting addressing the new House Bill pertaining to Licensing of Home / Residential / Building inspectors in New Hampshire. The meeting was chaired by the sponsors of the bill, State Representatives Benjamin Baroody and State Representative Angeline Kopka.
The notice of this meeting went out to all NACHI-NH members as well as to the ASHI-NH members. The Board of Directors of your New Hampshire State Chapter of NACHI Frank Carrio, Marcus Hutnick, and John Hastings, were all present and accounted for. A special thanks goes out to Ron Racine one of our more active members who voiced his opinions, and made his voice heard at this meeting.
ASHI members Daryl Justham and David Roth were also present and fully participated in this first public hearing. They both addressed some concerns that I believe were answered to their satisfaction.
The meeting was professional, cordial, and the camaraderie was clearly evident.
All present were invited to attend the next NACHI chapter meeting to take place at “The Yard” in Manchester NH, on Wednesday September 27, 2006 Between 6:00 – 9:00.
State Representatives Baroody and Kopka will be our Guests of Honor and will be addressing this meeting.
Once again, I thank each and every inspector who attended!
Sounds to me like more states are seeing the light.
It seems obvious to me that you can’t have it both ways. You want good inspectors (I’m sure the public does), you set the standards high, and make the test hard enough that when someone passes it they are ready to go, and will be a credit to the profession. You want to compete with a horde of incompetents, lower the standards, or don’t require any licensing or certification so that anyone with a flashlight and an electrical outlet tester thinks they can inspect. By the way, just so we’re clear, I’m not saying that that is what you are, but if that’s what you want your competition to be, have at it! Nobody is stopping anyone from being able to take the test here, Oregon just made it hard enough that those who do want to take it will properly prepare themselves before assisting people with the biggest financial decisions of their lives.
As a side note, the attorney who drafted my contract told me that there are very few home inspection lawsuits in this state, I thinks its directly related to the standards.
Our state does not mandate E & O coverage. In fact, my attorney told me to drop it because he said it attracts lawsuits. He told me that if there is no pot of gold (the insurance company) then most attorneys will not take a lawsuit on contigency. This is why I’m telling you that Oregon got it right. Certification is required, the test is brutal, the Oregon SOP must be given to all clients, contracts must be signed before the conclusion of the inspection, and hi’s have the option of carrying E&O if they so choose. Furthermore if there are disputes between hi’s and their clients the client can appeal to our Construction Contractors Board for non-binding or binding arbitration, all for free. We have a 6 page SOP that clearly states what we are to be looking for and what we are to describe, it gets everyone on the same page. It informs the consumers of home inspection services about their rights but also their responsibilities when purchasing hi services. I’m sure that it is not a perfect document, but it seems to be doing a good job of protecting both hi’s and their customers.
hello to accountability…