Originally Posted By: escanlan This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I have been advised that TREC has recently entertained comments about the proposed ethics changes. The rule changes are to be posted to the Texas Register soon for public review and comments submission. After the allotted “Comments Period” the proposed changes and public comments will be sent back to the TREC Inspector Committee for review.
This is an opportunity for NACHI members to review the changes and provide comments for consideration. If you choose to comment on these proposed changes I have been told they are to be directed to TREC General Counsel.
At this time I am not sure exactly what the proposed changes are. They are to be posted to the TREC WEB site soon. It does appear however that it will very much be in our best interest to review the changes and provide comments as we feel appropriate. I will keep an eye on the TREC WEB site for their release. However, if I miss them and you catch their release please post them for all to view.
Originally Posted By: jcahill This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The Texas Real Estate Commission approved posting proposed changes to ethics rules in the Texas Register. As Ethics Chairman, I asked for that action. We had 7 meetings on Ethics. More or less, the same people showed up to express opposition and approval. By posting on the public register we hope to solicit more public and trade association input. After the public posting period TREC can adopt the proposal into rule or send it back to committee. We have requested it to be sent back to committee so public coment can be reviewed. I have a copy of the wording but prefer you get it straight from TREC when they publish it. I do not want to make a posting error.
The main point of disagreement is the proposed rule prevents referral fees. Current rule requires a disclosure form. Many inspectors get around that by deferring the referral fee to their wife, kids college fund or secretary. The inspector can then say "I did not take a referral fee".
This is a controversial subject and all comment is welcome.
Originally Posted By: jcahill This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The following interesting question has been asked:
A foundation warranty company provides a free 90 day foundation warranty to the buyer IF the inspector indicates the foundation is acceptable. The inspector does not receive money directly or indirectly (to their wife etc). Client permission to send contact information is required. The inspector has no follow up role. All inspectors can join after attending a mandatory 1 day training class. The warranty company pays for the class. The only inspectors excluded are those that make bad inspection decisions. The warranty company holds the inspector harmless if a bad call is made.
The argument is:
1 - The inspector receives valuable consideration in that his/her liability is reduced by the warranty.
2 - The inspector who participates has a marketing advantage over the inspector who does not (or cannot because they are making bad decisions).
This seems to be stretching the concept of compensation, especially when the consumer gets significant free coverage and no money goes to the inspector (or his wife) but then it is one hell of a good question.