Thank you Nathan Thornberry

Yep, this is what all inspectors should do to have their business really take off. How can anyone possibly compete with this?

Don’t believe the hype.

#1 question yes

#2 question is bogus. as is offering a 90-day warranty.

The clock is ticking the moment the report is delivered. How about making it 90-days from the CLOSING date? That would be meaningful.

Other than that, I have NEVER been asked anything more than questions regarding my education and experience. I have been doung this over 20 years and have thousands of inspections under my belt. I am a nationally known instructor. I teach inspectors and real estate agents for licensing and continuing education. I am recognized by HUD, FHA, VA, and major lenders.

I do not offer a warranty, and don’t bull**** about their value. I do not offer Recall notifications. Frankly, my clients are not interested. I live in a lawsuit-happy part of the country.

Bobby is a good inspector in his own merits. That’s the bottom line.

But Bobby apparently lacks self confidence if he’s relying upon a crutch. None of his 5 star reviews mention the “FREE” warranty.

Wanna know what a “free” home warranty smells like after your client unwittingly sacrifices his private information to get it from a lead broker? This.

Yes :slight_smile:

More proof a sucker is born every minute.

Hey Bobby, do you tell your clients upfront that you will be selling all of their private information to 3rd party vendors ?

Oh and do you get their Express written permission to do so ? < if no to this then you are breaking the NACHI COE, I wouldn’t worry to much about that as Nick allows all of the inspectors that sell their clients information to get away with it.


[quote=“bhamilton, post:1, topic:122386”]

I would be interested in knowing the answers to the following before I praised any Widget Warranty.

In the video it was claimed that Desiree in Warren, Ohio had a roof claim against the Widget Roof Warranty. According to the video the repair cost $900.00.

  • The last Widget Roof Warranty I saw stated that it only pays for the cost to repair a leak and basically the means is left to the roofer. If the roofer chooses to slap roof cement on that is what happens. Is this still the same and if not why?

  • The Widget Roof Warranty has an immediate $500 deductible which means Desiree was still out $500 and the Widget Roof Warranty only paid $400. Why were these figures not used in the testimonial video?

  • The Widget Roof Warranty only pays for “normal wear and tear and deterioration” and does not pay for acts of peril such as wind, lightning, rain, etc., type damage. The Widget Roof Warranty also does not pay for any damage or wear noted in the report. The inspection occurred in May and the claim in December. A roof covering in good condition is not expected to wear or deteriorate to the point of leakage in a short 8 months. So what was missed on the inspection?

Dang, over 10 years in business and still need to offer 90 warranty gimmicks to attract new customers.

Thank you to all those that participated in our test. Results came in as anticipated and your help was appreciated.

Uh huh

How about answering the questions above?

Over 10 years member. Total MB posts last year was three.
What (or who) motivated 'ol Bobby to be here with this?

If it is really you ol Bobby or some other dingleberry it makes no difference to us. It is your name and company that is getting talked about here (Because of the thread starter) as one of those Home Inspectors that the public, agents and no one else should ever think of using for any type of inspection. You admittedly are telling the world that you are proud that you will sell any clients private information to 3rd parties for basically anything they will give toy.

This thread was a brilliant idea if you want to alert the world including all perspective clients to stay clear of you and your company. I sure am glad to help you out there buddy. !!! LMAO


I’m seeing this thread differently.

Thornberry and his gimmicks have become synonymous with newby “hungry home inspectors” who, as we know, 90% of whom will not be in business for more than three years (if the old statistics are still holding true to form) or less. To get their phone to ring once or twice, many of them will do anything … to include swapping the trust and confidence of their clients with a lead broker for a useless gimmick. By the time the newby discovers he’s been had - another one takes his place as he moves on to other ventures in search of full time employment.

What Thornberry has done here is to find an established and credible home inspector who has been in business for a while to be willing to add useless gimmicks to his site … and then promote the lead broker on this message board, from which he has been banned, with a video advertisement … thinking it might dupe other established home inspectors into thinking they are “missing out” on something. It’s a standard and effective sales ploy used a lot in media advertising.

In other words, Thornberry’s video is not for the public to view. This video (or “experiment”, as Bobby referred to it) was to be seen by home inspectors to give the misleading impression that established, successful home inspectors are routinely passing on private information about their clients to lead brokers … and you should, too.

While this ploy brought out the expected number of negative posts, home inspectors who were influenced by it and decided that it might be worth exploiting the vulnerability of their customers in exchange for the possibility of an extra home inspection per year will not post their intentions but, instead of posting to this thread, will experiment with these useless gimmicks long enough for Thornberry to harvest a few more leads for sale and continuous resale.

Think about why Bobby did not simply thank the lead broker with an email and the scheme becomes much more obvious. This thread might only be how Bobby is paying Thornberry, who would have posted it himself if he could have, in return for the gimmicks.

Jim, I agree with all of that. The thing is, is that by this Bobby guy allowing Nathan to use him for his own agenda *Newbie recruitment) he is ruining his own name and credibility on the net which will absolutely harm him much more than getting a few extra gimmicks from old Nate.


Scott Patterson also crossed to the Darkside

Thank you to all the negative people out there to help with the juice. It was anticipated. While I take a break in the day from running my business to pick up my daughter from school it’s interesting to see all the same negative people still here saying the same thing years later on topics they no nothing about. Good luck to y’all. That’s all, proceed.