It’s happening already. Now, keep in mind, I’m just an employee, but our office manager has let me know that I’ve lost inspections because I’m not an RHI. Hell, I’m discriminated against by my employer … I’d make 6% more per inspection if/when I get to RHI. Do I want to become an RHI? Not really. Do I want to be a member of OAHI? Not with all I’ve learned of them from this forum and in speaking to others. Will I… probably, as it helps my bottom line. And that sucks to be blunt!
Mark my advice - bide your time and gain experience. Certainly it will not replace or compensate for a full fee that others collect. But there can be a certain degree of safety and knowledge acquired at the “bosses” expense!
Than again are you prepared to go it on your own. Unless you have a comfort level and sure thing - the safest thing is stay a while for the ride.
The only thing Claude said wrong here was “than”. LOL :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Actually what Claude is saying, If you want to go on your own, then there is some expenditure that will be required on your part. You are actually protected by being “employed”. Work with it and get your certs. Only you will benefit in the end.
I spent almost $40,000 to get started and just jumped right in with both feet almost 3 years ago. It is paying off. However, I had almost 30 years in the construction industry to back me up. Claude has had a billion (actual number) years in the industry and as an instructor at Humber, he is very knowledgeable (do not tell him this:mrgreen: )
Also, (here comes the crap flying) do not rely on NACHI to build your busines. Get out and build your own business. Get your courses.
Listento others, then do what you feel works best for you. Best of everything!
I see nothing wrong with the article. It didn’t say not to use NACHI members (had it, we’d have sued the other association… but it didn’t). It didn’t even mention NACHI. The sky isn’t falling.
Look, every association has a duty to promote their association’s members. NACHI is no different. I just did a very lengthy interview with the Washington Post and never once mentioned another association. It is running in the real estate section (online and offline). RECO will give us equal space to promote NACHI. Who wants to author it?
If you look at the RECO article you will discover that it is NOT. They clearly put in big letters "*Article provided courtesy of the Ontario Association of *Home Inspectors"
So who is volunteering to author the NACHI article for Canada? I certainly think you could tout our size, our educational offerings and our entrance requirements: www.nachi.org/blind.htm
Actually OAHI does not certify, it never has, as it a voluntary self regulating body, that requires a number of courses to be completed in order to be granted full membership. The colleges are truly certifying as they come under Provincial Acts.
We know that the numbers are in dispute and actually if you only count Assoc. and RHI there are less than 350!
Wrong, wrong, wrong. We are all well aware of mismanagement and irregularites with the membership, money matters, breaches of the bylaws all documented. Lack of BOD minutes. Improper collection of fines. Members being thrown out with out due process. Breaches of Pr 158.
Own qualifications, taught by a select few for financial gain.
I don’t think consumer conerns were the issue, that has never been the case because of the very low number of complaints. Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been on record as stating self regulation is working, given the low number of complaints they felt licencing or some other form of legislation was warranted.
Thats the problem self regulation has not worked since Pr 158 was granted in 1994 for all the numerous reasons we have all read about.
and the best quote offered by a self regulating voluntary body is …
That is a pretty demanding statement, and we know already that some Realtors have heeded the call at locking out Nachi members. Nick if that is not exclusionary, restrictive, and restriction of a livelihood I don’t know what is. RECO or OAHI have no right to be instructing RECO how to operate or who to hire given that OAHI has no legislation giving it absolute power, and requiring all home inspectors to belong to OAHI. They have also insulted other practioners (architects, engineers, contractors) who may very well be qualified and do inspect housing.
Given the low level of competance I have seen quite frequently in the field, it is a mystery that there aren’t more complaints or litigations. Reasons:
(1) We aren’t required to report complaints to any association or other body so that some/any monitoring is being conducted.
(2) Who is being totally truthful when questioned (but not monitored) about monies paid out to settle complaints? These may never get to a lawyers office. How much of this goes on?
(3) When complaints get to litigation through a lawyer or private mediator, we still don’t know of these cases.
(4) In the past few years, I have seen vendors give up $10,000 in price reduction due to items I have found but were missed by their inspector 3-5 years previous. Why wouldn’t they go after the inspector that missed these items? It was a paper loss only…the house value appreciated $30,000-$60,000 so what’s a $10 grand price reduction…I don’t have to come up with the 10 grand and, anyways, we made thousands just by owning the place with no or few upgrades such as paint. (At a recent HI meeting, one member who I am usually diametrically opposed to agreed on this.)
(5) Many, if not a majority, of HI’s have waiver clauses in their contracts. This immediately limits the # of complaints.
A little off topic but needs to be discussed as I have talked to people who have found themselves in this situation!!:
In many cases, the unsuspecting client has not read the waiver clause(s) beforehand and signs it onsite in a pressure situation before the inspection. The pressure situation goes like this:
(a) either it’s too long and they skim over it, not getting the true gist of what’s in it (I never see any bold/highlighted print saying "you’ll be signing your rights to compensation, if warranted, away" or,
(b) they read it, understand it but realize they’ll piss off (1) both realtors, (2) the vendor(s) and (3) the HI for standing up for themselves and not signing!! It has to be a pretty strong person who, at the beginning of inspection, says, “No go!” and walks. They have a legal “Agreement of Purchase and Sale” for which this move might constitute a breach of contract. In a hot RE market, they may have as little as 4-5 days to satisfy the inspection condition. So, to not sign the waiver and find another inspector may lose the house and their deposit for them in the end (and possibly lead to a lawsuit)…No pressure, you say!!
I consider the waiver clause the most distasteful, unprofessional item of the HI field. Not many, if any, professional groups have clients sign a waiver. (Yes, I know that surgeons now have some patients sign a waiver clause when the statistical numbers favour failure of a procedure but the patient still wants to proceed) To an astute client, the waiver should serve as a red flag…Has this professional no faith or confidence in themselves to do a good job so they try to protect themselves with THIS!!
All good points, but waivers are a neccesity. The E&O providers want it and lawyers will tell you to have one. Both the lawyer and the E&O providers will want a limit of liability clause in your contract.
The contract does not limit anyone for suing for negligence.
The other item of contention with the article is the item about liability insurance. Not all members are insured and are required to disclose such to their clients if you are a member of CAHPI-OAHI. However seeing as this is not enforced many CAHPI-OAHI are practicing without insurance. So this article is not entirely true.
" A major hope is that all of the unaligned inspectors in Ontario will pursue the NCH certification at a minimum, and continue to Ontario’s RHI level"
With this statement from the reco does this mean that the NCH has less stringiant(sp) application process or educational admission requirement. I was hoping that NCH was equal to or better than OAHI. Stating that NACHI needs to submitt to NCH may be redundant when OAHI claims to be the better of the two. Does this mean that NACHI may need to submit to OAHI instead to get us on a level playing field of acceptance to cross join associations.
NOW please do not jump all over me, but being Canadian I truly feel we need a Canadian Version of NACHI here, be it NACHI, InterNACHI or a CANACHI, which ever but it must be accepted by the governing bodys CMHC and CAHPI as these are the potential spokesperson to the public at large.
please correct me if I am wrong and show me the path one needs to potentially be aligned with legisation/licensing in Ontario
You asked reasonable questions and I will try to offer reasonable responses.
What is interesting is the RHI is actually in some areas more stringent and less stringent in others - so it depends on which region. As a general example all of those regional associations have indicated they will be including a TIPR - test inspection with peer review. So there are changes expected in the RHI designation.
Virtually every province will be conducting TIPR’s. I noted in another part of the forum another 135 TIPR’s are planned over the next few months, with more to follow. In addition we are seeing the number of u/a (unaffiliated applications) increase - which signifies that the price reduction offered has also increased interest in the program.
The continuing education requirements are higher, and everyone (that is national certificate holder) is re-tested in 5 years to assure that competency is maintained. It does not guarantee it - but it is another resonable benchmarked built into the national program to assure current relevancy.
Basically the independent management consultant’s equivalency review and report indicates the RHI meets the background review portion of the national certificate holder program. In order to become a national certificate holder the inspector must also successfully complete the TIPR.
Billy noted “A major hope is that all of the unaligned inspectors in Ontario will pursue the NCH certification at a minimum, and continue to Ontario’s RHI level” So certainly all would be really nice, and we starting to see movement happen in that direction.
Over the past decade we from time to time (mostly in the past) get one of these “The sky is falling” threads started. In each case when we try to track down the agent who threw NACHI brochures away, we always find out it was nonsense and didn’t happen. You reveal the agent to me and our Canadian attorneys will take her home and turn it into a NACHI hands-on training facility.
George has offered to author the equal time article for NACHI and I will edit it. If you have any points you want, get them to me before we send it off to RECO to publish. BTW: We’re in the U.S.'s 4th largest newspaper today with an online readership in the millions: http://www.nachi.org/latimessellingtactic.htm
What Claude says is correct regarding “RHI is actually in some areas more stringent and less stringent in others …” OAHI has PR 158, this grants quite a bit of power to OAHI. Personally speaking I think and others may agree that OAHI has pretty high entry requirements many of which the National doesn’t require and vice versa. Personally speaking if OAHI were managed correctly it would be a great licencing benchmark. However until such time as licencing comes there is really no point in creating another self regulating association, on the National level, given the fact that Provincial legislation trumps Federal legislation. The only other province with similar legislation is BC which has a designation under ASTTBC created by provincial act.