Industry Standards

Note: Since first publishing this entry, I have been made aware that Consumer Protection BC has published their requirements for organizations wishing to become accredited certification organizations. This is an excellent step in transparency for the industry.

Original Post:
ASTTBC recently submitted a brief to Consumer Protection BC calling for one set of standards and one regulating body for the home inspector industry in BC.

I would like to provide comment on this brief (especially as it is portrayed as representing the 'BCIPI' inspector when no such consultation with the 'BCIPI' inspector has taken place).

The flavour of this brief is of no surprise to me. ASTTBC was continually calling on the Government to name ASTTBC as the sole regulating body to regulate the industry during the months leading up to licensing (a position that was not shared by the majority of the BCIPI Board and therefore BCIPI at the time).

It has commonly been portrayed by ASTTBC, that they are the ONLY association that has the golden key on how this industry should be run. In fact, every organization currently accredited by CPBC, has a legitimate case for arguing the same, as they all have more similarities than differences between their certification programs.

From a public protection point of view, each association provides pretty much the same standards of inspection and the same opportunity to vet consumer complaints as the other (at least on paper, which is all we can really go by).

From an inspector point of view, some organizations are much better than others at marketing on behalf of their inspectors (often by marketing to Realtors, which is an industry problem - conflict of interest - that will not be corrected until you, the public, step up and demand that it is corrected). Bottom line is that I do not feel at this time that the consumer is being 'short changed' by their reliance on any one inspection association over the other - just perhaps by the choice of what specific inspector they choose and who that inspector feels he/she is truly working for.

When CPBC rolled out licensing as a result of new legislation, it was made clear to the industry what the minimum standards were going to be and in fact 3 organizations at the time met those standards and one did not. So, to suggest that minimum standards are not in place is misleading in my view. It was recognized by CPBC at the time (and little has changed since) that each approved organization had virtually identical Standards of Inspection, all had a Code of Ethics, and each had a complaint resolution process. All three associations also had mandatory professional development requirements (something my organization has not enforced well in the past but as of Jan 2010 has started to rectify). The only thing that was missing from two of the organizations (something I am proud to say that BCIPI had all along) is a requirement for field training and field assessments PRIOR to allowing a new inspector to provide services to the public (the others used to allow their new inspectors to 'practise' on the public). However, shortly after licensing was introduced, the other organizations stepped up and introduced or re-organized their programs to require field training as well before setting a new inspector free. I should also state that each organization has some form of theory exam requirements where the new inspector's knowledge of a dwelling is testing in a proctored and written exam.

So now lets look at each recommendation in detail:

1) There is, in reality, already one minimum standard set by CPBC, that is being met or exceeded by each accredited association's standards. The one surprise in this point is the 5yr review. This was a concept originally implemented by the National Certification Program (run by CAHPI at the time) and an excellent idea I was personally trying to float to our association while I was serving on the Board of BCIPI previous to it being dissolved. I fully endorse this concept and feel it is a step in the right direction as long as it is managed well and that the review is by peers and not association bureaucrats.

2) Nice in theory but will never happen in practice unless that one certifying body is a branch of Government or a body like the National Home Inspection Certification Council. In my view, the existing organizations all have too much political bent and would not be able to impartially run a centralized program. There is also no valid method to choose one organization over the other. A possible solution is for the CPBC to run Certification exams as is done in some of the States that have licensed inspectors. They could further introduce a Standards of Inspection (SOI) that all inspectors had to meet (again like is done in many of the US States). If all inspectors took the same exam and met the same SOI, regardless of association affiliation, then the public could be assured one standard that they all had to pass through and perform.

There will never be one training program in my view and there does not need to be one, if everyone has to pass through the same 'Certification' exam. This would remove 'Certification' from all of the organizations and relegate them to training and disciplining inspectors only.

3) This is just a rehash of the above, if you accept that the CPBC does have a standard and that all organizations either meet or exceed that standard.

4) My opinion is that all Standards of practice are already virtually the same and in most cases have been moulded by the insurance industry. Client contracts should be required, but the thought that one contract could meet the needs of every inspector is ludicrous. The content of Contracts beyond basic requirements are a business decisions best left to the business owners and their lawyers.

The Realtor interface policy is of particular interest to me. It is interesting that ASTTBC is rolling out a new policy for 'BCIPI' without ever discussing it with the 'BCIPI' inspectors. It is also interesting to note that the current manager of the ASTTBC Inspector Certification program has been reported to have an active Real Estate License.

5) This is a moot point. Those that applied to CPBC, as inspectors without an affiliation to a specific accredited body, have till March 2011 to join an accredited body or will loose their license. This was a transitional opportunity only, to allow those in the field time to meet the requirements of one of the associations.

6) With all inspectors requiring the same level of insurance, this can hardly be considered a burden. If it is, it is one the whole industry in BC has borne together for the last two years.

While I agree that the $1M per incident is too high, I feel that $250K is a severely inadequate value if the consumer is going to stay protected. A more appropriate value would be $300 or $400K per incident and the same $1m per aggregate. Having the inspector having to get extra riders depending on the value of home they will be inspecting would be problematic at best.

To try and price out the insurance so that it was 'affordable' for the part-time-casual inspector is also not appropriate as it then brings down the consumer protection for the entire industry. Like any professional industry, if a person cannot afford the costs to join and maintain their status in the industry, they should get out and do something else.

7) Regulations are supposed to set direction and then the body responsible for enacting the regulation is required to flush out the regulation into a set of rules. This recommendation implies that the CPBC does not have a defined requirement or cannot be relied upon to carry out the implementation of the requirement on their own. It is my opinion that this recommendation amounts to nothing more than protectionism. The only part that is agreeable is that CPBC should publish a publicly available standard that a new association must meet before being accredited. But in general, I feel that CPBC has done a great job managing this new licensing program and that they have clearly met the spirit and framework of the regulation.

8) The Home Inspection regulation was never intended to address industry issues beyond ensuring that all inspectors practising in BC meet a minimum set of standards. The legislation has been largely successful in this regard and it is not up to Government to create a need beyond this. This need, if warranted, is to be defined and demanded by the public. To date this has not even begun to develop, to suggest that the system needs to be changed now because one player does not like sharing the spotlight with the others is unwarranted and unneeded in my view.

These views do not constitute an official view of any party outside of this inspector's and SENWI Services Inc.