Increase Public Safety and stop the recognition of inadequate trained 'electricians'. Sign the petition today!

Recently the BC Safety Authority announced that they were undermining the Canadian Electrical Apprenticeship and Electrical Red Seal Endorsement system by allowing inadequately trained ASTTBC individuals to conduct limited regulated work.

This is a gross violation of Public Trust and is likely to lead to increased dangers to the public AND the ASTTBC individuals participating in this practice.The actions of ASTTBC have never been about 'Public Protection' and in fact are nothing more than Empire Building.

Review the official response from the Electrical Inspectors Association of BC www.senwi.ca/Misc/EIALettertoPremier.pdf and then sign the permit.

Sign the Petition Today: http://www.protectredsealtrades.ca/actions.asp

For more information about the Red Seal program visit http://www.protectredsealtrades.ca/

Depreciation Reports - Choose the providing company wisely

Back in May I discussed my concerns regarding the lack of training and building science knowledge I feel most Strata Property Mangers posses.  At the end of the article I mentioned that Bill 8 of the Strata Property Act may be the solution we need in order to ensure Strata councils have the information they need to properly maintain their buildings in the future.

Well, it looks like this wish was a bit too premature as Bill 8 will not be the magic bullet I and many others were hoping for.  You see, Bill 8 does not limit who can provide the Depreciation Study and what qualifications they require.  You do not even need to be an engineer and there are now organizations and individuals clambering over each other to cash in on this new windfall.  One organization in particular has even gone so far as to create a new ‘certification’ (Reserve Fund Analysts – RRFA) targeted at its home inspectors to provide opportunities in this field of work.  This new direction was one of several factors that helped cement my decision to leave the organization.  It has become clear to me that it was no longer about “protecting the public” and was more about increasing membership and their ability to make money.

Depreciation studies are crucial planning tools for Strata that require input from many disciplines (engineers, plumbers, electricians, roofers, etc.), but specifically should be organized and presented by Professional Engineers with a focus on Building Science.  There is no way a home inspector should ever be providing this type of service.  They just do not have the right skill set and experience to do so and the limited number of courses that organizations are requiring their home or property inspectors to complete before becoming ‘certified’ just does not get them there.  If it did, the individual would have a P. Eng. and MASc designation and would be performing the Studies under these Professional designations and not a CPI or RRFA.

When choosing a firm to represent your Strata’s best interest, choose wisely.  I only recommend the best firms to my clients and advise that this is not an area to try to go cheap.  The information and maintenance instructions given out by firms like RDH, Morrison Hershfield, or Read Jones Christoffersen when completing their Depreciation Studies is well worth the investment and will usually save you money in the long run. 

Isn’t the financial future of your Strata worth hiring a Pro?

Why does SENWI take so long?

I was recently at another inspection association's seminar. At a break I got to talking with one of that association's longest members and I mentioned that I can often take up to 300 photos when looking at a property. He laughed and said - "How long does that take?" I replied that I am often at a house for 5-7 hours. He made the typical claim of how long he had been in the field and that he is looking for the 'big ticket' items only and implied that any inspector worth a grain of salt could do that in under 3-1/2 hours.

SO why does SENWI take longer?

Well first of all, our clients are usually with us (something uncommon in the industry) during the inspection. This allows them to be better informed regarding the condition of the dwelling and does take on average a hour or two longer per inspection depending on their level of interest and questions. It allows the buyer to understand the defect because they have seen it with their own eyes.

Next, we are not looking for just the 'big ticket items'. Our reports present a majority of the conditions we find in the house that could be improved upon. Who are we, as inspectors, to decide up front what is important to you as a buyer? I have had many client choose not to buy a home not because of the dollar value of a problem, but because they were not willing to deal with a specific problem. That is and should be your prerogative as a buyer.

Lastly, I suspect that we, at SENWI, take a bit more time to look at things than inspectors who take less time on site. We open up most access panels, we will move a couch or chair to see behind, we will clear out a closet to get into an attic or crawlspace and we will look behind that picture to see what it may be hiding (where incidentally many electrical distribution panels are found). We almost always inspect a roof from its surface or multiple eaves-trough locations (many in the industry just look at it from grade with binoculars), we will crawl over a fence in order to get into an otherwise inaccessible point of the back yard. This all takes time and increases our ability to report on deficiencies which in turn reduces your liability as a buyer.

Could we inspect the roof from grade and get a good idea on the OVERALL condition and age? Yes, but what about all the smaller details that may not be a condition of the roof issue, but more where the roof meets other parts of the dwelling, locations that may be allowing water into the wall or roof cavities. These can only be examined from arm's length and I do not know anyone with arms long enough to reach a roof from the ground level.

So, yes we could perform our inspections without the buyer present, we could state that areas are not accessible because of storage or fences, we could look at roofs from grade, we could leave our cameras in our truck, we could fill out a pre-printed checklist on site (hard copy or software driven), … We would still meet the legal requirements of our contract and our certifying body's Standards of Inspection. But we do not want to, we want to provide a service that is better than that, one that we can be proud of, one that PROTECTS YOU - not us.

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.

The BC Institute of Property Inspectors (BCIPI)

In a recent post, I refereed to the 'Former BCIPI'.

On November 30, 2009, ASTTBC dissolved BCIPI (and removed the duly elected BCIPI Board) after many years of struggles between the Institute and ASTTBC over the rights to advocate on behalf of the inspector membership, communicate with the membership directly, and choose as a membership our own direction outside of certification.

The active portion of the BCIPI Membership had just voted with over 80% in favour of lobbying ASTTBC to dissolve the institute and support us as an independent business body with members still certified by ASTTBC (ASTTBC has always run the certification program for home and property inspectors and no changes to this arrangement were being requested). The desire was to form a business organization better able to market on behalf of its members in a timely manner and better able to communicate freely between members.

ASTTBC made the decision to dissolve the Institute without its Council even once meeting with the BCIPI Board at the time. The notice sent to the BCIPI membership by ASTTBC at the time, identified that the Institute would be re-formed the next day with representation assigned by ASTTBC (to be called the 'Steering Committee'). It is the opinion of many of the former BCIPI members, that you cannot have an Institute without a duly elected Board and a member approved Constitution (neither of which the current 'BCIPI' has after being formed over 1 year ago).

It is important for the public and government bodies to realize, that although this development has not effected the certification and practise of ASTTBC Certified home inspectors in any way, it has removed the voice that those home inspectors once had. While the actions of the Steering Committee and ASTTBC have benefited the former BCIPI inspectors (finally updated website, introduction of webinars, & Home Show marketing initiatives) over the last months, it is important to realize that the ASTTBC appointed committee represents ASTT and does not represent the voice of the inspectors, as the Committee have not been elected into their currently held positions by the members.

Licensed Home Inspectors

Update Jan 21, 2011

Since I first wrote this posting, in April of 2009, things have changed significantly in the home inspection industry. Now all three organizations (soon to be four) accredited by Consumer Protection BC, to certify and train home inspectors have virtually the same programs in place. All have an education requirement, all have a field training requirements, all have a Standards of Inspection that are almost identical to each other, and all have a requirement for continual education. All have a Code of Ethics and a conflict resolution program. They have to or they would not be accredited by CPBC which considers all of the points above the minimum set of requirements for licensing.

This is excellent progress and a direct result of licensing I feel (and I feel as a result of the pressures put on the industry by the former BCIPI). The down side is that it has led to a complacence in the public's mind. The public is lead to believe that all inspectors have been through these systems, have the same training and provide the same service. As such they feel that a home inspection is a commodity that can be shopped by price alone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The facts are that most if not all associations have significant numbers of members that were accredited before current requirements were put in place. These members may have never had to take any courses or receive any field training. Yes they may have been doing the job for 5 yrs, 10 yrs, or even 15 yrs - but is it being done right? When licensing was put in place there were inspectors that joined ASTTBC (in order to get licensed) that had been performing home inspections for years. But when they took the field assessments they failed. They had never had the benefit of any type of passing down of knowledge from a more senior member of the industry.

There is also a vast difference between inspectors that receive a majority of the business through Realtor referrals and those that offer an independent service. The former usually provide a simplified check list style report right on site and often take 3 hours or less to inspect a single family home (1 hour or less for a Condo style apartment). This is the service expected by the agents and preferred by them because it does not cut in too much into the agent's schedule and often the limited time on site can mean many of the defects are not uncovered or reported on. An independent inspector who relies on word of mouth or past client referrals for their income, usually puts in a lot more effort into the process to protect you, the buyer and make sure you are satisfied. Most of us will spend 5-8 hours for a single family home (2.5 - 3 hours for a Condo apartment) and most of us provide a custom written narrative report with annotated photos at the end of the process. We do this because we feel that the report is the most important part of the process and that it needs to clearly identify ALL of the areas that could be improved with the dwelling and let you make an informed decision on what is important to you (other inspectors often make those decisions for you and only show a selection of the more severe defects). A select few of us even goes as far as identifying possible remediation plans to not only tell you the problem and the significance of the problem, but also possible ways to address so that you, as a buyer, can get a better feel for the cost of the defect (most reports just state there is a problem and to hire an XYZ professional to further investigate - which you as a buyer often do not have time to do before subject removal).

The bottom line is that although the industry is almost identical from association to association 'on paper', the actual service provided differs greatly from inspector to inspector. You as a buyer need to understand this and research what service you are getting for the price you are willing to pay and ask yourself - 'Will this service allow me to make an informed purchasing decision?'.

Original Post ***

In a press release dated January 30, 2009, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General announced that, as of March 31, 2009, all those providing home inspection services must be licensed. To verify your inspector is licensed, please ask to see their inspection certificate or search the BPCPA "Home Inspector Search" page.

The benefit of the licensing is that all those who provide home inspection services within the next 2 years will need to belong to an accredited inspection organization that ensures a standard of education, a standard of practise, a code of ethics, a requirement for continuing education, and a mechanism for handling customer or peer complaints. The licensing requirement stops those with no experience in the field from getting business cards and a flashlight and setting up a business. The requirements also stop those (carpenters, engineers, contractors, licensed plumbers, electricians, etc.) who may have training and experience in one or two building components, but lack the training required to inspect the dwelling as a whole, from providing inspection services.

Licensing inspectors is a great first step for the industry and provides an added layer of confidence in the system for the public. It is, however, still important for you to choose your home inspector wisely.

Only BCIPI inspectors certified by the ASTTBC are required to be fully trained before they offer services to you the consumer. BCIPI is unique in this practise. A new BCIPI inspector must pass a series of mentored field training exercises and supervised inspection assessments before they are authorized to provide services to the public. The new licensing does not yet require this from all organizations and allows those that have ONLY written a theory examination to be licensed and work unsupervised while gaining enough work experience to become “qualified” by their organization.

At SENWI, we feel that like most professional occupations and trades, some form of apprenticeship is required to hone a student’s skills and prepare them for practise in this field. Book smarts can only take a new inspector so far. A form of apprenticeship is needed to take them the rest of the way and should be a mandatory requirement for new inspectors coming into this industry.

You can rest assured knowing that all SENWI inspectors are fully qualified to provide their services to you.