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.