Home : Blogs : Mitchell Captain Home inspections in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach : Mitchell's Blog

Ethics and the home inspector

I've created a new group called "Ethics and the home inspector". Right now it is a friendly place to post issue about ethics in the home inspection profession. You can post about ethics of home inspectors, ethics of the home inspection as it relates to clients, ethics of home inspection organizations, or any related ethic issue within our profession. Realtors and others are more than welcome to also post about the ethics of home inspectors or relationships to inspectors.

AllSpec Professional Property Inspections Inc is a home inspection company doing home inspection in Miami Dade county, Broward county, and Palm Beach county. I am a certified inspector by the highest and best in the profession my grandson. See picture below. His testing is second to none and he proctors all his tests and personally checks on my CEUs. If I get lax or out of hand he will suspend my certification. It is the most prestigious and limited home inspection organization on earth. He is currently researching a certified master board certification but he thinks some guy already register it. He is in contact with a major university to start a doctoral program in home inspection. http://www.allspec.us/

Posted by Mitchell Captain Home inspections in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach on 05/30/2007 04:13 PM

Comments (29)

ethics, home inspector, home inspection, realtor

Post is included in group: Ethics and the home inspector

29 Comments on Ethics and the home inspector

JUN

2007

I have recently purchased a home. I had it inspected by my certified licensed home inspector who told me that it was built like a rock, solid even. Upon moving in, the first thing that I noticed was that the paneling on the wall in the dining room was warped (this wall is the back wall of the house, goes out to the screened porch). I told my realtor, who is also my boss. He went to the seller and asked him about it. The seller told him that he knew about it but never got to fixing it, so he just had it painted over( this was not disclosed to us prior to buying the house, obviously). Thinking back on the initial walk through and the final walk through, there were things covering these spots (it seemed to me like an intentional cover up). I had the inspector come out and look at it, he was very upset that he missed it and he was angry with the seller for covering it up and he told me that if the seller didn't fix it, that he would. I am weary that there is mold or rot behind this paneling and I do not feel that I am resposible for paying for materials, labor or a possible toxic mold cleanup. I plan on having the home inspector come back into the house and inspect the wall further (take down the paneling - he is also a contractor). I have sent an invitation to the sellers to be present when the home inspector comes. We are now at the point in all of this where we are waiting for the seller to respond to the invitation. In the event there is mold, who is responsible for the clean up? My boss (which makes this a tricky situation) feels that I am resposible for it. I don't want to have to take this to court, but I do not feel that I am the one to be stuck with this. It is either the seller or the home inspector.

Please give me your thoughts on all of this.

Jessica Moyers

Jessica, You didn't say what state you live in. Different states have different laws. I'll start by saying that if the wall was hidden by furniture or other stored items, the home inspector would not have seen it. If the HI fixes it for free, consider it a good deal. If he charges to fix it, he may be in violation of his associations code of ethics. Most national associations forbid working for money on a home that you inspected; at least for a year after the inspection. I personally think that it is time for all involved to take a deep breath, and start communicating to get a resolution that works for everyone.

Jessica, A home inspection is a visual, non-invasive process. A clever seller can be pretty effective in covering up things sometimes. In this case, his admission that he knew about it and "just painted over it" is proof enough that he was not forthcoming on the matter of disclosure, and that he intentionally covered up something he knew he should have disclosed. If there is mold, in my view it should be the seller's responsibility. Considering the circumstances, I think the inspector's offering to fix the problem is very generous....but it would be wrong to ask him to pay for mold mitigation.

JUN

2007

Mitchell,

I like this topic on ethics. One area in the home inspection profession that irks me is all these "certified" inspectors. Now I am no different than any other inspector. I use the term constantly. My issue is, as I like to say, what's behind the symbol.

I see inspectors sporting all types of logos stating they are "certified" home inspectors, mold inspectors, radon technician, even master inspectors. As you probably are aware most of this is just plain nonsense. Most of these "certifying" associations are in business to make money. Their qualifications are in most cases a joke. Unfortunately the consumer has no insight into the workings of the "certifying" process and sees the logo as an assurance of competency.

Comments anyone?

James

go here.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/64417/Certified

JUN

2007

I live in Tennessee.

JUN

2007

Since this is a fairly new blog I'm going to seed the discussion with a few comments and considerations. Warning! this may wander a bit. LOL

From a "Certified" Property Inspector's view point: (boy, did that sound important or what?) LOL

I'm struck by the idea that the Public has very few ways of vetting a Home Inspector other than considering the "certs" of the inspector if not "guided" by the agent. (I know, I know, you are deterred from doing that by office or professional rules.) (or just survival)

My solution to referrals is to offer a list of vetted vendors of various services. Normally 4-5 choices in each category. I always defer to the clients Agent's list but offer these as a backup if needed. Provide the service as a "service" without pushing any one. Pretty arms length. Win-win situation. Client gets the needed service from someone they feel they have at least some hope of getting a good job from and the Agent and Inspector can help without putting their future at risk.

The home inspector organizations work hard to get their particular standards put forth as the "One True Standard" and thus making their organization's certification valid. Or at least more valid than the "other" guy's Cert. More jobs = more money in the bank = survival. Interesting game. Tough to implement.

(The particular organization I belong to is CREIA (California Real Estate Inspection Association) This is a California only group of around 1000 +/- inspectors. Been around for a while now. Since 1976. CREIA's focus is education of the members and Certification via a proctored examination that is not easy to pass.) There is no current license requirement in CA.

As to that.....When things hit State level consideration like requiring a license to provide certain services, they tend to be very "politicised". Being the Democracy that we are, everyone <incert cynical remark here>(that can afford it) can make them selves heard on an issue. Thems with deeper pockets seem to be heard a little better. This does not always turn out to be the best solution for the consumer. (reference Congress' recent handling of the Medicare drug bill - guess who won that one?) Don't get me started!! LOL

There is also the area of education of the home buyer and seller and the agent. I try and set the expectations of my clients early on before the inspection. This "educational" step is most important in getting a good outcome from the whole inspection process (not to mention the whole deal) It's nice to be loved but I cringe when I hear an Agent tell the buyer "Dana is very good, He'll find everything." Sorry, Not happening. I'm good but no one can or will find "everything". I gracefully accept the compliment from the Agent and then "educate" the client gently about the limits of a "General Visual Inspection". I keep it light and tell them that I left my X-Ray glasses at home in my other superman suit. Look at it like this; the Inspector is like seeing the General Practitioner at your HMO. General checkup and some recommendations. (like stop smoking LOL) Anything more than that and it's off you go to the specialist for an in-depth look, specific to that system. You could look at it as a cost saving strategy. Only inspect in depth in the areas that need it. Granted, there is a great amount of discretion on the Inspector's part and sometimes an over use of this call. That's another whole thread. LOL

Dana

Dana,

You bring up some good points, even if you wander.... just kidding.

As you mentioned CA does not license home inspectors in CT where I am there is licensing. With licensing comes a set of State standards and code of ethics. Yet I see almost every home inspector proclaim they meet or EXCEED the state standards, ashi standards nachi standards and any other standard they can throw in there. What they don't realize is when they may find themselves in front a gentleman in a long black robe and they are asked "so Mr. inspector what standards were you using when you inspected Mr. Jones house? You exceeded those standards here, but not here." They are going to find themselves in a bit of a predicament. Consistency is your friend in these situations and in our profession.

Licensing is a good thing. It gives you a set of rules to go by unlike in CA. I do not envy you, it has to be much tougher. What standard to use? The point however is to stick to whatever set of good standards you have and use them.

As far as what a consumer can do to other than looking at certifications, that's simple, educate themselves about home inspections. I have on my web site an article I wrote titled Home Inspection 101. I try and have potential clients read it, or ask if they have read it when they call, most have never bothered to look at it. It amazes me how educated home buyers are on home buying, neighborhoods, schools and mortgages. When it comes to home inspections, nada.

So we come back to certs. It's quick, it's easy, no thought involved. Good looking logo, the guy must be an excellent home inspector. It's a shame really. It levels the playing field and allows the"bench-warmers" into the game.

Any how now who's wandering.....

James,

I agree, following a "standard" is most important. CREIA's SoPs have been around a long time and are actually part of the State Business and Professions code. "bout as close as you can get to a license with actually having one.

You gotta be kidding! Do homework on what an inspection really is. Most don't even read the report when I'm done. Stupid as that seems it's common. I get forms forwarded from the buyers insurance carrier asking about the very things that are clearly stated in the report. Obviously, they have not read it.

Certs is a slippery game but one we have to play because it's expected. General Contractor, 27 years experience in the trades, 1,000's of paid inspections but no Cert = you don't count.

Education, education, education. We need to be consistant, unbiased and accurate and follow a recognized standard.

Best,

Dana

JUN

2007

Howdy Mitchell

Nice blog post you have here

JUL

2007

I hope you feel better. And I think grandson is one word.

OCT

2007

I enjoyed reading your article on ethics. It was very interesting.

Don Bradbury

DEC

2007

Referring to ethics and the Home Inspector, I thought I would mention something I have started running into. It is called "preferred Vendors". This is a practice by some Real Estate companies that set up a marketing group that includes "only" the vendors that have paid to advertise in their program. In the case of Home Inspectors, they are paying to market to the real estate company. In turn the real estate company will only accept any form of marketing from their "preferred vendors".

This means that the realtors working for that company are only going to recommend an inspector who has paid to be on their list. The realtor has a fiduciary duty to look out for the interests of their client but they are only going to recommend an inspector that has paid to be on the list even if he is the least experienced inspector?

In addition, the Code of Ethics of the major Home Inspector Associations specifically prohibit paying to get on preferred lists. That means that not only is the realtor recommending an inspector based on a financial arrangement, but they are recommending an inspector who has already shown that he is willing to ignore the code of ethics he agreed to work under by paying to get on the list.

What happened to ethics here?

Robert, it is appalling to me that this practice exists, especially in my own city. I refuse to participate in it. It will come back to haunt them sooner or later (hopefully sooner). I look at it as greedy realtors who want money any way they can get it.

The important thing as far as I am concerned is that we as Home Inspectors live up to the code of ethics we agreed to follow. It may mean that we lose a few inspections to the inspectors who have less concern for ethics, but in the long run we will come out ahead. Home buyers will appreciate our honesty.

Robert Sole

www.REMinspections.com

Robert

The problem is a company can sign a preferred vendor agreement and the association can not do anything because it is the corporation making the agreement and not the inspector.

DEC

2007

I haven't looked into that part of it, you may be right. As for myself, I will not participate in these programs. If I should ever be sued (legitimate or not) and it involved an inspection obtained due to one of these agreements, then an aggressive attorney (has anyone ever seen another kind?) could very easily make a case that could pierce the corporate veil and there goes the insurance and everything I own. It is not worth it. The only defense we have is that we are conducting our business in an honest, ethical way. If that is lost, so are we.

I also plan to keep an eye out for forums such as this and spread the word so that honest realtors know that they to are violating their code of ethics if they follow the program.

Think about it. If the inspectors refuse to go along with the program and at least some of the realtors refuse to go along with it, the program will go away.

Maybe I'm making too much of this but to me it is unethical and apparently the associations felt that it was unethical. I want to be able to look in the mirror every morning.

Robert Sole

www.REMinspections.com

ASHI has specifically stated that these programs are a violation of its CoE. Members who participate in them will be disciplined, i.e. lose their membership.

In my opinion it should not take a statement from an association or even require debate to understand these preferred vendor programs are unethical. They are simply for the greedy, poor business people who want a short cut to a "successful" home inspection business.

Coldwell Banker tried to start with this a while back here in my area. The head of the group of Inspectors I work with (as an Independent) set up a meeting with the local corporate rep for CB here and delivered a position letter from CREIA and explained the ethics problem to her. They dropped the program. It was only a money grab anyway.

I recieved a call yesterday from another Real Estate office that is starting one of these programs. I am going to the meeting and after I have listened to their pitch, I am going to hand them copies of the code of ethics for NACHI, ASHI, and FABI to show them that any inspector who agrees to join is not an inspector that they want to recommend.

Robert Sole

www.REMinspections.com

James

You are correct members can not participate in the program.

However;

The person that signs the agreement is not a member of ASHI they are the owner of the corporation and they sign the agreement. The inspecors are ASHI members and they just do the inspections as directed and are not and will not be disciplined by ASHI.

At one point in time ASHI was considers discipling members that do inspection for corporations the participate but decided that would not be fair. This debacle was one of the reason for my departure from ASHI.

JAN

2008

On the subject of ethics I see that it goes both ways. Here is something that I have recently been seeing from some of my other competitors. There are inspection companies here in Indy that offer "Realtor sweepstakes" offering 500.00 a month to the winner. Some offer a bunch of other freebies like free lunches, parties etc. to local agents. I won't mention any names, but I can tell you they are out there. What is even more disturbing is how they sugar coat it and get away with it by stating that it is available to ALL real estate agents, I have sent a few emails to various home inspector organizations concerning this, and according to NACHI, it is ok by them as long as ALL real estate agents are invited. I STRONGLY disagree. I was appalled at their response to me. How can an organization like NACHI who is supposed to be there to protect the integrity of our profession, say that this kind of activity doesn't violate any code of ethics?? I guess when they are getting 300.00 to 400.00 a year from 10,000 inspectors, they tend to look the other way on certain things uh??

Any thoughts on this?

JAN

2008

I haven't heard of this in my area and I hope I don't. I would rather the client just contact me on their own via my advertisement or referral. I have been in the business since 1994 and most of my clients are through word of mouth. My yellow page advertisement and internet is a good source.

I am anxious to hear other comments on this one.

JAN

2008

Mike, the sweepstakes thing does sound somewhat shady. The other things could not be a problem depending on exactly how they are handled. If it is in return for having provided referrals, then it would definitely cross the line. If it were truly open to all the Realtors, then it could just be good marketing. I don't think there is anything wrong with for instance buying a Realtor lunch or something of that nature. What business do you know of that does not do a little socializing to promote their business.

My complaint was with a direct payment to the Real Estate office to be on their "preferred list". That is creating a situation where there is at the very least a conflict of interest and is specifically prohibited by the code of ethics in almost all of the Home Inspection organizations. The Code of Ethics at NACHI, ASHI, and FABI all specifically address this issue (I thought it was interesting that NAHI is silent on this topic). In my opinion, that opens the Realtors and us up to liability.

I believe we as Home Inspectors have to maintain a high level of ethics or we are going to open ourselves up to lawsuits and lose all creditability. Our job is to provide an honest service to our customers which are the home buyers and sellers that are paying us to inspect their homes. If they have to wonder whether we are working for them or the Realtor, we have lost their trust.

Robert Sole

www.REMinspections.com

Amen Robert!

JAN

2008

Mike,

By offering the prizes to all agents it covers the scheme in a thin veil of legitimacy.

I recently went to ASHI LTC in Chicago. The first day of the conference was almost entirely devoted to ethics. My group took this knowledge away with us back to our Chapter here in CT. At our January meeting we put on an ethics workshop. This particular case was one of our ethical examples. Most everyone at the meeting agreed this kind of marketing program is unethical.

If NACHI has stated that this type of program is acceptable, then the membership needs to voice their opinion and change the organizations position.

CoEs are in essence for the publics benefit. They give the consumer piece of mind that the professional they have hired has some ethical standard. This of course is simply not realistic. An inspector, Realtor or an Attorney can be unethical despite a CoE for their particular profession. Ethics can not be legislated it is ultimately up to the individual to conduct themselves and their business in an ethical manner.

I couldn't agree more James. I had sent the president of NACHI several emails concerning this, and it didn't seem to phase him or his assistant a bit. I am not a member of NACHI nor will I EVER be, especially now after the response I received from them. I agree with you that it is up to the individual to conduct themselves ethically. I just do not think that these organizations like NACHI, ASHI ETC. are doing us any kind of justice other than allowing us to say that we simply "belong" to their organization.

Mike,

I can not speak for the other organizations, but ASHI is certainly strongly concerned with ethics. As I stated in my previous response ASHI puts on a yearly Leadership Training Conference. A large part of that conference, about one third, is devoted to ethics.

I just do not think that these organizations like NACHI, ASHI ETC. are doing us any kind of justice other than allowing us to say that we simply "belong" to their organization.

I do not quite understand your statement. "belonging" to an organization has many benefits. But I will also say if you join an organization and expect them to work for you, that is not realistic. You get out of it what you put in. As a member you need to participate in your organization.

My local chapter is excellent. We have very high member participation. We have many committees and programs for members. But none of that happens without member participation.

I think many people look at joining an organization as a way of legitimizing themselves and their businesses. Being able to display a logo or symbol as a sign of quality and competency. If that is your reason for joining, then I think you are missing the point of what a good organization is about.

I completely agree with what you are saying James as far as what to expect from an organization and you get what you put into it. I guess I should have clarified that this is just strictly my opinion. I am EXTREMELY pro-active and I just have not had good luck with these organizations at all. I do not as you say expect the organization to work for ME, however I do expect the organization to work for the profession. And yes I believe they do to some extent, but staying on the blog subject of ethics, at least with my experiences anyway, they seem to be very leniant on the subject. When I go to a president with an issue of ethics that is CLEARLY out of line, I am sorry, but I do not expect an answer like "oh well". And that's fine if that's how they want to handle it, but at least lie to me and make me feel like my complaint is being looked into.

As for me, I will stick with the smaller organizations where your voice is actually heard.

Peace

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?