Joe Buyer: "Okay, Bob. You're my agent. What next."

Bob Agent: "Well, Joe, you're going to need a home inspection."

Joe Buyer: "The last inspector I used was in Miami, 600 miles away. I don't know anyone up here. What action do you recommend....since I'm sure you've used quite a few inspectors."

Bob Agent: "Well, Joe, from an ethical standpoint, I cannot recommend any particular inspector to you. All I can do is provide you with a very useful Web address so that you can do your own research.....www.google.com."

Joe Buyer: "Funny, Bob. And you are 'earning' $3,370 in commission...uh...why? I thought I was paying for your 'expertise'; you know....to make things more 'convenient' for me."

Bob Agent: "Sure, Joe. I can certainly let you use my computer right now if you want. In fact, I'll type the address in the browser for you. And since you've been such a great customer, I'll even type "<name of city> home inspector" in the search engine for you."

Joe Buyer: "If I didn't know better, Bob, I'd think you were trying to avoid helping me."

Bob Agent: "Not at all, Joe. You see, I need to remain objective. That means it is my responsibility to step out of the picture when it comes to your need for a home inspector. In short, if I pick a home inspector for you, and that inspector's report leads to a lawsuit, my butt is going to be filleted by you along with the inspectors."

Joe Buyer: "Well, Bob, you may be right. But, since I asked for you expert opinion, and you refused to give it to me due to risk, then I suppose I shouldn't have bought the house you 'highly recommended' since you've never actually lived in it or the neighborhood. Perhaps I shouldn't have bought my furniture at the store you suggested, either. And, I sure as heck shouldn't have taken the loan through the mortgage broker your agency recommended, either."

Bob Agent: "All things being equal, Joe....your are probably right. In order to assure nobody but you takes the risks while we 'retailers' take only the rewards (i.e., your money), you should have done all the work yourself without any interference from us. It's the only way we can truly look out for your best interest, Joe. I hope you can appreciate that."

Joe Buyer: "Of course I do, Bob. Of course I do." 

From the consumer's standpoint, this argument is a double-edged sword. Consumers assume that the agent is only going to provide the most experienced service providers to serve them. The commissions that are paid to agents (Realtors or not) is supposed to ensure "service". As a consumer home buyer, I EXPECT my agency to provide me with referrals of their most trusted vendors.

We can sit here all day long and blame real estate agencies for having paid vendor lists, but don't discount the agencies that have UNPAID vendor lists. What's the difference from the CUSTOMER'S point of view?  N-O-N-E.  The inspector on those (paid or unpaid) lists are still being referred. Add to this the fact that as a consumer, I could indeed do my own research and receive bogus testimonials from an inspector. Is anyone here going to tell me THAT has never happened to anyone?

If inspectors are so against agents offering up a list to their customers, then inspectors shouldn't expect to ever receive referrals from real estate agents to begin with. It is often those lists that are the source of inspections for 85% of the inspection industry.

I am neither a home inspector nor a real estate practitioner. What I am is a vendor to the home inspection and real estate industries. As one (having had 800 real estate clients and 240 home inspection clients), I can tell you this....

I've had to join various organizations and pay for various memberships from both trade groups in order to be "marketed" (or be allowed to market) to both trade groups. I've also been "forced" to offer discounts to various organizations for both trade groups in order to be able to sell to their members while other vendors who were NOT on these "lists" could not sell to the same members via those organizations' channels. Nearly $30,000 in discounts later, and while members of both trade groups (inspections and real estate) enjoy the discounts they've received from me, I find it somewhat laughable that the argument about a real estate office's PV program exists.

There are two solutions, folks....

For real estate offices:  Qualify your inspectors and/or require them to sign a service quality guarantee (i.e., "I promise to do my best work irrespective of my paid membership to this agency's list.....etc."). And if you are actually promoting your lists as "advertising", offer honest-to-goodness ad space WITH ADs on SOMETHING! 

For inspectors:  If you choose to pay $600 to "advertise" through agencies offering PVR programs, make sure you are getting honest-to-goodness AD SPACE where your AD shows up for all to see. Also, require that the agency signs an agreement with YOU that makes it very clear that should you be removed from the list due to an agent's loss of sale (because of your report), or should you receive negatively differential treatment compared to other inspectors on the list, the agency WILL REIMBURSE YOU for unused months of "advertising".

Work together to find solutions, folks. Quit pointing fingers. Both the inspection and real estate industries are notoriously good with formulating mutually-protective and beneficial contracts. Well.....do it. 

Bob and Mike,

(First Bob) My business does not DEPEND on inspectors sending anything to real estate agents.  Where you got that information, I don't know.  It is laughable for you to make the comment that one needs to know the "source" as you obviously have no idea what my marketing system does nor how it benefits our subscribers.  I also find it laughable that you would use such an accusatory tone concerning the fact that my marketing system allows inspectors and agents (OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS) to work together in a mutually-beneficial manner.  Bob, get YOUR facts straight before you bite back.

(Now, Mike) I don't think this is a game, and I fully understand the ramifications of deception should it occur.  Nonetheless, my point is dead on; consumers often rely on their agents for referral-based assistance with a whole slew of matters.  To ignore this fact is to live in la-la land.  Such referral-based relationships exist as a natural part of hiring a real estate professional to assist in the real estate buying/selling transaction.  You also cannot ignore the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of inspectors DEPEND on agent referrals and subsequently MARKET TO AGENTS as a primary means of acquiring ongoing referrals.  Naturally, agents are inundated with "inspector marketing" and have set-forth measures to control it along with their exposure to less-than-adequate inspectors.  They do this by charging desk fees, insertion fees, and using the controversial PVL (Preferred Vendor List), among other practices.

Do either of you think that the largest majority of agents are dumb enough to continually use vendors who don't perform within SOP and state regs and then ADVERTISE those vendors through their concierge programs thereby exposing their customers to harm?  If that's the case, why the heck do either of you work in an industry where you regularly work with the very people you feel have such potential to deceive their customers and sway you to do wrong?

And, Mike, I know you work for the person who writes the check and pays your bills.  As Bob would say, your clients help you to "stay in business" (come on, Bob).   As for the comment that "everyone thinks homeowners are a bunch of idiots", I have to shake my head in dismay.  Most homeowners are definitely not "idiots", but you are once again living in la-la land to think that most homeowners are not inept or ignorant of the policies and practices related to the home buying/selling process.  This is why so many of them are willing to pay out commissions of $3,000+ to hire a professional real estate agent and $300+ to hire a professional home inspector.  In both cases, those consumers are entirely dependent on the expertise and advice of both parties (i.e., agents and vendors).

My "tit for tat" example with Joe and Bob is intended to show how BAD it would appear if an agent did not provide the level of service anticipated by their clients.  The example shows how a conversation could go astray as the agent tries to explain-away his decision not to help his client.  Yes, the example is extreme and satirical only to demonstrate the point in as clear a fashion as possible.

With all of that being said, real estate agencies have EVERY RIGHT to use a preferred vendor list (whether vendors pay to be on it or not) as it offers both the agent and agency some level of protection for themselves if for no other reason than they KNOW the vendors and how they perform.  It is not, nor has it ever been, the responsibility to the agent or agency to make sure all inspectors have a "fair shot".  And since I can hear it coming already, agencies who allow "anyone with a buck" to be on their lists are WRONG -- which is why I think those types of agencies need to implement a screening process IF AND ONLY IF they intend on making the referral.  Otherwise, those agencies need to actually place an ad for your company in something they offer all of their customers....say....their office newsletter.

Oh, and as what my services are, Mike, my company creates a variety of marketing-related products and services for the home services industry.  These range from video presentations to online media and marketing tools.  Senior Bob is referring to Home Savvy eMagazine, a higher-end version of what you would call an "e-newsletter".

And, Bob, this conversation has nothing to do with anyone's "bread being buttered".   It has to do with agent referrals, so stick with that.  I grow weary of people who turn a conversation designed to discuss opposing viewpoints into personal digs.

Advertising isn't a sin, gentlemen.  It's a way of life.  Just because you are on an agency's PVL doesn't mean you ever have to go rouge and turn your back on personal ethics or your SOP.  You are shooting yourself in the foot for even thinking like that.  If agents ever asks you to write a soft report, tell those agent to go screw themselves and get your PVL money back pending dragging their butts to small claims court and through the barbed-wired landscape of "Consumer Alerts on Action News at 7:00" (if you know what I mean).

Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  A list is a list is list.  If you are smart enough to take advantage of a direct means to get more inspections, then get on the list.  If you think that getting on a list is going to cause you to somehow be forced into writing soft reports, then continue doing what you are doing.

I guess I've made my point.   If not, sobeit.

Mike - the sentence "qualify your inspectors" means "qualify the inspectors who want to be on your list".  Nothing more.  Sorry, I thought it was obvious since we're talking about PVLs.

There are agents that qualify an inspector by "his" ability not to kill a deal. They qualify an inspector because they are Realtor friendly.

I agree.  There are also inspectors who perform inadequate inspections and write inadequate reports because they don't feel good that particular day, or their kid has a scout meeting they can't miss.  Though I am fully aware of the POTENTIAL for ethics problems to exist, the best medicine is to remain ethical and handle any ethics violations accordingly....or legally.  Promoting wide-spread paranoia isn't the answer.

I like your use of la la land and did you think with all the REA none of them pick, chose, qualify, and use inspectors that will insure their commission?

"La la land" was the most intelligent thing I could think of saying at 4:00AM.  And, I never said "none of them", did I?  I didn't think so.  I made it very clear that the potential exists, but let's be fair.  Both inspector and agent are fully culpable of engaging in unethical practices.  As a person who serves both industries (among others) without prejudice, I've never seen any two industries who work so close together point so many fingers and make so many broad accusations.  Laws are in place to punish criminals.  Use them. 

You sound intelligent enough to understand  that we are not talking about all REA we are talking about a percentage of them.

What percentile?  Like I said, threads like this one only promote angst and animosity between the two industries.  Perhaps more effort should be made to fix the problem. 

It is terrible, but in our land we have to protect citizens from unscrupulous individuals. We have to make rules and laws that prohibit certain acts of greed. The funny part of it is when we do that we also take away a little from our independence.  

And in our land with all of its rules and laws designed to protect citizens, we should remember your previous observation and assume that consumers are not "idiots".  I would bet that they (consumers) are even aware of these rules and laws.  If not, then it is the responsibility of those who are aware to get involved.  In the same breath, ethics is a matter of perception whether you like it or not.  You may find it to be unethical to be referred by an agent, but another inspector may see it as an intelligent business practice.  If the inspector and agent in such a relationship both do their jobs without provoking the other to harm the customer, then there isn't a problem.  The violation of "ethics" isn't two people working together -- it's two people working together to screw the customer.  Then, we have an "ethics" problem....if not an outright crime.

We need to clean up our industry on both sides (REA and HI). Why,  to protect the consumer to many of them are being hurt by soft inspections.

Agreed.  But, you can't protect the customer by deterring the right of two entities to conduct mutually-beneficial business.  If vendors want to pay $1,200 per year to be on a list, then let them.  Enough vendors paying that might be what helps the agency to keep its doors open long enough to list more homes to get inspected.  You just never know.

I know I am certainly not always right, but I will stand my ground until I am proven wrong.  This is really nothing more than a case of one opinion versus another as I'm SURE there are as many cases of satisfied homeowners who received thorough inspections from agent-referred inspectors....who may have even been on a list.  ;-)

I respect your opinions and insight.  Thanks for allowing me to provide my input, too.  

@ Mike Chamberlain

Your letter:  "The reason being is that agents have a vested interest in the sale of a property. The current norm is they hand out a list of 3 recommended home inspectors to their clients. Not in all cases, but in MANY, the inspectors on that list have either paid money to be on the list, or they are known as being "soft"....."

I'm finding it hard to believe that you are talking about "ethics" when your own letter blatantly assumes that "MANY" inspectors who pay to be on vendor list are "KNOWN AS BEING SOFT".  That is what we in the real world call and "exaggerated claim".  Some people call it a lie.  Is lying or exaggerating "ethical" in your book, Mike?  Home sellers ask inspectors to be 'soft', too...probably more-so than agents.  Where's your blog telling the world how bad they are (or don't you want to bite the hand that feeds you)?

How about this one.....

Your letter: "The biggest problem is that the real estate agents act as if they own the inspection industry ....."

Once again, another broad stroke that defames the entire RE industry.....not just the "60-70%" with whom you've claimed to have personal problems.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here for the benefit of being heard, and that's nothing I can respect.  You also speak of "protecting" the homeowner, yet here you are unjustifiably scaring the hell out of them with your letter.

And, FYI, I'm not ignorant to the inspection industry or its practices.  I've been working EXCLUSIVELY with home inspectors to help them market, advertise, and overcome various ethics-related challenges (that is, to remain ethical in their marketing) for the past 18 months.  Though I may not serve homeowners, I've had conversations with hundreds of inspectors to discuss dozens of ethics-related issues.  In short, you can talk to me like I'm not an idiot.

If you don't like real estate agents so much, Mike, then quit using THEIR blog board (Active Rain) to boost YOUR search engine ranking.  (Gee, that's ethical.)

@ Bob

Since I'm carpet-bombing you and Mike, I might as well retort against your silly accusation that my ability to provide any sound commentary has been diminished by my relationship as a vendor to the real estate industry.  Fact is, I served those 800 agents and agencies nearly two years ago for the previous threes year before that.  What I did for them was related to virtual tours - NOTHING that has any bearing on home inspection practices.  As YOU KNOW, I have served the inspection industry exclusively for longer than you've been a home inspector.

 

Referring someone  to your client that has the ability to determine your income is wrong.

Well then I guess the consumer is just screwed.  Agents can't refer inspectors because it is unethical.  Other consumers don't have the experience to refer inspectors.  Most consumers don't know how to choose an inspector on their own, so most price-shop.

Wow.  In all of this you are leaving out PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.  Only YOU can protect the consumer by doing your job.  You know as well as I that agents don't have to refer inspectors for inspectors to mislead or short-cut consumers much less write a soft report out of sheer laziness.  Inspectors are quite capable of screwing customers on their own if they want to.  No need to blame agents.

In addition, the homeowner has more control of your income than the agent does.  I don't see what your point is.  If you are on the job to begin with, it must mean the agent likes and trusts you enough to refer you.  I would hope to high-heaven that you've made it clear up front that you don't write soft reports on-demand for any agent!  So, why would the agent fire you (or recommend your dismissal) after referring you if you've already laid the groundwork (that part being YOUR RESPONSIBILITY)?  That doesn't make sense.

And what makes you think that there aren't struggling inspectors who don't take bribes from agents that they've just met on-property for the first time?  How about those who take bribes from sellers?  I'm sure it has happened as I know you are.

Oh yeah, you shouldn't buy Citgo Gas either since it is controlled by Hugo Chaez, a dictator hell-bent on promoting the destruction the U.S. government....but I bet many honest inspectors have.

Personal responsibility.  That's where "ethics" starts and ends.

Robert if as you say, your business doe's not depend on Inspectors Marketing themselves to Agents,and you are neither a Inspector or a Real Estate Agent, why are you on here with lengthy ,strong , and insulting opinions.

Wrong question, Bob.  I serve the two industries with products and services often built around compliance to SOPs and the need to ensure ethical marketing.

Robert the fact of the matter is you sell your on line magazine to Inspectors so they can Market it thru E-mails.You have a funny way of drumming up business when you come to Ask the Inspector and begin testing our sensibilities with your Faux situation that would never occur in real life.

Wrong again, Bob.  If you would take the time to read the information on our site, we in fact don't prefer anyone to spam.  HSM is an online magazine and was designed to be linked as a feature on one's Website.  We offer a feature called a "teaser" that can be emailed to people who've already opted-in to receive information from their inspectors.  We don't endorse or promote spam which is exactly why we don't offer an email service.  (See, Bob, you are exactly the kind of person I would be afraid of as a consumer or REA.....one who blurts out statements to defend his own arss without first having done his homework.) 

Then when response does not go your way you begin with personal attacks.

Wrong yet again, Bob.  I attacked no one....not even you.  Speaking of which, who started putting their claw marks into whom first?  I recall some little post in this blog where you belittled what I offer and do for a living in response to my first posts here.  You didn't offer useful commentary.  Nope, you just "made fun of me".  Bring it on, Bob.

I have seen you use these same methods on the NACHI board, and by the way would like to know how many inspections you have done? ,or how many homes you have old?.

Methods, Bob?  What you've seen on the NACHI BB is a few people like you who can't stand to read an opposing viewpoint.  What you've DONE on the NACHI BB is act like a lemming and dog-pile people as soon as your "buddies" start sinking their claws into people.  What you've seen ME do (uh...my "method") is not take any of your crap.  Sorry that bothers you so much. 

I ask this since you seem to be a psychic and claim to have more experience than I do.

From a marketing perspective, which is what I've been referring to, I sure as heck do.  Any questions?  My posts have tried to stay on the topic of why it isn't "unethical" (in my opinion, of course) for a home inspector to buy their way onto a vendor list as long as the inspector is ethical irrespective of the agent.  Did I waiver anywhere, Bob?

I have been involved with Brokers and Agents most of my life.

Good for you.

Listen Robert I have nothing against you as we have a mutual friend in Dominic Marcic, whom has helped you and myself on many occasions and you have never seen my attacking you as many have in past threads.  I have seen many posts where you like jumping into controversy , but recommend that this is not good marketing for you or your business.

Who says I'm here to "market"?  Oh...wait....you did.  I'm here to discuss the point of the thread.  Perhaps if you didn't post such disrespectful comments such as....oh....let's see.....

Mike , Robert is a Maketing vender, and as such has a great deal of interest in this subject. Roberts business depends on us sending his Marketing News to Agents ,so he can stay in business. So we alway's need to check the source of comments which often give away the reason for ideoligy.

....I wouldn't have to carpet-bomb you.

FYI - Dominic has nothing to do with this.  As I posted earlier, Bob.  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. 

@ Mitchell

If you want to believe that no conflict exist than that be fine with you.

I stated REPEATEDLY that I am aware that the potential for problems exist.  I KNOW that there are unethical agents who ask for soft reports based solely on the fact that they referred the inspector and expect a returned favor.  I also said that an ethical inspector would tell that agent to jump in a lake.  I know. I know. I know.  ;-) 

I have been told with  with no uncertainty that if I don't "lighten up" I will not be able to recommend you.  I have with no uncertainty been "used" by REA for their own personal homes but recommend other inspectors for their clients.

That stinks.  On the same note, don't great inspectors (such as yourself, perhaps) also have the right not to do business with those scum-sucking types of agents and justly deny them the benefit of your superior inspection services?  Sword cuts both ways.

It seems to me that the reason this issue (agent referrals) bothers some inspectors so much is that those inspectors have such a subservient view of themselves when dealing with agents.  Though I disagree that Mike Chamberlain should have such disdain for REAs, I do like his firm attitude.  I can imagine he would certainly tell an agent who did to him what that one did to you to go fu.... himself.  As Bob Elliot can attest, I'm rather preferential to such bluntness.

I do see your point, though, Mitchell.  I suppose there is nothing wrong with the "better safe than sorry" approach to handling agent referrals.  I'm just not sure it matters all that much (if an agent refers you) if you have strong ethical values.  In the end, it would also help to educate agents about the value of a thorough inspection as a protective measure for their own arsses (though I'm sure many already know).

Communication between the industries is key here.  Someone has to extend the olive branch first.  Yes, I know I'm dreaming ;-), but that's why I'm harping so hard on personal responsibility.  Neither you or I can change the hearts and minds of 1.5 million agents or 35,000 inspectors.  All we can do is all we can do, but all we can do is enough.

@ Bob

...and by the way would like to know how many inspections you have done? ,or how many homes you have old?.

None, and none.

What I have done, Bob, is helped around 240 home inspectors add an extra $7,000 to $40,000 per year to their income through their employment of my advice and the deployment of marketing tools I provide.  Let's see....if the average inspector earned only $7,000 more (from inspections) because of my services, and I've helped 240 in the past 18 months, then that mean I've contributed around $1.6 million in value to the HI industry.

Yup, Bob, you are right.  I shouldn't be here giving any input since what I have to say is totally worthless in helping home inspectors.  On that note...see ya.

@ Mitchell

Please don't tell my son or brother that I hate REA. I don't hate anybody I do dislike people who put their head in the sand and say theirs no problem.

Are son and brother agents, Mitchell? 

As to ASHI members adhering to their COE please get real.

Some do.  Some don't.  I can name a few oil and lube shops, some long distance providers, satellite TV vendors, and even a few car salesmen who don't adhere to much more than your money no matter how they get it.  It all boils down to what YOU are going to do when YOU wake up end every day.  People who complain and do nothing are just as bad as the perpetrator of crime about which they complain (so the saying goes).  Perhaps someone needs to create a Website that allows both inspectors (or vendors as a whole) and agents to report unethical activity directed towards consumers.

Hey, it's just an idea.

Robert you are a professional agitator.

Bob, wake up and smell the roses.  Paid agent referrals is a heated topic that is hotly debated.  All viewpoints are welcomed.  Please don't bring the old NACHI atmosphere of redirecting a valuable thread into an attack pulpit.  Good grief.

I as stated ,have always shy ed away from your battling on the boards,so the Lemmings comment is just you swinging wildly for the fences.

Uhhh....you're attacking me now...right?  Nothing "wild" about that.  And no, you don't attack me ANY MORE, and I thank you for that.  My fingers would grow tired of rebutting someone of your argumentative caliber.

If you bother to read all of my comments, the position I take is clear.Your fantasy scenario of a fictionous Client and Agent was just too ridiculous.

Ahhhh....a constructive comment which is on-topic and not designed to defame or humiliate me.  Now we're cookin' with gas, Bob! 

This is where you have set yourself up for negative commentary.

And so it is, and thereby assuring that this topic remains a sounding board of opinions and ideas from all can learn and formulate independent conclusions.  Ain't it grand? 

I am just a primitive caveman whom speaks from the heart.

 ActiveRain.com is so easy to use that even a caveman can use it. 

You are a professional marketer that should know better than to rabble rouse.

I am also a human being who acts like a human being, Bob.  My "career" should not be your personal volume knob to dictate how softly or loudly you think I should be allowed to speak in a public place.  You will find that I respond in-kind to how I am treated.

Now, would you please stop psycho-analyzing me?  It's making me shy and giddy.

Well Robert you certainly have a lot to say don't you?

Didn't you?  Is that a crime here?

You come in here talking all kinds of trash and getting everyone all riled up. And although I have to respect your right to free speech, that doesnt mean that I have to like it, or you.

Trash, huh?  Oh, and thanks for allowing me my right to free speech.

Quite frankly I am getting tired of this conversation and butting heads with people like you...oh I'm sure it won't be the last time, but your long winded attempts at trying to prove your point has exausted me.

It's a conversation, Mike.  Did you miss that part?

I think it is safe to say that neither of us are going to change the way that we feel about this subject. There are those that agree and those that disagree. The fact that there are so many very strong opinions should only illustrate how large of a problem this really is, like it or not.

1000% agreed. 

I will only say one more thing to both you AND Paul....You obviously have your opinion, and I have mine.

And I hold no ill-will towards you (or anyone) for that matter, nor should you hold ill-will towards me.  You'd be amazed at how my opinions can swing in your favor depending on the topic.  This isn't one of them.  Yes, I figuratively rubbed your face against the grindstone with my earlier posts, and that was intentionally.  But, if you don't want to debate, then that's fine.  As I said, I hold no ill-will.  I even respect your right not to "like me" (you see, I'm not 12 years old).

Bottom line is this:  I take pleasure in debating issues.  It helps us all to forge a stronger argument for our respective positions down the road.  It also helps us to open our eyes to some realities that we may have otherwise missed.  At the end of the day, we all may feel a little winded or steamed because of the conversation, but I don't know any of you enough to dislike you.  I may also try to find chinks in your argumentative armor and exploit them to see if your argument starts coming apart, but that doesn't mean I hold any personal grudges.

If this were a bar, I'd buy you all a round or two just for puttin' up with me.  And if I offend any of you...well...I'm sure you know where I stand on that by now. ;-)

@ Bob

Nobody here has said they think of Agents as the enemy,

You mean, nobody ever used those exact words, Bob?  The insinuation was definitely there in certain posts.

but do not ever say we are part of their team.That would be plain insulting and belittling of our career.

Nobody did that I recall.  But, being on a PVL isn't being on their team.  Still, I don't see why you would have a problem being on a team that cares about their clients and would expect a thorough inspection out of you.

And, Bob, what you just wrote is called a "dichotomy".  You said you DID NOT think of agents as the ENEMY, yet you would be INSULTED and feel BELITTLED if someone inferred a "team" relationship between home inspectors (you said "we") and agents.

Once again, I would expect the inspector and agent to work together for the BENEFIT of the client.  Of course, this leads into a whole 'nother can of worms and a hotly debated topic (being, "Should a report be used to help an agent sell a house?").

I would really love to see some Realtors fight as hard as Robert does for their belief in this practice. Most REA and HI hit and run so far Robert is staying.

I have found that Realtors are more apt to bite their tongues (as Bob would have me do) than to engage in heated debates due to their desire to maintain a calm, collected, professional appearance.  Seriously Mitchell, would you want to get into a trist with the likes of us if you were a Realtor?!  ;-)

Notwithstanding, it would wonderful to add balance to this thread by having a few more REAs, brokers, associate brokers, etc. getting involved. I'm the closest thing to "balance" there is here, and that can't be good!  Also, it would nice to have a few inspectors who are on said PVLs to get involved.

What say you all?!?!?!

@ Mitchell

As to my ethics comment, all I was saying if you post that is a reason for people to trust ASHI members then I have some land to sell you in la la land.

I understand.  Oh...and I've got a few acres in La La Land.  My farm is right next to Frumple Bumple Lake across from Whoville Manor....you know....next the Mayor's house.   (Sorry, I've got young'uns).

@ Mitchell

So my question to you is what harm and to who would it harm if REA what not allowed to recommend inspectors?

No harm done at all.  I like the way you put that, too.  Brings the whole "greed" aspect right to the surface.  (You sly dog, you).  Still, I stand-fast that it shouldn't be disallowed by law.  Everyone has the right to earn a buck.  For some inspectors willing to pay the price and maintain their ethical standards, the PVL is a great way to be spoon-fed inspection work.  Yes, you have to a be strong-willed inspector who can stand his or her ground, but aren't you all like that already?  If not, then the PVL wouldn't haven't been an issue in the first place.

@ Mitchell

Most home buyer will not complain and many don't realize the problem until some time has past and it is too late.

The history of man.

@ Bob

Mr Humphries,

You know better than that Bob. 

would you please explain your services to all of us.

http://about.homesavvymagazine.com/about.php (no need repeating myself) 

You claim to be a disinterested party , yet is it not fact that if Inspectors did not market to RE offices, they would have no need of your service.?

Our product can be used as a "touch tool" (to keep in touch) and a brand-building tool, Bob.  Ever "keep in touch" with your clients, Bob?  Do your clients have to be REAs for you to keep in touch with them, Bob? 

If true, your claim to be a disinterested third party is hardly reputable.

I think you are shooting yourself in the foot here, Bob.  I never claimed to be "disinterested" in anything.  In fact, I think Mitchell made it clear that "[I] have a dog in this fight".  If you are asking whether or not I think it is perfectly okay for home inspectors and real estate agents to engage in mutually-beneficial marketing, then the answer has been an OBVIOUS YES as indicated by the language of my posts.

Let's keep in mind that even a "vendor" like me understands the difference between ethical and unethical marketing between REAs and HIs.  My product was created to offer an answer, but my product also does a dozen other things.  (Sidebar: Notice, Bob, at no time did I EVER bring up my product in this thread until YOU did.  I'm not here to "market" anything.  I'm here to make comments and challenge people's positions.  Unfortunately, there are certain inspectors who just HATE to be challenged.  Boo hoo.)

One last thing, Bob.  Don't try so hard to discredit other people for the sake of justifying your own uninformed perceptions.  It is very unbecoming.  As a matter of fact, the very same feature of my product that you claim MUST be used with REAs can also be used to create partnership marketing programs with contractors, mortgage lenders, insurance agents, the local baker, etc., etc., ad nauseum.  It's called a "sub-account", Bob, and all you are doing with it is allowing other people to use your content in return for allowing you to brand yourself as a sponsor in their sub-account.  Oh, multi-inspector firms can also create sub-accounts for each of their inspectors in order to help them to better-market themselves independently.

Sorry been busy.

No other way to be. 

@ Latonia

I didn't get a chance to read others' comments because of the dialogue between you and Robert.

Not sure how you "didn't get a chance to read others' comments", but the dialog part is definitely not "blogging" and consumes a lot of on-screen real estate.  Sure wish others would jump in and add their POVs.

@ Bob - Thanks for the shout-out my friend.  Let me return the favor:  For HONEST home inspection services, please consider BOB ELLIOT - CHICAGO PROPERTY INSPECTIONS.

(Bob and I my not always see eye-to-eye, but that's only because he stands on a bigger wallet!  ;-)

@ Everyone else.....

First, EVEN IF a real estate agent asks a home inspector to write a soft report, whose fault is it that the report is soft? The agent isn't writing the report.  In such a case, the betrayal of ethics falls on the inspector's shoulders, and the agent has just proven himself to be unethical.  In that case, you don't do business with that agent again.

Second, for inspectors who are afraid of getting excommunicated by a real estate office for standing on moral ground, do you really believe that all agents in that office are criminally-minded or unethical?

Third, if you (as an inspector) already don't take referrals from agents because you feel it is ethically wrong to do so, then what would it hurt to go ahead and start taking agent referrals knowing that YOU are not going to do anything wrong in the first place?

Honestly, inspectors who are so adamant about not taking agent referrals are beginning to sound like alcoholics who blame the liquor companies for manufacturing booz (although not forcing them to drink).  There is no "conflict" for the inspector just because the agent has a financial incentive to sell the home - no more so than the inspector who refers a plumber to fix a leak that he discovers.  In that case, the inspector is in the same boat as the agent - both have a fiscal attachment to the client.  Does any inspector truly and honestly believe that they wouldn't offer a referral for a good plumber if the client asked for it (or not) should a leak be discovered?

At no point in time does the agent referral (to a client) ever cause the client to believe that the inspector is working for the agent or that the agent has any control over the inspector.  I mean, what is the agent going to say to the client to induce this belief without risking the client asking the inspector for whom he is truly working?

If the inspector has his paperwork in order, then the client will already know for whom the inspector is working.  If an inspector wants to prevent the possibility that the client may believe that he (the inspector) is working for the referring agent, then the inspector only needs to have the agent and client sign a uniform document stating that they are both clear about the inspector's role and who the inspector's client is.  Any agent not willing to sign this form is not someone with whom you want to do business anyway, and nothing will have been lost if the refusing (to sign) agent convinces the client not to use the inspector - at least, no more so than the inspector who receives a "price shopper" inquiry that didn't use his service, either.  Chalk it up to a lost sale.

For you inspectors who refuse to accept agent referrals, would you change your minds if you were starving to death and needed the sale?  Have you EVER referred a contractor to repair something in a client's house before?  Be honest.

For every newscast that profiles a crappy inspector referred by a real estate agent, I can show you newsreels of crappy inspectors who were not referred by a real estate agent.  Take the municipal inspector pin-head who lied about inspecting the crane in NYC that killed seven people when it collapsed.  I can assure you he wasn't referred by a real estate agent.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.  Burn that into your brain. 

@ Chad

QUOTE: "Please do that Mr. Humphries... find three."

Will actual consumer testimonies also work as well? 

QUOTE: "To whom is Home Savvy marketed?"

As it is an eZine written around the "homeownership lifestyle", it would be rather apparent that HSM is "marketed" to companies that serve the homeowner.  Why?  Are you one of the people who want to point to that as a reason for the way I think?  Chad, lemme tell ya - my products don't influence the way I think.  This isn't a case of the tail wagging the dog if this is where your question is leading.  Let's not forget that I am also a consumer who happily and successfully used a Realtor-referred inspector long before HSM ever existed or was even a glimmer in my eye." 

#1

Reference: http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=160922

"Prior to buying my home in Massachusetts, I decided to protect myself by obtaining a home inspection from a licensed home inspector. According to the inspection receipt, all major aspects of the home are in good condition. Now, 1 year later, my roof begins to leak and pass down water through the attic crawl space and down into my living area. I had 2 licensed roofers come and inspect and it turns out my ENTIRE roof needs to be replaced! Due to the lack of ridge vents and soffit vents, the attic ceiling, many supports all the sheathing and all the asphalt shingles have rotted and decayed. Cheapest estimate to repair is $12,000. It would have been impossible to miss the rot had the inspector gone up in the crawl space. Now, for $1,500, I have a lawyer telling me I might not be able to get restitution due to the fact, the inspector won't reply to my attorney's calls or letters. Do I have a leg to stand on and should I litigate through small claims?"

HMMM.....NO REALTOR REFERRAL HERE. 

#2

Let's not forget that a very famous former home inspector was denied the right to inspect in a certain state and was fined $40,000 (I think it was).  He made the news.

NO REALTOR REFERRAL THERE, EITHER. 

#3

Google anything about the NYC crane accident.  Yes, that was a commercial inspection, but it also wasn't a Realtor referral.  The pin-head simply lied.

@ Chad

And how about searching for yourself instead of letting me school you.

http://tinyurl.com/32pt9b

Once you read those, you can tell everyone how many were actually complaints were against Realtor-referred inspectors and how many were against the individual inspector.

Fact is, unethical idiots exist.  Even good people will "stretch the truth" when their mortgage or truck payment is on the line.  I don't condone this, but I'm also not blind to it.  As I've said before, any inspector can be "unethical" if he performs an incomplete inspection for any reason - like having to get home so he doesn't miss the "big game" with his drinking buddies.

How many of you "white night" inspectors have NEVER cut corners on an inspection because of other "pressing priorities"?

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times:

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE ALL THAT MATTER.  DO YOUR JOB AND QUIT LOOKING FOR EXCUSES TO BLAME SOMEONE ELSE.

SO WHAT if the agent is going to earn a commission on a home you are inspecting.  Is that ANY DIFFERENT than the mechanic who services your car at a "preferred body shop" while it is under a dealer warranty?  The dealer made money on the sale of the car.  Does that automatically mean the dealer and the mechanic are in league to screw you over?

If you are avoiding agent referrals simply to protect the consumers, then your methodology is severely flawed.  How do you protect consumers by avoiding them?  If you do, then you are, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION AND IDEOLOGIES, leaving those consumers to be screwed by some evil agent and inspector tag team.  What a farce!

All I can say is "WOW" at this point.  I am finding it hard to believe that there are those of you who feel the law should intercede to make it illegal for agents to refer inspectors.  That reminds me of a History Channel show I just saw on the Cambodian concentration camp "S21" where the "people's police" lived by the saying, "It's better to kill ten innocent civilians [to suppress insurgency] than to let one criminal run free with confidence."

@ Bob

QUOTE: "I will add unsolicited."

Here's another bit of irony in the bowl of stink.  To wit; if you are on a preferred vendor list, are you "soliciting" anyone?  To be on the list, did you "solicit" the agency that manages the list, or did you just pay for a service?

Man, this stuff will give you a rash if you're not careful!  ;-)

@ Bob

QUOTE: "Paying for a small square of add space at $2,000 a pop for a small square is the Broker taking advantage of a desperate Independent contractor."

I have to disagree with you, Bob.  (Would you expect less of me?)  First, most lists don't cost $2,000 to get on.  The range is between $300 to $2,400, but most seem to fall in the $600 to $800 range.  It is the higher-end "concierge" programs that cost more due to the fact that you get referred by a person who is dedicated to quality assurance between vendors and clients.

As for the value, if you spend $2,000 and receive $75,000 in inspection work with minimal additional marketing effort, it was worth it (...WELL worth it).  To say that a real estate company is "taking advantage of a desperate Independent contractor" is reaching in my opinion.  A single full-page ad in a local FREE upscale magazine here in ATL costs between $2,400 to $3,600 for just one month in a circulation of 50,000.  Are they taking advantage of anyone, or is that just the cost of doing business with them?

It is not the responsibility of the agencies to adjust their pricing so that everyone can afford their ad rates.  In fact, most agencies (I feel) price their ad rates just out of reach most vendors to filter out the bottom-feeders and broke vendors who may not be in business in a couple of months after getting on the list.  Those vendors who can afford the higher fees are more likely to be generating revenue and are more likely to be reliable in the long-term.

Finally, who says agencies charging $2,000 are only charging that to "Independent contractors"?  Have you seen some of those high-priced lists?  There are few "Independent contractors" on them.  Many vendors belong to million-dollar companies that have a proven track-record of serving tens-of-thousands of customers over the years.

I am perplexed at the lack of depth from some of you guys.  You are all supposed to be business operators who understand profit models, price barriers, channel marketing, etc.  I am equally perplexed by the griping I hear from inspectors who want to raise their prices and oust low-ballers, yet here some of you are complaining about how other companies maximize their profits (and it's not even personal as ALL vendors have to pay the same amount to get on the lists in question).  If you don't want to pay $300, $600, $1,200, or $2,000 to be on a preferred vendor list so that your name is put in front of a pre-filtered, highly-targeted, channel market, THEN DON'T DO IT.  Your desire not to participate doesn't make the practice wrong.

@ Mitchell

"PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.  Burn that into your brain. "

You are exactly correct that is why I will not solicit REA. I have a personal responsibility to do the best job I can for my client.  I can not have extemporaneous thoughts. I work for only and solicit only one client.

As I can tell you can work for two masters I can only work for one. Even though both say they have the same goals but the road traveled maybe different. 

If we all had personal responsibility this conversation would not be taken place.

Absolutely, undoubtedly, unquestionably, the BEST comment made in retort to my carpet-bombing.  Kudos.  Finally.