Submitted by Thu (not verified) on Thu, 03/22/2012 - 13:01.
The problem with the 12 month rule is that it plapies to the Inspector and not necessarily with the company. Additionally the rule does not prohibit me from referring work over to a company owned by a relative, friend, or even another Inspector. The rules also do not prohibit a company from offering a free inspection to a potential buyer or seller if they agree to use the company's services to correct deficiencies found. From there the company can sub-contract to the Inspector with the Inspector's client being the service company and not the buyer or seller. Since the rules only apply if the Inspector is performing the inspection for the buyer or seller, and the Inspector's client is now the other service company, then the rules can easily be circumvented altogether. The Inspector is suppose to be a disinterested third party and provide an unbiased opinion during their inspection. This type of an arrangement can lead to nothing but bad news for consumers!
The problem with the 12
The problem with the 12 month rule is that it plapies to the Inspector and not necessarily with the company. Additionally the rule does not prohibit me from referring work over to a company owned by a relative, friend, or even another Inspector. The rules also do not prohibit a company from offering a free inspection to a potential buyer or seller if they agree to use the company's services to correct deficiencies found. From there the company can sub-contract to the Inspector with the Inspector's client being the service company and not the buyer or seller. Since the rules only apply if the Inspector is performing the inspection for the buyer or seller, and the Inspector's client is now the other service company, then the rules can easily be circumvented altogether. The Inspector is suppose to be a disinterested third party and provide an unbiased opinion during their inspection. This type of an arrangement can lead to nothing but bad news for consumers!