Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consumer Protection investigators find limited active unlicensed inspections; board urges consumer vigilance
Summary
At its Dec. 17 meeting the Home Inspection Licensing Board heard that the Consumer Protection Department found one open complaint and one closed, unresolved complaint and that most problematic listings on organizational websites reflected retired or inactive inspectors; the board advised consumers to verify credentials and to refer suspect ads to investigators.
Larry Ouellette, chairman of the Home Inspection Licensing Board, on Dec. 17 opened the board’s quarterly meeting and heard a status report from the Consumer Protection Department’s investigation unit about online listings that may mislead consumers.
Janita Hamill of the DCP’s investigation division told the board the department’s home inspector report for Sept. 1 through Oct. 31, 2024, showed one new complaint open and one complaint closed by a special investigator. "We received 1 new complaint that is open and under investigation, and we closed 1 complaint...it's unresolved. It's a dispute of facts," Hamill said, adding that investigators found no violations by the inspector in the closed case and advised the consumer that any further remedy would be a civil matter.
Pamela Brown, director of investigations, told the board that a project assigned to the division to review contractors and organizations believed to be offering home inspection services without proper credentials is "mostly in conclusion." Brown said the issue was often not active unlicensed practice but organizations continuing to list members who were no longer practicing. "I think the cleanup really needs to take place at these organizations because I just see that they kinda continue to keep them on long after the credential holder is no longer practicing," she said.
Brown said the investigators reviewed websites identified by board members and that roughly 13 listings were involved in the inquiry; a few cases were addressed but most appeared to reflect retired or otherwise inactive individuals rather than a pattern of active unlicensed inspections. She said investigators contacted individuals when needed and remedied at least one website issue.
Board members noted that outdated web pages or cached search results can make it appear that someone is still in business even after they have retired or changed careers. One member observed that "it's very difficult to get that information removed from the Internet because it lives on a server somewhere," a point the board said could confuse consumers.
To reduce consumer harm, Brown described the department’s referral process: board members or the public who find advertisements or listings they suspect involve unlicensed activity can refer them to the supervising special investigator in the investigations unit for follow-up. "If you come across any of these advertisements...you can send it in refer from the board, and then it will go to [the supervising special investigator]," Brown said.
The board assessed the investigation’s findings as not indicative of a widespread compliance problem but acknowledged the potential for consumer confusion. The chair urged consumers to do due diligence when hiring an inspector and to check the department’s publicly accessible licensing database when uncertain. No formal enforcement action was announced at the meeting.
The board moved on to other items and did not enact new policy in response to the report; members agreed to refer any suspect advertisements found in future to the DCP investigation unit for possible action.
