A Certified Inspectors Program – A Must or Bust?

Two of P&A Magazine’s most highly read articles in 2010 discussed the idea of the necessity for a Certified Inspector’s Program. Both articles, Call to Action: Inspectors Need Certification to Improve Credibility by Don Larsen, and Where Have All the Good Inspectors Gone & Who is Filling Their Shoes? by L’Tonya Carr, provided some very strong examples of circumstances where inspections have gone wrong and where it was often a result of under-qualified or dishonest inspectors performing the job.

There have been an overwhelming number of reader comments and discussions, both among the staff here at P&A Magazine and among others in the industry. Because of this interest, I decided to consult with several people in the industry to see what they think an Inspector Certification Program should consist of and how it could benefit all parties involved.

All participants whom I spoke with agreed that there definitely appears to be a need for a certified inspectors program. These participants include Jeff Roberts with EasyCare, L'Tonya Carr with Carr Appraisals, and two independent inspectors, Len Marshall and Alan Bridges. All participants additionally agreed that the industry as a whole could benefit from such a program, but concerns exist, as explained later, as to whether it is even feasible to add another cost to the inspectors’ already expensive set of equipment.

There are several factors that contribute to this need. The prevailing factor being that the quantity of trustworthy, credible, quality inspectors has significantly decreased over the past few years, and that the industry remains to be plagued by those who are unqualified and oftentimes untrustworthy.

The decrease in quality inspectors is attributed to inspectors moving to jobs in other professions due to lowered income caused by (1) higher costs associated with maintaining a position as an inspector, and (2) less available inspections which are also further apart from each other caused from closings of dealerships and repair facilities. The latter part of which is is a direct result of the decline in economy over the past few years.

As L’Tonya explained in her November article, this smaller pool of qualified, trustworthy inspectors opened the door for those inspectors who are under-qualified, who are potentially less credible and who often times charge less. All participants I spoke with agreed, and most held the opinion that under-qualified inspectors had a lack of proper training and standards for what is necessary to have during an inspection.

The advent of a Certified Inspector’s Program may not solve all of the issues that can cause a bad inspection or that attribute to under-qualified and under-credible inspectors, but as L’Tonya Carr noted, “It’s a great place to start. Knowing that an inspector is well qualified through training and certification should allay some TPA concerns of trustworthiness.” She further commented that a program like this “may not ‘keep out’ a lazy or dishonest inspector, but it CAN protect good people and make it much more difficult for the others to operate.”

Len Marshall noted that “adjustors should be held to the same standards as well.” A certification for inspectors could very well include a program for adjustors. By doing so, accountability among both parties is sure to improve. If TPA’s and Insurer’s require that inspectors be certified, and if the inspector loses his certification, he cannot be used as an inspector. This in turn makes him or her accountable, and therefore encourages the inspector to do the best possible job he or she can. This also can create a sense of consequences for the inspector who currently performs under par. As a result they become more credible and trustworthy to TPAs, Insurer’s and Repair Facilities.

I asked these industry experts, "What should be included in a program like this? Should it only address ‘technical knowledge?’ What about a code of conduct, inspection standards, or continued education?”

Jeff Roberts provided a perspective from the TPA/Insurer’s side replying, “You would have to go beyond the technical aspect. There are plenty of very technical folks out there who I wouldn’t hire to inspect a vehicle. One big obstacle for any TPA is ensuring that the inspector is not perceived to be approaching the inspection as a match of wits to see who knows more, the technician or the inspector. ‘People’ skills are as important as the technical aspect.”

Inspectors I talked with expressed the same thing. All felt that focusing on technology alone was not enough. Len Marshall commented, “Technical knowledge itself is almost useless without the knowledge of all of the other components of a proper inspection.”

L’Tonya added, “the field needs to be educated on the ‘true role’ of an inspector today. The relationship between TPA, Insurer, and VSC holder has seen significant change over the past several years. Subsequently, the role and expectations for inspectors has changed. Technological knowledge alone, does not make for a ‘good inspector.’ You can be the most ‘technically knowledgeable’ inspector on the planet, but if you don’t possess good problem solving skills, reasoning skills, and communication skills (both oral & written), you are wasting the industry’s time and money.”

Roberts pointed out that “you have to go beyond the technical aspect. There are plenty of very technical folks out there that I wouldn’t hire to inspect a vehicle.” He further mentioned that ‘people’ skills are equally important.

Developing industry-wide standards and procedures (which include both TPAs and Inspectors) was considered by most of the participants I talked with to be very important and necessary to be included in such a program. Another idea was to incorporate standardized forms and photo requirements. This would streamline the process regardless of which insurer, TPA or Repair Facility one is working with.

I next asked if this certification should involve some form of apprenticeship program?

I got mixed opinions on this question. An argument for an apprenticeship program was that oftentimes there is so much to perform during the total inspection process that to throw someone out into the field without at least a minimum of hands-on training would defeat the purpose of the certification program. But as Alan pointed out, “Who would pay the apprentice? The Inspector? The organization providing the certification? Both?”

The thought of additional expenses for an inspector is a very sensitive subject as L’Tonya expressed in her article, “Where Have All The Good Inspectors Gone,” and will be addressed very soon to come.

So who or what is going to get this program off the ground? Back in his July 2010 article, Don Larson suggested that some form of independent organization, such as AFIP which is an independent organization for the F&I Industry, coordinate such a program.

Apparently, similar thoughts exist among inspectors as well, as both L’Tonya and Len thought it would be a good idea to have such an organization put together this certification program. Len suggested NAISE, or a similar entity, that would have at least 5-years of general automotive field background, that would understand and have a great deal of knowledge of automotive business operations, and that has diagnostic technical training.

Then, of course, is the question of how would the program be delivered?

Although it was mentioned that a classroom setting would be “ideal,” it was unanimous that on-line and web-interactive training and coursework was the “way to go.” It was also mentioned that the only true way to actually certify someone after his or her completion of training is through evaluation of actual field work. This brings us right back to the idea of whether an apprenticeship program is necessary as part of the program. Which also brings us right back to who is going to fund this type of program (apprenticeship or not)? What about fees to become certified?

L’Tonya suggested that it could potentially be funded by TPAs, Inspection Agencies, and Member Dues. This would definitely spread the cost of such a program over several sources and could possibly make the cost for the inspector fairly reasonable. A point I would like to make here that everyone should take into consideration is that there are many industries where licensure and accreditation come at a price.

Accountants have to take the CPA exam, a cost of over $1,000, and that is just to take the exam, that does not include any courses that may be necessary to pass this test or association fees that ensure the accountant his or her credibility. Lawyers have to pass the Bar Exam and pay any association fees necessary for credibility in their community. Insurance, Annuity and Financial Instrument Brokers have to pay for licensure, association and continued education courses in order to remain current and available to practice in their profession. My point here is that these certifications assure the public and potential clientele for each profession that the person in whatever profession they are in is properly trained, is credible and has the proper knowledge to perform the tasks they are representing they can perform. None of these come for free.

A certification program for the Inspection profession is a MUST. Not only will such a program address accountability and trust issues among TPAs, Insurers and Inspectors, it will also create an even playing ground for the Inspectors themselves. It will ensure that all inspectors who are used, are fully knowledgeable and trained in standardized processes that ensure all parties involved that they are working with credible, qualified inspectors making the inspection process as a whole a very dependable, efficient process.