As you can imagine, putting together an association is no easy task, but we have officially launched the F&I Providers Administration Association (FIPAA). James Ganther, President of Mosaic Compliance Services will serve as the President of the association. David Gesualdo, Publisher of F&I Magazine and myself, Publisher of Agent Entrepreneur and P&A will serve as the Executive and Managing Directors, respectively.

For the last 8 months we’ve been working behind the scenes to come up with the best plan of attack. There have been numerous meetings; you’ve seen 3 blogs from me as well as multiple writers who have addressed the need for self-regulation. Throughout the process there have been many who have supported the idea but have questioned whether or not such an endeavor would ever come to fruition given the nature of the business.

While there are some who have pondered the plausibility, everyone agrees there ought to be a set of standards that every F&I Provider, Administrator and Inspector adhere to. To date no one has said, “Adam, establishing standards for all companies is a horrible thing.” The concept is agreeable to all; how we accomplish it is the burning question on everyone’s mind.

Let’s face it, it’s fairly easy to set up a company and enter a market without the required expertise. In turn, this lends itself to problems within the industry because there are people, who, quite frankly, do not understand the business. We have seen many different companies come and go. We have seen consumers and dealers left high and dry because of unscrupulous business practices. We believe it is time to join forces with the willing to bring self regulation to our industry.

Will there ever come a time where such an association can create an atmosphere where every F&I Provider, Administrator and Inspector is trustworthy in every way? I don’t know. What I do know is that if no effort is put forth in our industry to self regulate it, we will continue to experience the same problems that frustrate so many of you.

We plan to start with baby steps. Among the first areas the FIPAA plans to address are the issues facing the inspectors. L’Tonya Carr of Carr Appraisals praised the idea of the formation of the FIPAA stating, “I’m super excited about the formation of such an Association. Their willingness to address/develop an ‘inspector certification’ program, may finally bring about the ‘shake up’ necessary to facilitate legitimate change, which would ultimately benefit ALL interested parties.”

I know that many of you have publicly shared on this website support for this concept. The time has come to address the issues that plague our industry. Inspectors play a pivotal role in this process and there needs to be some level of standards they meet in order to do business.

Once the inspection certification program is established, we will look to address the minimum criterion all F&I Providers should adhere to as well as developing a baseline of product training for F&I Agents. James Ganther had this to say regarding this idea: “The idea of a provider association has been the subject of serious discussion for the past few years. Executives of many of the leading companies in the industry have backed the idea, but no one seemed ready to take the lead. I am delighted David Gesualdo and Adam Kimber came to the fore and made it happen. In their positions as industry insiders who don’t actually work for any single association member, they can bring both their experience and objectivity to bear on the tasks at hand.”

As the Publisher of Agent Entrepreneur and P&A I believe we can be the neutral voice to bring balance and fairness to this process. But we can’t do it alone. We need your involvement and support. The effectiveness of the FIPAA hinges on the number of companies who are willing to participate. So far there are a great number of you who have given us your support and for that we are grateful. If you would like more information or would like to get involved please do not hesitate to contact me.

It is our hope that you will join in this long awaited effort. We are excited about the future and look forward to working with all of you. Your comments and feedback are much appreciated!

The need for an Inspection Certification program has been discussed in great length over the past year in P&A Magazine, but we have really not even touched on any of the “other” areas of the inspection process and these issues (or problems) warrant just as much attention as those that the certification program may solve.

So, I asked Jeff Roberts, Vice President of Claims Administration with Easy Care, Ron MacPherson, an independent inspector with Inspector LLC and L’Tonya Carr, owner of the inspection company Carr Appraisals, if they could provide their thoughts and ideas on ways they feel the process could be improved.

I first asked them what, in their opinion, was the reason for a decrease in volume of inspections that have occurred over the past couple of years. All three participants agreed that the economy was a major contributing factor to this decline. L’Tonya broke it down into three components:

• First, as Don Larsen mentioned in his article, inspections have historically been perceived as a “cause of considerable disruption, expense, and loss of productivity for the customer, dealership, and administrator.” In an attempt to control costs in a bad economy, many efforts are made to reduce this ‘necessary evil’ due to greater emphasis on customer service and retention.
• Second, as a result of the perception that there remains a lack of ‘quality inspectors/ inspections’ to choose from, Administrators/Providers may, and oftentimes do, decide to ‘cut costs’ by cutting out inspections altogether.
• Last, as history has proven, the worse the economy, the greater the fraud/upsell. So, although short-term costs of ceasing inspection services may be reduced, long-term costs of future claims can be exponential.

I next asked participants if they could provide some suggestions that they feel could improve any perceptions as well as reduce actual occurrences of disruptions, lost time and increased expenses?

Jeff Roberts noted, “There is no way around the fact that inspections are going to be disruptive, more expensive and create some lost productivity for everyone involved. But to put it in perspective, take a $4,000 transmission repair as an example, pulling it off the rack and pushing it aside for inspection doesn’t take any more time than waiting on a customer to make a decision on a repair. Most consumers will not provide an approval on your first call for something that expensive. They will likely call around for more estimates, talk to their friends and family for advice and then call back the next day or so with their decision. The repair facility ends up waiting on us or them either way.”

That being said, Roberts did go on to say that one of the best ways to minimize these perceptions &/or actual occurrences requires “good planning and good communication. The key is making sure the vehicle is truly ready for inspection, all disassembly is complete and the technician is available to show the failures.” Other suggestions included:

• The value of having the inspector called in should be explained to customers. They should be aware that inspections provide “protections” for them, as well as for other parties involved.
• L’Tonya recommended that Administrators and Providers could place greater emphasis on communicating their inspection expectations with the repair facility before the inspector arrives, and provided some examples such as, “type of testing, level of tear down, and how they want the failure demonstrated. Any of these would vastly improve overall process perception and relations between the involved parties.”
• Ms. Carr further recommended that a possible way to reduce perceived and actual disruptions, expenses and lost productivity for all parties involved is to put a tracking system in place which can “monitor and address issues that affect any of these areas, from both the Administrator and Inspection side.” She further explained that “Carr Appraisals tracks ‘re-inspections’ and looks for trends which impact expenses and performance; we track inspection ‘completion’ times/delays, and look for trends and issues which impact expenses, performance and productivity.” The system she uses reports the average time/hours of inspection completion by client and/or inspector, and can provide information on reasons and who caused them.
• Ron MacPherson has noticed that some repair facilities are trying to improve the process by utilizing extended warranty coverage as part of their customer servicing and some provide low cost rental or loaner automobiles to their customers.
• Lastly, L’Tonya suggested that there be better use of automated transfer of inspection requests and return of information. She noted that although almost all parties have the capabilities of doing so, a delay seems to occur which is often the result of being put at the low-end of the priority list and sometimes cost, though she stressed (and I have to agree) that with the “high-tech” world we live in today, there has been a decrease in most technology costs and therefore they shouldn’t be a driving factor.

I then asked, “What can be done to improve circumstances that lead an inspection to go awry due to poor communications with/from the repair facility, or poor preparation or insufficient processes within the administrator?”

All participants said that communication is of the utmost importance and that both inspectors and repair facilities need to be aware of any expectations that the Administrator and Provider have. Roberts noted that “the challenge is getting everyone on the same page. The service writer, the technician, the adjuster and the inspector all have to be on the same page as to what is trying to be accomplished.”

L’Tonya suggested that the Administrator/Provider provide as much information regarding the present claim and any past claim or occurrences available. And, Ron further commented that often times the repair facility has difficulties contacting the advisor or that time is wasted waiting for the advisor to return the call(s) regarding the claim. He suggested that alternative means of contacting these advisors by means of cell phones or by providing the advisor with an alternate contact at the repair facility like a shop foreman or service manager so that time is not wasted waiting for the advisor’s return call to the repair facility.

Not only do these solutions address the communication factor, they can also improve turn around time as well.

L’Tonya also mentioned that an area in need of improvement that affects turn around time is how quickly photo documentation is available. She noted that “there are several field inspectors who already utilize equipment in the field to transfer quality photo documentation directly from the repair facility and this has expedited the process immensely.”

Turnaround time at EasyCare is pretty satisfactory according to Jeff Roberts. He noted, “Sure we would like to have a quicker turn around time but almost all of our inspections are completed within 24 hours of the request and many are done the very same day. We are very sensitive to the needs of the repair facility where they need to be working on vehicles, not standing around waiting for inspections.” His thoughts are that if a clear expectation is communicated of what is needed to be reviewed when the inspector arrives, turn around time will remain optimal and hold-ups are less likely to occur.

While still on the subject of communication, L’Tonya said that if Administrator and Provider standards were possible, it would help with consistency among methods to communicate credible inspection findings & other information. An example she gave was that she could be looking at identical GM model transmissions with two different Administrators, and the inspection test or procedure and information required by each administrator could be VERY different. This not only can cause confusion but can also prove cumbersome for the inspector.

Technology is a major player in the job of the inspector. It also plays a huge role in the communication between the inspector and the Administrator &/or Provider. Don Larsen’s July 2010 article mentioned that we were on the threshold of having the ability to communicate with the inspector while they were still at the repair facility so that the review of photographic documentation could occur in real-time rather than waiting for uploads the next day. So, I was curious to find out if we have passed the threshold and if real-time communication was occurring almost one-year later. The responses I received varied.

Being in Hawaii proves to be a bit of a challenge for Ron MacPherson, and although calling in reports from repair facilities has been a part of their process for some time now, loading pictures (including formatting, titling and resizing) is not always possible. This is because 1) this process takes time, and 2) Wifi coverage is not always available, making it impossible to download the picture while on site.

Like Ron, L’Tonya Carr said that they have been verbally communicating with clients from the repair facility for years, but because the internet is much more reliable at her client sites, the majority of the inspectors who work with her are able to transfer the necessary photo documentation directly from the facility to Carr Appraisals website allowing “the Administrator almost instant access to the picture.”

Many of these roadblocks occur because everyone is pointing the finger at each other. So how do we hold everyone accountable? Based on L’Tonya and Ron, the following suggestions were recommended:

Repair Facility – Communication between the inspector and the repair facility is, again, of extreme importance and can stymie the entire inspection process. Number one is to make sure the vehicle is ready for inspection before the inspector arrives on site. Perhaps the repair facility should be monetarily responsible should the inspector incur prolonged wait time for the vehicle to be ready or should it be necessary for the inspector to make a return visit to complete the inspection. Repair facilities should not restrict needed customer information from the inspector.

Inspector – It is the inspector’s responsibility to make sure the inspection is thoroughly performed and completed before he/she leaves the premises. The inspector should be held responsible monetarily for any damage resulting from his/her neglectful actions.

Administrator &/or Provider – as mentioned earlier, expectations should be clearly communicated to both the repair facility and the inspector BEFORE the inspection begins. Perhaps a monetary responsibility should be imposed here as well.

My final question covered compensation. From both the inspectors view and an administrator view, the consensus was that there should be a standard “minimum” rate. Jeff Roberts commented that “Some inspections will be close by and take little time to inspect, while others will take longer and involve more traveling distance. By charging a ‘fair’ flat rate for all your inspections, you make it fairer for everyone and keeps things simple from a billing perspective.”

L’Tonya noted that though there is truth to this, she feels that additional monetary consideration should be given based on experience, education, technical abilities, full-certification, and locations of inspection site (especially if outside a particular range of the inspector’s base territory, for example 50 miles).

While Jeff, L’Tonya, and Ron provided a wealth of insight about the additional issues that are perceived or that actually occur in the inspection process, and they definitely provided some terrific ideas to improve the processes, it looks as though it may get rougher before it gets easier. The good news is that communication was the number one mentioned improvement or solution for almost all issues. If each party could simply work on ways to better improve the process through improved communication, it seems very likely that the changes to come will be off to a great start.

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.

As a little girl, I didn’t grow up dreaming of becoming an owner of an inspection company, but that is what happened. Now there is no business I would rather be in for a variety of reasons. Over the years this industry has been very good to me and my family. Many of my closest friends are in the VSC industry, starting with our wonderful staff and the talented inspectors we work with every day, and including the managers and staff of the companies we serve. I love this business and I have a passion for it, which is why I am troubled by the problems we face today.

I have written this critique to share my perspective as an inspector on our industry (the VSC claims administration industry) and offer ideas to solve the problems. I accept my share of responsibility for where the inspection industry remains today. And, although I am not claiming to have the magic bullet and don’t know if my ideas are among the best ones out there, I would love to hear your thoughts on what I do have to suggest so that we, as integral parts of this industry, can begin to work out solutions to our common problems.

The table below provides a comparison of the inspection process over the past 15 years and some of the changes that we have seen occur.

*Attributed to significant increase in multi-component failures inspected; increase in number of photos required; technical advances in vehicle design; intensity of testing required for failure verification; verbal report hold times; transfer of information from repair facility, which is not an entirely new process. There have been previous unsuccessful attempts in the past to replace inspectors through technological advances.

**Varies based on which inspection company you work for, and not necessarily based on technical knowledge/ability.

Increased Costs

Anyone who makes the claim that additional technological advances “don’t cost inspectors money or expose them to liabilities” is not viewing the industry through the eyes of an inspector. As the comparison shows, technological advancements have made it necessary for an INSPECTOR to make personal investments for often costly equipment such as digital cameras, desktop and/or laptop computers, Internet and WiFi service and cell phones – many of which require continual updating so that we can continue to stay current with the most recent technology necessary to keep up with our providers, dealerships and to stay ahead of our competition.

Then we have the effect of significant increases in gasoline prices since 1985 – approximately 166 percent. In spite of all these changes and efforts to improve our inspection processes, not only does it take longer to perform a single mechanical inspection, 95 percent of all inspectors have not had the option of increasing their base rate to cover these additional improvements and expenses. In fact, I have heard of many instances in which inspectors were required to LOWER their base fees. To an inspector, time is money, and this creates an unpleasant, yet unavoidable, dichotomy for the inspector because inspections are more time consuming, yet more inspections are necessary to maintain the same income level as 20 years ago. The result is that quality suffers!

Increased Competition

During the late 1990s through 2007, the volume of industry inspections was unbelievably high. There was a push for quicker arrival at repair facilities, much of which resulted in the birth of several new inspection companies (many of which have since gone out of business). Many of the here-today-gone-tomorrow inspection companies were started by former field inspectors, or claims adjustors who wanted to quickly cash-in on the significant money they saw being spent on inspections. They did so by arming themselves with proprietary information they “borrowed” while working with inspection agencies. Their strategy was simple, “we will offer lower inspection fees to gain a bigger share of the industry’s inspection volume.” And hence, the price wars began.

Quality of Inspectors

Yes, I have a vested interest in increased inspection fees, but right now I am focused on the problems that all of us have contributed to. As an industry, the quest to provide faster service has resulted in unintended consequences, from which we have yet to recover. Volume was at its highest, inspection prices were being reduced, everyone wanted 24-hr service and quicker return of written and photo documentation was being required. It was a mad rush to bring on new inspectors and accommodate the industry’s wishes. This is where we began to experience problems with the technical knowledge of inspectors.

From where I sat, with very few exceptions, the industry didn’t seem to want to hold inspectors or agencies accountable for their actions (or lack of actions in many cases). This further allowed for the expansion, and use, of technically unqualified inspectors. The unqualified inspection workforce (albeit presently still the minority) has led to trust concerns throughout the entire industry – and let’s face it, an inspector is one of the industry’s strongest lines of defense against fraud. We truly become dysfunctional without a high level of trust. This includes the inspection agencies as well, who should have the greatest control over an inspector’s use/performance.

The entire industry, including myself, has had a hand in creating these concerns, and it will take a commitment by the majority to fix it. Industry inspection volume has decreased significantly over the past 18 months, and the lesser qualified/lower paid (sometimes untrustworthy inspectors) have negatively impacted the financial viability of the good ones (many of which have taken part-time jobs to survive, or have quit altogether).

We must weed our garden now, and fertilize the remaining good crop of inspectors. I am committed, along with my organization, to helping in any way I can to bring about the necessary change(s). The following are suggestions about how we as an industry can begin to accomplish our goal and bring about change:

1. We acknowledge there are serious issues with QUALITY, TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, ACCOUNTABILITY, and TRUST, along with why they exist. If we continue to close our eyes to these issues, incorporating the available technical advances will just be “window dressing,” and in many cases not even “designer window dressing,” for a plethora of problems yet to come. A prime example is the use of the cellular phone for inspection photos. Phones without flash or manual focus capabilities can lack the necessary detail required for taking a useful photograph.
2. We acknowledge and accept that inspection fees at rates lower than 20 years ago are not likely to bring about the necessary change at the required pace.
3. Realize that inspectors’ compensation should be more in line with their counterparts/peers such as Shop Foremen and Lead Master Techs (on average, they are presently below these levels).
4. Realize that an inspector only has between five and six hours per day in which to perform inspections (especially considering travel, RF breaks and lunch hours, and customers in service lanes).
5. Realize that by not holding repair facilities accountable for their fraudulent actions, and by simply restricting an inspector from a particular facility upon request, may have consequences.
6. Realize the importance of knowing your inspection agency/partner (financial standing, how they treat their inspectors, how/what they compensate their inspectors, willingness to accept responsibility and accountability).
7. Establish an inspector certification and rating program to include code of conduct standards, technical knowledge, ongoing technical training, diagnostic capabilities, problem solving skills, communication skills (written and verbal), personal responsibility, trustworthiness and legal ramifications of their inspection opinions.
8. Establish an industry review panel, where concerns regarding an inspector’s lack of qualifications, accountabilities or trustworthiness can be reviewed and shared with the entire industry.
9. Consider standardizing inspection procedures (from an inspector’s point of view).
10. And last, but certainly not least, perhaps it’s time to consider two-tier inspection pricing, not based solely on an inspector’s technical qualifications, but consideration also given to the type/extent of information verification and how that information is being returned to the client.

A few years ago, as a VSCAC speaker, I expressed concern about the direction of the inspection industry. Today, I worry about how long a pool of inspectors will actually be around. I would greatly appreciate hearing your impressions and ideas, and hopefully we can start to improve things together.

Despite all the technological advancements of the last few decades, inspection reports have generally remained the same. Upgrades to cell phones and digital cameras have certainly made the process faster, but administrators have still relied on initial verbal reports that often include opinion and hearsay to make decisions.

The process is changing with the industry’s latest evolution. Warranty Inspection Services’ new inspection technology provides a new level of detailed vehicle data.

WIS’ VeriScan tool includes an OBDii interface unit that is able to access diagnostic information from the vehicle’s engine and power management control unit (ECU/ECM). VeriScan facilitates the encrypted WiFi/cellular transmission of vehicle data and photos, as well as the inspector’s written report, to WIS’ secure servers.

A vehicle’s OBDii data, mandated on all vehicles in the United States since 1996, allows administrators to recognize fraud, answer questions about pre-existing conditions, avoid misdiagnoses of vehicles and aid in the accurate determination of liability.

“Administrators have been asking for a faster process with more detailed, accurate information,” says Chris Rand, co-president of WIS. “They can now access all the information about the vehicle while the verbal report is being given.”

While the inspector is still on-site, the administrator can determine if any photos are blurry, if additional angles should be captured or if other technical issues need to be clarified.

Glenn Gonzalez, director of claims for SRI, says the availability of all the data at once is particularly helpful when there is a dispute. “Our job is to get the customer back on the road ASAP and collecting information from the vehicle helps us get to the correct answer faster. This system makes inspections happen in real time.”

WIS’ pricing structure has not changed with the release of VeriScan. “We don’t think price should be a factor and we don’t want administrators to bring price into their considerations,” Rand says. The company has assumed all the expenses related to the new system.

In addition, WIS provides laptops and the VeriScan system to the inspectors it works with and accepts all liability. Independent inspectors pay a refundable deposit before receiving a laptop, but do not have to purchase any additional equipment or pay any monthly fees.

“VeriScan does not cost inspectors money or expose them to liability,” Rand stresses.

Customers of F&I Administration Solutions and StoneEagle can use their existing software to connect to the WIS system, eliminating the need for a third-party software system.

F&I Admin has integrated inspections from WIS into its SCS Auto VSC platform. The integration includes the ability to submit inspection requests, receive alerts that inspections have been completed and links to completed reports all directly from within the SCS Auto system.

David Trinder, CEO of F&I Admin, expects this partnership to result in significant time saving during the claims process for F&I Admin’s SCS Auto users.

“Our company’s strategy is to connect to all partners that create value and add efficiencies for our customers,” Trinder says.

WIS is now working on an updated version of the VeriScan tool that will include video and sound. Rand says the goal is to make the process as close to a live inspection as possible. “These process improvements are not meant to be window dressing changes, but rather they are fundamental advancements for the industry.”

RICHMOND, Va. – Warranty Inspection Services, LLC, a provider of mechanical breakdown inspection services to the vehicle service contract industry, has introduced VeriScan, a proprietary tool designed to increase the accuracy, timeliness and thoroughness of mechanical breakdown inspection reports.  

VeriScan facilitates encrypted WiFi/cellular transmission of vehicle data (through an OBDii interface), photos and the inspector’s initial written report to WIS’s secure servers. This system will allow the customer to receive more data and more accurate data faster than previously possible.

VeriScan gives customers the ability to see the computer data from the vehicle and to view the written report and photos while taking the verbal report. Any additional photos or report editing required can be completed while taking the verbal report, allowing for clarification of any technical issues, making the verbal report much more accurate.

“I knew that VeriScan would be a significant step forward for the industry; however, after demonstrating its capabilities to numerous administrators and hearing direct feedback from them, I’m confident in saying that VeriScan is quickly going to become the new industry standard,” said Chris Rand, co-president of Warranty Inspection Services and C&K Auto Parts. “After all, why would an administrator pay the same money for a slower inspection that provides less information?”

Additional information about WIS Inspections with VeriScan can be found at www.wisinspections.com and additional information about C&K Auto Parts can be found at www.ckautoparts.com.