Nowhere did I see, or state the the NCP and/or the NHICC was "accredited or in full compliance", or had endorsement by means of an "official" audit for CAN-P-9. This does not "stop" any certification body from "reasonably" adhering to such "voluntary goals" as their objectives to attain it now, or in the near future.
By way of advertising that NC is in reasonable compliance NCA are implying to the public that the program meets the requirements of CAN P9. To be truly a certifying body you must meet the requirements of CAN P9.
My point being that many inspectors equally claim they "comply with the SOP". In reality, how many actually do follow it exactly to the letter?
I fail to see the comparison, NC is not solely about following the SOP. The NC is about being certified to a standard that also involves having NCA which is the overseer being in compliance with certification standards. NCA wants inspectors to comply with its program, but NCA does not want to meet the standards of CAN P9. Sounds like a double standard.
The same holds true of the inspection reports I have seen from other inspectors too. So it is easy to critique, but would it not make sense to improve, where improvement is needed.
From what I am hearing TIPR examiners are falling into the less then spectacular reporting methods in their private practice.
I know that I have seen many a report that "DO NOT comply" with the SOP.
Me too.
