Taylor Morrison Fails To Get Disciplinary Action For Home Inspector That Posts Inspection Videos
from the swing-and-a-miss dept
Earlier this year, we discussed an example of the Streisand Effect in action when a large home builder, Taylor Morrison, petitioned the Arizona Board of Technical Registration to discipline Cy Porter, a home inspector who has built up a large online following by posting videos of his inspections. He does that to educate Arizona homebuyers to the need for having an inspection done specifically on newly constructed homes, as well as what inspectors need to look for to comply with Arizona code. Part of what was strange about the whole situation is that Porter and Taylor Morrison had had a relatively friendly conversation going for some time about some of the problems Porter was seeing in these homes, only for that conversation to be cut off later and for him to be barred from doing at least one inspection of a Taylor Morrison home.
Now, Taylor Morrison complained to the ABTR that Porter was targeting, harassing, and bullying the company, along with a claim that some of the content of his videos about any flaws in its homes was “falsified.” In addition to seeking to get him to stop posting videos, the company also asked that his license be temporarily suspended. This, of course, generated more news and headlines, leading even more people to be aware of the problems in these homes.
And now that’s going to get another round of coverage as this story appears to be coming to a close. That’s because the ABTR considered Taylor Morrison’s request and has found that the videos don’t contain any false information. As such, they are not suspending Porter’s license, and are merely issuing a “letter of concern” over his videos.
This week, the board held a hearing to discuss the complaint. The investigator assigned to the case stated after interviewing witnesses and homeowners who worked with Porter, and reviewing his posts, there was no evidence to show Porter lied in any of his videos.
Ultimately, the board did not discipline Porter after finding no violation of board statutes or rules.
Instead, the board voted to issue a letter of concern for unprofessional conduct. The letter specifically called out a video Porter posted in March. The board stated he displayed evidence in the video of a gas leak with an audio recording that was not associated with the leak. Porter defended that video and said the video was not showing a home inspection. Rather, it was satirical and made as a joke for his social media followers.
Now, to be clear, the board was not unanimous in its views. At least one did call for discipline, but that was out of concern for “professional behavior” rather than any lies expressed within the videos. And, honestly, the satire video is kind of dumb, too. If you’re going for an educational channel through which to inform the homebuying public around home inspections, doing a comedy bit in the middle of that channel seems like a poor choice.
But the real point in all of this is that Taylor Morrison is once again in the headlines, all because it tried to bully someone out of posting online videos of what appear to be legitimate concerns around the company’s homes. If the company had elected instead to act more human about all of this and, you know, just fix those problems, then its reputation wouldn’t have taken this sort of hit to begin with.
Filed Under: arizona, cy porter, home inspection, streisand effect
Companies: taylor morrison
Comments on “Taylor Morrison Fails To Get Disciplinary Action For Home Inspector That Posts Inspection Videos”
So a couple things.
Re:
You need to provide more detail for this comment to be useful.
Who learned who might [have] doctored videos? Who put out an update that 2 inspectors have now put in complaints and what is the relevance of those complaints and the fact that they use the same language?
Re: Re:
Not OP but I’m aware of what’s up
Re: Re:
Could you really not figure out who he is by the context of an article about a singular inspector?
Re: Re: Re:
It wasn’t clear if they were claiming Porter had doctored videos or Morrison had doctored videos. It wasn’t clear about whom the two inspectors had filed a complaint and what the relevance was that they used similar verbiage. It could be two other inspectors complaining about Morrison’s work that said roughly the same thing that Porter said in his own videos, indicating that Porter’s estimation of Morrison’s work was standard and professional. And if a reader has to figure it out by the context rather than being provided with relevant details, it is, as per my comment, needing more detail to be useful. Why would you want to be imprecise and invite confusion? What’s the point of communicating if you’re not going to do it well? Why would you assume all human beings reading the same vague content would all draw the same, correct conclusion?
Re: Re: Re:2
Since when does anyone refer to a company as he?
Re: Re: Re:3
Since they can’t be bothered to express themselves clearly in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:3
It wasn’t clear that Taylor Morrison is not a person in addition to being a company. It turns out it’s named after two people, one with the last name Taylor and one with the last name Morrison. But Taylor is also a first name, so it reads like a person’s full name. If you’ve never heard of the company, it’s not weird to think it’s an individual. Some companies are named after a person’s full name, often the person running them. The article never mentions a representative of the company.
But that’s beside the point because the original comment still should have included a proper noun indicating who it was referring to just for the sake of clarity and precision. People shouldn’t have to decipher based on context when a simple substitution of a noun instead of a pronoun is possible.
Re: Re: Re:3
Since somebody didn’t bother to search the term ‘Taylor Morrison home builder’, obviously.
Re: Re: Re:
No.
It was not obvious, required making assumptions (a.k.a. ‘guesses’), and being unsure whether I interpreted them correctly.
After your explication, it turned out that — in addition to having been uncertain I understood either statement correctly — I actually interpreted one quite incorrectly.
The problem here was in the confusing speech, not the confused listeners.
Re:
[Citation needed] Interesting, if it’s true. that things have gone further!
So all Taylor Morrison really managed to do here was burn money and broadcast that they have no intention of building quality homes.
Why? The fuck are you talking about?
Re:
Yeah it’s what I would call and Edutainment channel. It’s not something I’d do in a professional presentation, but fine for a TikTok/YouTube Short. Especially since I believe the video in question was posted on April 1st
Re:
No, he’s right. It’s pretty cringe.
“At least one did call for discipline, but that was out of concern for “professional behavior” rather than any lies expressed within the videos. ”
I guess that person expected “professionals” to keep quiet about shoddy workmanship, especially when identifying shoddy workmanship is your job.
I saw a few of those videos and I would think such bad quality work would result in lost sales, idk.
Re:
The first rule of Profession…
Hilariously, nothing unprofessional about the builder or board members, no sir.
I’ve seen his videos over the past few months at least. I’ve gotten the impression that he and his clients HAVE tried to work w builders to fix things. Builders haven’t cared so abit of public pressure is attempting to be applied.
as for the overlay of the voice and the gas line…. have you ever watched a series? it’s a satirical callback or inside joke. in that one video it may appear to be someone there, but if you watched more of the videos then you catch on. I wondered if the board even bothered to look deeper than what TM provided them.
I actually watched a large portion of the hearing, and if I was a local I’d be VERY concerned about some of the members of the board and their absolute deference to contractors and willingness to harass inspectors for their benefit. They certainly made a show of sending him a letter that is useless, and really is just an opinion piece about the possibile perception of a video.
Re:
Actually, it would be the perfect thing to frame and hang on his brag wall.
And his website, if he has one. Heck, he should include it on his resume.
Public official doing required-by-law home inspections per his job… yeah, I can see how some builders would be up in arms about that… not. And may I remind: building inspections are public.
Re:
Clarification. Not a public official. He is his own business.
This is, to be clear, worse than calling for discipline out of concern for lies. Significantly so. It means that at least one member of the board believes that inspectors should not be allowed to speak publically about their inspections or methods.
Combine that with a majority of the board believing that a complaint about an inspector speaking publically about their inspections and methods requires a disciplinary hearing and symbolic punishment, rather than a (probably failed) “kobe” shot into the nearest recycling bin, and Taylor Morrison has really come out on top here.
Sure the public may have a slightly more negative view of Taylor Morrison, but frankly nobody had a positive view of them to begin with, and housing is not really a competitive enough market for that to matter.
Inspectors, on the other hand, have all been put on notice that the board is on Taylor Morrison’s side, and anyone who isn’t interested in spending their free time in disciplinary hearings should shut the fuck up and pretend they didn’t see anything.
Fist Shakers
LOL their only real admonition was [checks notes]shaking their fists in the air and mumbling under their breath. haha
So, my $.000000000002.
I have watched a few of his shorts and followed the case because most of the complaints or issues he has with the workmanship has been pointed out by others in normal media. How the consolidation of home builders has led to less than good workmanship and much higher home prices while taking longer to build.
Some of the shorts don’t really point to the shoddy workmanship of the builder but by the material such as window corner welds breaking and the like.
lessons learned
First thing I learned from his videos, is I should have hired a professional inspector on my new home. Fortunately, the electrical repairs only cost me a few hundred for a faulty breaker and HVAC board that was blown from the breaker.
Should have been under warranty, but it was practically impossible to get hold of the original installer.
I’ll be sure to remember for next home, though.
Second thing learned: avoid Taylor Morrison, obviously
Re: Lessons Learned
I also realized I should have hired an inspector before closing on my Taylor Morrison home in Texas. I did hire one after being in my home four months and his report was quite extensive. TM’s favorite comment about a problem is that “it is a cosmetic issue”. The features in a TM home are very attractive but quality control was found to be lacking.
I know that guy!
The guy they sued goes by “Alpha Structural” on Imgur.
Guy posting video of houses with problems – Letter of Concern
Company building houses not up to code – crickets
Something here isn’t right, I’m sure I’ll think of it…