Advertising on the Internet

[btaylor]

We tend to ignore this type of site, but you do wonder, with the times the way they are, if we smaller guys will lose work to them, and if so, who is actually doing the work.

[dmi]

Last year, I wrote to the officers of CLSA and tried to get a discussion started on this exact subject. It seems to have gone nowhere. We ought to figure out a plan to do something about this problem. I find it tiresome to have all the top portion of any search for surveying taken up by these bundling websites. what a great racket. The selling of leads was got to go in california. Do you suppose attorneys would pay for client leads. This is just outrageous what is going on. These bundling firms could take up the entite first page of a search and small Califonia would neve be found on the web....

[goodgps]

Our Firm was contracted by a "clearing house" such as this, to perform a survey on an area property.

Although "they" were to provide research, the research provided was sketchy. The Contract also included a strict but fair deadline (if research had indeed been complete)

I did my own research in order to expedite the project and catch up with the deadline.

Suspicion was raised when "they" began asing for extras, which were not in the contract and stated that they "thought" that was included.

Whith red flags raised, we immediately filed a preliminary lien notice.

Soon the Owner of the property contacted us to find out what was going on with his property.
Due to the fact that we actually knew this owner, we cooperated woth him (under the guidance of our attorney).

Our actions raised a huge stink bomb with the clearing house. We adhered to the written contract, met the deadline and were finally paid through the clearing house, although they claimed duress, and informed us that we were off their preferred list.
OH yeah, The plats to be provided were on a generic border, My Logo was not allowed, and there was a blank area, obviously to be used for their logo.

Its plain these people never intended to pay for the service. They just wanted a free survey and rubber stamp from California.

These type operate out of Oklahoma City, Chicago, Dallas, and I'm sure many other places.

Be careful if you work for them. Most likely their clients are legitimate, but the clearing house may not be.

Good

[Jim Frame]

Note that performing work for a broker (or clearing house, or coordinator, or aggregator, or whatever you want to call it) involves more than just lowballing, bogus title blocks and long waits for payment. It's also considered aiding and abetting the illegal practice of land surveying, and exposes your license to sanction.

(Yes, I once did an ALTA for ILS, before I was aware of this. No, I didn't get busted. Whew!)

.

[PE_PLS]

My question is, is it our responsibility to determine if the broker is appropriately licensed or not? I don't think so, if we don't know that we are aiding and abetting, then I don't think we are aiding and abetting. Ignorance may be bliss in this case...

[7702]

I would say, yes, it is. If the broker is authorized to practice land surveying in this state, then why would they need us? I would assume they're not licensed unless proven otherwise.

[7702]

I would say the answer depends on how serious we are about protecting our profession and our reputation.

[PE_PLS]

I am definitely NOT saying I encourage this process. I'm only responding to Jim's comment that Good may be aiding and abetting...unless Good knew he was, then I don't think he was guilty. I agree 7702, these outfits are NOT good and damage the profession

[Jim Frame]

"My question is, is it our responsibility to determine if the broker is appropriately licensed or not?"

It's a matter of proportionality. If a California firm located two counties over with the name "XYZ Engineering and Land Surveying" asks you to perform a survey, it's reasonable to assume that they're authorized to sub out land surveying services. However, if the client is an out-of-state firm named "ALTA Mill, Inc.," pretending that all is well when a simple inquiry can definitively resolve the issue may be construed as negligence.

The burden of making a good-faith effort at verifying the eligibility of a firm to practice land surveying is minimal: send a letter or e-mail to BPELS asking them to check the firm's Organization Record. Failing to do that when a prudent licensee would do so is putting your license on the line. The first question posed by the Enforcement Unit will be, "Did you attempt to verify that the firm is licensed to practice in California?"


"Ignorance may be bliss in this case..."

Willful ignorance is never an adequate excuse.

.

[goodgps]

I don't think there is any "crime" to say, when we unwittingly enter into an agreement to perform surveying services. Afterall, we are indeed Land surveyors. Lets keep the "crime" where it belongs. . . on the imposter.

The jist of some of the wisdom offered by "the group" is perhaps to ask appropriate questions of the "broker".

On the edge of the coin, When my company had an office in Nevada, our California crew would perform the survey but the Nevada LS would sign, and vice versa depending on the job location. I suppose this is acceptable due to being "same company"

As for a survey broker, would we be acting as a "team" with them, or are we aiding and abetting ?

If they faithfully pay us, then they are simply a client. ie an agent for a job to be done. How many times have we done work for real estate agents ??

The gripe I have, is that "they" actually have local clients who hire "them" instead of hiring a local area Licensed Land Surveyor who will no doubt, do a great service for a fair price, while these "hogs" skimm off a "finders" fee and take credit for the job.

crabby but. . .
"good"