Florida Home Inspectors License

[mepley]

HOW IRONIC

In Florida you need a license to put a worn on a hook and throw it in the water,

but now they want to remove the license requirements that they just imposed. I ask my self did they just want our money, or how much and to who the lobbyist paid to ensure the elected official voted their way.

I know some of you do not want to have licensing, but that will increase the amount you will be able to charge for an inspection, this will also run bad or a dishonest inspector out of the business. It’s not a level playing field; it’s hard to compete against an inspector that doesn’t really inspect.

Sorry I'm done venting

Mike Epley

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mepley

HOW IRONIC

In Florida you need a license to put a worn on a hook and throw it in the water,

but now they want to remove the license requirements that they just imposed. I ask my self did they just want our money, or how much and to who the lobbyist paid to ensure the elected official voted their way.

I know some of you do not want to have licensing, but that will increase the amount you will be able to charge for an inspection, this will also run bad or a dishonest inspector out of the business. It’s not a level playing field; it’s hard to compete against an inspector that doesn’t really inspect.

Sorry I'm done venting

Mike Epley

Mike, if you will do some research you will find that licensing laws passed in other states have had the exact opposite effect of what you are describing as an argument in favor of it.

I've heard it said that "licensing solves nothing". When you examine the facts in areas where it has been put into practice, you will find this to be true. None of the intended "gains" have ever come to fruition.

[Russell J. Hensel]

People are looking for the "great equalizer" and they feel licensing does it...

[mepley]

So your saying Mr Bad Inspector ie equal? so if he screws up regularly a home buyer, or most often a first time home buy hires this guy. exactly would they know if he gets sued ofter? how would the check if anyone has filed a complaint? if the have an issuse what insures that it gets address. Maybe you guys are that Mr. Bad Inspector, or possible do not want to be held accountable

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Mike, in Missouri real estate agents and brokers can lie to and cheat their clients and the licensing board will not pull their license. The only way they can lose their license is to commit a felony and/or commit an act of violence. You are not allowed to pull their licensing record just to check if they have any complaints against them.
Now tell me how licensing protects the consumer?

[Michael H. Newell, Sr]

In Florida, any professional license can be publicly examined on the internet. The Fl State web site lists the license, complaints and complaint status. Although the discipline meted out is weak, the record shows the problem. I always double check when I solicit quotes from any licensed "professional"

[Mike O'Handley]

Mr. Epley,

Take it all with a grain of salt and keep in mind that some of the folks who are claiming to know what they are talking about simply don't and aren't in a position to know facts they say apply to their assertions.


Can't speak for other states but licensing has been working here in Washington state. We had all of the same wild predictions from the same people, here and on other boards and at all of the state hearings, of all of the terrible things that would be happening if licensing were passed; and, so far, none of them has come true.


When the law was passed, the realtors association and the MLS got on board and told agents that they were required to use licensed inspectors. They also changed the real estate contract to specify that an inspector who is in compliance with state law be used.


Sure, some folks have ignored the law and are still doing unlicensed inspections. As DOL learns about them, they've sent them warning letters and told them to get licensed or else. Most have complied. Some, particularly those who are crossing into Washington from neighboring states, think they don't have to comply.


That's fine, what they don't realize is that, according to the legal folks with the MLS, any buyer that hires an unlicensed inspector essentially waives the inspection contingency. If they waste their time hiring an unlicensed guy and then try to submit a report from an unlicensed guy along with the contract and request for concessions, the sellers technically can tell them that the inspection isn't valid; and, if their window for the inspection has closed, hold them to the contract.

I expect that when/if one of these sellers does that, we'll see a buyer turn around and sue his or her agent for malfeasance and the inspector for fraud. That will send shock waves through the local realtor community and those who still have their heads in the sand will start to pay attention. That alone will probably solve the issue of unlicensed guys doing inspections.


Our law requires schooling, mentoring and testing. Most of the folks giving the training have been adding the 40 hours of mentoring and mandatory inspection reports into their training programs. Very few hiccups as far as I can tell; and, so far I'm told that the average passing scores in the state on the NHIE are now up to over 90% whereas they used to be closer to the national average in the mid 70's. If that's truly the case, it would seem that requiring folks to get a little bit of education about this business before they get into it is raising the skill set here a little bit.


Hordes of inspectors weren't put out of business. A few chose to quit rather than get educated about their profession and then prove that they can do what they claim to be able to do - inspect homes. The fact that they quit rather than prove they are competent by taking a simple basic test speaks volumes about their abilities. They won't be missed by consumers. The overwhelming majority of inspectors that were here before licensing are still here and are doing as well as they ever did.


The state doesn't get rich off of licensing fees. The program is revenue neutral and the fees taken in barely cover the cost of administrating it; in fact, until they reassigned one of the state employees to other tasks and left the program with only one employee, they were losing money. That's now rectified.


The board members aren't getting rich. Nobody on the board is teaching home inspections anywhere for a for-profit school and making lots of money. Two board members do teach part-time at state-owned community colleges but were doing that before licensing and licensing doesn't increase what they make because they are paid by semester at a fixed rate - by the hour at 80% of what a full-time teacher makes - and that's not dependent on number of students taught. Since there is a limited market for training, nobody in any of the for-profit schools is getting rich teaching either.


They claimed it would level the playing field and that all newbies who were licensed would be considered as experienced and capable as experienced guys and that all of the experienced guys would take a serious hit. Not true. Most of us haven't even seen a ripple.


True, some folks in certain areas are seeing some pretty drastic low-balling going on, but it isn't the experienced guys lowering their prices to try and compete, it's the new guys giving their services away at tag sale prices because, despite licensing supposedly making folks equal, most buyers are seeking out experienced inspectors with good reputations and are foregoing hiring the inexperienced guys.


It is still up to individual inspectors to make it based on their own technical abilities and marketing prowess, just as it has always been. It was that way before licensing, so licensing didn't level the playing field at all; what it did was require that those in the business and those entering the business prove that they had the requisite knowledge to do the job.

Licensing discouraged those getting into the profession who weren't willing to dedicate the time and expense to becoming competent and it gave consumers a means to ensure that the person they hire at least knows the rudiments of inspecting a home and isn't just someone who was flipping burgers yesterday and wants to call himself an inspector today.


Licensing does solve some things; one just has to be open-minded enough to see what those things are.


ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!


Mike

[James L. Keilson]

Originally Posted by jbraun

Mike, in Missouri real estate agents and brokers can lie to and cheat their clients and the licensing board will not pull their license. The only way they can lose their license is to commit a felony and/or commit an act of violence. You are not allowed to pull their licensing record just to check if they have any complaints against them.
Now tell me how licensing protects the consumer?

All that means is the State Licensing in that state and the Idiots enforcing it suck and needs an overhaull.

Jim

[Michael J. Meeker]

Overhaul it to the trash.

[James H. Bushart]

There is a lot of humor to be found in arguments that favor the licensing of home inspectors ... but the most amusing, to me, are the proponents who concede that a license will not make them better inspectors but is necessary to protect consumers from ... "the other guy".

I'm amazed at the way that most legislators are able to keep a straight face and nod in agreement when you know, inside, they have to be cracking a gut.

[Michael J. Meeker]

yeah that always makes me smirk as well.