New Version of Washington Bill

[wforsyth]

Senator Spanel just needs to be made aware of the fact that it isn't required currently, and she needs to read first hand Dr.Suomi's comments verifying that.

She also should be aware of Home Inspectors going around telling realtors that there is a requirement to be SPI when there isn't, and be aware of the fact that that is a direct assault on people's businesses. It's totally illegal and it should be interesting to see what she has to say.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Senator Spanel just needs to be made aware of the fact that it isn't required currently, and she needs to read first hand Dr.Suomi's comments verifying that.

She also should be aware of Home Inspectors going around telling realtors that there is a requirement to be SPI when there isn't, and be aware of the fact that that is a direct assault on people's businesses. It's totally illegal and it should be interesting to see what she has to say.

The SPI law limits licensure to those writing WDO/WDI reports. It goes as far as to define these reports and how they will be written.

Your proposed HI law states that an inspector will address WDO in a "home inspection report" which specifically and directly violates the SPI law.

It would be smart to let the bill go up for vote with this obvious conflict with an existing law and have your legislators vote it down for that reason, alone. Write your rep and quietly call attention to this conflicting wording...where compliance with one law requires violation of another. Kill the bill.

[Steven L. Smith]

"Your proposed HI law states that an inspector will address WDO in a "home inspection report" which specifically and directly violates the SPI law."

I do not follow you on this. I do not know of any prohibition in SPI law that states someone cannot do a more complete report than SPI issues. I agree that the proposed law states than an inspector will address WDO issues, but where does the SPI law say that is illegal?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by ssmith

"Your proposed HI law states that an inspector will address WDO in a "home inspection report" which specifically and directly violates the SPI law."

I do not follow you on this. I do not know of any prohibition in SPI law that states someone cannot do a more complete report than SPI issues. I agree that the proposed law states than an inspector will address WDO issues, but where does the SPI law say that is illegal?

Your SPI law defines what kind of report a licensed SPI must write when addressing WDO/WDI. The law prescribes what must be included in that report.

Your proposed HI bill defines that a licensed home inspector will address WDO/WDIs in his "home inspection report".

These requirements conflict one another. One must violate one of the laws to comply with the other, IMO.

[Steven L. Smith]

I do not think that is a problem. Currently those of us working as SPI's are meeting all of the WDO requirements in a basic home inspection report. The elements of a WDO report need not take any specific form, per current and anticipated law. It is pretty undefined but basically, and I might be leaving something out, it must include the specific WDO number, the date, the name of the person paying (client), the address, inspector name, exclusions. As long as those key identification elements are included at the top, the WDO report and findings can be included as you wish in the regular inspection report. They can all be together, they can be spread out, some in interior, some in exterior, some in attic, some in crawl space, etc. It could even have your comment about the number of horses you saw out in the field, if you wanted, just as long as you did not leave out concerns and conducive conditions.

I do not (IMO) think there is a true conflict here, the two types of reports were melded together in this state, for the home inspectors doing WDO reports, about a decade ago. It was for this reason, in fact, that the WDO report is so loosly defined in form, to be flexible for inspectors, as long as all the elements are there.

[Nick Gromicko]

I like this new version very much.

[Steven L. Smith]

Nick,

It took some modifications and industry wrangling, as compared to last year's proposal, but I think it is pretty much neutral as far as favoring any home inspection societies or associations. There is one group out there that is still not so happy about that. It is my view that our state law should not be written to copy, and incorporate into it, the standards and membership procedures and requirements of any one organization.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by ssmith

I do not think that is a problem. Currently those of us working as SPI's are meeting all of the WDO requirements in a basic home inspection report. The elements of a WDO report need not take any specific form, per current and anticipated law. It is pretty undefined but basically, and I might be leaving something out, it must include the specific WDO number, the date, the name of the person paying (client), the address, inspector name, exclusions. As long as those key identification elements are included at the top, the WDO report and findings can be included as you wish in the regular inspection report. They can all be together, they can be spread out, some in interior, some in exterior, some in attic, some in crawl space, etc. It could even have your comment about the number of horses you saw out in the field, if you wanted, just as long as you did not leave out concerns and conducive conditions.

I do not (IMO) think there is a true conflict here, the two types of reports were melded together in this state, for the home inspectors doing WDO reports, about a decade ago. It was for this reason, in fact, that the WDO report is so loosly defined in form, to be flexible for inspectors, as long as all the elements are there.

Steve,

The only thing I see you left out is the "diagram",that highly technical, not to scale, hand drawn if the inspector wishes, footprint of the structure showng the general location of the damage or condition.

Software like InspectVue even includes an acceptable report form.

It doesn't do any good to explain to Bushart that the law says that any report, once it mentions WDO, becomes a WDO report, hence the reason that unlicensed inspectors now need to sub out that portion of the Home Inspection, and I would do no good to show him that the new Law requires a Home Inspector to have a valid SPI License issued by the WSDA, of course the Home Inspector could still sub out the WDO protion I guess, but I don't know why they would.

Isn't funny how Bushart is so willing to interfere in other States, yet so unwilling to discuss matters in his own.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Isn't funny how Bushart is so willing to interfere in other States

...says the geek from Idaho.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

...says the geek from Idaho.

Who happens to be a Washington State Licensed Structural Pest Inspector and business owner, what was you connection again James?

What does the Washington State Bill have to do with either Misoouri or the might ESOP Committee?

[lcapaul]

Watch it live

http://www.tvw.org/mediaplayer/LiveW...e=C&HasVideo=1

[Steven L. Smith]

"The only thing I see you left out is the "diagram",that highly technical, not to scale, hand drawn if the inspector wishes, footprint of the structure showng the general location of the damage or condition"

True enough, I was just thinking of the stuff that goes at the top of the report. I do a drawing on every complete WDO report but have only, once, ever had anyone ask to see it even though I always, per law, let them know it is theirs for the asking. I almost passed out I was so surprised. They are all filed away with contracts however. Again, this simple rule easily meshes with the proposed law.

Basically, the current WDO reporting law allows a huge amount of flexibility in report form, if you hit the elements and have the license. And the proposed HI bill just says that you must include those elements in your HI report and have the license to do so legally. I do not see how there can be any conflict between the two. Those who have been SPI's have been doing this kind of report for years. We make sure we get the ICN up at the top, put in bold print that a diagram is available for the asking (if we do not supply one) and then just do the work.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Who happens to be a Washington State Licensed Structural Pest Inspector and business owner, what was you connection again James?

What does the Washington State Bill have to do with either Misoouri or the might ESOP Committee?

Thanks for asking.

The proponents of home inspection socialization like to point to the number of states who have already succumbed to it and argue that it is "inevitable". For many years when ASHI controlled all of the HI agenda, perhaps it was inevitable. As their influence has diminished, the success rates in states fighting legislation has increased.

My involvement is to highlight the fact that you, in particular, represent the real agenda behind legislation (as it applies to home inspectors who support it). You are looking to do through legislation what you have not been able to do in marketing --- and that is to eliminate the number of inspectors competing against you in a present market.

By seeing this...and by understanding that laws like this can be defeated...perhaps some can unite and fight against you.

Their fight will not (and should not) take place on the message board where you will have the opportunity to counter it. All we are doing here is discussing the bill and its alternatives.

Again, thank you for asking.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Thanks for asking.

The proponents of home inspection socialization like to point to the number of states who have already succumbed to it and argue that it is "inevitable". For many years when ASHI controlled all of the HI agenda, perhaps it was inevitable. As their influence has diminished, the success rates in states fighting legislation has increased.

My involvement is to highlight the fact that you, in particular, represent the real agenda behind legislation (as it applies to home inspectors who support it). You are looking to do through legislation what you have not been able to do in marketing --- and that is to eliminate the number of inspectors competing against you in a present market.

By seeing this...and by understanding that laws like this can be defeated...perhaps some can unite and fight against you.

Their fight will not (and should not) take place on the message board where you will have the opportunity to counter it. All we are doing here is discussing the bill and its alternatives.

Again, thank you for asking.

Then why don't WE discuss the Missouri Bill on the Missouri Thread?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Then why don't WE discuss the Missouri Bill on the Missouri Thread?

Discuss it all you like.

Actions are what are important to me in Missouri and I (in conjunction with a host of others to include my chapter members, leaders from other associations, and leaders of NACHI) am taking them. Discussing the options on the open message board with you would not only be an incredible waste of time, but would alert the bad guys (those pushing the bill) to what is happening behind the scenes to stop them.

After we are finished and the final results are in, I will be happy to share them with you. Until then, I am intentionally concealing them from you and others who would try to interfere with them.

I am confident that the same activities are ongoing in Washington, as well.