New Washington Legislation Submitted

[jclark1]

Originally Posted by jschulte

Silly James, reading laws when fliers produced by some state employee are available. Don't you know that state employees are never wrong and can't be challenged?

Hey smart *****, what is it with you missouri people? If you care so much about our laws (which are accepted as fact by any legitimate home inspector in this state) why dont you read the WAC and the RCW articles that apply in this matter.
Jim, when the only person on this board who agrees with you is Windy, you're not in a good position. Have you heard any legitimate Washington state inspector say we don't need an SPI license? Do you think we enjoy the mandatory insurance requirements, or the mandated continuing ed? The report forms and the extra hassle? I guess all these hundreds of home inspectors, who follow the rules in this state are so stupid that they don't realize it's not neccesary.
You will find no debate in this state about whether HI's need the license. You may a few inspectors who don't want to buy the insurance, take the test, etc so they ignore it. They take their chances with the state and short change their clients.

[James H. Bushart]

In Missouri, I need to be licensed to inspect for WDIs. I have that license.

As does your law, my law requires that I be licensed in order to issue a report that is specific to WDIs. My home inspection report is not. I offer the WDI inspection as an "extra".

Inspectors in Missouri who issue home inspection reports and who do not issue additional reports that are specific to WDIs do not need to be licensed, and many are not.

Additionally, it would certainly seem logical and prudent for your state to clarify and then apply the law it already has on its books before muddying the waters even more with a new one.

[tneumann]

After reading this thread due to boredom and sleep problems.....I have decided that I know way too much about the Washington Laws....and I also have decided that I'm glad I moved to Colorado and not Seattle.....

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

If I note issues that break the seal that allows moisture to enter the structure, without commenting on WDO or it being conducive to WDO, I have no obligation to be licensed.

"Caulking is deteriorating around certain windows. There is evidence of past moisture intrusion at certain spots. Recommend repair." If the client wants to inquire further as to the potential for harm, I could simply refer them to a licensed SPI. Could I not?

No you could not, you could not even mention the moistur intrusion without having an SPI. Like I've said, Wendy is correct in one way, you can perform a Home insection in Washington State without an SPI,what you can't do is mention any conditions conducive to WDO. So any inspection performed by a Home Inspector without an SPI License could not meet the requirements of the NACHI, or any other Associtains< SOP to be legal.

If you read the law it says anyone, not just home inspectors, who issues a report containing WDO Conducive conditions in the sale, transfer, or exchange or a "structure" requires an SPI License. The WSDA even includes Appraisers in that.

Most of us don't agree with the Law, but we follow it, myself I would like the "mandatory" requirement removed and, like in Missouri, let those who want to keep or obtain the SPI do so and then use the WDO inspection as an additional service with an additional Fee or as a Marketing tool.

We have Inspectors who pay a Licensed SPI to perform the WDO Inspection, that to me should be fine, the WDO requirement has been met, but that's not the way it works, the WSDA considers it to be a violation of the Law.

The reason WSDA and Soumi include and mention Home Inspectors is because reporting conditions that are conducive to WDO is part of every Industry SOP, they even include unwritten or verbalreports such as for a Walk Through inspection.

I don't like the Law, but if you read every argument that I have made they have been about the legality of performing a Home Inspection in accordance to the SOP without and SPI License, whether anyone likes it or not that's the way the Law is in Washington. I;ve asked Wendy and others if they would like to be a Test case to challenge the Law in Court, a Law that has been on the books for 15 to 16 years. Wendy with her legal expertise and her constant references to court cases, that do not exist, should challenge the Law.

As a NACHI Member you and everyone else has the right to express your opinion about this screwed up Law, but as a Member of the ESOP Committee if asked to rule on an Ethical Complaint concerning this issue, will you use your opinion about the law, or will you use the fact that the law, that very few like, is valid and has not been overturned in 16 years to make your decision?

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I've read your law and Dan Suomi's synopsis of it and, frankly guys, it is not clear that anyone other than one who advertises himself as an SPI must have a license. Mr Suomi's introduction to his synopsis even goes as far as to address two groups by name - structural pest inspectors and home inspectors - and continues on that it is the structural pest inspectors who must be licensed. He makes no such claim as to the home inspector.

After reading the actual law, I have to agree with Wendy on this one. Can anyone provide anything definitive...other than an interpretation...that specifically and clearly states that a home inspector must have an SPI license?

The way I read the law, a home inspector need not be licensed as an SPI. He should, when calling out applicable concerns, recommend further evalation by one when appropriate. That seems good enough.

Thank you James. I appreciate that. That's all I need to hear.

[Harold E. Miller]

James you did bring up an important element to the difference between Washington and Missouri. In Missouri you said that you inspect for WDI's, and in Washington we inspect for WDO's. (wood destroying organisms) Organisms encompasses fungal wood rot decay. For instance we can't use the NPMA-33 as a stand alone document. It does not meet our minimum reporting requirements.
And sometimes it is fchallenging dealing with a buyer whose lender is in another state, and their underwriter is asking for just a "termite" report. Well here if we do a complete WDO inspection report, it has been to be complete. Not just termites.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

No you could not, you could not even mention the moistur intrusion without having an SPI. Like I've said, Wendy is correct in one way, you can perform a Home insection in Washington State without an SPI,what you can't do is mention any conditions conducive to WDO. So any inspection performed by a Home Inspector without an SPI License could not meet the requirements of the NACHI, or any other Associtains< SOP to be legal.

If you read the law it says anyone, not just home inspectors, who issues a report containing WDO Conducive conditions in the sale, transfer, or exchange or a "structure" requires an SPI License. The WSDA even includes Appraisers in that.

Most of us don't agree with the Law, but we follow it, myself I would like the "mandatory" requirement removed and, like in Missouri, let those who want to keep or obtain the SPI do so and then use the WDO inspection as an additional service with an additional Fee or as a Marketing tool.

We have Inspectors who pay a Licensed SPI to perform the WDO Inspection, that to me should be fine, the WDO requirement has been met, but that's not the way it works, the WSDA considers it to be a violation of the Law.

The reason WSDA and Soumi include and mention Home Inspectors is because reporting conditions that are conducive to WDO is part of every Industry SOP, they even include unwritten or verbalreports such as for a Walk Through inspection.

I don't like the Law, but if you read every argument that I have made they have been about the legality of performing a Home Inspection in accordance to the SOP without and SPI License, whether anyone likes it or not that's the way the Law is in Washington. I;ve asked Wendy and others if they would like to be a Test case to challenge the Law in Court, a Law that has been on the books for 15 to 16 years. Wendy with her legal expertise and her constant references to court cases, that do not exist, should challenge the Law.

As a NACHI Member you and everyone else has the right to express your opinion about this screwed up Law, but as a Member of the ESOP Committee if asked to rule on an Ethical Complaint concerning this issue, will you use your opinion about the law, or will you use the fact that the law, that very few like, is valid and has not been overturned in 16 years to make your decision?

Or will he use the fact that no one has been prosecuted, successfully, and only a few unsuccessfully, to make his decision?

Hmmmmm.....

The law is open to interpretation. I can't be charged with violating COE due to having a differing opinion on our regulations or lack thereof.

Nice try again.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jclark1

Hey smart *****, what is it with you missouri people? If you care so much about our laws (which are accepted as fact by any legitimate home inspector in this state) why dont you read the WAC and the RCW articles that apply in this matter.
Jim, when the only person on this board who agrees with you is Windy, you're not in a good position. Have you heard any legitimate Washington state inspector say we don't need an SPI license? Do you think we enjoy the mandatory insurance requirements, or the mandated continuing ed? The report forms and the extra hassle? I guess all these hundreds of home inspectors, who follow the rules in this state are so stupid that they don't realize it's not neccesary.
You will find no debate in this state about whether HI's need the license. You may a few inspectors who don't want to buy the insurance, take the test, etc so they ignore it. They take their chances with the state and short change their clients.

That's hilarious. You'll find NO DEBATE? Oh brother. Yah, you're really in touch with reality.

And yes. I do thin k the hundreds of home inspectors who don't challenge this are stupid. There is power in numbers, and if all rose up and got a spine, it wouldn't even be a debate anymore.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jclark1

She threatened to sue me months ago. I laughed then just like I am now. What a joke.

The process takes time James. Don't give up on me yet.

[wforsyth]

James

The SPI laws do not keep a licensed contractor, architect, engineer, etc. from performing their jobs. But they are not performing inspections for a real estate transaction, and providing a report. That is one of the differences in the scenario you presented.

Not true. Every one of those people are dealing with a structure that at some point could be used in a real estate transaction. So therefore, according to you all, the rules apply to them.

You guys can't pick and choose. It's either applicable all around, or not at all.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

The first hearing on this newly proposed legislation will be this Monday, at 10:00am in Senate Hearing Room #4 at the State Capitol.

Enough of the WDO / WDI.

The first paper issued by the STATE says that "If you are conducting inspections for potential or proposed real estate transactions" you must be a licensed Structural Pest Inspector.

JB. In this state, we do an initial inspection for WDO/WDI/CC. If any are found, just like any other specialty, we refer to the appropriate trade.

If there is a plumbing leak, we recommend repair as needed by licensed plumbing contractor. We are off the hook as a Structural Pest Inspector.

If there is a WDI, we refer to a licensed PCO for further evaluation, treatment and repair as needed. We are finished with out portion.

If there are condusive conditions, say wood debris in the crawl space, we recommend it be removed. No need to refer to a specialist. IT AIN'T ROCKET SCIENCE.

Too much is being made out of a SPI being a specialist. If anything, it is a "specialist lite". If you find something, you refer to the true specialist, the PCO OR APPROPRIATE TRADE SPECIALIST.

If you are peforming a COMPLETE WOOD DESTROYING ORGANISM INSPECTION for a real estate transaction you must be licensed.

Not any inspection. COMPLETE WOOD DESTROYING ORGANISM INSPECTION.

[Harold E. Miller]

http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/docs/completewdo.pdf

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by hmiller

James you did bring up an important element to the difference between Washington and Missouri. In Missouri you said that you inspect for WDI's, and in Washington we inspect for WDO's. (wood destroying organisms) Organisms encompasses fungal wood rot decay. For instance we can't use the NPMA-33 as a stand alone document. It does not meet our minimum reporting requirements.
And sometimes it is fchallenging dealing with a buyer whose lender is in another state, and their underwriter is asking for just a "termite" report. Well here if we do a complete WDO inspection report, it has been to be complete. Not just termites.

He mentioned both WDO's and WDI's.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by jbushart

In Missouri, I need to be licensed to inspect for WDIs. I have that license.

As does your law, my law requires that I be licensed in order to issue a report that is specific to WDIs. My home inspection report is not. I offer the WDI inspection as an "extra".

Inspectors in Missouri who issue home inspection reports and who do not issue additional reports that are specific to WDIs do not need to be licensed, and many are not.

Additionally, it would certainly seem logical and prudent for your state to clarify and then apply the law it already has on its books before muddying the waters even more with a new one.

Where?

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

If I were a contractor and you asked me to come to your home and examine your windows and I reported that they should be re-flashed, for some reason...you are saying that I, too, would need an SPI license? I think you guys are taking the law out of context.

When an inspection is done and a report is provided to a client with the intent and purpose of inspecting for and reporting on damages and conducive conditions of WDO/WDI, that inspection and report must be done by a licensed SPI. That is what your law says.

When an inspection is done and a report is provided to a client with the intent and purposed of inspecting for and reporting on the conditions of the structure and its systems, without specific regard to WDO/WDI, it is not clear in your law that the person conducting that inspection must be a licensed SPI, IMO.

WAC 16-228-2045
Complete wood destroying organism inspection reports.
(1) Any report that identifies damage or infestation by WDOs or, conditions conducive to damage or infestation by WDOs pursuant to the sale, exchange, or refinancing of any structure or, as a result of telephone solicitation by an inspection, pest control, or other business, must be a complete WDO inspection report and must comply with this section. The terms "Report" or "report" as used in this section will mean a complete WDO inspection report

Note the first words in thw WAC James, what is not conclusive about that?

We aren't Contractors, we're Home Inspectors, if the reason that a Contractor was at the home was to Issue a report on its condition and involved the sale or transfer of the structure,he would be doing an inspection, if he or a plumber, electrician, etc. were working on the home doing either upgrades or repairs and came across WDO/WDI problems then No they would not need a license.

IT's stupid but it's simple James, ANY REPORT, you and unlicensed inspector in Washington Act like we've made this up, like we're stupid or something and that we haven't offered nearly every argument that you can come up with over this law sometime during the last 15 years. What's reaaly sad is that most unlicensed inspectors like Wendy have never got off their *****es and called or contacted Dr. Soumi directly, you could do so yourself as an ESOP Committee member of the largetst HI Association you could contact him directly yourself asking for clarification. Most of us have spent hours arguing this matter with DR. Soumi himself we aren't making this up. Whether you agree with Wendy and other unlicensed inspectors on this issue doesn't matter, if they Issue a Home Inspection report that is in accordance with the NACHI SOP and they do not have an SPI License, then that report and the actions of the inspector are Illegal....ANY REPORT

You should have your Test Case by early next week, and then we'll see how much yu truly back 'self regulation"