New Washington Legislation Submitted

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Do you have anything...anything at all...that says a home inspector must be SPI licensed to perform home inspections? That is the issue.

We know that your state requires licensing to perform pest inspections.

We know that any home inspection that would include a pest inspection must be performed by one who is licensed.

What we lack in this discussion is something provided by your state that a home inspector who is performing a home inspection must be licensed as an SPI. This is what several of you are insisting that your law states, but you have yet to provide that portion of the law that states it. Why?

Do you have anything...anything at all...that says a home inspector must be SPI licensed to perform home inspections? That is the issue.

You keep missing the point James, once any inspection report mentions WDO or any conditions conducive to WDO the Report becomes a Complete WDO inspection Report.

Anyone one can do home inspections without an SPI License, that's not the issue, the Issue for a NACHI INspector is how does he/she perform a Home Inspection in accordance with the NACHI SOP without mentioning anythin that may be conducive to WDO or be WDO damage, look at the list of Conducive conditions that WSDA show in a WAC, and note that they say that is not a complete list.

Can I do a home inspection without mentioning improper grade around the foundation, earth to wood contact, improper clearances, broken or missing calking, rotted or damaged siding, clogged or damage gutters, termite mud tubes etc. and still follow the SOP. In Washington, rightly or wrongly, the Inspection of anything related to WDO requires IDENTIFICATION of the cause, insect, etc.

Your description of Peter's picture was pretty slick, but do you really believe that it would be a fair explanation to your customer or just a cover your ***** statement that would serve no other real purpose than to sneak around the requirements of a Law?

No there is NO LAW REQUIRING A HOME INSPECTOR TO BE LICENSED, but of what value would a Home Inspection report have if it did not mention so many different conditions? Or if the NACH SOP would permit excluding those conditions what use is the SOP to a good inspector?

The Inspectors in Washington who have stated that the license is required aren't making it up, most of us have investigated the law through attornies and the WSDA, you should too.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Lewis and Harold,

Let's stop this now. Once JB makes up his mind, and he seems to have done that in this case, there is no convincing him. It is obvious that unless the law states "a home inspector must be a structural pest inspector" in the actual legislation, he will not accept any other documentation, even from the Department that is in charge of implementation and interpretation.

Most laws are written and implemented and unless someone challenges them in court, they are left to the Department in charge. They very seldom get reviewed after going into effect unless someone is not happy with the law in the first place.

It is obvious that this law has never been challenged in a court of law. There would be traceable documentation. So it stands as interpreted by the Department of Agriculture, with the approval of the State. It is up to those that don't agree, to challenge the law.

I have written all the Senator's on the Labor Committee with a suggestion that a minimum $10,000 fine be implemented into the new bill for anyone operating or advertising as a home inspector while failing to obtain the required licenses. Without teeth, as in the current case, the law is worthless.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

The Inspectors in Washington who have stated that the license is required aren't making it up, most of us have investigated the law through attornies and the WSDA, you should too.

Lewis,

I am sure that you have taken this matter seriously and have initiated those actions that you feel are necessary to conduct your business. As your state has published, a prudent home inspector in Washington will get the training and licensure. You, and others like you who have taken these extra measures, are offering more to your client than those who have not. This is a given, and I commend you for it.

The issue at hand is, are those home inspectors who have taken a different point of view regarding the agricultural department's "strong advice" to do the same - in violation of a law?

In the absence of clear and distinct wording to the contrary, it would appear to me that they are within their rights to make the business decision not to obtain the SPI license.

As you pointed out, a lot of care and diligence will be required in writing their reports to avoid crossing over into issues that unlicensed inspectors are not allowed to address. They may have to subcontract SPIs to do parts of their report. But are they operating illegally, as you and others have suggested? There is no proof of that brought to light in this thread or in any of the information I have read that you have referred me to.

This is strictly my opinion and does not represent the opinions of others on the ESOP Committee ... or anyone else, apparently.

[lcapaul]

This is strictly my opinion and does not represent the opinions of others on the ESOP Committee ... or anyone else, apparently.

Thanks for that James, the argument has been, at least on my part and several other licensed inspectors is that an Inspection cannot be preformed to NACHI Standards without a license, omitting, editing statements ,adding unecessary referals, it wouldn't meet the standards of the SOP, they can inspect and be careful what the report, but their reports will meet no Association SOP that I know of. And subbing out the WDO portion of the Home Inspection report to a licensed SPI is Illegal, that I really believe is stupid, but that's the way it is, a supid law that I don't agree with, but it is the Law like it or not. If an inspector in Washington want to provide the best inspection reports for his/her clients as possible and still be withinn the Law, then they need the license. Otherwise they can omit hundreds of possible conditions and damage from their reports and still call themselves home inspectors.

I also emailed you the letter to the realty board, and if you look at the changes for this year you'll find that the reocmmendation to refer only licensed inpectors will have even more meaning as we will all have little blue cards to shothat we are licensed.

[Steven L. Smith]

I am reluctant to step back in this one. It has turned into the Thriller in Manila, a real slugfest. I do have a couple comments. These are

(1) in light of all the arguments about the WDO requirement, or not, it is apparent that any new legislation should very carefully define what is required. There should not be any loopholes. This argument has been going on for years. Both sides have decent arguments. And while it "might" be possible for someone without an SPI license but very good legaleeze, and with a licensed SPI in their hip pocket who they can call on, to carefully step around WDO law, I think that makes their report less valuable here in the State of Washington where we have so much moisture and related WDO issues.

(2) I believe that, as they are defining inspections as far as allowing people in for the first couple years, they MUST be specific as to what is allowed to count. For example, they should exclude draw inspections. These are essentially "Have Camera, Will Travel". The complexity, or knowledge required is minimal.


Steve

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I am only stating that nothing presented on your side of this argument states, as you have stated in the above post, that in your state "a home inspector must have a SPI license". If it did, there would be no argument or room for interpretation.

Nick explained to me that, at a Seattle NACHI Chapter Meeting he attended, the head of the department explained that "there is a very strong recommendation" to be licensed, but no legal requirement at this time. Perhaps someone else who attended that meeting would like to shed some light on this.

Harold and JamesC, and others

James B. is correct, their is no Law that state tha a Home Inspector must be licensed in Washington State, any Inspector, including appraisers, who report anything regarding WDO or Conducive conditions IS REquired to Have an SPI License because as woon as any mention of WDo occurs in any report involving the sale, trans......of a structure, that report, by law WAC.....2045, becomes a Complete WDO Inspection Report.

You can do a Home Inspection and never mention anything regarding WDO, but that Inspection would not meet the Requirements of any Association SOP, and because of all the exclusions, statements totally worthless to the client, and excessive referals, that report would be worthless.

So Wendy and others can do their Inspections, I don't really care, just so they don't mention NACNI or the NACHI SOP.

For some WDO conditions someone may be able to twist wording around to avoid the Law, but in doing so thay provide very little service to their clients and will give anyone with any knowledge at all a very pi$$ poor view of NACHI and NACHI Inspectors.

It's really simple you cannot do a good professional Home Inspection that provides the best srvice and information to your client without having an SPI License, but you can perform pi$$ inspections for them, until you go out of business.

NACHI says follow the SOP and the COE, you cant' do both without a license.

[lcapaul]

And while it "might" be possible for someone without an SPI license but very good legaleeze, and with a licensed SPI in their hip pocket who they can call on, to carefully step around WDO law,

Call Soumi Steve, you'll find that is illegal, don't ask me why, ask him.

As far as what inspection count towards grandfatering in the New Bill, there should be some check as to quality, 100 deposits to a bank account doesn't prove a thing, 100 ICN's at least proves that the inspections were legal, let the Inspectors list 100 inspections they have performed with their application, and then let the board select a number of those randomly and check them for quality against the average Industry standard at the time the Inspections were performed. How many that failed to mention WDO, or used excessive referals and deceptive wording would meet that Standard? Any Inspections conducted in Washington that were submitted that did mention WDO but did not have an ICN would be illegal and should not be counted, and should count against the inspector in the Moral and Ethical requirements.

The only thing about the WDO Laws that will change is who will do the Licensing, WSDA will still regulate SPI's, DOL will Issue the License, but it will be a Home Inspectors License, the new bill requres HI's to be SPI's, that's about as loophole free as it can get.

[Steven L. Smith]

Lewis: Note I said "Might". I am not promoting this view and tell people they need the license. I just do not care to get involved in the current arguing which is clearly going nowhere, so I said "might". My point is that the law should be so clear on all this that the argument is put behind us once and for all. As we can see, that does not seem to be the case now, hence James view as an outsider looking in.

I would never condone operating without the WDO license. Frankly, to me, trying to be a home inspector in this state, without the WDO license seems like trying to work as a dentist without being able to look in someone's mouth or drill teeth.

As for your other licensing comments, I think I agree with all of them.

Steve

[wforsyth]

Lewis,
The new bill clearly states that a home inspector will only need one license and specifically avoids the issuance of two. So how do you get the idea that the new bill requires HI's to be SPI's?

I'm done with this futile argument as well. Anyone who puts their money where their mouth is will be at the hearings to put their two cents in. Then when the bill is put into place it will be settled once and for all. Everyone will need to just put up or shut up and if they don't like it they will need to realize that it won't mean they can use deceptive advertising to ruin other people's businesses.

I would make one suggestion for those planning on going to the hearings. Keep it clean, because if it turns into a mudslinging fest they won't listen to anything any one of us has to say.

[gdomagala]

Wow, there sure have been a lot of postings since I looked at this. I didn't read them all but I want to answer a few of the questions that came up.

I sent the SOP's and code of ethics developed by the coalition to Nick and he was supposed to email them to all the NACHI members in the state of Washington.

Lewis, believe what you want. The coalition was not planning on discussing anything with the legislators until a year from now and even that was not decided. Did an individual contact a legislator? I can't answer that because I don't know but I suppose it's possible.

Yes, I am in favor of licensing home inspectors. There are still inspectors out there not doing WDO inspections because they think they don't have to for some reason. If I get my hands on one of their reports and it has any WDO in it I won't hesitate sending it to Dr. Dan and then they can see if they can convince him they don't need to be licensed.

All the talk about the SPI license and the new law is interesting. From talking to Senator Spanel I got the feeling that she plans to only require one license but it will include the SPI requirements. There was no talk on her part about dropping the WDO from our responsibility.

There was a public hearing on February 12th which I did not attend. They allowed 8 people to talk. It sounds like everyone was against real estate agents and instructors on the board due to conflicts of interest. Most also wanted to see tougher requirements for being grandfathered in. The 20 parallel inspections was also brought up because no one will do them without compensation.

It sounds like the bill is moving forward and I don't know where Wendy got the idea that she'll have a year and a half to get her 100 inspections done. It wouldn't surprise me to see the bill go through in a hurry and the date for being grandfathered get set very soon. I only hope they put some sort of testing requirement in also.

[gdomagala]

I just tried to post the SOP's and Code of Ethics that the coalition developed but the files are too large to attach.

If you want copies please email me at jerry@nwinspector.com and I'll attach them and send them to you.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by gdomagala

Wow, there sure have been a lot of postings since I looked at this. I didn't read them all but I want to answer a few of the questions that came up.

I sent the SOP's and code of ethics developed by the coalition to Nick and he was supposed to email them to all the NACHI members in the state of Washington.

Lewis, believe what you want. The coalition was not planning on discussing anything with the legislators until a year from now and even that was not decided. Did an individual contact a legislator? I can't answer that because I don't know but I suppose it's possible.

Yes, I am in favor of licensing home inspectors. There are still inspectors out there not doing WDO inspections because they think they don't have to for some reason. If I get my hands on one of their reports and it has any WDO in it I won't hesitate sending it to Dr. Dan and then they can see if they can convince him they don't need to be licensed.

All the talk about the SPI license and the new law is interesting. From talking to Senator Spanel I got the feeling that she plans to only require one license but it will include the SPI requirements. There was no talk on her part about dropping the WDO from our responsibility.

There was a public hearing on February 12th which I did not attend. They allowed 8 people to talk. It sounds like everyone was against real estate agents and instructors on the board due to conflicts of interest. Most also wanted to see tougher requirements for being grandfathered in. The 20 parallel inspections was also brought up because no one will do them without compensation.

It sounds like the bill is moving forward and I don't know where Wendy got the idea that she'll have a year and a half to get her 100 inspections done. It wouldn't surprise me to see the bill go through in a hurry and the date for being grandfathered get set very soon. I only hope they put some sort of testing requirement in also.

The fact that the Bill itself states that the bill would not go into effect any sooner than July of 2008 would be a start.

As to the rest of it, you must have missed Dr.Dan as you call him, backpedaling on whether an inspector must also be a SPI?

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

You keep missing the point James, once any inspection report mentions WDO or any conditions conducive to WDO the Report becomes a Complete WDO inspection Report.

Anyone one can do home inspections without an SPI License, that's not the issue, the Issue for a NACHI INspector is how does he/she perform a Home Inspection in accordance with the NACHI SOP without mentioning anythin that may be conducive to WDO or be WDO damage, look at the list of Conducive conditions that WSDA show in a WAC, and note that they say that is not a complete list.

Can I do a home inspection without mentioning improper grade around the foundation, earth to wood contact, improper clearances, broken or missing calking, rotted or damaged siding, clogged or damage gutters, termite mud tubes etc. and still follow the SOP. In Washington, rightly or wrongly, the Inspection of anything related to WDO requires IDENTIFICATION of the cause, insect, etc.

Your description of Peter's picture was pretty slick, but do you really believe that it would be a fair explanation to your customer or just a cover your ***** statement that would serve no other real purpose than to sneak around the requirements of a Law?

No there is NO LAW REQUIRING A HOME INSPECTOR TO BE LICENSED, but of what value would a Home Inspection report have if it did not mention so many different conditions? Or if the NACH SOP would permit excluding those conditions what use is the SOP to a good inspector?

The Inspectors in Washington who have stated that the license is required aren't making it up, most of us have investigated the law through attornies and the WSDA, you should too.

Anyone coming in and reading this should investigate the fact that this is incorrect and that even Dr.Suomi of the WSDA has stated that one does not need the SPI license to be a home inspector. Anyone stating otherwise is trying to limit competition in their area.

[wforsyth]

Gerry,

Probably the "advisory" committee will need to rewrite whatever they send to NACHI in light of NACHI's official stance on the laws of Washington State in regards to Home Inspectors.

We wouldn't want to continue misinforming all those inspectors and potential inspectors out there.

[Joe Farsetta]

NACHI's official stance is that an inspector does not personally need an SPI license to perform an inspection, even where conditions exist for WDO or WDI. The question centered on whether a person could sub-contract one with an SPI to assist. The answer is yes.

Whether subcontracting would be tricky, or difficult, is not the point. The issue wass whether one could subcontract. There is nothing in the law prohibiting it.

Can one perform an inspection to the NACHI SOP absent of having an SPI license or subcontracting to somene who does? The answer is NO.

Any inspector already knows what is required to perform an inspection and remain in compliance with our SOP. That is not the question. The real question is how one achieves and maintains compliance.

Let's not split hairs. The requirements are clear for reporting. The pathway to compliance has two valid routes.