New Washington Legislation Submitted

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

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.

....

[Joe Farsetta]

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.

Lewis,

Thank you for determining for the ESOP committee what conforms to the SOP and what does not. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your assessment.


And subbing out the WDO portion of the Home Inspection report to a licensed SPI is Illegal


Lewis,

Believe what you want. Your statement does not bear out the facts, the response from Dr. Dan Soumi, or the written law.


This is pure sour grapes on your part.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Thank you sir, may I have another!

WACK!, Ouch!

No, that is Whaaa! Again.


Q: I this the right room for an argument?
A: No, this is hitting on the head lessons.

[wforsyth]

I think if Dr.Suomi is writing any letters to the Realty Board then he is sticking his nose in where it shouldn't be and perhaps someone needs to counter that with a letter or meeting of their own. It would have to be someone who could make a really big impact though and be taken seriously.

[Joe Farsetta]

Joe,

Perhaps the most dissapointing aspect of this is also the most obvious.

The old addage "me thinks he doth protest too much" fits the bill. Here are a couple of guys who have this SPI license. It makes sense to them, and for their businesses, was the right thing to do. I am not arguing whether the law is valid, bogus, or if obtaining this license doesnt make sense.

But, what this has escalated to is somethng far beyond the norm. On it's face, it makes no sense. The law is the law. Instead of saying that they have the license and dont believe our interpretation to be correct, they have turned this into a vindictive pissing contest. Sometimes folks just ave to agree to disagree.

When you peel the onion skin back, I believe this was never about seeking the truth, as they purport to have wanted. Instead, it is about punishment, or killing the competition; not through creative marketing, but by perverting the system and attempting to use the association COE and SOP in a manner it was never intended.

Still, they protest. Like a child stamping its feet when it doesnt get the toy it wanted.

Too bad really. It shows what they are all about.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

I think if Dr.Suomi is writing any letters to the Realty Board then he is sticking his nose in where it shouldn't be and perhaps someone needs to counter that with a letter or meeting of their own. It would have to be someone who could make a really big impact though and be taken seriously.

Dr Soumi is an interpreter of the law, not the author, and seems to be stretching and twisting his interpretation of the law to conform with the wishes of those (like Capaul) who desire a restrictive measure.

While he explained that subcontracting SPIs was not illegal, he continued to argue why it was something that should be done. Part of his argument included the equally ridiculous interpretation that a water leak (since it could be interpreted as conducive to WDO) fell under this law.

Why not give your media in Washington something real to address in this issue, instead of the 1 inspection out of 1100 that goes bad? Politicians running amuck in areas that they want to control and know so little about is certainly newsworthy... So is the small group of home inspectors who are exploiting the legislative process for their own gains...all of this at the expense of the consumer.

Call your television stations. Give them some real issues to attack.

[Joe Farsetta]

great idea.

Face it, almoat any moisture-related comment could be construed as noting a conditiion conducive to mold, wood rot, or WDI. If a basement smelled musty, or felt damp, and you noted it, you'd need an SPI license.

What a bunch of crap.

WDI and WDO should be about specifics, not commonly made observations, or leaking faucets.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

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.

Lewis,

Thank you for determining for the ESOP committee what conforms to the SOP and what does not. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your assessment.


And subbing out the WDO portion of the Home Inspection report to a licensed SPI is Illegal


Lewis,

Believe what you want. Your statement does not bear out the facts, the response from Dr. Dan Soumi, or the written law.


This is pure sour grapes on your part.

Joe,

The only ones continuing to use the Subbing Out question as an argument are Committee members and their followers.

The question I have asked you repeatedly is if Busharts interpretation of WAC 15-228-2035 and 2045 are correct, he has stated that the Law Does Not Require a Home Inspector to be licensed to report on WDO Damage or Conducive Conditions and that it only pertains to Complete WDO Inspections and no where mentions Home Inspection, if he is right then why would an HI need to sub out any WDO Inspection, according to James a Home Inspector can report what ever he wants in his Home Inspection report, including WDO because the Law Does not apply to Home Inspectors because they are never mentioned. Is he right?

Again a simple question, that none of you will answer

I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for the anwer.

Using a Statement that I made before Soumis answer, to which I have admitted being wrong because of what many of us had been told previously by Soumi is kind of a cheap shot isn't it Joe, the only connection to Subbing out is that if your great legal expert James is right about his interpretation of the two laws I mentioned, then why would any inspector feel that they needed to Sub out anything, why not just report WDO on your Home Inspection Report as James has determined himself to be legal.

My only other question since his decision has been about Committees policy regarding releasing and using information using information gathered during a complaint investigation before any decision was announced, if that is acceptable Committee policy then the question should be answered, no answer leads people to believe that it is policy, yet past committee history says it is not.

[wforsyth]

James didn't make any statement of the kind about the WAC Lewis. You're still drunk or insane or both. He said subbing is allowed. That is it. He didn't say HI's could legally report on conducive conditions without an SPI.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for the anwer.

The law you quote refers to WDO inspections, not home inspections.

It is another one of Dr. Soumi's stretched interpretations, assuming he has not changed his mind on this one yet, that a leaking faucet requires a WDO Report.

I don't see that in the law and it is my personal opinion that the law addresses WDO reports and not home inspections that do not address WDO. Someone would have to show me case history to prove to me, if I were an inspector in Washington, that I would need a SPI license to report a leaking faucet. I would certainly require more than Dr. Soumi's inconsistent and contradictory interpretations. That, again, is my personal opinion and...as I specifically stated in an earlier post...represents no other person than myself.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jbushart

The law you quote refers to WDO inspections, not home inspections.

It is another one of Dr. Soumi's stretched interpretations, assuming he has not changed his mind on this one yet, that a leaking faucet requires a WDO Report.

I don't see that in the law and it is my personal opinion that the law addresses WDO reports and not home inspections that do not address WDO. Someone would have to show me case history to prove to me, if I were an inspector in Washington, that I would need a SPI license to report a leaking faucet. I would certainly require more than Dr. Soumi's inconsistent and contradictory interpretations. That, again, is my personal opinion and...as I specifically stated in an earlier post...represents no other person than myself.

That's what I've been asking these guys all year, is for caselaw showing that I need to report on those things as conducive and that I have to be an SPI to do so.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

That's what I've been asking these guys all year, is for caselaw showing that I need to report on those things as conducive and that I have to be an SPI to do so.

When I asked Dr. Soumi for case law, he stated he was unable to provide any. Go figure.

[James H. Bushart]

Here is a link to the new bill with a thread to leave your thoughts.

[John McKenna]

An inspector does not inspect for WDI, but can advise that
a pest control inspection be done based on his observation.
(ie... moisture, dampness, soil touching wood, etc...)

Where has an inspector ever been sued for advising further
inspections by an qualified Professional?

I comment on conditions that are conducive to mold, hazard,
electrical issues, drainage problems, etc... and then advise
further inspections and repairs be done, as needed, by those
qualified in that field or trade.

What crime have I committed?

I arrange a termite inspection for people, but allow the client
and the termite guy to make the deal directly. I don't have
to even get close to calling the termite guy my sub contractor.
My name is not on his contract.

Plumbers in Texas tried to make a case that home inspectors
could not inspect plumbing because we lack the proper license...
but we still keep doing the inspection anyway. We inspect to
the SoP of Texas and are not making cost estimates, repairs
instructions or predictions of life expectancy. We are not
performing the job of a plumber, even though we touch their
field as a generalist, and stay within our SoP.

Inspectors cross a lot of trade boundaries, within set limits.

[James H. Bushart]

Legislation is a wierd puppy.

It is a given that no person on either side of issue wishes for fewer rights for themselves. Proponents of legislation, however, are looking for a means of restricting the rights of others at the least cost to their own.

They have what they refer to as "causes", such as 'consumer concern' or 'raising the bar' or 'adding prestige to the profession'....but it always comes down to a formula of burdening their competitor and is motivated by their own greed.

So, the wierd puppy...once brought into the world...develops into the full grown watchdog that will someday turn on its owner as the powers of governance change and shift.

This state has provided us with such clear examples of how laws can be used (and misused) to advantage and disadvantage other inspectors, simply by their interpretation. Well meaning and thoughtful people could right now be spending a large chunk of their lives developing a bill that they think would favor them...only later to discover that they created the means for their own demise.

Meanwhile, a market full of consumers who are totally oblivious to any of this will continue to buy and sell homes...have them inspected or not...while we struggle vainly to control "the other guy" through a variety of laws.