New Washington Legislation Submitted

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by hmiller

Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA)

Structural Pest Inspector Requirements

Licensing questions can be directed toll free to (877) 301-4555 or

license@agr.wa.gov.

Do I need to be licensed as a Structural Pest Inspector (SPI)?

(1) Are you conducting inspections for potential or proposed real estate transactions?
(2) Are you inspecting for or reporting on the presence or absence of any of the following?

1. • termites
2. • carpenter or moisture ants
3. • wood infesting beetles
4. • wood rot (fungus)

(3) Are you inspecting for or reporting on damage by any wood destroying organisms?

(4) Are you inspecting for or reporting on any of the following conditions?

1. • soil in direct contact with wood
2. • wooden or other conducive debris under or near the structure
3. • water in a structure from poor drainage or a plumbing leak
4. • failed caulk or grout at water splash areas
5. • inadequate clearances such as may be found in a crawl space
6. • restricted or failing gutter systems
7. • inadequate ventilation causing excessive moisture in wood
8. • vegetation in contact with the structure

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, YOU must be licensed as a SPI.

Wendy
Are you saying that there are hundreds (maybe more) of us Washington Home Inspectors that pay for E&O coverage, bonds, attend WSPCA technical seminars, have met and listened to Dan Suome talks on enforcement actions against non licensed people, and all the complaints he has received from the non licensed people inspecting homes........are just licensed as SPI's and filling out reports that we don't need to do? Paying all that money for not? Taking time away from paying inspections to drive to Pierce or So. King County for seminars?
I think you would have a way different attitude if you attended one of those WDO technical seminars. You would learn alot.
I hear lots of complaints from individuals who aren't happy that they have to comply with this law. But we do it because we a serious about our profession.

I was reading through some of this stuff, and I'm wondering about Harold's question here. He has a good point. This man (Suomi) has really put alot of home inspectors through the wringer and to just be able to backpeddle and change position now, without any kind of statement or apology would be lax.
I hope he can see that he should offer a full statement in regards to having mislead HI's for so many years and caused them unnecessary cost and hardship.
I personally would be more than a little peeved myself.

[James H. Bushart]

It's the price one must pay whenever the state controls his job.

Licensing solves nothing.

[gdomagala]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wendy,

What are you talking about? What "advisory" committee do you mean? I don't know of one that is sending NACHI misinformation about SPI laws.

[gdomagala]

Everyone blames Dan Soummi for his interpretation of the law. I can tell you that his boss agrees with him. My guess is that it is the WSDA's interpretation not Dan's.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gdomagala

Everyone blames Dan Soummi for his interpretation of the law. I can tell you that his boss agrees with him. My guess is that it is the WSDA's interpretation not Dan's.

His boss and he, in a phone conversation yesterday, both said that SPIs can be subcontracted. They have both changed their tune.

[wforsyth]

>>>>

[Steven C. Meyer]

The senator has stated she has gotten many complaints about home inspectors, but can not elaborate nor confirm those complaints??!!

I, myself being new getting into this business, have no objection to a test to determine my level of knowledge, however some of the other "conditions" seem to be a barrier for new entry into the home inspection business. Is this bill a protection for the consumer, or for current inspectors to stiffle competion?
My big question is: Has there been such a rampant amount of poor inspections by incompetent inspectors that a new law is necessary???
Just another hurdle put in place in the most business unfriendly state in the nation. It can be overcome, but at what price to do so?
Is this REALLY NECESSARY Legislation?

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Steven and all......

This thread is for last years (2007) legislation that is dead. Discussion on this years (200 legislation can be found at this thread.....

http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/washington-hi-legislation-24838/

There are links to the TWO different bills (one House, one Senate) as well as a link to the Senate hearing that was already held.

[Steven C. Meyer]

In theory, the realtor represents the SELLER, unless he/she states that they represent the buyer only. The only way I would accept a realtor on the governing board of home inspectors is we get a seat at their table!!!!

As to requirements for a HI license, my opinion is that any qualified schooling be taken into consideration, along with the applicants prior history in the building trades that would show/suggest that they have some hands on experience with home construction.

As far as I am concerned, prior building experience, schooling/education in the HI profession, and possibly a fair and balanced test of the knowledge of the applicant, should be the only qualifications needed for a license.

The rest of this nonsense is only a means by which to limit entry into the HI business, and only serves to protect those already licensed!!!! What's wrong with a little competion????

[Ron E. Perkerewicz]

A substitue bill has been passed out of committee to the rules comm. it is Substitute bill 6606. much of the wording has changed and the grandfathering clause is better for us old guys. The state will establish the test and MAY use another enities test...much more you should read the bill