New Washington Legislation Submitted

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

And since the law as it is currently written requires at least 2 years, that would mean someone without an SPI at this time could be out of luck for the grandfather clause. That would probably be the easiest way for the State to check. Date of SPI license. Prior to July 1, 2006 OK. After July 1, 2006, SORRY.

Because you did not or would not or could not get your SPI for whatever reason, not currently holding it may very well come back to bite you in the tush.

NOT ONE SINGLE THING IN THE LAW REQUIRES SPI NUMBERS OR PROOF OF SPI'S. DON'T YOU GET THAT?

It says two years successfully practicing as a home inspector.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy also?

[wforsyth]

Oh, and even if...so what?

I'm not scared of a few hours education and some tests.

Are you?

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

I'm not worried about either. But you sound like just attending classes won't cost anything. ITA costs $2899 for their 11 day course. Maybe Steve can tell us what the BTC course cost. I think those are the only two with a physical presence in the state for "classroom" time. I know there are courses at Tacoma CC. Last I heard, Paul Iverson was teaching those. He was the first inspector I ever met in this state back in 1986. If I remember correctly, he was an ITA graduate. It think the individual classes (plumbing, roofing etc) were around $400 per quarter each. If this portion of the law passes, you will probably see an influx of schools but just like the other companies, they probably won't be cheap.

And of course the state may not have a list of classes or schools available until much later in the process, maybe not even until 2008.

I called all three sponsoring Senators requesting information. They or their aides have yet to return my calls. Sen. Brandland's office actually said, "call Sen. Spanel", she would have the working language and the intent since it was her bill. I will report back when the calls are returned.

Steve

[cbuell]

The BTC class costs $3500.00 for 160 hours including the Carson Dunlop texts, 5 on site inspections, and prep for the WDO test including text book. Steve can add more if I have missed anything.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Go back and reread the language that you are referring to. It's gone back to the 1992 version and does not mention FULL HOME INSPECTIONS at all. It mentions FULL Structural Pest Inspections.

You guys need to get updated before you try to play on this field.

Its not a Full Structural Pest Inspection Windy, its a Complete WDO Inspection/Report. That's how little you know about the subject. It's that "tiny little box" you live in Windy, have you ever called Dr. Soumi or any Official at WSDA, it appears that you haven't.

Are you telling us now that you are doing "Full Home Inspections"?

How about:

It's not likely that they would be able to use the WSPI requirements as a legal "ruler" to measure any of the inspections that they would be evaluating considering that those requirements are being let go.

All any inspector would have to do is challenge it, take it to court, show a judge that the WDO requirements are no longer valid and that INDEED home inspectors MUST DEFER to a WDO specialist in all current report, and a judge would laugh at anyone trying to hold that inspector to the previous standard.

Or:

You are dreaming Lewis. It states clearly "As defined by the SOP". Which means as defined by the SOP they will put into place. Not some imaginary one you keep hoping will put me out of business.

When the SPI requirement was being "done away with", you argued that the "NEW" Law and SOP would have precidence, now that the SPI is sticking around you claim the "New Law" wouldn't effect what you haven't done in the past, make up your mind Windy, which is it?

Read Section 7 of SB5788: "The director may require any information
14 and documentation that reasonably relates to the need to determine
15 whether the applicant meets the criteria for licensing."

It would be totally reasonable for the "director" to ask for copies of reports for Inspections claimed, it would also be totally reasonable for the "Director" to question the lack of any ICN on a Washington Report, or the lack of reporting on Conditions Conducive to WDO. as to whether or not the Reports met the criteria for a Washington State Home Inspection during the time period when the reports were issued, a Report mentioning "Conducive" conditions without an ICN would be illegal, and therefore invalid, a hundred reports, espectially in Western Washington, that failed to mention "Conducive" conditions would meet NO RECOGONIZED STANDARD, remember Windy the Director will be a Washington Home Inspector, someone with an SPI License.

[Steven L. Smith]

"What makes you think that more changes will be made to this bill?"

When I met with Harriet Spanel last week she indicated it was likely that changes might be made as it goes through the system. That is one reason they are asking for comments at the webite Gerry D sent people too. There are parts of the bill that would, at the least, require more definitions.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by ssmith

"What makes you think that more changes will be made to this bill?"

When I met with Harriet Spanel last week she indicated it was likely that changes might be made as it goes through the system. That is one reason they are asking for comments at the webite Gerry D sent people too. There are parts of the bill that would, at the least, require more definitions.

Is there any movement among those who oppose this bill to fight it, entirely, instead of helping the legislature legislate them?

[Steven L. Smith]

At BTC, over the years, we have on a few occassions offered on its own the WDO part of the course, which is one day in class and a followup WDO inspection. People have taken this section, coming into the regular class for the couple days. The school has priced it higher per hour than what the other "full-time" students pay, but it was affordable. We have not done that in a couple years, but if people were interested in it, I could get specific prices from admissions. Basically, most people take the whole course, priced as Charlie quoted. At one time, we offered the WDO course stand alone in some big markets, but decided it was better to encourage most people to take the full class. If we were to have a number of experienced inspectors wishing to take just the WDO portion, to learn how to do such inspections and then complete the WSDA test, they should contact me and we might be able to put such a class together. As you know, we are willing to travel to about any community or tech college in the state, but we would need enough students to make it worthwhile.

[Steven L. Smith]

"Director will be a Washington Home Inspector, someone with an SPI License"

Lewis, if you follow the link, this woman would be the director.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/about/message.html

She is the director of DOL. It states that the director is the director of DOL at the bottom of the first page. Liz Luce also sits as the head of the board of realtor licensing. The home inspector board would include 8, but she is clearly in charge and it indicates that the board would give her information. As for your other comments, your guess is as good as mine as to what criteria will be used. I know that some lobbying is taking place suggesting exactly what you recommend as far as looking at the date one received a WDO license. Whether they will do that or not remains to be seen. And, whether it matters or not depends on whether the bill passes, of coursse. There are many things in that bill that could probably be figured out later by the board.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Its not a Full Structural Pest Inspection Windy, its a Complete WDO Inspection/Report. That's how little you know about the subject. It's that "tiny little box" you live in Windy, have you ever called Dr. Soumi or any Official at WSDA, it appears that you haven't.

Are you telling us now that you are doing "Full Home Inspections"?

How about:



Or:



When the SPI requirement was being "done away with", you argued that the "NEW" Law and SOP would have precidence, now that the SPI is sticking around you claim the "New Law" wouldn't effect what you haven't done in the past, make up your mind Windy, which is it?

Read Section 7 of SB5788: "The director may require any information
14 and documentation that reasonably relates to the need to determine
15 whether the applicant meets the criteria for licensing."

It would be totally reasonable for the "director" to ask for copies of reports for Inspections claimed, it would also be totally reasonable for the "Director" to question the lack of any ICN on a Washington Report, or the lack of reporting on Conditions Conducive to WDO. as to whether or not the Reports met the criteria for a Washington State Home Inspection during the time period when the reports were issued, a Report mentioning "Conducive" conditions without an ICN would be illegal, and therefore invalid, a hundred reports, espectially in Western Washington, that failed to mention "Conducive" conditions would meet NO RECOGONIZED STANDARD, remember Windy the Director will be a Washington Home Inspector, someone with an SPI License.

1)You're mixing quotes from the bill and the recommendations of the independant group.

2)You're oh so wrong in so many ways, as Steven has shown.

[hmiller]

I would not be surprised if the 100 inspections are validated on the basis of the SPI license, and using the ICN's. I mean we all are legally responsible under Wa Law to be performing a Complete WDO inspection/report if we are reporting on conducive conditions and active infestations. Which intertwines with many items in our SOP.
The way I see it is if I don't perform the WDO inspection as part of a home inspection, then really I would have to exclude maybe a third of the home. What buyer wants to only know a portion of what is wrong with the home?
They want to know everything, and some.
Easiest way to verify 100 home inspections is through a combination of the ICN log, sampling of reports that bear the ICN in the upper right hand corner, and maybe a signed affidavit. ? .......Will be interesting.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by hmiller

I would not be surprised if the 100 inspections are validated on the basis of the SPI license, and using the ICN's. I mean we all are legally responsible under Wa Law to be performing a Complete WDO inspection/report if we are reporting on conducive conditions and active infestations..

Harold, I have to slightly disagree. We must issue a report if we are conducting inspections for potential or proposed real estate transactions. If it part of a sale, or potential sale, or a pre-inspection for a house they will be putting up for sale, we MUST ISSUE A REPORT. It may be a report that states No Findings, but we still must issue a report with the appropriate ICN number, even without WDO/WDI or condusive conditions.

That is the part that many do not understand. It is not just a pest inspection. ANY inspection you perform on a house that is for sale or proposed for sale must have a report issued with the appropriate ICN.

[hmiller]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

Harold, I have to slightly disagree. We must issue a report if we are conducting inspections for potential or proposed real estate transactions. If it part of a sale, or potential sale, or a pre-inspection for a house they will be putting up for sale, we MUST ISSUE A REPORT. It may be a report that states No Findings, but we still must issue a report with the appropriate ICN number, even without WDO/WDI or condusive conditions.

That is the part that many do not understand. It is not just a pest inspection. ANY inspection you perform on a house that is for sale or proposed for sale must have a report issued with the appropriate ICN.

You don't really disagree....your are just adding to what I have said. I left a few blanks for you to fill in And you are right...we must produce a report in the absence or presence of WDO's and there CC's.

Your second point is one that escapes alot of people. The one about the requirement for having an SPI license if your are conducting home inspections on real estate for sale, etc, etc. (WDO's aside)

All my home inspection reports include the Complete WDO Inspection/ report with ICN's regardless. Even if it is the 11 month builders warranty, because you never know when someone is going to turn around and put their house on the market, and give your report to a buyer.

[wforsyth]

And Wendy, technically you may be right, no law specifically mentions Home Inspector regulation, but you cannot conduct a Home Inspection in Washington State without an SPI License and be in compliance with any HI Association's SOP

According to what law?

What law regulates Home Inspectors?

Where does it state this?

What you are completely missing is that it doesn't say that anymore. It says that you cannot conduct a WDO inspection without an ICN.

It does not say that you cannot conduct a home inspection without an SPI license. It says that IF you are going to perform a WDO inspection then you must be a licensed SPI using an ICN. It does not anymore state that if you report on conducive conditions that you are automatically performing a WDO report and must have an ICN.

Certain sections of the RCW that were there just a couple months ago, have now been repealed and no longer exist. If you want I'll post them, or you can go read them yourself.

[wforsyth]

asfs