New Washington Legislation Submitted

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by ssmith

And, yes, anyone reading my posts should realize that, to some degree, my posts are tainted by my connection to the BTC program, which is part of the community college system not a private vendor. That said, I do try to contribute thoughtful comments that others will find worthwhile, while trying to avoid the hornets nests.

All proponents of state controlled home inspections have something to gain by it, Steve. You are not alone in that.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

All proponents of state controlled home inspections have something to gain by it, Steve. You are not alone in that.

So do opponents

[dhelm]

Since the amount of money made by the BTC instructors (each teaching one week of the course) is relatively negligible compared to the money earned doing inspections, the issue of an axe to grind pushing for legislation is, in my opinion, moot. I know from my own point of view, my main reason for teaching in the class is a strong desire to increase the professionalism and image of home inspectors. There are way too many HI's out there doing "softball" inspections that give the industry a bad name. I came out strongly, in letters to the senators, against the "coalition" proposal because there were many things in that proposal that just perpetuates the status quo, ensuring bad inspections. Where I stand on legislation in general is that legal home inspectors are already state regulated by the WSDA. I comply with that law and will comply with whatever else becomes law, if and when it does. Complying with state laws is a part of doing business in any state.

[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.

What I am saying is that times are changing. The status quo is no longer in place.

Why don't you consider the fact that we are generalists and not specialists. Why do we have to be specialists in WDO's (contrary to every other licensed state almost), when we don't have to be specialists in plumbing, electrical, HVAC, structural, roofing, etc...?

Why? Because we are generalist, and as generalists, we defer our findings to the specialists in each individual industry.

Do you understand this? Why are there different standards for one specialty than there are for others?

[wforsyth]

NEW SECTION. Sec. 24. GENERAL EXCLUSIONS. (1) The home inspector
15 is not required to determine the following:
16 (a) The condition of systems or components that are not readily
17 accessible;
18 (b) The remaining life of any system or component;
19 (c) The strength, adequacy, effectiveness, or efficiency of any
20 system or component;
21 (d) The cause of any condition or deficiency;
22 (e) The methods, materials, or costs of corrections;
23 (f) Future conditions including but not limited to failure of
24 systems and components;
25 (g) The suitability of the property for any specialized use;
26 (h) Compliance with regulatory requirements;
27 (i) The market value of the property or its marketability; and
28 (j) The presence of environmental hazards including, but not
29 limited to, toxins, carcinogens, noise, and contaminants in soil,
30 water, and air.
31 (2) Home inspectors are not required to enter the following:
32 (a) Any area that will likely be dangerous to the inspector or
33 other persons or damage the property or its systems or components; or
34 (b) The underfloor crawl spaces or attics that are not readily
35 accessible.
SB 5788 p. 10

Looks to me like the new bill is removing most or all of the conducive conditions in this bill. Most especially by stating crawls and attics if not readily accessible, and the presence of environmental hazards in soil, water, and air.

Seems that that clearly eliminates the need to report on conducive conditions such as moisture, soil in contact with structures, mold in the air, mold in the soil or any area of moisture in the home.

Looks like the issue will be moot if the bill goes through as written. No matter what platitudes she and others may say to you to placate you and get you to go bother someone else. Or your interpretations thereof.

Read this VERY carefully. It takes care of the entire WDO/Pest issue. And anything that is in effect right now, won't apply. So yes Harold. You've been wasting your time and money.

[Steven L. Smith]

The intent of this legislation is to keep the WDO rules just as they are. Currently, if you read the WDO rules, one is allowed to exclude the attic, as is frequently done by WSPCA inspectors. And, current WDO law states that an inspector may exclude an inaccessible crawl space. There is a caveat. If that is done, the inspector must also state clearly something along the lines of "failure to access and inspect this area makes it prone to conducive conditions and WDO's and therefore recommend this area be made accessible and inspected by a state licensed pest inspector."

So basically, this language is only slightly different than current WDO law, other than they are putting the word "readily" in with accessible. From what I was told by a sponsor, this bill will almost certainly have some changes. It will not be passed exactly as it is. Legislators know it needs some revisions. This was a preliminary reading, it is in the committee and before all is said and done they plan to define terms and make it more specific. In fact, at this time legislators have made enquiries to certain parties asking for suggestions as to the final revisions. I think they figure on bringing WSDA and their staff and rules into DOL as part of this. I am sure that conducive conditions will remain as will WDO's.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

What I am saying is that times are changing. The status quo is no longer in place.

Why don't you consider the fact that we are generalists and not specialists. Why do we have to be specialists in WDO's (contrary to every other licensed state almost), when we don't have to be specialists in plumbing, electrical, HVAC, structural, roofing, etc...?

Why? Because we are generalist, and as generalists, we defer our findings to the specialists in each individual industry.

Do you understand this? Why are there different standards for one specialty than there are for others?

The reason dear Windy is that it is the Law, whether or not anyone agrees with it, and times they are a'changin read Keith Swifts articles and post about "Are We Generalists or Specialists", liability and competition have brought us closer to being Specialists, if they haven't already made us so.

Being such an authority on the Law, and always talking about "going to court", maybe you should try it, if you don't like the Law, challenge it in Court, or like most of us, obey it even if you don't agree with it, there are many, many Laws like that. You've been whining about the SPI Requirement for almost a year now, do something about it, take Soumi and the WSDA to Court, get the license, or quit pretending you are a Home Inspector.

The only thing that will change with the new law is the licensing, the enforcement agency, the required test, and the standards will still be WSDA, I believe that even ICN's will end up being retained so that the WSDA will have both the License number of the Inspector and a reference number of the inspection in case they get any complaints.

You haven't given us your definition of a Home Inspection yet, pick any Industry Standard Definition or even the one in the New Bill and tell me how you can be doing Home Inspections legally without an SPI license and why illegal inspections should count towards "experience", or how a "legal" inspection, which without an SPI, could cover the items inspected in any Industry definition of a Home Inspection.

If there is no standard definition of what a Home Inspection is, or if by your standards Draw inspections would meet the Criteria for grandfathering, then why even have the requirement, 100 of RR's Flyby's should work.

And where are those links to the changes in the RCW's or WAC's you told us about, at least a couple of us are interested in those "changes" as they would have more effect on us as licensed SPI's than on you.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Looks to me like the new bill is removing most or all of the conducive conditions in this bill. Most especially by stating crawls and attics if not readily accessible, and the presence of environmental hazards in soil, water, and air.

Seems that that clearly eliminates the need to report on conducive conditions such as moisture, soil in contact with structures, mold in the air, mold in the soil or any area of moisture in the home.

Looks like the issue will be moot if the bill goes through as written. No matter what platitudes she and others may say to you to placate you and get you to go bother someone else. Or your interpretations thereof.

Read this VERY carefully. It takes care of the entire WDO/Pest issue. And anything that is in effect right now, won't apply. So yes Harold. You've been wasting your time and money.

You really don't have any Idea of what a Home Inspection is do you Wendy, let alone what a "conducive condition" or WDO Inspection is:

"Home inspection" means a visual analysis for the purposes of
2 providing a professional opinion of the condition of a building and its
3 carports and garages, any reasonably accessible installed components
4 and the operation of the building systems, including the controls
5 normally operated by the owner, for the following components of a
6 residential building of four units or less: Heating system, electrical
7 system, cooling system, plumbing system, structural components,
8 foundation, roof covering, exterior and interior components, and site
9 aspects as they affect the building. "Home inspection" also means an
10 inspection for wood destroying organisms.
11 (7) "Home inspection report" means a written report prepared and
12 issued after a home inspection. The inspector shall include the
13 following in the report:
14 (a) On those systems and components inspected which, in the
15 professional opinion of the inspector, are significantly deficient or
16 near the end of its service life;
17 (b) A reason why, if not self-evident, the system or component is
18 significantly deficient or near the end of its service life;
19 (c) The home inspector's recommendations to correct or monitor the
20 reported deficiency;
21 (d) Whether or not there is damage from wood destroying organisms;
22 and
23 (e) Any systems and components designated for inspection in the
24 standards developed by the board under section 5 of this act.

Where does that "remove" any conducive conditions, and what on your listing of "exclusions" would remove any?

I have to admit that this time you really amazed me Wendy, about how little you really do know, stick to your Draws.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

So yes Harold. You've been wasting your time and money.

No waste of time or money really, when you stop to consider that alot of realtors I work with have blackballed those not in compliance with the SPI laws. Bottomline is the SPI licensed is a marketing tool I use to my advantage, and I know it has made me a better inspector, than I would have been without the SPI training. I enjoy almost 100K in gross revenues every year. Can you say that?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by hmiller

No waste of time or money really, when you stop to consider that alot of realtors I work with have blackballed those not in compliance with the SPI laws. Bottomline is the SPI licensed is a marketing tool

It is interesting how much licensing eliminates marketing tools such as these by defining, for everyone in the state, what is considered "competent" and "qualified".

Think about it.

Legislation is passed...Wendy fills all of the same squares as you do...and she is instantly raised from where she is, presently, to the level of being equally qualified as you to perform a home inspection in the eyes of the state and the market.

She would be foolish to oppose such an opportunity that this proposed legislation presents to her.

Licensing solves nothing.

[Harold E. Miller]

James
I have to say you are right. I think such licensing would seriously be lowering the bar.

I still can't get past the 100 inspections, and two years and you are in with no training. Like I pointed out before. 100 inspections in two years is almost exactly one inspection per week. That is a pathetically low standard.

James you are starting to make alot more sense to me. It just takes me a while.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jbushart

It is interesting how much licensing eliminates marketing tools such as these by defining, for everyone in the state, what is considered "competent" and "qualified".

Think about it.

Legislation is passed...Wendy fills all of the same squares as you do...and she is instantly raised from where she is, presently, to the level of being equally qualified as you to perform a home inspection in the eyes of the state and the market.

She would be foolish to oppose such an opportunity that this proposed legislation presents to her.

Licensing solves nothing.

Just takes them a little while to understand the true issues James.

I've emailed Senator Spanel about the issues and my point of view on them. I also pointed out how the Good Old Boys Club seem to want to harass, abuse, and exclude the females trying to make it in the industry and have let her know that I am more than willing to give evidence of such.

Being the forward thinking business women that she clearly is, I am certain she will want to do whatever she can to support women in business and oppose those who try to exclude them.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by ssmith

The intent of this legislation is to keep the WDO rules just as they are.

Whatever you, as part of the special interest group you are, were told, simply does not play out when reading sections such as this:

(1) The home inspector
15 is not required to determine the following:
28 (j) The presence of environmental hazards including, but not
29 limited to, toxins, carcinogens, noise, and contaminants in soil,
30 water, and air.

Mold is an environmental hazard.
Mold is present in soil, water, and the air.

Conducive conditions involve soil, water/moisture, wood in contact with the soil, pipes leaking water, roofs with soft spots due to leakage,.....

Does anyone else follow this?

Next week I'll be taking the test for the SPI. But not because of the laws, because I don't want to be shut out of it when the Pest Lobby takes back this part of the industry.

You think I'm stupid Lewis? We'll see how stupid.

You said you think you guys out to "make" Dr. Soumi enforce the law like he keeps telling you?

Sounds like a threat and strong arming to me.

Don't you think if it was so easily enforced, he would be enforcing it constantly and we'd see a long list of prosecutions? If there are so many violators out there?

I saw one case that was prosecuted against a guy who didn't have the ICN or something like that and they gave him the choice of I think $100 fine or a day without working in his business or something like that.

Yeah. I think if they could enforce it, after sixteen years we'd see alot more cases.

Lewis, you stated that the DOL Director doesn't have any business in regulating this, it should be someone in the HI industry?
I think that's exactly WHY she does. So there won't be any conflict of interest. One central person who doesn't have a financial stake in the issue. Not someone who has an axe to grind against those whom they disagree with.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by hmiller

No waste of time or money really, when you stop to consider that alot of realtors I work with have blackballed those not in compliance with the SPI laws. Bottomline is the SPI licensed is a marketing tool I use to my advantage, and I know it has made me a better inspector, than I would have been without the SPI training. I enjoy almost 100K in gross revenues every year. Can you say that?

Mold, Wendy, is not a WDO, not in Washington. the presence of mold signifies a Conducive condition, so does a water leak under a sink.....study, study

One person should not be Director of competing Industries, someone who is not a Home Inspector should not decide what Home Inspector qualifications are, the DOL Director can be in charge of those qualifications but they should be determined by HI's, not a DOL Bureaucrat.

Don't you think if it was so easily enforced, he would be enforcing it constantly and we'd see a long list of prosecutions? If there are so many violators out there?

I saw one case that was prosecuted against a guy who didn't have the ICN or something like that and they gave him the choice of I think $100 fine or a day without working in his business or something like that.

Yeah. I think if they could enforce it, after sixteen years we'd see alot more cases.

You mean you heard of One case, how about the three cases you mentioned last year that inpsectors took to court proving that they didn't need an SPI License.

The Inspector you "heard about" most likely committed an error on his/her report, or missed something that was brought up in a complaint, the usual punishment for that is a fine and a short suspension, but if the "Inspector" had no license, he would not be allowed to conduct inspections until he got one, caught again he could be fined again and have his business license suspended or revoked.

Are you volunteering to be a Test Case? A list of Inspectors from your area could be easily sent to the WSDA for comparison to their List of Licensed Inspectors, but then they'd probably have to run a sting to prove that someone was conducting inspections without an SPI, you could easily have your day in Court Wendy, just ask for it.

You should give up posting here until you take the SPI Exam, Study, Study, Study, you've already missed one multiple choice question.

[wforsyth]

No, I don't think so Lewis. You do something like that and you can practice spelling lawsuit all over the place.

Not to mention that I already spoke with Senator Spanel, told her I am not licensed as an SPI, but also am not performing any inspections that would require it. So whatever.

Also, you are full of crap. MOLD IS a Wood Destroying Organism. Duh. You get mold spores into wood and I guarantee you it will destroy the wood.

Read through the Florida mold law and you will see that they totally consider mold to be a WDO.

Nice try.

One case where the inspector was disciplined. Three cases where the inspectors were not.

Sixteen years. That's all I've found. Not much teeth in that there law.

Don't threaten me Lewis. I don't think Senator Spanel would like it, nor would a judge.