New Washington Legislation Submitted

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Wow....two sides to every story isn't there Lewis?

No it's the same side, if you read my whole post you would see that I said that those who relied only on the word of the DOL were incompetent in doing the research about setting up a Home Inspection Business in Washington, and that, in my opinion the WSDA Licensing, not enforcement, should have always been under the control of the DOL, mostly so that incompetent know it all people would have no excuse for not finding the requirements they need to become Home Inspectors in Washington

I've always claimed, and so do others, to use my SPI License as a Marketing tool against those Inspectors who fail to get one, a Press Release is just another marketing tool that actually informs the public of Washington State Law regarding Home Inspectors, if it helps increase my Website ranking, even better, you were one of the unlicensed Inspectors last year that claimed I was trying to drive you out of business because my Website and marketing materials all advise clients of the requirements, and that if a Realtor questions me about it, I give them a copy of the WSDA letter that I posted earlier.

It's all one side Wendy, the side of Legal Washington State Home Inspectors, not your side at all.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

What responsibility do you, as a licensed Washington State Department of Agriculture
(WSDA) structural pest inspector, have to report mold during a wood destroying
organism (WDO) inspection?
**************************

Wow Lewis! You're right! If you are a Structural Pest Inspector, you have to follow all of those things that are in that document. Good job!

Also, namecalling is not the point in a lawsuit. It's making false statements about another person's business or life which could cause them to lose financial gain.

That I have not done, and you have, and it's all saved on disk.

Once again. Nice try. I'm not going to have to do anything. The group I've hired actually pursues and takes whatever appropriate action necessary to compel the opposing party to stop.

Also, namecalling is not the point in a lawsuit. It's making false statements about another person's business or life which could cause them to lose financial gain.

One you would have to prove that any accusation or statement I have made was false or unjustified, you have no License yet you advertise that you perform Home Inspections in accordance with NACHI Standards, you are required by State Law to be a licensed SPI to perform Inspections to those Standards, no where on your website does it inform clients of the WDO Requirements, other than where you say you don't do "Termite" inspections, which SPI's don't either.

Your advertising, like most of your posts, is misleading and deceptive, you claim that you don't do Home Inspections, yet you still advertise that you do, you have wrongly informed new inspectors that they do not need the Required SPI License, and you have demonstrated repeatedly, especially today that you know nothing about WDO's or the WSDA requirements.

You tell stories about court cases, fines, changes in Pest Inspection Laws, yet never provide proof or a link to back up your stories, and it has not been just me who has asked for proof or links.

So tell your buddies to get off their *****es and charge me, I hate empty damned threats, go for it Wendy, you're always telling us about your great legal experience so you must know the rights of both parties in a civil suit, so do it don't just threaten me it makes you look like as big of fool as I know you are.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

No it's the same side, if you read my whole post you would see that I said that those who relied only on the word of the DOL were incompetent in doing the research about setting up a Home Inspection Business in Washington, and that, in my opinion the WSDA Licensing, not enforcement, should have always been under the control of the DOL, mostly so that incompetent know it all people would have no excuse for not finding the requirements they need to become Home Inspectors in Washington

I've always claimed, and so do others, to use my SPI License as a Marketing tool against those Inspectors who fail to get one, a Press Release is just another marketing tool that actually informs the public of Washington State Law regarding Home Inspectors, if it helps increase my Website ranking, even better, you were one of the unlicensed Inspectors last year that claimed I was trying to drive you out of business because my Website and marketing materials all advise clients of the requirements, and that if a Realtor questions me about it, I give them a copy of the WSDA letter that I posted earlier.

It's all one side Wendy, the side of Legal Washington State Home Inspectors, not your side at all.

There is no legal or illegal Washington State Home Inspectors. If there were, then the information WOULD be available when an inspector seeks to become licensed with the Dept. of Licensing.

There are only Legal or Illegal Washington State Structural Pest Inspectors. If a person issues a Complete WDO Report, then that person must be licensed as a Structural Pest Inspector and record an ICN at the top of the report.

If however, the person is only issuing a Home Inspection Report, and deferring any evidence of WDO's to a Licensed Structural Pest Inspector, then they are NOT required to be a Licensed Structural Pest Inspector, nor record a unique ICN at the top of the report, because it would not be a Complete WDO Report, but rather only a Home Inspection Report.

[wforsyth]

WAC 16-228-2005 Wood destroying organism inspections and reporting criteria. All persons required to be licensed to conduct wood destroying organism (WDO) inspections must comply with the rules set forth in this chapter.
(1) Purpose: This section will define terms associated with WDO inspections, identify the types of and specify the uses for WDO inspections and reports, and establish minimum rules under which WDO inspections must be conducted and reports written in the state of Washington.
******************************

If Home Inspectors were required to be SPI's, then it should list Home Inspectors here when it refers to those who are required to be licensed.

[wforsyth]

One you would have to prove that any accusation or statement I have made was false or unjustified, you have no License yet you advertise that you perform Home Inspections in accordance with NACHI Standards, you are required by State Law to be a licensed SPI to perform Inspections to those Standards, no where on your website does it inform clients of the WDO Requirements, other than where you say you don't do "Termite" inspections, which SPI's don't either.
***********************
No. I wouldn't have to prove that it was false, I don't know WHERE you get that idea.
And I'm not required to be a licensed Home Inspector. Home Inspectors aren't licensed. Only pest inspectors. So that has nothing to do with the NACHI SOP.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Home Inspectors aren't licensed. Only pest inspectors. So that has nothing to do with the NACHI SOP.

Maybe not the SOP, but the COE does require that you comply with all of the home inspection laws in your state. If your state requires a pest inspection license in order to conduct a home inspection, and you are conducting home inspections without this license, you are violating our COE at the same time you are violating your state's law.

If someone were to file a complaint to the committee, however, they would require more than message board chatter to prove your violation in that there is presently no available proof that you have ever perfomed a home inspection in the state of Washington. Such evidence would have to accompany the complaint.

[wforsyth]

Number one: I'm not. Number two: The State does not. The WSDA tries to prove that but so far does NOT show anywhere that it is required, including the WAC and the RCW's.

Please. READ the evidence.

If inspectors COULD be prosecuted, then they WOULD be prosecuting them.

Agencies are required to report by February 1st of each year what kind of enforcement action they have prosecuted and taken against any non-compliant people. Check and see if there are any Home Inspectors being prosecuted for not being Licensed Structural Pest Inspectors.

Check it out for yourself.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

There is no legal or illegal Washington State Home Inspectors. If there were, then the information WOULD be available when an inspector seeks to become licensed with the Dept. of Licensing.

There are only Legal or Illegal Washington State Structural Pest Inspectors. If a person issues a Complete Structural Pest Inspection Report, then that person must be licensed as a Structural Pest Inspector and record an ICN at the top of the report.

If however, the person is only issuing a Home Inspection Report, and deferring any evidence of WDO's to a Licensed Structural Pest Inspector, then they are NOT required to be a Licensed Structural Pest Inspector, nor record a unique ICN at the top of the report, because it would not be a Complete SPI Report, but rather only a Home Inspection Report.

Wendy,
There are two reasons for SPI's not to have been placed under DOL based on what I have been told. Many of the proponents for the SPI laws were from the Pesticide industry, and they wanted us home inspectors out of their business. They thought if they had a strong SPI law, it would exclude us from those inspections. It instead backfired on them, setting the minimum standards for everyone to get in.
So any way they pushed for that legislation under the WSDA.
Next the HI's involved, which many were previously contractors, generally disliked control of their industry by bureaucrats which is what the DOL, and L&I generally is. I think the consensus was the WSDA was the lesser of the possible evils.

Any how the DOL does not list us as home inspectors because we fall under the category of Pest Inspectors. (of which DOL does have a link to WSDA)
The SPI laws are really not that ambigous about inspections. But because a WDO inspection is only a portion of the Home Inspection, they can't list us as HI's because they can only regulate the WDO inspection portion.
I have heard the argument you pose over and over, year after year from other inspectors. All of them kicking and screaming, but now they all are licensed SPI's.

The test is really not that difficult if you get the study manual. Even easier today I hear. When I took it you also had to know pesticide laws and safety, because that was the test they had. Now they have revised it to SPI specific topics, as I have been told.

I think the problem most people face is the financial responsibility (FRIC) requirement. E&O, Bonding, and general liability. Insurance companies ask us to list all are assets (real estate, financials, etc) They want to know if we are a worthy risk. So convincing an insurance company your are financially responsible, when you are not is a losing battle. I have a feeling that has been the real reason behind much of the kicking, and screaming about the SPI laws. But nobody really wants to come out and say they can not meet the FRIC requirements.

Any way you have made a business decision. All of us must do what we feel is right. But you should remember it is not your fellow Washingon inspectors that you have to convince. It is you clients who are relying on a thorough inspection, and paying good money for it. You need to put yourself in your clients shoes. We are not dealing with small numbers here. The most expensive problems I have reported on are those that are WDO related in one way or another.

In fact the lawsuit that sparked this most recent bill is about a home inspector who missed WDO issues. It occured about 2003 in Shoreline. The media had brought it out then, and their latest story this last Fall was the same story, just now the people are taking the inspector to court. You can find both stories on Kiro's website.

Any way think about your clients. They are the ones that need your skills as an SPI. Not Lewis, not me, and not anyone else.

[wforsyth]

Harold,
I really appreciate your rational approach to addressing this issue. It is refreshing.
I have no problem taking the test. It is not the issue at all. The issue is simply that if I am going to defer to specialists in all other areas, I would like to know what really makes this area different. Besides a bunch of politics.

I believe the clients are best served by having a person perform a pest inspection who has trained for it. Not crammed for a test that has been dumbed down by your own admission. I AM thinking of the consumer, and the way things are set up are not for the benefit of the consumer and hopefully soon that will be fixed.

I believe that when Senator Spanel says that the WDO issues will be brought under the regulation of the DOL, what she is saying most likely will be that home inspectors will be allowed to call out WDO's as they well should, and then be required to defer to a specialist, as well they should.

There isn't any point in arguing it for any of us, we just need to wait and see what is going to happen. However, for Lewis to spread misinformation about me and others, to the point of bringing specific people up to Dr.Suomi, is unconscienable and really despicable for someone who does not even reside in this state. Owning a business in Idaho that is allowed to operate in Washington State, is far different than being a Washington resident, a voting member of the community, whose business is in Washington State. Whether Lewis realizes it or not, I believe he will be viewed disfavorably by lawmakers and probably already is, so I don't worry about him too much. But he is violating that NACHI COE he keeps spouting about, by the way he is treating a fellow member.

I will say it again. I have BestInspectors.Net's WDO CD as well as all the material from the WSDA and will be taking the test. However it will be for different reasons than others perhaps.

Thank you Harold for being respectful in your communication. It shows a depth of character that Lewis is simply not capable of.

[jclark1]

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.

Yet another thing for you to whine about and use as an excuse. Shutup already.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Maybe not the SOP, but the COE does require that you comply with all of the home inspection laws in your state. If your state requires a pest inspection license in order to conduct a home inspection, and you are conducting home inspections without this license, you are violating our COE at the same time you are violating your state's law.

If someone were to file a complaint to the committee, however, they would require more than message board chatter to prove your violation in that there is presently no available proof that you have ever perfomed a home inspection in the state of Washington. Such evidence would have to accompany the complaint.

James,

Wouldn't advertising on your website that you conduct inspections, in accordance with the NACHI SOP when you cannot do so without being a Licensed Structural Pest Inspector violate the COE whether or not an inspection had been conducted

1.5 The NACHI member shall be truthful regarding his/her services & qualifications.

1.8 The NACHI member shall always act in the interest of the client, unless doing so violates a law, statute or this Code of Ethics.

3.3 The NACHI member shall not engage in any act or practice that could be deemed damaging, seditious or destructive to NACHI, fellow NACHI members, NACHI employees, leadership or directors. Member(s) accused of acting or deemed in violation of such rules shall be reviewed by the Ethics committee for possible sanctions and/or expulsion from NACHI.

Here's the WSDA Requirement for having to obtain an SPI

http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Pesticide...qFactSheet.pdf

And Wendy's claim that a Home Inspector can sub out the portions of the inspection concerning WDO of a licensed Inspector are false, just ask any Washington SPI what WSDA's position is on that. It's illegal.

How can anyone conduct a Home Inspection in accordance with NACHI Standards without getting into the areas that require an SPI. Wendy probably has never done a Home Inspection, but Advertising that she would do one in Accordance to our Standards is false and misleading, unless she has an SPI. NACHI Member who advertise or conduct inspections without an SPI damage the image and credibility of NACHI and its members, otherwise I glady use their lack of licensing against them in my marketing, we already face attacks from ASHI Inspectors questioning our abilities and credibility, the large number of NACHI Inspectors who do not have the proper licencs is an embarrassment to us all.

In light of Wendy's repeated threats to sue me, I've decided to join the game, I'll put together a package of the WAC's and information concerning the requirements to have an SPI, along with the phone number and email of Dr. Soumi who runs the WSDA program along with a writen complaint about Wendy's use of misleading and deceptive advertising,

I'll send it to you and Russell Spriggs, will that be formal enough?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

I'll send it to you and Russell Spriggs, will that be formal enough?

Yes, it will.

[jclark1]

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost....4&postcount=30

Thank you Lewis. The link above was something towards this end. Amazingly enough our 5100 post, home inspection and legal genius, was strangely mute.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by hmiller

Wendy,
There are two reasons for SPI's not to have been placed under DOL based on what I have been told. Many of the proponents for the SPI laws were from the Pesticide industry, and they wanted us home inspectors out of their business. They thought if they had a strong SPI law, it would exclude us from those inspections. It instead backfired on them, setting the minimum standards for everyone to get in.
So any way they pushed for that legislation under the WSDA.
Next the HI's involved, which many were previously contractors, generally disliked control of their industry by bureaucrats which is what the DOL, and L&I generally is. I think the consensus was the WSDA was the lesser of the possible evils.

Any how the DOL does not list us as home inspectors because we fall under the category of Pest Inspectors. (of which DOL does have a link to WSDA)
The SPI laws are really not that ambigous about inspections. But because a WDO inspection is only a portion of the Home Inspection, they can't list us as HI's because they can only regulate the WDO inspection portion.
I have heard the argument you pose over and over, year after year from other inspectors. All of them kicking and screaming, but now they all are licensed SPI's.

The test is really not that difficult if you get the study manual. Even easier today I hear. When I took it you also had to know pesticide laws and safety, because that was the test they had. Now they have revised it to SPI specific topics, as I have been told.

I think the problem most people face is the financial responsibility (FRIC) requirement. E&O, Bonding, and general liability. Insurance companies ask us to list all are assets (real estate, financials, etc) They want to know if we are a worthy risk. So convincing an insurance company your are financially responsible, when you are not is a losing battle. I have a feeling that has been the real reason behind much of the kicking, and screaming about the SPI laws. But nobody really wants to come out and say they can not meet the FRIC requirements.

Any way you have made a business decision. All of us must do what we feel is right. But you should remember it is not your fellow Washingon inspectors that you have to convince. It is you clients who are relying on a thorough inspection, and paying good money for it. You need to put yourself in your clients shoes. We are not dealing with small numbers here. The most expensive problems I have reported on are those that are WDO related in one way or another.

In fact the lawsuit that sparked this most recent bill is about a home inspector who missed WDO issues. It occured about 2003 in Shoreline. The media had brought it out then, and their latest story this last Fall was the same story, just now the people are taking the inspector to court. You can find both stories on Kiro's website.

Any way think about your clients. They are the ones that need your skills as an SPI. Not Lewis, not me, and not anyone else.

In fact the lawsuit that sparked this most recent bill is about a home inspector who missed WDO issues. It occured about 2003 in Shoreline. The media had brought it out then, and their latest story this last Fall was the same story, just now the people are taking the inspector to court. You can find both stories on Kiro's website.

The issue in the KIRO lawsuit is more of Limitation of Liability than negligence on the part of the Inspector involved, he admitted to making an error, but his contract limited his liability to the cost of the Inspection $300, his Insurance company refuses to pay because of that limitation. The outcome of this case may change the way contracts are written in Washington for many more professions than Home Inspection.

As someone pointed out (you?) the inspector was a licensed SPI and has been fined by the WSDA, I don't know if it was over this inspection or not.

If this new Bill passes and the licenses are combined under the DOL, the WSDA will still be the regulating and enforcement authority, not all SPI's are Home Inspectors, the State may combine the Home Inspectors and SPI Licenses as far as we are concerned, but it will not abandon the WAC's and RCW's that govern the Pest Inspection/Treatment Industry.

That's why I believe that ICN's will remain, the WSDA as the regulation and enforcement authority will need a way to Identify which inspections they receive complaints about, the requirement to list the Inspectors name and HI License number on every report would not identify the individual inspection, if it did we wouldn't need ICN's today, we could just use our SPI License number.

This Bill, so far, does not mention whether or not we will use a separate form or report for the WDO issues, or if they are to be somehow included in the HI Report. Right now I use the WSPCA's PDF form for my WDO, I have Acrobat Pro so I can edit, draw my diagram, lock, and paste it into my Inspectvue Report, that works pretty well. If things change it could lead to a lot of reformating and other pain in the ***** stuff to meet any new standard.

Who knows how the legislative "committee" will change the present Bill, there is a lot of work for them to do in deciding how to enact many portions of the Bill, like the WDO Issue, standards for claimed experience, the "Mentoring", an SOP and a COE, along with fees, testing, schedules etc., Bushart will probably be right, this Bill may be a strange looking beast when it comes out of committee.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jclark1

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost....4&postcount=30

Thank you Lewis. The link above was something towards this end. Amazingly enough our 5100 post, home inspection and legal genius, was strangely mute.

I'm presently working on organizing a NACHI meeting in Spokane if I can get Soumi or some other WSDA Rep to be the guest speaker and explain the law and WSDA's view, including the use of Subs to do the WDO portions of the inspection.

People believe what they want to believe, as Harold pointed out getting the required finacial coverage can be a hassle, or impossible, for some, so many want to believe Wendy when she tells them what they want to hear, that they don't need a license.

Like Wendy, many want to believe that myself and others are making up "misinformation" about the WSDA rules and interpretation of the Laws, I've had several call me a liar and accuse me of trying to run them out of business, even after, as I and others have done repeatedly, they have been provided with copies of the relevant laws and letters stating WSDA's position, along with the documetation they have been given Dr. Soumi's phone number and email address, yet people like Wendy, and several over on this side of the State, refuse to call or contact him. It reminds of that Jack Nickelson line "The Truth, You Can't Handle the Truth", these people feel more comfortable looking for any little excuse or any distortion of reality so they can justify not obtaining the required license.

Possibly many of the NACHI Inspectors who do not have licenses are "inactive" and not performing Home Inspections, Wendy claims she's one of those, yet her website, and those of others claim they are performing Inspections accordance with NACHI Standards, which they cannot do legally. The problem for me is that they appear on NACHI's Find an Inspector pages, if they are not able to perform Home Inspections in accordance with NACHI Standards then their names should be removed from all NACHI search sites until they can, that they could do that on their own, but haven't leads me to believe that they are purposely misleading and deceiving both clients and potential clients, in violation of the COE whether they have done any inspections or not.

What is going to be the standard for proof of previous experience, 100 Inspections, if not ICN's for Washington Inspectors, then to what standard will previous inspections need to meet, to me they should be Inspections done to acceptable Industry Standards, NACHI, ASHI, State, or any other recognized SOP, 100 inspection performed in Washington without an ICN would be 100 Inspections that were either Illegally performed or did not meet Industry Standards.

Our 5100 post resident expert in everything has probably been mute because she's busy giving your name to "Her People" so that she can sue you too, are you as worried about that as I am?

She has a month to go before her first year in NACHI ends, do you think she can make 6,000?