Normally anti-licensing Gromicko comes out personally in favor of new Kansas law.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by wdecker

They will also start requireing X number (between 5 and 10, not yet set) "inspection events" (less than a full inspection but more than a ride along) for licensing.

Is there a precise definition of what is considered an "event"?

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by gromicko

BTW, Illinois really, really, really, needs to up their CE requirements. IL is almost as bad as AZ.

We need State CE's Nick, like the Federals need Badges.

Most CEU's are lame.

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

We need State CE's Nick, like the Federals need Badges.

Most CEU's are lame.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Will -

I think Jim B. / myself / Paul Sabados all respect your thoughts. Please however understand that what 1 state may require, others don't....

NOW - in Kansas and Missouiri there is no mandatory state wide licensure of builders or contractors; there is no mandatory state wide building codes; we don't have mandated code inspections in 3/4 of the state; my attorney and doctor carrry E & O OR mal-practice as a business practice - not because the state laws require it (they don't); engineers, appraisers, realtors, lead paint inspectors, septic inspectors, asbestos inspectors, etc, etc ARE NOT required to carry E & O for their license in OUR STATE.

Therefore, our thoughts ARE simple, if they don't why should we.

[Joe Farsetta]

Nick,

Sorry I'm getting into this thing a bit late. You wrote:

A board can't change the law.

Ummm... Depending on the power given to the board by statute, they may be able to change the law considerably. Your statement is, in fact, not accurate.

This is the fear.

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by dbowers

NOW - in Kansas and Missouiri there is no mandatory state wide licensure of builders or contractors; there is no mandatory state wide building codes; we don't have mandated code inspections in 3/4 of the state; my attorney and doctor carrry E & O OR mal-practice as a business practice - not because the state laws require it (they don't); engineers, appraisers, realtors, lead paint inspectors, septic inspectors, asbestos inspectors, etc, etc ARE NOT required to carry E & O for their license in OUR STATE.

Illinois doesn't license or require those either. As for as mal-practice insurance, the doctors are leaving Illinois in record numbers thanks to all of the lawsuits, especially in certain counties such as Madison and Cook, which have become known as judicial hell-holes.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by dbowers

Will -

I think Jim B. / myself / Paul Sabados all respect your thoughts. Please however understand that what 1 state may require, others don't....

NOW - in Kansas and Missouiri there is no mandatory state wide licensure of builders or contractors; there is no mandatory state wide building codes; we don't have mandated code inspections in 3/4 of the state; my attorney and doctor carrry E & O OR mal-practice as a business practice - not because the state laws require it (they don't); engineers, appraisers, realtors, lead paint inspectors, septic inspectors, asbestos inspectors, etc, etc ARE NOT required to carry E & O for their license in OUR STATE.

Therefore, our thoughts ARE simple, if they don't why should we.

How could it be possible to require Home Inspectors to be licensed then?

[Gary Farnsworth]

It will be just a matter of time before the feds move in on this one. Too much variance in laws between states. Just because you are a member of the state bar does not make you a good lawyer. Just because you have a driver's license does not make you a good driver. Just because you are a certified/licensed electrician does not make you a good electrician. Home inspection licensing is, and will be, the same. There will always be good inspectors, and some not. Does not make any difference. Realtors know this. They want the licensing so they can hire newer, uneducated inspectors to get them to approve the sale. AND, the realtors can, and will, perform their own inspections, for free, and not under state law. Then, licensing will not matter. There will no be inspectors to license. Everyone should read the whole bill. E&O will increase, due to the fact that you cannot find any under $100k. They will raise it anyway. Board members will not matter. In the end, the realtors will only keep the inspectors they want. And, most will be realtors, engineers, or modular salesmen, who will not be governed by the law. Everyone on this thread is right. And wrong. Licensing is not needed. E&O is only needed if the inspector is scared, and uneducated. The consumer can sue here in Kansas for any reason anyway. No matter. I figure I am out of business in a month or two, when realtors and engineers perform all of the inspections anyway. I have performed thousands of inspections over 8 years, and never been to court. You have to be business educated, repair educated, mechanically and business inclined. If you have never replaced a roof, electrical outlet, hot water heater, poured concrete, framed a home, fixed a leaking faucet, cannot talk to people and communicate, etc., get out now.

[Nick Gromicko]

Again, my position is that a board can't change a law. The law may have given a board latitude to adopt or modify its rules, approve or not approve CE, or investigate consumer complaints, but that isn't changing the law, that's housekeeping. And that isn't my point. My point was that none of the decisions a board makes can be designed to harm some inspectors and not others. These rule changes you're worried about may be harmful, but the harm will be applied to all inspectors equally.

Anyway, Kansas hasn't changed my anti position on licensing, but if you have to have a licensing law... one that permits inspectors to limit their liability to $10,001 and prohibits suits after a year seems like a law you should be pretty pleased with... that is the law... and no, the board can't change that.

[Erby Crofutt]

Nick,

When am I going to see NACHI listed on this site as a continuing education provider??

http://www.ohbc.ky.gov/bce/bcehil.htm

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Again, my position is that a board can't change a law. The law may have given a board latitude to adopt or modify its rules, approve or not approve CE, or investigate consumer complaints, but that isn't changing the law, that's housekeeping. And that isn't my point. My point was that none of the decisions a board makes can be designed to harm some inspectors and not others. These rule changes you're worried about may be harmful, but the harm will be applied to all inspectors equally.

I use to think that, not no more. You asked for a volunteer to go to the Missouri Housing Building Alliance meetings to represent NACHI. I accepted. I saw the ASHI chapter president kissing the ***** of the some MAR leaders who was dictating what could or could not be said at the meetings. They sat there gloating on the fact on that they was able to push some bills through congress. Just made me sick just thinking how they was screwing over the unexpecting consumer. This was an eye opener to me.
I testified at the Missouri house committee meeting on the home inspection bill this year. I observed most members of the committee expressed that there was no need for a home inspection bill. When the meeting adjourned there was very little support for the bill. But weeks later through some back room deal the bill passed through committee. I heard the committee chairman passed the bill even thou the large majority of the committee still opposed the bill.
It was a shallow victory for MAR and ASHI because the bill soon died. But this gives MAR and ASHI hope that a home inspection bill of their favor will pass because of influence they have over some politicians. Their hope is that those politicians can influence the honest house and senate leaders to see it their way.
Realtors' associations and ASHI has proven through their underhanded influence (money and lies) in many states that they write the laws and at the same time favor their association.

[James H. Bushart]

....but there was nothing in that bill that forbids NACHI Tv, James...thus, it was a good bill.

Seriously, as we can see from this thread, Nick is too far out of touch regarding matters affecting us at our level to be of any real assistance.

I hope that his title of this thread (by way of Google) does not hurt as a NACHI chapter as we continue to fight the efforts of these special interests wanting to control us.

Perhaps it is time to consider the use of the ASHI tactic of taking the association name out and forming a "coalition".

Then Nick can endorse whatever else might be expelled from the bowels of the Kansas Association of Realtors with no reflection upon us.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Again, my position is that a board can't change a law. The law may have given a board latitude to adopt or modify its rules, approve or not approve CE, or investigate consumer complaints, but that isn't changing the law, that's housekeeping. And that isn't my point. My point was that none of the decisions a board makes can be designed to harm some inspectors and not others. These rule changes you're worried about may be harmful, but the harm will be applied to all inspectors equally.

Anyway, Kansas hasn't changed my anti position on licensing, but if you have to have a licensing law... one that permits inspectors to limit their liability to $10,001 and prohibits suits after a year seems like a law you should be pretty pleased with... that is the law... and no, the board can't change that.

First, Nick, the law does not limit a Kansas inspector's liability to $10,000. All the Kansas bill did was require Kansas lawyers to sue for breach of contract or negligence instead of errors and omissions. Then...they have access to unlimited punitive damages. This bill offers no protection to a Kansas inspector.

Second, your fantasies about licensing boards are also in left field. Of course they cannot make rules that are obviously biased...at least to the public eye. But they do make rules that favor their preferred vendors (Massachusetts, for a long time, was strictly ITA territory)...and qualifications (requiring NHIE testing for licensing)...and set other conditions that often coincide with the qualifications or standards of their association of choice (minimum number of inspections of 250, for example, for grandfathering of a new requirement). All very subtle, but all very real.

Third, in my opinion the only benefit of value that a NACHI member in Kansas has access to at this time is ADRS. I'll explain:

The used house salesmen of Kansas are already touting to their prospects the implied $10,000 warranty of hiring a home inspector.

Say what you will in your contract...say what you will in your brochure or website...the homebuyer is going to remember the lies told to him by his trusted agent. You are going to cover any hidden damages discovered later up to $10,000. His agent would never lie.

Unless you want to hand out this money freely, through your deductable or from your savings, the $90 annual fee to enroll in ADRS will require that your client take an extra step (actually, several steps) to prove that you are actually in error. You really can't beat the price and (I'll let Joe Farsetta give you the actual statistics) virtually all of the complainants who originally thought they had a case against the inspector eventually saw where they did not, and walked away without taking further action.

This is your best defense against those who are trying to use you to carry their liability. Let the ADRS mediator re-direct them, when the situation warrants, right back to the salesperson who lied to them in the first place...who, along with their broker, offer even deeper pockets.

[Gary Farnsworth]

J.H., right on. Nick is perhaps out of touch. Note Sec. 1, about the pre-inspection agreement. What is one? Is it a pre-inspection agreement, or just an inspection agreement? Court will decide some time in the future. What is the difference between a "pre-inspection notice" and a "pre-inspection agreement"? Nick, have your attorneys read this section. The "notice" also requires "scope of the home inspection". NACHI agreement does not have this. I advise any inspector in Kansas to not use the NACHI agreement. No scope. Nick, this is why my "inspection notice agreement" is three pages. All Kansas inspectors need to be extremely careful here. Look at the differences in the wordings. They are all in this bill for a reason. Read the whole bill fully, and notice the wording and different definitions. Paul, you have a case to be worried. I have talked to a few attorneys. They read the first pages of the bill, and would not even touch the thing, or help write a "notice". Nick, what is the difference between a "notice" and an "agreement"?? Sec. 1, paragraph 4.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

A thought on "ride-alongs".

Unless the company providing that training is gonna hire the inspector, they're training their competitors and deserve to be compensated for providing their expertise, time and knowledge to someone that may likely end up being their competition 6 months down the road. These new players should not expect existing inspectors to train them for the thrill of it.

An experienced inspectors income is their skill and knowledge. A little help for free - OK. You want to go with me and learn from my years of experience, training and knowledge - in short take up my time - you pay what I consider my time worth OR you go get it from someone else.

No inspector OWES his future competitors one single minute of his time unless he wants to.

Simple policy.