Should a warranty managment company be HI licensed?

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

When someone comes onto the property to check if cabinets and drawers are functioning, doors and windows are functioning, screens are in place, furnace is responding to controls, windows, doors and access points are caulked as needed, siding is completed or damaged, faucets are functioning and not reversed, drains and stoppers are functioning, carpet is stained or torn, electrical outlets are functioning, ...... what exactly would you say they are doing? Sounds an awful like a home inspection, doesn't it?

It does.

But I don't believe that is what Kevin is doing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't goin in looking for defects. He is the liason when a homeowner reports a defect - going in on behalf of the builder to see if ther actually is a defect, rather than just taking the homeowners word for it. More like an adjuster than an inspector.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by rmaday

It does.

But I don't believe that is what Kevin is doing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't goin in looking for defects. He is the liason when a homeowner reports a defect - going in on behalf of the builder to see if ther actually is a defect, rather than just taking the homeowners word for it. More like an adjuster than an inspector.

Rick, that's true of my "walk through" and "warranty management" services, however, I perform internal quality checks for builders as well. That's what the board has a problem with.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by rmaday

It does.

But I don't believe that is what Kevin is doing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't goin in looking for defects. He is the liason when a homeowner reports a defect - going in on behalf of the builder to see if ther actually is a defect, rather than just taking the homeowners word for it. More like an adjuster than an inspector.

If I remember correctly, that is one of the jobs that Kevin is offering and warranty management is NOT the issue being discussed here. That is after the home has been sold and he does not perform any inspection but merely takes claims from the home buyer and facilitates the repairs for the builder.

This is different. This is performing the described tasks in the previous post. Tasks that we perform as home inspectors and are included in the State SOP that are in the Washington Administrative Code as implemented by the Department of Licensing by recommendation of the Board. The Board takes their direction from the RCW (the actual law) and gives input to the Director of the Department of Licensing where further hearings are held in accordance with the RCW.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by jbushart

To punish you, they must show a violation of a law.

Read the law.

What is it that an inspector inspects? A "house". I understand you to say that you might be looking at cabinet doors, drawers, furnace, AC, etc.... Not a "house".

Give me a break Jim. You can play all the word games you want but the SOP is what we live by.

Secondly, if you will do something "invasive" in your inspection....just any one little thing like removing covers from a representative number of switches and outlets.....it no longer falls under the law, by definition.

More word games.

Use of the state SOP is not required unless it is a noninvasive inspection of a "house" so I wouldn't worry about complying or not complying with it, either.

I bet you are great at scrabble.

This law is so poorly written you can drive a truck through the holes it leaves.

Ask the AG office and ignore your board on this one.

The AG does not take requests for interpretation of the law from the public. If I remember correctly, a Department Director or higher are the only State entities that can ask for interpretation of law. One can choose to ignore the Board in which case even the best arguments could fall on deaf ears and thus cause more grief than it is worth.

I think Kevin just needs to change his wording.

The law lives. Investigations have already taken place on some licensed and unlicensed inspectors. Life goes on.

[Mike O'Handley]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Kevin....

O'Handjob and Co. are in this strictly to use legislation to limit their competition. They tried and failed when they fabricated a need for home inspectors to be licensed WDO/WDI inspectors and carry E&O.

When this was exposed as a sham, they passed a bill for home inspectors.

As usual, Jim Bushart can't make his point by being truthful, so he is lying. Based on the number of lies I've witnessed him tell on this forum over the years, I think it would be interesting to see some of his inspection reports - I bet those are kind of interesting in their inventiveness too.

Fact: Myself, the rest of the board and the folks in the coalition that helped usher in licensing here had nothing to do with the law that required home inspectors to also be pest inspectors. That law was passed in 1991 and was pushed through by pest inspectors. The ones who pushed it through were also instrumental in forming the Washington State Pest Control Association (Now Washington Pest Management Association).

Pussfart is right about one thing - I think it was meant to eliminate competition; but it wasn't home inspectors trying to eliminate home inspector competition here, it was about pest inspectors who outnumbered home inspectors here 3 to 1 at that time who wanted to stop the influx of home inspectors who had decided to throw in pest inspections as an additional revenue stream.

The bug guys needed a way to stop the many newbies who were jumping into the then still relatively new and completely unregulated home inspection business, who were taking business away from them. They figured out that by marrying home inspections to pest inspections and requiring expensive E & O insurance that they'd be able to discourage many potential inspectors from entering the business, thus giving themselves more time to establish a solid client base and referral network.

Where they failed was in enforcement. WSDA just didn't have the time or money to police the system and many new home inspectors opened up their doors anyway without getting a bug license.

In January of 2006 we home inspectors formed a coalition here to try and separate home inspectors from the bug inspectors and to institute specific education and training requirements. The bug guys were invited to participate and had a seat on the coalition. The bug guy tried to influence coalition members to maintain the status quo and endorse the requirement for a bug license; but, when the coalition members rebuffed him, the pest guy eventually quit the coalition when it became clear that his efforts wouldn't be successful.

The coalition's aims were simple; get home inspectors separated from bug inspectors again and get every home inspector licensed and have everyone home inspector prove that he or she could do what he or she claimed to be able to do - inspect homes.

There was no ulterior motive like trying to eliminate anyone's competitors or to make gobs of money off of educating inspectors as Bushart has so often alleged.

It's now more than two years since passage of the bill and not a single one of those in the coalition or those who sit on the board has opened up any training schools. One fellow who sits on the board is the designated education provider that the law requires be on the board. He was not a member of the coalition or instrumental in the law's passage and he was teaching before the licensing initiate even began. He is not allowed to be on the education committee because that would be a conflict of interest.

The only other member of the board that teaches anything to do with home inspections is myself; I teach a 30 hour introduction to home inspections course every fall as part of the real estate program at a local community college. My students are primarily appraiser students, realtor students, realtors, investors and propery management professionals. The aim of the course is to try and bring an understanding of what we really do to other real estate professionals in the hope that it will improve our image. I've been teaching the course for nearly 6 years and I make about $2000 for 30 hours of my time. Wow, I sure am getting rich! Want to guess how many Saturday jobs I've had to turn down to teach that class over the past six years and what that cost me in lost income?

As far as I know, so far, nobody's business has been shut down who was able to pass the NHIE to become licensed. In fact, except for those who've already been issued licenses, DOL hasn't got any reason to shut down anyone until after the July 1st deadline passes. More to the point, the board doesn't have the authority to put anyone out of business - that's the Director DOL's exclusive authority.

The bottom line here is that Jim Bushart is a bald faced liar of the worst magnitude. It's sad that so many of you here consider a known liar to be credible.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O'Handley, LHI
Your Inspector LLC.
Kenmore, Washington
Wa. Lic. Home Inspector #202

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

I think Kevin just needs to change his wording.

Stephen, with all due respect, you just accused Bushart of playing word games and at the same time encouraging me to play word games with the state. I'm not interested in changing my wording to try and skirt the law. I stand by my services. Yes, my quality walks include looking at SOP items. If the state wants to regulate this part of my business because of that, there's not much I can do but object at the board meetings. If, in the end, the ultimate decision is that I have to be licensed to perform quality checks, so be it. I'll either tweak my services or stop performing that specific function. I'm sure as hell not going to get a home inspector license and ensure every future employee of mine gets one. We're not a home inspection firm.

By biggest beef is the bias of the board. I want a reasonable answer why this is pinpointed at my company and not others that perform the same functions.

[rmaday]

How does the WA law define a home inspection? Therein lies your answer.

In Illinois it is

"Home inspection" means the examination and evaluation of the exterior and interior components of residential real property, which includes the inspection of any 2 or more of the following components of residential real property in connection with or to facilitate the sale, lease, or other conveyance of, or the proposed sale, lease or other conveyance of, residential real property:

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by rmaday

How does the WA law define a home inspection? Therein lies your answer.

In Illinois it is

It's much more vague than that. The board's suggestion is to add verbiage saying "3 or more items...." but that's not currently in the law:

"Home inspection" means a professional examination of the current condition of a house.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by kpierce

It's much more vague than that. The board's suggestion is to add verbiage saying "3 or more items...." but that's not currently in the law:

"Home inspection" means a professional examination of the current condition of a house.

With that definition, there are probably a whole lot of people that need to be licensed as HI's - remodelers, plumbers, electricians, etc.

Don't they all, during their normal scope of their work, "professionally examine the current condition of a house"?

IMO, it's a very poorly written definition, I can see your quandry.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by rmaday

With that definition, there are probably a whole lot of people that need to be licensed as HI's - remodelers, plumbers, electricians, etc.

Don't they all, during their normal scope of their work, "professionally examine the current condition of a house"?

IMO, it's a very poorly written definition, I can see your quandry.

Yes sir. That's my HUGE problem with this. I'll say it again, EVERYONE who inspects 3 or more items from the WA state SOP should have a finger pointed at them from this board. Why just my company? Huh Mike?

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by kpierce

Yes sir. That's my HUGE problem with this. I'll say it again, EVERYONE who inspects 3 or more items from the WA state SOP should have a finger pointed at them from this board. Why just my company? Huh Mike?

It must be all that Artesian Water up there Kevin......As I recall Wash also was the only State with that Stupid Pest Inspection law........

Hang in there bud, hopefully they will see the light.....

Maybe the Board has too may Barney Fife's and not enough Cliff Claven's on it....or should that be the other way around????

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by Mike O'Handley

As usual, Jim Bushart can't make his point by being truthful, so he is lying. Based on the number of lies I've witnessed him tell on this forum over the years, I think it would be interesting to see some of his inspection reports - I bet those are kind of interesting in their inventiveness too.

Fact: Myself, the rest of the board and the folks in the coalition that helped usher in licensing here had nothing to do with the law that required home inspectors to also be pest inspectors. That law was passed in 1991 and was pushed through by pest inspectors. The ones who pushed it through were also instrumental in forming the Washington State Pest Control Association (Now Washington Pest Management Association).

Pussfart is right about one thing - I think it was meant to eliminate competition; but it wasn't home inspectors trying to eliminate home inspector competition here, it was about pest inspectors who outnumbered home inspectors here 3 to 1 at that time who wanted to stop the influx of home inspectors who had decided to throw in pest inspections as an additional revenue stream.

The bug guys needed a way to stop the many newbies who were jumping into the then still relatively new and completely unregulated home inspection business, who were taking business away from them. They figured out that by marrying home inspections to pest inspections and requiring expensive E & O insurance that they'd be able to discourage many potential inspectors from entering the business, thus giving themselves more time to establish a solid client base and referral network.

Where they failed was in enforcement. WSDA just didn't have the time or money to police the system and many new home inspectors opened up their doors anyway without getting a bug license.

In January of 2006 we home inspectors formed a coalition here to try and separate home inspectors from the bug inspectors and to institute specific education and training requirements. The bug guys were invited to participate and had a seat on the coalition. The bug guy tried to influence coalition members to maintain the status quo and endorse the requirement for a bug license; but, when the coalition members rebuffed him, the pest guy eventually quit the coalition when it became clear that his efforts wouldn't be successful.

The coalition's aims were simple; get home inspectors separated from bug inspectors again and get every home inspector licensed and have everyone home inspector prove that he or she could do what he or she claimed to be able to do - inspect homes.

There was no ulterior motive like trying to eliminate anyone's competitors or to make gobs of money off of educating inspectors as Bushart has so often alleged.

It's now more than two years since passage of the bill and not a single one of those in the coalition or those who sit on the board has opened up any training schools. One fellow who sits on the board is the designated education provider that the law requires be on the board. He was not a member of the coalition or instrumental in the law's passage and he was teaching before the licensing initiate even began. He is not allowed to be on the education committee because that would be a conflict of interest.

The only other member of the board that teaches anything to do with home inspections is myself; I teach a 30 hour introduction to home inspections course every fall as part of the real estate program at a local community college. My students are primarily appraiser students, realtor students, realtors, investors and propery management professionals. The aim of the course is to try and bring an understanding of what we really do to other real estate professionals in the hope that it will improve our image. I've been teaching the course for nearly 6 years and I make about $2000 for 30 hours of my time. Wow, I sure am getting rich! Want to guess how many Saturday jobs I've had to turn down to teach that class over the past six years and what that cost me in lost income?

As far as I know, so far, nobody's business has been shut down who was able to pass the NHIE to become licensed. In fact, except for those who've already been issued licenses, DOL hasn't got any reason to shut down anyone until after the July 1st deadline passes. More to the point, the board doesn't have the authority to put anyone out of business - that's the Director DOL's exclusive authority.

The bottom line here is that Jim Bushart is a bald faced liar of the worst magnitude. It's sad that so many of you here consider a known liar to be credible.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O'Handley, LHI
Your Inspector LLC.
Kenmore, Washington
Wa. Lic. Home Inspector #202

I love it when this douche bag stops by to visit, don't you? I don't think he likes it when he is outed. Do you?

[Mike O'Handley]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I love it when this douche bag stops by to visit, don't you? I don't think he likes it when he is outed. Do you?

I True to form, when he knows his mouth has painted him into a corner, Bushart resorts to courseness. Maybe he thinks it makes him seem more macho or something like that.

What a sad little man.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O'Handley, LHI
Your Inspector LLC.
Kenmore, Washington
Wa. Lic. Home Inspector #202

[wward]

you shouldn't be required to hold HI license, you should be required to understand an correctly report to the homeowner and builder clearly the performance standards and obligations of the warranty. Having a home inspector's license will not protect you from litigation; however understanding and properly reporting on the claimed defectes will.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by wward

you shouldn't be required to hold HI license, you should be required to understand an correctly report to the homeowner and builder clearly the performance standards and obligations of the warranty. Having a home inspector's license will not protect you from litigation; however understanding and properly reporting on the claimed defectes will.

I have zero liability with homeowners.