WA State Legislative update

[wforsyth]

Exactly!!! Thank you!!!

Another step towards the Victory of choosing to be HOME INSPECTORS, not joining the Structural Pest Inspector industry.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Now, it's time to attack that screwy SPI crap. Perhaps NACHI can get behind some of you wanting to challenge it, now that your congress has clearly determined that it is not ready to regulate HIs.

Why attack the SPI laws? According to your legal interpretations, (and NACHI's official position on the matter) it has been declared that WA home inspectors are not required to abide by the SPI laws.
Therefore there is nothing to attack. Right?

[wforsyth]

That's true. The SPI laws only apply to SPI's, not HI's.

[Joe Farsetta]

If I may make a suggestion with regard to SPI licenses in Washington State.

It is doubtful that the current law will be scrapped. There is an argument that it protects the consumer based on the training provided. So, my suggestion is to lobby the legislature to ammend the law.

I propose still allowing the SPI provision to stand, with the clarification that the purpose of the law is to help ensure that any HI performing an inspection be properly trained, and accredited by the State for performing such tasks. The DIFFERENCE comes in where the inspector does NOT apply pesticides.

If the HI bill didnt pass, and there is NO REQUIREMENT for an inspector to carry E&O insurance, then the Dept of Agriculture has twisted this well intended law into a means of controlling an industry that the State is currently not interested in controlling. Clearly, a compelling argument can be made that the control of HIs is NOT within the intended purview of the Dept of Agriculture. In fact, it's outrageous. Since when does reporting a leaky trap require a pesticide license?

This is totally wrong-headed. As such, the Dept of Agriculture should concern itself with EDUCATION, and ensuring the proper level of completed operations and liability insurance for those who APPLY PESTICIDES. That is it. Inspectors are not applicators.

If the Dept of Agriculture insists that inspectors need to be properly trained, than FINE. Just limit it to the training. Then, what will their excuse be. Sure, if you are going to identify something that may be affected by a WDI or WDO, by all means require the State training. But, that's it!

By amending the law, the Dept of Agriculture still controls applicators, but only provides TRAINING for those performing inspections.

I would suggest drafting an amendment, and getting some of the legislature to listen to this reasonable and workable proposal, where there will be NO EXCUSES for an inspector to not have the training and state certification. In the end, the CONSUMER wins.

Let the Dept of Agriculture explain how this sort of ammendment will not work. They should not be empowered to require any insurance beyond those required as a matter of liability for applying pesticides. I believe they will be hardpressed to be able to justify the continuation of a law that is quite arbitrary.

Like I said, amend the law and, in the end, the CONSUMER wins.

And THAT is what the law should be about!

[Harold E. Miller]

Again, why worry about amending a pest (SPI) law if it does not apply to home inspections? NACHI's position was clearly stated a couple months ago, that we are not required to adhere to the SPI laws.

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Originally Posted by hmiller

Again, why worry about amending a pest (SPI) law if it does not apply to home inspections? NACHI's position was clearly stated a couple months ago, that we are not required to adhere to the SPI laws.

Exactly.

However......

Was that the Official NACHI position?

or...

Was it merely the interpreted position of a sole Member claiming to represent the Membership / NACHI Organization?

[Joe Farsetta]

Is this Joe, or Nancy?

You are randomly capitolizing less this evening. That's why I ask.

By the way, it was NACHI's official position. Ask Mr. Gromicko.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with training. The rub here are the requirements after the fact, which prevent some from obtaining the training, and license.

There was no requirement here in NY for me to obtain a pesticide technician's license. I made the effort, received the training, and passed the exam. I have the certification. I got the cert so I can complete WDI inspections for the VA, FHA, and HUD administrations.

Mabe the answer is to get the training and cert for other reasons. In the mean time, my proposal ends the squabble. Unless, of course, the REAL reason for the law as currently wriiten is to control the market.

You tell me...

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Is this Joe, or Nancy?

You are randomly capitolizing less this evening. That's why I ask.

By the way, it was NACHI's official position. Ask Mr. Gromicko.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with training. The rub here are the requirements after the fact, which prevent some from obtaining the training, and license.

There was no requirement here in NY for me to obtain a pesticide technician's license. I made the effort, received the training, and passed toe exam. I have the certification. I got the cert so I can complete WDI inspections for the VA, FHA, and HUD administrations.

Mabe the answer is to get the training and cert for other reasons. In the mean time, my proposal ends the squabble. Unless, of course, the REAL reason for the law as currently wriiten is to control the market.

You tell me...

Who is Nancy?

[Joe Farsetta]

I thought she was your wife?

So sorry... misspelled... NANCI

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

I thought she was your wife?

So sorry... misspelled... NANCI

again...

to whom and/or what are you referencing in your assertions?

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

My point is that there is nothing wrong with training. The rub here are the requirements after the fact, which prevent some from obtaining the training, and license.

Wow such horrible requirements. Pass a test on the items you have been studying, get a bond or insurance, pay a license fee. BFD. There is nothing that prevents anyone from studying and getting their license. Is there a cost. Sure. Just like business cards, cell phones, report software and any number of things that if you choose to do without, you may feel an effect of some sort.

The law isn't going to get changed. Its just not gonna happen. There is no outcry by any well established Home Inspectors. I also don't believe there would be many that would give up their SPI if they had the chance. The real estate industry on a whole has become accustomed to having the Pest Report as part of the Home Inspection. Do you honestly think they would want to take a step backwards and have to order two seperate inspections at a greatly increased cost?

Don't like the law? You can try and change it. Just remember that this law was passed on a total vote of something like 98-1-1. Not close at all. Without the backing of the Department of Agriculture and the Pest Control Industry, it just won't happen.

[Joe Farsetta]

If you are not applying pesticides, what is the purpose of the bond and insurance?

A law can be overturned on challenge. What is the insurance requirement for when there is pesticide being applied.

Perhaps a BETTER law would be to prohibit those with a pesticide applkicator's license from performng a SPI, as it raises concerns of possible conflict of interest? Or, if you inspect, you cant be the one to treat, nor be affiliated in any way with one who treats, including any family member in the trade.

When you state that the cost of the requirements tagged to this law is like purchasing business cards, I think the argument is disingenuous.

You still offered no valid reason why this ammedment wouldnt, shouldnt, or couldnt work.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

The bond or insurance is because if you miss one of the items that is part of a Complete Pest Inspection, the ramifications can be enormous. The State felt that if you are giving a "No Findings" and there is damage found, the client (public) has a way to recoup losses as a result of your negligence.

I did an inspection on a home about two weeks after another inspector had done one. The deal failed due to financing, not the report which was fairly clean. There was no sill plate left. The front edge looked fine until you put a probe to it which should be part of a normal inspection. The probe disappeared. The COMPLETE sill plate around the entire circumference of the house was destroyed by termites that were long gone. Yet there was no mention in his report. Had his client purchased the house, they would have had recourse through his bond or insurance to recoup the ten's of thousands of dollars they were going to have to spend as a result of his negligence.

You may find my argument disingenuous but it is simply another cost of doing business. Some get licensed for Radon testing. Some get licensed for other items. In states that have Radon licensing (is there such a thing) and you do not get licensed but report on Radon anyway, is there not a penalty? Is there not a cost to get the license?

There is no "silent majority" of people that want the law changed. The people that want it changed are those that don't have or won't get the license. When the vast super majority of Home Inspectors have their SPI license, why would they want to go to the expense or take time out of their business to challenge a law that is not causing them any grief? I sure don't want to be paying my attorney thousands of dollars to challenge a law through the court system. Instead, I choose to market my business as being a Home Inspector that is also licensed by the State of Washington as a Structural Pest Inspector.

And yes, the law is written to control the industry and to set rules and guidelines.

So Joe, you "got the cert so I can complete WDI inspections for the VA, FHA, and HUD administrations." Why not just perform the inspections anyway. Why not just fill out the forms and sign them without the certification? Oh that's right, because they won't let you. There are guidelines and rules you have to follow. Why not challenge that? Because it was easier to get the cert and follow the rules.

Pesticide licenses and Pest Inspection licenses are different out here. As an SPI, I cannot apply pesticides. That is a different license and a different test completely.

Why are you even wasting your time with Washington? You don't understand how things work out here. You don't know the history. You hear bits and pieces and jump to conclusions that your proposal would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. We don't care. It is not a big deal.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

I did an inspection on a home about two weeks after another inspector had done one. The deal failed due to financing, not the report which was fairly clean. There was no sill plate left. The front edge looked fine until you put a probe to it which should be part of a normal inspection. The probe disappeared. The COMPLETE sill plate around the entire circumference of the house was destroyed by termites that were long gone. Yet there was no mention in his report. Had his client purchased the house, they would have had recourse through his bond or insurance to recoup the ten's of thousands of dollars they were going to have to spend as a result of his negligence.

The recourse in your little example here should NEVER, EVER be the home inspector. The FIRST course of action in this case or any similar case, should be lack of disclosure on the part of the seller and the realtor. The realtor's association has neatly sidestepped this, just like SPI's have shoved the liability onto the Home Inspector through laws both industries designed to reduce or eliminate their financial risk. Home inspectors come out looking like big, dumb buffaloes who aren't smart enough to cover their own ***, and just bend over and say, "Thank you ma'am may I have another". Then when a home inspector comes along who doesn't particularly feel like bending over and asking for more *** wupping, the established home inspectors bitsch, moan, and complain that the newbie is upsetting the "Status Quo".

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

The recourse in your little example here should NEVER, EVER be the home inspector. The FIRST course of action in this case or any similar case, should be lack of disclosure on the part of the seller and the realtor.

Are you nuts? First of all you don't know anything about the particulars in this situation. The owner was in her 80's and had just moved to a retirement community. Based on the looks of the listing agent that gave me access, she isn't far behind.

Unless one of these people had been in the crawl space, how would they disclose something they had never seen? Based on the amount of spider webs and dust just inside the sealed crawl space hatch, I doubt if anyone had been down there in the last 10 years or maybe more. You could see the outline in the dust of the last inspectors "inspection". He didn't go far, maybe 8 or 9 feet. It was accessible and within guidelines but it was snug and a belly-crawler.

In this instance, the seller and realtor would have no knowledge. The inspector should have that knowledge if a proper inspection was performed. It wasn't and had the sale gone through, he should have been held accountable.

Since January 1995, sellers of residential real estate in Washington State have been required to provide the purchasers with a form which details any known defects with the property, unless the purchaser has expressly waived the right to receive the disclosure statement. The form itself, called a “Seller Disclosure Statement,” is five pages long. For each disclosure item the seller is expected to respond yes, no, or don’t know.

Perhaps when you get your license (wasn't that supposed to be a month ago, then a couple weeks ago and then .....) and get a few full inspections with a Pest Report that you fill out under your belt, you will understand a little more.

I don't consider having my SPI license an "*** wupping". I could care less if the next inspector has their license whether they are a newbie or an established inspector. I just know that when a potential client calls, I always remind them that only a licensed SPI can report certain items found during a home inspection and that I have that license, and some others don't. Market market market.