WA State Legislative update

[wforsyth]

Stephen, I know FULL WELL everything about the disclosure statement. It's designed to expressly absolve the owner/seller, as well as the realtor, from any responsibility in the transaction. There is nothing to prove that the person did or did not have prior knowledge.

If a person is going to sell a home, it is their duty to learn everything they can about the home before selling it to someone else to be able to honestly say, "no, there are no known/unknown defects to the best of my knowledge".

Unfortunately, there are many people who are highly unethical and don't want to know what is really there and are more than comfortable with passing off something they had prior knowledge of and then lying about it. I"m not saying your little lady did that, just that it is common and then who gets blamed? The home inspector, AKA;The Fall Guy.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

just that it is common and then who gets blamed? The home inspector, AKA;The Fall Guy.

The Home Inspector is not a Fall Guy when he/she misses something as bad as a completely destroyed sill plate. He/she is incompetant, lazy and negligent and should be held accountable.

[wforsyth]

If he limited himself to inspecting certain things, without the tools you used, and to his org's SOP that may or may not include going beyond the visual in that inspection, he may very well not be able to be held accountable.

One could also argue that the home owner was just as responsible to know about the condition of the home and should have provided disclosure about the condition of the sill plate.

But it's late and I have an appt tomorrow.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by jhagarty

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?

There is no official statement published on NACHI's website, just a verdict passed down by ESOP pertaining to an investigation of another NACHI inspector who has "allegedly" choosen to side step the law. The verdict was publicly announced on the message board. At least the individual who posted it stated it said it was an ESOP ruling. Who really knows if it is official since it is not posted on the website?

Hey ITA has posted a position on their website.
http://www.home-inspect.com/legislation.asp#WA

I still am having a hard time understanding why there are individuals, that are part of the ESOP comittee, who are trying to compell us to fight a law, that they themselves have ruled does not apply to home inspectors. Makes no sense.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by hmiller

Hey ITA has posted a position on their website.
http://www.home-inspect.com/legislation.asp#WA

ITA?

Have the Girls Scouts posted anything on this, yet?

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

The Home Inspector is not a Fall Guy when he/she misses something as bad as a completely destroyed sill plate. He/she is incompetant, lazy and negligent and should be held accountable.

I have an inspector friend that documented water intrusions at an upper roof, but was not detailed in his findings, and did not disclose to the buyer that water runs down a wall and can rot everything down to the foundation wall. He missed some crucial evidence in the crawl space under this area.
He asked me to come over to the house with him as a witness in the event that the buyers were making a mountain out of a mole hill. But it was no mole hill.

Well unfortunately my inspector friend had the pleasure of paying about $4,500 to settle with the buyers. You see they did not care if he was doing a WDO inspection, or a Home inspection. In the eyes of the buyers he was hired to do a job, and that was to tell them if there were any problems with the house. In the end he knew he could have done a better job and been more detailed in his findings, that is why he coughed up the cash. He also knew it was cheaper than when attorneys get involved, and preserved his insurance for bigger issues.

In Stephens example I can see how the seller would have no clue of the damage, and in fact I have inspected homes that had serious damage, which was missed by previous inspections. I can't count how many times I have had a seller call me in a rage, asking why their inspector did not catch the defect(s) when they bought the house. (..........who knows?)

Bottom line....Being SPI licensed gives you an extra responsibility....however your HI clients already EXPECT you to find the defects that an SPI should find.

There is nothing "screwy" about the SPI laws, just the way that some of our NACHI brothers interpret it, and make comments about something they know little about.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by jbushart

ITA?

Have the Girls Scouts posted anything on this, yet?

Yes James, thank for asking...

Girl Scouts position on SPI licensing.

[wforsyth]

The state of Washington requires that anyone inspecting properties for wood destroying organisms, damage, or conditions leading to these pests must be licensed by WSDA as a Structural Pest Inspector (SPI). As a home inspector in WA you will need to be licensed - at a minimum an inspector will pass an exam, license their company, and provide WSDA proof of financial coverage. For further information please go to http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/LicensingEd/CaSpiInfo.htm In addition, inspectors shall obtain a business license and have a valid driver's license. Contact Info
N/A
ITA Courses
ITA Courses are the best preparation to begin a home inspection career. For more information on WA home inspection training click here.

Updated 7/12/06

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

The Home Inspector is not a Fall Guy when he/she misses something as bad as a completely destroyed sill plate. He/she is incompetant, lazy and negligent and should be held accountable.

Stephen, I know FULL WELL everything

Steve, you should know by now that Ms Forstyh "Knows Everything" about Everything. Let her and other non-licensed SPI's in Washington continue performing their Partial Inspections, which the ESOP Committee has said comply with the NACHI SOP and COE. I agree that a Home Inspection can be conducted without mentioning WDO or Conducive conditions, a worthless Home Inspection and a rip off of the Client, but the ESOP Committee believes that such Inspections will be good for NACHI's Image. Myself, I'll stick with the interpretation of the Washington State AG and the other Licensed SPI's in the State.

Joe believes that the 16 year old SPI Law could be overturned, but he doesn't take into account that the majority of Home Inspectors in Washington are Licensed SPI's and that almost all of those would keep their license even if the Law were overturned, and most would not support any effort to overturn it unless it were part of a State HI Licensing Requirement.

What the ESOP Committee should do, so that Washington NACHI Members like Ms Forsyth could comply with the NACHI SOP while ignoring State Law, is to change the SOP removing any requirement to inspect or report on Conducive Conditions, which is similar to what Bushart said a month or so ago when he said that Ms Forsyth could amend the SOP by disclaiming any portion or portions of it she felt she was not qualified to report on by disclaiming them in her preinspection contract, and that by doing so she would still be able to claim that she, or other Inspectors who did so, still performed her Home Inspections in accordance with the NACHI SOP.

[wforsyth]

Awwwwwwww....just when I thought you'd disappeared!

[Joe Farsetta]

Guys,

The point is, especially for those already with an SPI license, that the insurance and bond is ridiculous if you dont apply pesticides.

If the state of Washington is not interested at this time to try and regulate HIs, and there is no E&O requirement for HIs, then Steven's example is bogus.

Are you stating that WDI damage is more serious or severe than any other defect, including cracked joists, failing roofs, heating system, or tripping hazard that the inspector missed?

Does EVERY example of WDI damage equate to thousands of dollars in damages? That's not my experience.

But back to my suggestion... the idea is to have inspectors receive the training, and to remove any perceived or claimed obstacles from allowing them to receive proper training.

As far as your question regarding HUD/VA/FHA inspections, I was at a NACHI meetng on Long Island about 3 years ago, where the guest speaker (the head of LI's Pesticide Applicator's Association) told EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE that they were BREAKING THE LAW if they filled out an NPMA-33, because they actually needed to be an APPLICATOR, and being a technician was not sufficient. He produced a document from a director in HUD, which stated that an applicatr's license was required. I shreaded this guy.

I got on the phone with the HUD director who crafted the directive, and he confirmed that an applicator's license was NOT really needed. ANY certification or license issued from your state would suffice, including pesticide technician's license in NY State.

People lie all the time. I wonder why you reject a proposal that will ultimately reduce your operating costs. Me thinks you doth protest too much. Why would anyone object to that? Unless its about something else...

Is it about control? Please tell me it aint.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Guys,
Are you stating that WDI damage is more serious or severe than any other defect, including cracked joists, failing roofs, heating system, or tripping hazard that the inspector missed?

New roof; 5-10K
cracked joists; few hundred to a couple thousand (depending on extent)
Heating system; 2-4K

Our inspection encompass not just the WDI infestations, but add to that fungal wood rot (many people call that dryrot), and we have alot of it. In fact very little of what I find has serious WDI damage, but can have extensive rot damage. We do live in the rain capital.

OK so our report is for wood destroying organisms, their active infestations and conducive conditions. The NPMA-33 (FHA -VA) report does not even come close to sufficing for our reporting requirements, so it gets attached to ours as a supplement and refers to our report.

So it is probably hard for individuals from other states who have less stringent requirement to understand. If it were only as simple as filling out an NPMA-33.

The answer to Joes' question is that sometimes the most expensive repairs we find in a home is related to WDO damage and correction of conducive conditions.
Let's take an example; Home with drainage problems in the crawl space and insufficient ventilation as conducive conditions, and fungal rot decay damage to the floor joists, rim joists and/ or other sub structural elements. It is not uncommon to spend between $2,500 and $4,000 for a drainage contractor to install a permanent drainage system. (not the kind with a home depot ("Homer") bucket and a sump pump, either.)
Now comes the bill for the repairs to the sub structure. Every case is different, and the range can vary significantly. Not much damage might be a couple thousand, and significant damage might be a several thousand, and I have seen some in the 20K to 30K range for major repairs. Every case is different.

Sure there are lots of defects found in homes that are not related to WDO's and their conducive conditions that can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

But if I went back through all 2,500 (plus) reports that I have prepared I can guarantee that the most expensive damage (on average) was related to structural damage from WDO's and their conducive conditions.

I admit it does rank closely with LP siding (and similar composition siding) failures. And what does LP siding do when it fails? It absorbs water and develops fungal wood rot decay. And when the builder does not install the vapor barrier correctly, and/ or flash the penetrations properly, then you get WDO activity in the wall assemblies. These repairs start at about 15K and escalate based on what is revealed during the course of repairs.

Another example is an approx 3,000+/- square foot "dream" home that I inspected for a nice couple looking to buy it. During the inspection I found that a previous home owner had decided that the tall crawl space was large enough for a several hundred square foot addition. Problem was that the floor joists were installed on the soil in this space several years prior.

This was missed on the sellers inspection when they bought it, and now they were in the miserable position of being stuck with a home that had extensive WDO damage from the improper construction, and a substandard inspection. Not only did this cost the sellers tens of thousands of dollars to rectify, but it cost them a house they were purchasing.

Think what you will Joe. But I have no problems complying with the SPI laws, and I think that it does a decent job in making us better inspectors with our continuing education. The added cost of business is well rewarded with clients that are happy to learn of significant problems in a home, before they have purchased it.





.[/quote]

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Guys,

The point is, especially for those already with an SPI license, that the insurance and bond is ridiculous if you dont apply pesticides.

If the state of Washington is not interested at this time to try and regulate HIs, and there is no E&O requirement for HIs, then Steven's example is bogus.

Are you stating that WDI damage is more serious or severe than any other defect, including cracked joists, failing roofs, heating system, or tripping hazard that the inspector missed?

Does EVERY example of WDI damage equate to thousands of dollars in damages? That's not my experience.

But back to my suggestion... the idea is to have inspectors receive the training, and to remove any perceived or claimed obstacles from allowing them to receive proper training.

As far as your question regarding HUD/VA/FHA inspections, I was at a NACHI meetng on Long Island about 3 years ago, where the guest speaker (the head of LI's Pesticide Applicator's Association) told EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE that they were BREAKING THE LAW if they filled out an NPMA-33, because they actually needed to be an APPLICATOR, and being a technician was not sufficient. He produced a document from a director in HUD, which stated that an applicatr's license was required. I shreaded this guy.

I got on the phone with the HUD director who crafted the directive, and he confirmed that an applicator's license was NOT really needed. ANY certification or license issued from your state would suffice, including pesticide technician's license in NY State.

People lie all the time. I wonder why you reject a proposal that will ultimately reduce your operating costs. Me thinks you doth protest too much. Why would anyone object to that? Unless its about something else...

Is it about control? Please tell me it aint.

The Bond Joe, is only around $500, there is no requirement for E&O, many SPI's do carry E&O, but that is for the HI side of their inspections and they would have it even if the SPI were not required.

The ESOP Committe has said that a NACHI Inspector can disclaim large portions of the SOP in their Pre-Inspection Contract, and yet still be able to claim they "Meet or Exceed the NACHI SOP", I don't belive the Washington State AG's Office agrees with you, but then they aren't members of the Mighty NACHI ESOP Committee so their interpretation of the SPI means nothing.

According to the Committee's interpretation, the Washington State SPI Law does not pertain to Home Inspectors, so why should Home Inspectors need to worry about overturning a Law that has been in effect since 1991? Let your members perform Inspections using any modification of the SOP they want, let them only perform inspections pertaining to those portions of the NACHI SOP, that according to Bushart, they feel they are qualified to perform, and only those portions that are not covered by State Law, or can NACHI Members now disclaim portions of the COE, ones they don't feel quaified tfor?

You haven't paid much attention to the various verisons of the HI Bill that is now in the Sunrise Committee, none of the versions did away with the SPI Requirement, at most it just shifted the Licensing from the WSDA to the WSDOL, but the requirement is still there, there is no backing to repeal the requirement.

Do you really believe that someone performing Partial Home Inspections can compete effectively against those who perform complete and legal Inspections? Do you believe that they should be allowed to use NACHI and the NACHI SOP to promote their business?

[Joe Farsetta]

Lewis,

Unlike Harold, who offered actual information, you continue with the same rhetoric.

I dont believe anyone in ESOP ever stated that one can disclaim away the SOP. That is, unless performing to the SOP violates the law.

Now, if a bond is really just $500, I do NOT understand why someone wouldnt simply comply with the current law, and lobby to change it after the fact. To Harold's point, you live in the rain capitol of the US, so rot and moisture damage from those conditions is a definite factor, and one which enhanced training can only HELP the inspector. But to jump to requiring an SPI license to report a leaking trap under the kitchen sink is a strech, to say the least. Its like requiring an SPI license to repirt rust on the inside of an electrical panel.

The bottom line is that ESOP was asked if a person was in violation of the law. To do that, the performance of an inspection in violation of law would have to be met. It wasnt. The 2nd part of the inquiry dealt with whether or not, theoretically, a person could sub-out the WDO/WDI portion of the inspection. The answer was, in theory, that yes, it could.

So, we have established this as fact. Nick Gromicko, prior to this investigation, repeatedly stated that one did NOT need an SPI license, and that that portion could be subbed-out. Despite Nick's claims, we went ahead and asked on our own.

So, yes, it's the OFFICIAL NACHI position on the matter.

No one is disputing that training is not beneficial. The matter of whether an SPI license is required has been established. My next question was addressed at the notion of whether an insurance and bond requirement is appropriate of not. Harold has since eloquently stated that, in fact, E&O is NOT tied to the SPI license.

All we get from you, however, Lewis, is a never-ending whine about how everyone who has the license likes the license, and how te law will NOT be changed...

Apparently in your view, any change that opens the door to willing compliance, and lower operating costs, isnt worth the effort to discuss. Especially if the idea comes from the east coast

[lcapaul]

Apparently in your view, any change that opens the door to willing compliance, and lower operating costs, isnt worth the effort to discuss. Especially if the idea comes from the east coast

Joe, You mentioned a specific case where the Committee was asked to determine if a member was performing Inspections outside the Law if they mentioned WDO in their Inspection Reports, in that one case, it was determined that the member was not because there was no evidence that any Inspections had been performed. That case also brought to light the change in WSDA policy about the use of Subs, which was a good thing.

Subbing out the WDO portion of a Home Inspection is fine, Bushart responding to questions about an Inspection that an unlicensed member brought to the public Board, an inspection where no Sub was used, said that the Inspection was still within compliance of the NACHI SOP because the Inspector had disclaimed portions of the SOP in their Pre-Inspection Contract and that it was permittable for any NACHI Inspector to disclaim any portion of the SOP if they felt they were not qualified to perform those portions. That doesn't seem to me to be good for the credibility of NACHI or NACHI Inspectors. Members of the ESOP Committee and one of their Washington State followers, have stated that the SPI Law does not pertain to Home Inspectors, only to SPI's, I can agree to that seeing as a Home Inspection Report is a Home Inspection Report until such time as it mentions or refers to WDO, when it then becomes a complete WDO Inspection Report that can only be performed by a Licensed SPI.

Seeing as the Washington Law only applies to SPI's and not Home Inspectors, why are so many Home Inspectors worried about getting the Law Repealed? Seeing, according the the Committee, that a NACHI Inspector does not need to be an SPI to perform NACHI SOP compling Inspections in Washington State, what's the problem? Having an SPI must be an Option, just like doing Mold, Radon, or Water/Well inspections.

What Nick said, that Washington Inspectors can use a Sub, is much different than what Bushart has said and what certain members have done. In my opinion NACHI Inspectors performing partial inspections to avoid violating the Law, and disclaiming big portions of the NACHI SOP in order to do so, is not good for NACHI or the credibility of NACHI Inspectors. The use of Subs is a good idea for some, especially for those just starting their Inspection business, they can both save money and learn at the same time, shortcutting the SOP and clients is not a good idea.

I never claimed that E&O is required, I just said that many of us have it, and thay we most likely would have it even if the SPI was not required. As far as the cost of a Surety Bond goes, I've only heard others say that it's around $500, but here's a link that seems to show that, unless Credit History is an issue:

http://www.jrolsenbonds.com/instant_issue_choose.html

And I have never said that everyone who has the license likes the license, Polls done on this message board have shown that the majority of those who already have the license would keep it even if the law were repealed, would you like to bet that there would be those who chose not to get the SPI License even if it were voluntary who would whine and cry about those with Licenses using unfair marketing tactics against them, purposely trying to damage their business. I do believe there are States out there which do not require Home Inspectors to be regulated but do require Licenses for those who chose to perform Pest/WDO Inspections. If, in Washington a Home Inspector is not required to obtain an SPI, wouldn't that be the same situation?

I've said repeatedly that the SPI Law is asinine and that it should be repealed, but there's a big difference between should be and will be, especially since so many Home Inspectors in Washington already have the license, and would keep it if the Law were repealed, why would we spend our time, money, and effort to repeal a Law that essentially has no effect on us?

There may be a proposal from the Pest Industry, who proposed the SPI Law in the first place, to repeal the Law and not permit Home Inspectors to perform WDO Inspections even if they were licensed, I suppose many of you would like that better.