WA State Legislative update

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by hmiller

Give me an example of an instance where a client would want to take me (or any HI) to court for exceeding the SOP.

Simple.

The SOP says you will select a sampling of windows to check.

You advertise that you "exceed" the SOP by checking ALL windows. You miss one. When the client finds a window that is not serviceable and wants you to replace it....you point out that your SOP says you are to do a sampling, only.

Your client and his lawyer see it otherwise.

So does your E&O insurer, according to Ben Garrison. He says you will not be covered since your premium rates were based upon your compliance with the SOP. Not complying with it or..as you put it. "exceeding it" would require a different rate. According to Ben, it is not the insurer's job to "babysit" home inspectors to see that they comply with their SOPs but when they do not....they are not covered.

There is no such thing as "exceeding" the SOP.

The SOP is a written description of an inspection process. You comply with it or you do not, and apply another SOP. That's all.

[Harold E. Miller]

A defective window is not an example of something that would get me into court. But if I miss the defective window because I sampled them, the buyer is likely going to first call their realtor and then me. And guess what, they want someone to pay for it. (regardless of the SOP)
It takes very little time to check all the windows in a home, so I do it.

All the buyers know is that they paid for someone to inspect their home, to perform a thorough inspection, and to report to them the deficiencies. I am sure some smart attorney could find in most inspectors marketing that they advertise "full" or "complete" home inspections. Not "Sampled" or "partial" inspections.
You guys do what you want, I know what works for me, and what keeps my clients happy. It has worked for thousands of inspections in the last 10 years.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by hmiller

I know what works for me

One of the problems with proponents of state controlled home inspections (to include your favored SPI law) is that they assume that if it works for them, it should work for all.

There are other alternatives and those that apply them also know what works for them.

These alternatives exist. And they do not require that others do exactly as you do, spend as you spend, etc.

Nor does it mean that only your clients are being served and that others are being deprived.

[Harold E. Miller]

Sounds like an argument in favor of $49.00 Walk inspections...
Nothing wrong when the clients are making informed Choices.
The only problem is when they are buying the whole enchilada, and they get only half.....or a sampling...

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by hmiller

Give me an example of an instance where a client would want to take me (or any HI) to court for exceeding the SOP.
I can think of lots' of examples where if I only met the minimum SOP, a client might feel cheated when they find something that was not discovered during the inspection because it would have required exceeding the SOP. But I really can't think of any instance where exceeding the SOP made any buyer upset. Buyers want to be informed, and they pay good money for it.

While I know there is a lot of legal speculation as to what might happen in court on this BB, there is relatively few actual real stories. Just alot of speculation. So only take that for what it is worth.

I already did. The FLIR is a perfect example of exceeding the SOP.

Another one would be the inspector I was writing reports for. He inspects the heat exchangers and reports on them. If he was incorrect, since it is not required in the SOP and stated as such, he would not be covered most likely in his E and O for the reasons Jim B stated.

[wforsyth]

[IMG]images/2006/reputation/reputation_neg.gif[/IMG] WA State Legislative... 4/27/07 4:35 AM poor poor windy having to move again

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Oh, and Joe F. the bond isn't only $500. That's the 1% charge for only those with the most pristine credit. The rates range from 1-15%, and then higher for those with imperfect credit. There's a price for everyone, but it would be $5000 for someone at 10%, and 15,000 at 15%, 30,000 at 30%.....

You see, it's not all cut and dried like Lewis wants it to appear. Oh, Wendy just doesn't want to get the license...she could afford to....whatever...

I just spent $2000 on a new vehicle and $3500 to get into a new home after having to move again. All in the space of 2 months and after spending $5000 to replenish the things I lost when evicted from my home last year. Minor things like beds for the kids rather than sleeping in sleeping bags on the floor, clothes, dressers...minor things...

So it's not simple...Harold...it's not affordable....and it's not necessary according to the law when one functions within the parameters of the law, not skirting it, but abiding by the letter of it.

People who say "Oh you are just abiding by the letter of the law, we're abiding by the spirit of the law" really blow my mind.

That's exactly why there IS a LETTER of the law. To avoid subjective interpretations and situations just like this one where a group of people say, "Oh, I know that's what the law SEEMS to say, but I understand what they REALLY meant. My interpretation of the SPIRIT of the law is the only one that could possibly be correct, therefore, you are inferior in your service to the law due to the fact you only abide by it's letter, not it's actual intent. Interpreted of course only by me and these other inspectors who are better served by it as well."

You should take a simple math course Ms. Forsyth, 15% of $25000 is only $3750, 1% is only $250, 10% would be only $2500.

It's not the Fee for the Bond that makes it more exspensive, it's the applicants Credit History which is an indivual's problem, bad credit can also raise your car insurance rates.

A surety bond is like a loan, if there is a claim against you and the bonding company pays, you are required to repay the amount they paid, so credit history is a consideration.

Why does it worry you any way? You claim to be a Generalist Home Inspector, which I guess is an Inspector who can modify or disclaim large portions of the NACHI SOP and still claim to be following it. So just go on being a "Generalist", just be sure you exclude EVERYTHING covered by the SPI Laws from your reports, read the AG's Interpretation of the Law again, then continue to use the Bushart Loophole report system where you are allowed to describe such things as wood rot or insect damage as just wood damage, at least until you run into a customer, realtor, or seller who is smart enough to ask What Kind of Damage? What's wrong with the plumbing? etc. Think of how intellegent you will sound when you have to stand there and tell them that you are not qualified to say, be careful because a client asking those kind of questions may turn out to be a State Employee.

If a surety bond costs you $3750 or $5000, that's because of your "history", it's not the fault of the law or the bonding company or other Inspectors.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

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?

NONE of the versions are in Sunrise. The ONLY thing in Sunrise is whether or not the Home Inspection industry needs to be regulated to serve the public good.

You don't read very carefully. The new version says insert this(saying it's going to sunrise) and STRIKE everything after, which means NOTHING that has been proposed to date is in the bill currently until after the determination is made.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

You should take a simple math course Ms. Forsyth, 15% of $25000 is only $3750, 1% is only $250, 10% would be only $2500.

It's not the Fee for the Bond that makes it more exspensive, it's the applicants Credit History which is an indivual's problem, bad credit can also raise your car insurance rates.

A surety bond is like a loan, if there is a claim against you and the bonding company pays, you are required to repay the amount they paid, so credit history is a consideration.

Why does it worry you any way? You claim to be a Generalist Home Inspector, which I guess is an Inspector who can modify or disclaim large portions of the NACHI SOP and still claim to be following it. So just go on being a "Generalist", just be sure you exclude EVERYTHING covered by the SPI Laws from your reports, read the AG's Interpretation of the Law again, then continue to use the Bushart Loophole report system where you are allowed to describe such things as wood rot or insect damage as just wood damage, at least until you run into a customer, realtor, or seller who is smart enough to ask What Kind of Damage? What's wrong with the plumbing? etc. Think of how intellegent you will sound when you have to stand there and tell them that you are not qualified to say, be careful because a client asking those kind of questions may turn out to be a State Employee.

If a surety bond costs you $3750 or $5000, that's because of your "history", it's not the fault of the law or the bonding company or other Inspectors.

You should take a course on not being an idiot. I was doing the math off of 50k which if you had a brain you should have been able to deduce Mr.Inspector.

My HISTORY as you put it, has nothing to do with anything unseemly as you liked to imply. It has to do with weathering being married to two assholes, not much different than you, and having them trash my credit so they could ***k around, look at pornography, and spend money on their damn toys rather than feeding the kids, giving them clothing, and paying off their education.

You are such a prick it blows my mind. Can't come up with an intelligent argument so you have to go on the attack again. You Lewis are irrelevant.

[lcapaul]

The requirement is for a $25,000 Bond, not a $50,000, did you think you could make people feel more sorry for you by inflating the numbers?

Your history and your choice of husbands was a personal choice, sh*t happens to everyone, and my bet is that out of nearly 10,000 NACHI members there are many members with sadder situations than yours, but they don't whine about it constantly on a public message board, many have likely had their credit ruined or damaged by circumstances they could not control, yet they don't whine and seek sympathy for the sh*t that has happened to them, only you do that.

You and Bushart have decided that you can edit the SOP however you want and yet still be in compliance, do that, just keep performing your partial inspections being very careful to stay within the letter of the Law, and be the generalist you say you are, the SPI Law has nothing to do with you, so why do you argue about the expense of becoming an SPI? Why should what SPI's do be of a concern to you?

[wforsyth]

Inflating the numbers? No. I went off of your original $500 Lewis. Then went up in increments from there. $500 is NOT 1% of 25,000. Now is it? Or is it you that can't do math?

Nobody is whining. I can say one thing about my personal life in six months and you'll still ****ing say I'm whining. You, as I have stated before, are irrelevant.
This fact disturbs you greatly, so you insist on battering a woman you don't even know continuously and lie about her constantly on the BB and to others who don't even know her either.

Other people post and talk back and forth on bb's all the time. They are able to say "hey, this and that happened in my life" or "I need some support, can you talk to me about this" or whatever. But not here. If someone shows one hint of personal life they're whining.

You know, all you've ever done in this rampage of yours is hurt yourself. More than one of my clients has come here to read my posts, saw your diarrhea of the mouth/fingers, and asked me what that jackass Lewis Capaul is doing harassing me. I tell them I don't know, but he must not have much of a life or business considering how much venom he puts into stalking me.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Inflating the numbers? No. I went off of your original $500 Lewis. Then went up in increments from there. $500 is NOT 1% of 25,000. Now is it? Or is it you that can't do math?

Nobody is whining. I can say one thing about my personal life in six months and you'll still ****ing say I'm whining. You, as I have stated before, are irrelevant.
This fact disturbs you greatly, so you insist on battering a woman you don't even know continuously and lie about her constantly on the BB and to others who don't even know her either.

Other people post and talk back and forth on bb's all the time. They are able to say "hey, this and that happened in my life" or "I need some support, can you talk to me about this" or whatever. But not here. If someone shows one hint of personal life they're whining.

You know, all you've ever done in this rampage of yours is hurt yourself. More than one of my clients has come here to read my posts, saw your diarrhea of the mouth/fingers, and asked me what that jackass Lewis Capaul is doing harassing me. I tell them I don't know, but he must not have much of a life or business considering how much venom he puts into stalking me.

What would be embarassing would be for one of your potential clients to read haw hard you work to get around existing Laws and the SOP and for them to realize how little knowledge you have of the subject you argue constantly about. If you could stop the sobbing long enough to clear your eyes you could have read that the $500 Dollars was what others had said they were quoted, I have occurance type E&O which does away with the bond requirement, and as I stated to Joe here was a link that showed that $500 was probably fairly accurate. With all you claimed knowldeg of the SPI/WDO issue you should have known that the requirement was only $25K, but $50K would get you more sympathy.

Why don't you have your clients call me next time, I can forward some of your posts here about using loopholes to get around Inspection requirements, I'm sure that would impress them with the value of your partial Inspection, especially when they find that they will need to pay an additional couple hundred dollars to have a Complete WDO report done by a licensed SPI, something that is included in a Licensed Inspectors report for less than you claim you charge.

Nobody is whining. I can say one thing about my personal life in six months and you'll still ****ing say I'm whining.

When have you ever gone six months without whining about how badly the world is treating you? I don't believe you have made 6 days too often in the past 14 months without informing us of some great wrong done to you that is always someone else's fault.

Again, why does the SPI Issue bother you, you are a "Home Inspector" the Law doesn't concern you at all. Or does it? Maybe your clients should read this, and then have you explain your inspection report to them

Questions and Responses on SPI Licensing (Cleared by AG 3/26/07)

Question 1: When a home inspector conducts an inspection of a home that is for sale and reports any of the following, must they be licensed as an SPI and follow the rules for conducting a complete WDO inspection (See WAC 16-228-2025):

plumbing leaks and inadequate ventilation
restricted or non-functioning gutters
vegetation touching exterior siding
earth to wood contact
standing water in substructure
failed or missing caulk or grout at water splash areas
conducive debris in substructure

Answer: If a home inspector reports on one or more of the above conditions they must be licensed and must follow the rules for conducting complete WDO inspections. It does not make any difference whether the home inspector actually identifies a WDO such as rot, they still must be licensed and follow the rules.




How can an Inspector perform a complete Home Inspection in accordance with the SOP without mentioning the above?



Question 2: Once a home inspector reports any of the conditions in question 1., above, (regardless of whether they identify a WDO infestation) does the inspection then become a “complete WDO inspection” and must the inspector then follow all of the rules relating to complete WDO inspections?

Answer: Yes, once an inspector has reported any of the conditions in question 1, above, their inspection then becomes a complete WDO inspection and they must abide by all of the rules relating to complete WDO inspections (WAC 16-228-2005 through 2045).


Question 3: Can a home inspector avoid the licensing and rule requirements by not identifying the WDO that caused damage? For example, a house has extensive damage from wood decay fungi (rot). If a home inspector just reported this as “deterioration” or “damage” without identifying that it was caused by rot, would this relieve the inspector from the requirements of the law and rules?

Answer: The laws and rules covering WDO inspections place a duty upon the inspector to report the cause of the damage by identifying the WDO. A home inspector cannot circumvent the laws or rules by avoiding terminology that is found in the rules.

Question 5: Assuming an unlicensed home inspector does report one or more of the findings described in question 1., above, does a recommendation to have a licensed SPI inspect the structure, or a disclaimer such as “This is not a WDO (or Structural Pest) inspection” on the home inspection report have any bearing on whether a home inspector must be licensed and follow the rules?

Answer: An inspector cannot abrogate his/her responsibility under the laws and rules by making recommendations or disclaimers on their report. If they conduct, by definition, a complete WDO inspection, they must comply with all of the laws and rules regardless of any recommendation or disclaimer. In most cases such disclaimers would make their inspection report a “false report” and place the inspector in violation of RCW 15.58.150(2)(e). Such violations are subject to civil penalty and/or license suspension.



How do you refer WDO to an SPI without justifying that referral to the client?



Just keep doing what you claim and ignore the SPI/WDO Laws, I'm sure you'll do fine. Your potential clients are welcome to contact the WSDA for an explanation when ever they like.

[wforsyth]

Nothing in the WAC applies to home inspectors. It applies and the director has rule only over structural pest inspectors. If he/they steps outside of his boundaries and files suit against a home inspector who has not placed themselves under his rule by becoming a licensed structural pest inspector, that home inspector has the right to file with the courts based on RCW34.05.598 and ask them to determine that the director filed based on frivolous grounds, and ask the court to grant them full measure of recompense as stated in RCW 4.84.185.

Considering that the director is confined to facts of record (see below) which would require them to submit a home inspection report completed as a complete wdo report by a structural pest inspector functioning in that capacity without a license, it is fairly safe to say that the home inspector who does not place themself under the rule of authority of the director and the WSDA agency has nothing to worry about as long as they do not try to claim that they are an SPI without actually having the license.

RCW 34.05.558
Judicial review of facts confined to record.Judicial review of disputed issues of fact shall be conducted by the court without a jury and must be confined to the agency record for judicial review as defined by this chapter, supplemented by additional evidence taken pursuant to this chapter.
[1988 c 288 § 513.]

[Harold E. Miller]

Oh Lewis, what does the Attorney Generals office know? They are merely attorneys.
Surely our friends on the BB, who don't even posess this license, and really don't even do inspections here, must know better. Maybe I will cancel my insurance and rip up my license. And hey if I ever get fined I am sure Mr Bushart and Ms Forsyth will be happy to put their money where their mouth is and write the check to cover it.

[wforsyth]

Cleared by the AG. What does that really mean? What is the function of the AG? What is the function of a judge?

The Function of a Judge… It is a Judge’s job to make a ruling based on the law as it is written. A government that ignores the as it is written and instead rules on what they think the law should say is the definition of Tyranny. http://robertleeray.com/FlannelAvenger/?p=472

This is straight from the WAC. Not someone's opinion, but the law as written:
WAC 16-228-1545


(3) License classifications(m) Structural pest inspector: Allows for the commercial inspection of buildings for structurally destructive pests, their damage and conditions conducive to their development. This classification is required to perform complete wood destroying organism inspections.

That is the definition of a structural pest inspector. It is clearly stated that only those who are required to perform complete wood destroying organism inspections are required to file for this license.

Nowhere in the WAC or RCW does it state the stuff being passed around that as soon as you report a cc the report automatically becomes a complete wdo.

Do you notice that nowhere also does it say "any building" or anYthing about REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS? That comes later. Anyone licensed as a structural pest inspector and performing complete wdo inspections MUST perform them to the standard described in the WAC. Not that anyone reporting on CC's or WDO's is automatically required to be licensed as a SPI. Nope.

No, when you advertise and attempt to gain business thereby, to perform inspections for the express purpose of inspecting commercially for pest and their conducive conditions as a part of a real estate transaction or transfer, then you are required to hold a license. No other definition even makes sense.

Have you looked at the board for the WSDA? It's made up of Pest inspection companies and a couple home inspectors who are also SPI's. Now, isn't it a bit strange that a group of people who have so much personal and financial interest in the situation be given express rule over whether or not someone MUST become a licensed SPI? Does anyone see anything funny about those who stand to gain the most from people being required to pay licensing fees and testing fees etc. being the ones to arbitrarily state that home inspectors MUST be pest inspectors?

No, I think that it's a system that has gone on far too long and needs to be stopped. The more people that think they have to be SPI's, the more money that comes into the coffers of the WSDA.

Isn't it funny how the Advisory committee even stated that the law is ambiguous and the WSDA doesn't even do anything to SPI's that don't follow the licensing procedures. They didn't even mention home inspectors. Maybe that's because the WSDA doesn't actually have juristiction over HI's no matter how much they want people to think they do?


Don't tear up your license because you already gave up your freedom when you agreed to become licensed. Your power of choice is already taken away. Sorry.