WA Structural Pest Inspector Law

[hmiller]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Washington SPI Law

Dr. Dan Soumi sent me an email, today, with an attachment of a recent set of questions and answers presented to the Washington Attorney General's office.

While, to me, some of these responses still leave holes big enough to drive a bus through, many of you in Washington and Idaho will be thrilled with how the AG supports your method of using this bill to intimidate prospective competitors from entering the field.

The following is an exact and true copy of the attachment provided to me by Dr. Soumi in his email to me.

Quote:



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.




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 4: If someone is unlicensed and they report on conducive conditions such as those in question 1., above, and they don’t affix an ICN to the report (they wouldn’t have one since they are not licensed) would this in fact be considered an “illegal report”? If so, what effect would that have on the overall real estate transaction? Would it nullify or invalidate the transaction since an illegal inspection report, in theory, was depended on by the buyers in order to make the decision on whether or not to purchase the house? Would it make any difference in answering this question whether the inspection was requested by the buyer (if specifically requested it would be more clear that the buyer was depending on it)?


Answer: It could in a sense be considered an illegal report, but as to how it would affect the transaction is a question for civil courts to determine and beyond the realm of WSDA’s jurisdiction or concern.




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.




Question 6: Can an unlicensed home inspector subcontract with a properly licensed SPI to conduct the WDO portion of their home inspection? In this scenario the home inspector inspects all components of the structure such as heating/cooling, electrical, etc. other than those associated with WDOs. The licensed SPI conducts a complete WDO inspection and submits the inspection report to the unlicensed home inspector who either attaches it to or incorporates it into their home inspection report.


Answer: There is nothing in the laws or rules that would prevent an unlicensed home inspector from contracting the services of a licensed SPI so long as certain conditions are met. The unlicensed home inspector would need to either attach or incorporate the licensed SPI’s inspection report verbatim in its entirety so that the Department’s enforcement capabilities are maintained. Any use of the licensed SPI’s inspection report other than verbatim and in its entirety may create a false report and be a violation of RCW 15.58.150(2)(e).


If an unlicensed home inspector subcontracts the services of a licensed SPI, and the licensed SPI’s report is used verbatim and in its entirety, the Department’s enforcement efforts should focus on the licensed SPI. This would not, however, allow the unlicensed home inspector to report any WDO related conditions other than those reported by the licensed SPI. In other words, the unlicensed home inspector could not attach or incorporate the SPI’s report verbatim in its entirety and then proceed to make his/her own calls in addition to what was reported by the licensed SPI. This would violate the statute and rules.




Question 7: Assuming that an unlicensed home inspector is allowed to subcontract with a licensed SPI to conduct a complete WDO inspection, would the unlicensed home inspector be able to incorporate portions of the SPI’s complete WDO inspection into their home inspection report without incorporating the complete WDO inspection in it’s entirety? For example, an unlicensed home inspector may want to incorporate all of the SPI’s findings without identifying that the WDO portion of the inspection was conducted by a different inspector.


Answer: No, (see answer for 6, above) the unlicensed home inspector must attach or incorporate the licensed SPI’s report verbatim and in its entirety. Additionally, the unlicensed inspector would not be allowed to report any additional WDO related conditions.




Question 8: There apparently is a limited market for home inspectors to conduct a quick, “look-see” inspection and verbally report any major problems they observe without issuing a written report. Some inspectors are of the opinion that if they do not issue a written report of their inspection, the laws and rules do not apply.In other words the WDO laws/rules only kick-in when a written report is issued. Would such inspections be allowed under the laws/rules?


Answer: Based on WAC 16-228-2035[1] (and other WDO rules) an inspector, whether licensed or not, cannot verbally report their findings without issuing a written report. The type of inspection described in this question would not be allowed by the law and rules. An inspector’s inspection and report must comply with the WDO laws and rules.

[hmiller]

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Structural Pest Inspection LicensingDate: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:23:12 -0700From: Suomi, Dan (AGR) <DSuomi@agr.wa.gov>

Mr. Bushart - It appears that a misunderstanding still exists regarding the licensing requirement for Structural Pest Inspectors (SPIs) in Washington. As I stated in my February 12 and 13, 2007 emails to you, any (home) inspector who reports on wood destroying organisms (WDOs), damage by WDOs, or conducive conditions leading to the development of WDOs, must be licensed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). If a home inspector "subcontracts" the WDO portion of their inspection to a licensed SPI but still notes WDOs, damage, or conducive conditions in their own report, they must be licensed as an SPI.

When WSDA obtains evidence that a unlicensed home inspector is providing the services of an SPI, we will take action against that inspector. I have attached a series of questions and answers confirmed by our Attorney General's office. Questions 6 and 7 should be particularly useful to you. I trust this will help you provide the correct information to your members.

--Dan Suomi--

[lcapaul]

Mr. Bushart - It appears that a misunderstanding still exists regarding the licensing requirement for Structural Pest Inspectors (SPIs) in Washington. As I stated in my February 12 and 13, 2007 emails to you, any (home) inspector who reports on wood destroying organisms (WDOs), damage by WDOs, or conducive conditions leading to the development of WDOs, must be licensed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). If a home inspector "subcontracts" the WDO portion of their inspection to a licensed SPI but still notes WDOs, damage, or conducive conditions in their own report, they must be licensed as an SPI.

Funny how Bushart failed to mention that bacik in February isn't it?

Thanks for bringing the "Questions" down to the Public Forums, where the public and wannabe Washington Home Inspectors can see them, I was starting to get pi$$ed at the WSDA again, after I, along with others, had sent a letter to the Director, all I got back was one of those "Thank you for your interest" letters. Dr. Dan has been a little easier to talk to ever since he left a couple of thousand SPI's hanging in the wind when he changed what he had told them about using Sub's. He's even promised to come to Spokane and explain the WSDA "rules" to interested parties, he would probably to the same over on your side of the Mountains.

Does anyone have any suggestions on finding an inexpensive, or better Free, place to conduct a meeting for something like this, what works in your area?

[Joseph Hagarty]

What does it take to obtain an SPI License in the State of Washington?

[lcapaul]

Is this a Trick Question Joe? You asked that yesterday.

To become an SPI in Washington the Inspector must pass a fairly simple test administered by the WSDA, pay a $45 licensing Fee (annually), and obtain one of the following following financial responsibility options.



Before a SPI license can be issued, the company or inspector must provide WSDA with proof of one of the following four options of financial coverage:

• Option 1: $25,000 errors and omissions insurance policy that provides coverage two years from the date of any inspection. Use the Structural Pest Inspector Financial Responsibility Insurance Certificate – Option 1.
• Option 2: $25,000 surety bond that allows suit to be brought against it for legal damages as a result of the actions of the structural pest inspector for up to two years after the inspection. Use the Structural Pest Inspector Bond Form to report coverage. Be sure that Option 2 is checked on the bond form.
• Option 3: $12,500 surety bond with the same conditions as above plus a $25,000 non-occurrence based errors and omissions insurance policy. Use both the Structural Pest Inspector Bond Form and the Structural Pest Inspector Financial Responsibility Insurance Certificate – Option 3 to report coverage. Be sure that Option 3 is checked on the bond form.
• Option 4: $25,000 assigned account, held by the department to satisfy any judgment for legal damages resulting from errors and/or omissions in an inspection. Use the Structural Pest Inspector Assigned Account form to report coverage.

http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/LicensingEd/CaSpiInfo.htm#agent

How could this be "Intimidating" to anyone considering entering a High liability profession like Home Inspection?

[Joseph Hagarty]

Appears to be a cost of doing Business..

If the revenue projection outweighs the expense to obtain the License, what's the question?

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jhagarty

Appears to be a cost of doing Business..

If the revenue projection outweighs the expense to obtain the License, what's the question?

Glad you asked, personally I see a slippery slope event in having a home inspector required to have some other kind of license to perform our job. Pest licenses are for applicators, electrical & plumbing licenses are for those who contract that type of work.

When this logic is taken to the extreme then how long will it be before a home inspector will have to be a licensed electrician if they happen to turn on a light during an inspection or have a plumbers license should the need arise to flush a toilet?

I believe that our profession hangs in the balance and we should collectively fight to end this diabolical undermining of the home inspection industry. This is no longer a Washington state issue but a turning point for our entire profession. We can no longer in good conscious look the other way and allow a few Washington home inspectors the privilege to gain an unfair advantage over their competition with our profession at stake.

[Joseph Hagarty]

Interesting perspective.

Why are you are giving ICC Classes if this is a "Slippery Slope" for Inspectors???

Hmmmm..........

[David E. Helm]

WSDA is working on a new test (Beta testing took place a few weeks ago). I'm told it is a bit harder, but still is doable by anyone taking the time to learn the material.

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jhagarty

Interesting perspective.

Why are you are giving ICC Classes if this is a "Slippery Slope" for Inspectors???

Hmmmm..........

There is a wide chasm between knowledge and permission; home inspectors should not need permission from any other profession to perform our work according to our SoP. I find your questioning of my commitment to knowledge through ICC Certification very disingenuous.

Let me be perfectly clear; I have not now or would ever suggest that a home inspector be required to become ICC certified or that ICC certification should be a prerequisite to licensing and neither should they be required to obtain a pest license to perform a home inspection.

[Joseph Hagarty]

Joe.

Home Inspectors in PA perform Home Inspections.

Licensed Pesticide Applicators in PA perform WDI Inspections.

Home Inspectors that are Licensed as Pesticide Applicators can complete both.

Services are performed under separate Licenses and Contracts

One does not preclude and/or include the other form of Inspection.

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jhagarty

Joe.

Home Inspectors in PA perform Home Inspections.

Licensed Pesticide Applicators in PA perform WDI Inspections.

Home Inspectors that are Licensed as Pesticide Applicators can complete both.

Services are performed under separate Licenses and Contracts

One does not preclude and/or include the other form of Inspection.

And what does any of that have to do with ICC?

[Joseph Hagarty]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

....personally I see a slippery slope event in having a home inspector required to have some other kind of license to perform our job. Pest licenses are for applicators, electrical & plumbing licenses are for those who contract that type of work.

When this logic is taken to the extreme then how long will it be before a home inspector will have to be a licensed electrician if they happen to turn on a light during an inspection or have a plumbers license should the need arise to flush a toilet?

I believe that our profession hangs in the balance and we should collectively fight to end this diabolical undermining of the home inspection industry. This is no longer a Washington state issue but a turning point for our entire profession. We can no longer in good conscious look the other way and allow a few Washington home inspectors the privilege to gain an unfair advantage over their competition with our profession at stake.

Your Post.

Home Inspectors are not required to be PCO's.

Home Inspectors are not required to be ICC Certified.

It is a Business decision to obtain additional certifications.

You suggest that obtaining a pesticide Certification increases the Liability Burden but solicit Inspectors to obtain ICC certification without consideration that the additional ICC certification also incurs additional financial Liability.

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jhagarty

Your Post.

Home Inspectors are not required to be PCO's.

Home Inspectors are not required to be ICC Certified.

It is a Business decision to obtain additional certifications.

You suggest that obtaining a pesticide Certification increases the Liability Burden but solicit Inspectors to obtain ICC certification without consideration that the additional ICC certification also incurs additional financial Liability.

That might have been what you read, but it is not what I said. What I said was... Home Inspectors should not need to be licensed by any other outside authority or have to obtain a pest license or any other kind of license or permission to conduct a SoP home inspection. That is what I said, believe and am unwavering in.

Home inspectors should not be burdened, intimidated or compelled by other professions when conducting a home inspection to the nationally accepted and recognized Standards of Practice of our profession.

The fact that some think it is right to force home inspectors into another profession simply to conduct a home inspection to our standards is a travesty and an infringement on our rights and should be vigorously fought against.

[hmiller]

But the difference is that WDO and/ or pest inspections are excluded from our HI SOP, but electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc are included in our SOP.

I agree with you Joe, that we should not have to have a license for each trade specialty. And I wish we did not have to for WDO's either.
.....But WDO's are outside the scope of the NACHI SOP, also.