Washington information update

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Washington inspectors have used this message board for years to pass on fabricated "scares" to would-be competitors.

Remember the lie where you were told you needed to be a licensed SPI to inspect a house? This message board is the only place you would have found that in print.

Wow, there are hundreds of inspectors in the State of Washington, yet only a few that even come here to read the misinformation you provide here.

"Most" Washington inspectors don't give this message board any thought when looking for reliable information.

It is entertainment at best.

SPI laws and Home Inspector laws are documented on the States' site.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by Mike O'Handley

James, you've proven once again that the only thing that comes out of a horse's ***, even one with teeth like you, is horsesh**.

That "lie" was no such thing. Under the old rule that was changed, anyone following one of the major association SOP's, including NACHI's, would have had to inspect attics and crawlspaces and exteriors. Under those rules, even reporting on clogged/overfull gutters and water ponding on the ground near a home, though seemingly unrelated to pests, was considered reporting about a pest conducive condition, and anyone reporting those conditions for a fee without having an SPI license, was breaking the law. This wasn't the only place that was ever posted; it had been posted on other forums too. So, though it was never enforced much, because WSDA never had the budget for it, it was never a lie.

One of the good things that came out of the licensing initiative here is that the pest laws were changed with implementation of the new law so that now home inspectors may at least report on rot and pest conducive conditions without the threat of the enforcement guy from the state's Department of Agriculture showing up and issuing a citation.

Instead of insulting real inspectors, don't you have some papers somewhere that you can go shuffle like a good little clerk?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

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

It was a lie, then.....and you are lying, now.

I have an email from Dr. Soumi....the source that was most often quoted as the supreme authority on SPI licensing.....who told me that home inspectors did not have to have an SPI license.

Since SPI licensing required E&O insurance, you guys used this --- prior to your present scheme of legislation --- to keep your competitors few.

I'll let you lie some more...then I'll publish the email, if I still have it. If not, it is in the message board archives for it has been published before.

Like your little blog, you have never let the truth interfere with a good story. Keep up the mediocre work.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

I got the information directly from the Department of Licensing. No middle man. Since you never seem to believe anything that is posted that does not fit your agenda, whatever that is, you can perform your own due diligence. That is why Board hearings are open to the public and those in charge of the program are normally available during business hours.

No agenda other than raising the blood pressure of bitter, licensed inspectors. As I've stated, I don't doubt what you are saying is true. That's why I've complied.

I don't believe everything that's posted for good reason. Remember you're rantings about the "drop dead" date and unlicensed inspectors not being able to advertise at all? How'd those pan out?

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by jbushart

It was a lie, then.....and you are lying, now.

I have an email from Dr. Soumi....the source that was most often quoted as the supreme authority on SPI licensing.....who told me that home inspectors did not have to have an SPI license.

Correct. A home inspector could perform a home inspection without an SPI license....BUT, they could not report on pests OR any Conducive Conditions without a SPI license. IF they chose to sub out the pest report, it was required that the complete report be attached in full and that no items on the pest report could be included in the home inspectors report.

Since SPI licensing required E&O insurance, you guys used this --- prior to your present scheme of legislation --- to keep your competitors few.

You are wrong. E&O insurance was never required. A bond that was easily obtainable for $500 per year was also an option.

I'll let you lie some more...then I'll publish the email, if I still have it. If not, it is in the message board archives for it has been published before.

Like your little blog, you have never let the truth interfere with a good story. Keep up the mediocre work.

The new home inspector legislation has made the old pest law a moot subject. You can yell and stomp and scream all you want about all the bad home inspector licensing. It seems to consume you and that is not a healthy thing. Home Inspection laws are now a reality in this State, maybe not your State, but the State of Washington. You can cloud the issue by talking to entry level clerks instead of the Manager of the Home Inspector program OR you can go to the source, but since they are sometimes busy, that might be inconvenient and heaven forbid that everyone isn't at your beck and call.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

The new home inspector legislation has made the old pest law a moot subject. You can yell and stomp and scream all you want about all the bad home inspector licensing. It seems to consume you and that is not a healthy thing. Home Inspection laws are now a reality in this State, maybe not your State, but the State of Washington. You can cloud the issue by talking to entry level clerks instead of the Manager of the Home Inspector program OR you can go to the source, but since they are sometimes busy, that might be inconvenient and heaven forbid that everyone isn't at your beck and call.

Thanks for your concern about my health.

O'Handjob and his sisters would like to continue to scare away their competition with ghost stories about the law....since the law doesn't seem to be doing a good enough job as it was intended.

At least, it is not acting quickly enough. The idea that they are spending money and time on being licensed and still have people without licenses competing against them until July is really screwing with their minds. This was NOT supposed to happen.

After July, though, if you are one of these newbies....you can expect to see your nearest licensed inspector thumbing through the mail in your mailbox. Be careful.

[Mike O'Handley]

Originally Posted by jbushart

It was a lie, then.....and you are lying, now.

I have an email from Dr. Soumi....the source that was most often quoted as the supreme authority on SPI licensing.....who told me that home inspectors did not have to have an SPI license.

See, that's where it's hard to believe that you could have ever been a competent law clerk, because your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I guess it's true when they say that those who are incompetent are incapable of recognizing their own incompetence. You should be the poster boy.

Under the rules, it was impossible for anyone to perform a competent and complete home inspection without an SPI license, without running afoul of Soumi's rules. That was the way the rules were orchestrated when the Washington State Pest Control Association, now the Washington State Pest Management Association, pushed through that rule in 1991.

It's only a lie if there was somehow a way for an inspector to do a full and competent home inspection on a home without:

• Reporting water ponding next to a home
• Reporting poor drainage
• Reporting on overflowing and leaking gutters and clogged downspouts and downspout receivers.
• Reporting downspouts that discharge too close to the home
• Reporting leaky roofs
• Reporting plumbing leaks
• Reporting rotten sub-flooring and joists
• Reporting rotten support posts
• Reporting cracks in foundations
• Reporting vegetation that touches a structure
• Reporting trees that abrade a roof
• Reporting water in a crawlspace
• Reporting leaking shower pans
• Reporting rotten decks and their supports.
• Reporting unflashed/rotten rim boards
• Reporting any unflashed areas with water intrusion
• Reporting the lack of a vapor barrier in a crawlspace
• Reporting insufficient clearance under joists and beams
• Reporting any other issue that Soumi and WSPCA considered to be "pest conducive."

Soumi himself acknowledged more than once at training events that "technically" the law didn't state that one had to be a licensed SPI. However, in the very next sentence he would always expand upon that by stating that it was, in his opinion, impossible to follow any published standard of practice and not run afoul of the law. Since you'd never attended any of those events, I guess you wouldn't have been able to hear that, would you?

Soumi has read your drivel many times; we've even had a good chuckle over it a time or two. I'm certain that if he told you that, without telling you the rest of it, he knew full well that by only giving you part of the story that you'd misconstrue his reply and turn it into some of your blather. Or,....did he?

Dan might be a prig sometimes, but, unlike you, I find him to be an honorable man. He's not the type to put out half truths. Based on your past performance here and elsewhere, I'm pretty certain that he probably told you exactly what I just told you but you've opted to selectively edit out that portion of his response because it serves your agenda to present it that way.

Like I said, even a horse's *** with teeth still spews horsesh** from its maw.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

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

[James H. Bushart]

Like I said, Washington newbies, expect to see these kids thumbing through your mail come next Summer.....

[Mike O'Handley]

Originally Posted by jbushart

The idea that they are spending money and time on being licensed and still have people without licenses competing against them until July is really screwing with their minds. This was NOT supposed to happen.

Uh, yes it was.

Sen. Spanel's original bill - SB5788 - as introduced January 31, 2007 states:

(1) Beginning July 1,2008, a person shall not engage in or conduct, or advertise or hold himself or herself out as engaging in or conducting the business of or acting in the capacity of a home inspector within this state without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter.

(2) On July 1, 2008, any person who has been actively engaged in the business of conducting home inspections for at least two years and who has conducted at least one hundred home inspections may apply to the board for initial licensure without meeting the examination or instruction requirements of this chapter.

The pest management guys immediately went to work and tried to maintain the status quo, so the next month the Senator introduced a substitute bill on February 28th. Later that same day, an engrossed substitute bill was introduced that had a paragraph 3 (not shown here) exempting engineers, pest inspectors, etc., but the changes to the second paragraph (underlined) clearly showed the agenda of the pest management folks.

(1) Beginning July 1, 2008, a person shall not engage in or conduct, or advertise or hold himself or herself out as engaging in or conducting the business of or acting in the capacity of a home inspector within this state without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter.

(2) On July 1, 2008, any person who has been actively engaged in the business of conducting complete home inspections and has been licensed as a structural pest inspector by the state department of agriculture for at least two years and who has conducted at least one hundred complete home inspections may apply to the board for initial licensure without meeting the examination or instruction requirements of this chapter.

On April 17th, the Senate remanded the bill to committee for study and a sunrise review and hearings were initiated. Throughout the year WHILAG attended every public meeting and in the fall began working with a professional lobbyist to meet and talk to many pols on behalf of inspectors in order to try and bring her around.

On January 18th 2008, Spanel introduced SB6606 which read:

(1) Beginning September 1, 2009, a person shall not engage in or conduct, or advertise or hold himself or herself out as engaging in or conducting, the business of or acting in the capacity of a home inspector within this state without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter.

(2) Any person performing the duties of a home inspector on the effective date of this section has two years within which to meet the licensing requirements of this chapter.

WHILAG knew that Spanel didn't favor any form of grandfathering so they didn't sit on their hands. On January 23rd 2008, Rep. Springer introduced a competing companion bill in the house - HB 3132. HB 3132 was drafted by WHILAG and was a strategic move intended to force her hand.

The next day, Spanel contacted WHILAG and asked for a meeting. WHILAG members met, went over her draft, put together some proposed changes aimed at providing some way to acknowledge existing inspectors experience and met with the Senator. On February 7th, she introduced a substitute bill which read:

(1) Beginning September 1, 2009, a person shall not engage in or conduct, or advertise or hold himself or herself out as engaging in or conducting, the business of or acting in the capacity of a home inspector within this state without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter.

(2) Any person performing the duties of a home inspector on the effective date of this act has until July 1, 2010, to meet the licensing requirements of this chapter. However, if a person performing the duties of a home inspector on the effective date of this act has proof that he or she has worked as a home inspector for at least two years and has conducted at least one hundred home inspections, he or she may apply to the board before September 1, 2009, for licensure without meeting the instruction and training requirements of this chapter.

This was the same language used in the engrossed substitute bill and in the bill that was finally passed on March 10th 2008, signed by the Governor on March 12th 2008 and became effective 90 days later on June 12, 2008.

So, you see, once again you don't have your facts straight. From the second that the Governor signed that bill, which was a compromise between Spanel's version and the house version that WHILAG had gotten introduced, the final date for licensure of anyone practicing home inspections on the date that the bill became effective, June 12, 2008, has always been, and is still, July 1, 2010.

Every one of those involved with WHILAG, who are the ones you constantly trash with your spew, fought very hard here to separate the SPI requirement from the home inspection law and to get inspectors' experience recognized in the law and every one of them has always known that the final deadline for licensure was July 1, 2010.

Why don't you tend to matters in Missouri where at least you know a little bit of what you're talking about.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

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

[Peter Doane]

At the Western Washington ASHI conference this past weekend, Rhonda Myers herself stated that:

1) Newer inspectors can inspect.
2) Newer inspectors can also advertise, but THEY must acknowledge full disclosure to the public / agents / clients that they are NOT currently "Licensed WA. Home Inspectors".

Agents can be fined for referring non licensed people to their clients,... Don't you think, heaven forbids something goes wrong on an inspection that THAT information would have been appreciated by the agent, or clients prior to the inspection or taking of the referral? Its a slippery slope that only you can decide how to go down it.

You can take what you want from this, do your own due diligence, like Stephen repeats time and time again. Its funny that when you try to post helpful information, its somehow stirring up trouble and looked down apon. Hey, there were inspectors that cried foul for missing the grandfather dead line, crazy at it may seem, they say there was not enough information posted in advance.... Talk about people out of the loop

[Mike O'Handley]

Originally Posted by pdoane

Agents can be fined for referring non licensed people to their clients,...

Absolutely correct; but remember that the only persons that must currently have a license before July 2nd of next year are the very new inspectors - those are the only persons that a realtor can get in trouble for referring until that date.

Until July 2nd 2010, realtors can still legally, without fear of penalty, refer inspectors to any unlicensed inspectors in the "experienced" or "newer" inspector category because those persons had already been practicing on or before June 12, 2008.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

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

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by kpierce

No agenda other than raising the blood pressure of bitter, licensed inspectors. As I've stated, I don't doubt what you are saying is true. That's why I've complied.

I don't believe everything that's posted for good reason. Remember you're rantings about the "drop dead" date and unlicensed inspectors not being able to advertise at all? How'd those pan out?

That is funny. My blood pressure is fine, and I feel like the only one bitter is those inspectors who were too inexperienced to meet the grandfather requirements.

I have more than enough business, and I could really care less if you or inspectors like you don't get your own license. Proceed at your own risk, and call it some like consulting, or whatever sneaky loophole Jim has taught you. Again, your risk and your problem.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by hmiller

That is funny. My blood pressure is fine, and I feel like the only one bitter is those inspectors who were too inexperienced to meet the grandfather requirements.

I have more than enough business, and I could really care less if you or inspectors like you don't get your own license. Proceed at your own risk, and call it some like consulting, or whatever sneaky loophole Jim has taught you. Again, your risk and your problem.

That comment was actually directed at Stephen since he seems hell bent on stressing the quasi difficulties that unlicensed inspectors face.

You've actually been quite helpful in your clarifying posts.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm looking for loop holes. I'll likely just leave the profession come July as I have no interest in working for the government. I didn't take all of the emotional and financial risk of building my business to end up playing by someone else's rules. I'm "self" employed and plan to keep it that way.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by kpierce

I don't believe everything that's posted for good reason. Remember you're rantings about the "drop dead" date and unlicensed inspectors not being able to advertise at all? How'd those pan out?

All those "rantings", regardless who starts them, are a good thing. It brings up discussions that can make changes. It changed the way the SPI laws were interpreted. It forced clarification from the AG on the drop dead date. It appears to have made a change in the advertising issue, and that will be a fun issue to watch the State fumble around with and explain. And based on Mike O'Handley's post, it may have made a change in who can still be referred by Realtors...... and that will also be a big issue.

Best to all.

[Mike O'Handley]

Hi,

Kevin, I think that Harold is probably right - you are playing with fire if you think that substituting the word Construction Consultant or some other euphemism is going to allow you to skirt the licensing requirement. Doing construction consultations is still, I think, technically a home inspection.

You never know though; the AG might consider it something different - I certainly didn't expect the AG to come back with the decision that "classroom" training meant that everyone had to be physically in the same room as the instructor, and therefore couldn't take training via internet conferencing, but that was his decision, so maybe there's some room there. The problem is that without a change to the licensing law I don't think even the AG can decide that; it would probably ultimately go to an administrative hearing if the state allowed it to be considered at all, because the RCWs are set in stone until/unless the legislators re-write them.

Here are the rules. Pay attention to the underlined portions and note that nowhere in the list of those exempted are construction consultants. (I've asked you some questions in parenthesis.)

18.280.010 - Definitions

(5) "Home inspection" means a professional examination of the current condition of a house. (Unless you are working for the builder as one of the builder's employees and not as an independent contractor, isn't this what you are doing?)
(6) "Home inspector" means a person who carries out a noninvasive examination of the condition of a home, often in connection with the sale of that home, using special training and education to carry out the inspection. (Unless you are working for the builder as one of the builder's employees and not as an independent contractor, isn't this what you are doing?)

(7) "Report" means a written report prepared and issued after a home inspection. (Unless you are working for the builder as one of the builder's employees and not as an independent contractor, isn't this what you are doing?)

RCW 18.280.020 - Licensure Required

(1) Beginning September 1, 2009, a person shall not engage in or conduct, or advertise or hold himself or herself out as engaging in or conducting, the business of or acting in the capacity of a home inspector within this state without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter. (Unless you are working for the builder as one of the builder's employees and not as an independent contractor, isn't this what you you'd be doing if you didn't obtain a license?)

(2) Any person performing the duties of a home inspector on June 12, 2008, has until July 1, 2010, to meet the licensing requirements of this chapter. However, if a person performing the duties of a home inspector on June 12, 2008, has proof that he or she has worked as a home inspector for at least two years and has conducted at least one hundred home inspections, he or she may apply to the board before September 1, 2009, for licensure without meeting the instruction and training requirements of this chapter.

RCW 18.280.030 - Duties of a licensed home inspector.

A person licensed under this chapter is responsible for performing a visual and noninvasive inspection of the following readily accessible systems and components of a home and reporting on the general condition of those systems and components at the time of the inspection in his or her written report: The roof, foundation, exterior, heating system, air-conditioning system, structure, plumbing and electrical systems, and other aspects of the home as may be identified by the board. The inspection must include looking for certain fire and safety hazards as defined by the board. The standards of practice to be developed by the board will be used as the minimum standards for an inspection. The duties of the home inspector with regard to wood destroying organisms are provided in RCW 18.280.190. (Unless you are working for the builder as one of the builder's employees and not as an independent contractor, isn't this what you are doing?)

RCW 18.280.070 - Qualifications for licensure.

In order to become licensed as a home inspector, an applicant must submit the following to the department:
(1) An application on a form developed by the department;
(2) Proof of a minimum of one hundred twenty hours of classroom instruction approved by the board;
(3) Proof of up to forty hours of field training supervised by a licensed home inspector;
(4) Evidence of successful passage of the written exam as required in RCW 18.280.080; and
(5) The fee in the amount set by the department.

RCW 18.280.170 - Exemption from licensing.

The following persons are exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter when acting within the scope of their license or profession:

(1) Engineers;
(2) Architects;
(3) Electricians licensed under chapter 19.28 RCW;
(4) Plumbers licensed under chapter 18.106 RCW;
(5) Pesticide operators licensed under chapter 17.21 RCW;
(6) Structural pest inspectors licensed under chapter 15.58 RCW; or
(7) Certified real estate appraisers licensed under chapter 18.140 RCW.


Doesn't it make more sense from a business standpoint to stop wasting time and just bite the bullet and do what you have to do to meet the requirements by July 1st? How will getting yourself cited for operating illegally help your consulting business; won't the agents working for those developers be nervous about recommending you at that point?

Just some stuff to think about over the next 8 months and 1 week. You're wasting time.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

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

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

All those "rantings", regardless who starts them, are a good thing. It brings up discussions that can make changes. It changed the way the SPI laws were interpreted. It forced clarification from the AG on the drop dead date. It appears to have made a change in the advertising issue, and that will be a fun issue to watch the State fumble around with and explain. And based on Mike O'Handley's post, it may have made a change in who can still be referred by Realtors...... and that will also be a big issue.

Best to all.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that you have a habit of posting information without credible sources and getting defensive using the "do your own due diligence" excuse when someone calls you out on it. The more crap you post that ends up being false, the more you should expect opposition in the future. That's all.