California to license home inspectors.

Bill Text - AB-1024 Home inspectors: licensing: Contractors’ State License Board.

Thanks.

Of course, they need the “tax” revenue!!

Won’t get it from inspectors. Everywhere licensing is adopted, it’s revenue negative for the state.

1 Like

I think the thread title is misleading because this does not mean California will require a HI license, only that it has been introduced as a bill.

It’s not even gone to committee yet.

The same bill was introduced several years ago but went nowhere after the assemblyman who introduced it got caught with hands down the wrong set of pants and has to resign from his seat. And has been introduced, I think several times before that as well.

My concern is the bill is vague. There is zero language on what will or will not be part of getting this proposed license.

1 Like

Anything that raises more revenue to waste eventually is going to get passed. Here in THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA, over a 1000 new bills beome law annually, many of which employ the more charitable term “fees” to obscure the tax revenue raising objective behind the new legislation.

1 Like

The bill has been referred to committee, with Committee Hearing Date:
04/09/19

The site shows the last action was being referred to committee in early March. Do bills usually take this long in committee, or is this a sign the bill is dead?

1 Like

We were licensed here in Alberta almost 10 years ago, nothing but a tax grab. I pay $500. License fee every 2 years. Since licensing we are required to have E&O insurance, $10,000. Bond which costs me $3000. Year

Randy, did you notice any difference in the number of inspectors in your area after implemented? I would think that licencing would eliminate some competition.

I noticed that some inspectors dropped out because they didn’t want to have to get the required training and peer review. Today we have a lot of new inspectors taking the required training to be licensed but I would say 70% don’t make it. They think it will be easy money but anyone who has been around knows it is a lot of work to run a business.

Randy, It sounds like the small barrier to entry helped weed out some competition (specifically the less professional types). It seems like licencing is a mixed bag for established inspectors. Added regulation and expense, but less competition.

1 Like

Has anyone heard any more information on this topic?

Well it is good for insurance companies, I just got my renewal and it went up. To be licensed you must have a $1M E&O $2M aggregate, costs $2639. $10,000. Bond, costs $500./3 years. Plus I have $2M GL policy costs $350./year. There aren’t many providers in Canada for this type of insurance. Licensing is okay but it will cost you depending on the state requirements.

I carry E&O and GL insurance without a legal requirement to do so. For me that is a non-issue, but it is likely another barrier to entry. Having to pay to be bonded would likely be a new expense for most inspectors.

Chris, There are no updates to the bill history since last spring when it was referred to committee.

i am finding that price being charged in my area is stupid low and while looking at some numbers on forum so whers the money ???
just simple math if company 1 charges 5.00$ and company 2 charges 30.00$ company 1 is swamped dollar figure is just for post hope no one does 1 $ insp. LOL

Thats funny. I think everything in CA is negative revenue.

What do you guys think! Is this bill going to pass, Also being a CMI inspector would they grandfather us in I don’t see anything saying about that.

California Bill AB 1024 has died in the 2nd hearing/committee. We do not have enough budget for this project yet.