5788 amended again

General Inspection Topics Legislation, Licensing, Ethics & Legal Issues
1

The licensing bill was ammended today. The gist of the changes are as follows:

EFFECT: Changes the agency responsible for licensing home
inspectors from L&I to department of licensing.
Exempts architects and engineers from having to be licensed.
Removes the language pertaining to unprofessional conduct.
Removes language requiring that the report indicate a finding that
inaccessible crawl spaces might be a problem.
Removes the provisions about accumulating points and reinserts the
requirement that a home inspector have 120 hours of classroom
experience to be licensed.
Clarifies insurance requirements.
Adds an exemption from licensing requirements for those persons who
are pest applicators or operators or a structural pest inspector who
[FONT=‘Courier New’]only performs pest inspections.

It would appear that things are still moving along.

[/FONT]

2

Looks like it’s obvious who is doing the most lobbying and will benefit the most from this licensing.

3

(2) “Classroom education” means training in observing and
8 identifying defects in structural components, foundations, roof
9 coverings, insulation and ventilation, exterior and interior
10 components; wood destroying organism inspections; and plumbing,
11 heating, cooling, and electrical systems. It does not include online
12 or video training.

Looks like alot of people aren’t going to meet the licensing requirements.

4

Charles,
You left out a key phrase about the Pest Inspectors. Only those who ONLY perform pest inspections are exempt from licensing. Very important phrase.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 20. EXEMPTION FROM LICENSING. Any person
licensed by the department of agriculture as a pesticide applicator or
operator under chapter 17.21 RCW, or as a structural pest inspector
under chapter 15.58 RCW who performs only wood destroying organism
inspections, is exempt from the licensing provisions of this chapter.

5

They made some fairly significant changes in the bill. A few of them seem to go beyond the summary that they had.

For example, section 15, reciprocity seems to be gone and I think that makes sense. Other states do not seem to offer this.

Also, they apparently cut out the controversial section 19, which made those complaining immune from a lawsuit by the inspector. That language has been eliminated other than it states, in effect, that state employees performing enforcement cannot be sued by an inspector. This seems better than before.

They put the education requirements much higher again, similar to what they were prior to the sub bill that was S-2054, released a couple weeks back. All of the mentoring is completely gone, as is anything similar to the Oregon system, except the state test in five parts is retained.

They have also put the insurance or bond requirements up to the minimum that those of us who are insured are paying now. Those working on the bond will have to pay more, as they lifted that from $25K to 100K. That probably puts the cost to the inspector at about 1K per year, just guessing, and insurance is about 4x that.

It puts it back with DOL. And, far as I can tell, the language regarding architects and engineers is to allow them to do the work at a home that they have to do, without someone being able to say they did an illegal inspection. For example, the engineer looking at the truss that has been cut. Now, I think this also means that an architect or engineer could probably go into HI and avoid the licensing altogether. That seems unlikely, that these folks with those advanced degrees and PE’s would do that, but it is something that could be controversial.

Any person licensed by the department of agriculture as a pesticide applicator or operator under chapter 17.21 RCW, or as a structural pest inspector under chapter 15.58 RCW who performs only wood destroying organism inspections, is exempt from the licensing provisions of this chapter.

As for the language above, about SPI’s only being able to do wood destroying organism inspections, it seems apparent that the intent is to allow the licensed PCO’s to do pest inspections without having to have the HI license. And it looks like someone,who is not a licensed home inspector, but is an SPI under WSDA, could simply choose to do WDO inspections and do so without the HI license. But, I do not think the opposite would be true: Home inspectors could not do home inspections only without doing the WDO inspection as part of it. It is kind of the opposite of now. Now you can, in theory, do a home inspection calling out unsafe steps if you do not mention WDO issues. As proposed, the SPI without the HI license would be able to mention only WDO issues and could not mention the unsafe steps. As for the licensed home inspector, he or she would have to call out both HI issues and WDO issues.

I have not spent hours mulling this over, but those are the things I noticed.

6

They made some fairly significant changes in the bill. A few of them seem to go beyond the summary that they had.

For example, section 15, reciprocity seems to be gone and I think that makes sense. Other states do not seem to offer this.

Also, they aparently cut out the controversial section 19, which made those complaining immune from a lawsuit by the inspector. That language has been eliminated or incorporated elsewhere in what seems a more reasonable approach.

They put the education requirements much higher again, similar to what they were prior to the sub bill that was S-2054, released a couple weeks back. All of the mentoring is completely gone, as is anything similar to the Oregon system, except the state test in five parts is retained.

They have also put the insurance or bond requirements up to the minimum that those of us who are insured are paying now. Those working on the bond will have to pay more, as they lifted that from $25K to 100K. That probably puts that at about 1K per year, just guessing, and insurance is about 4x that.

It puts it back with DOL. And, far as I can tell, the language regarding architects and engineers is to allow them to do the work at a home that they have to do, without someone being able to say they did an illegal inspection. For example, the engineer looking at the truss that has been cut. Now, I think this also means that an architect or engineer could probably go into HI and avoid the licensing altogether. That seems unlikely, that these folks with those advanced degrees would do that, but it is something that could be controversial. However, realistically if they are licesned, they are PE’s so probably not a problem.

As for the language about SPI’s only being able to do wood destroying organism inspections, I think the intent is to allow the licensed PCO’s to do pest inspections without having to have the HI license. And it looks like someone,who is not a PCO, could simply choose to do WDO inspections and do so. But, I do not think the opposite would be true: that home inspectors could do only home inspections without doing the WDO inspection.

I have not spent hours mulling this over, but those are the things I noticed.

7

I agree Steve. Section 6, lists qualifications for licensure, of which line #5 specifically states that an individual has to provide proof of SPI licensing.

NEW SECTION. **Sec. 6. **QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE. In order to
27 become licensed as a home inspector, an applicant must submit the
28 following to the department:
29 (1) An application on a form developed by the department;
30 (2) The fee in an amount set by the department and approved by the
31 board;
32 (3) Proof of a minimum of one hundred twenty hours of classroom
33 instruction approved by the board;
34 (4) Evidence of successful passage of the written exam as required
35 in section 8 of this act;
Official Print - 4
1 (5) Proof of current state licensure as a structural pest inspector
2 under chapter 15.58 RCW.

8

The bill has passed the Senate----45-2-2

9

It’ll be interesting to see how it comes out in the House. Looks pretty much like we are definitely going to have something in the way of a law this time. Doesn’t seem to be much opposition in the legislature.

10

They could be just waiting to let the House do the dirty work.

11

Do your reps know of your objections to the bill?

12

Not yet.

13

Do the consumers in your market know the negative repercussions that will befall them should this bill pass the house?

14

I’ve been asking you and Nick for proof of your claims but neither of you can give the source of your numbers or claims,

15

Be sure to remind them that even experienced inspectors who are in cahoots with profiteering house salesmen can cause harm to consumersand that your bill does nothing to address it.

As revealed in this report:

16

According to some of your earlier arguments James, licensing will cure the problem of referrals, you said that Realtors will be so afraid of being sued over favoritism that they will simply hand their clients a complete list of licensed Inspectors.

To me the article is about Inspector negligence and the fact that the people have no one to turn to other than Lawyers. Under the proposed Washinton Law they could make a complaint to the State and the Inspectors License could be revoked, especially if he refused or could not pay for the required repairs.

Actually in this case the Inspector has E&O, the case is over Limits of Liability, his contract limited his to the cost of the inspection, the Insurance company says the Moltz’s only deserve $300, but they wanted much more than even the costs of repairs. It will be interesting what the courts come up with, the decision will effect many Home Inspectors in Washington State.

17

I agree this case is not about consumer fraud…this is about an inspector who didn’t perform a thorough inspection, and missed serious defects. (negligence)
…At least according to the KIRO 7 investigators, who would never exaggerate to sell their story. :roll: …or would they?

So here is the Moltzs’ agent, who was new at the time, and learned a valuable lesson…don’t refer inspectors that miss serious defects. I bet if she refers any inspectors at all, she has done her homework.

BTW this was a NAHI inspector…why didn’t he just offer to repair the damage? …its allowed by his COE :smiley: