Did DBPR ever release an opinion regarding home inspectors performing mold tests?

It’s been a few weeks now.

Not that I know of…one of us is gonna make NACHI Nickels $500 Richer

My question for the DBPR is?

  1. Why can’t a Home Inspector use a swab, chain of evidence form, and send it off to Prolabs for lab testing?

  2. It apprears to me, when reading the educational requirements for the Mold Assessor License, the Legislature had a something other than Home Inspectors and Home Inspections in mind.

Following up on my second point, I’d like to know just how many Mold Assessors would be licensed** IF NOT FOR GRANDFATHERING???**



I would not have qualified for a Florida Mold Assessors license (which I hold), had it not been for grandfathering and InterNACHI, even though I was already very qualified to perform mold assessments.

Sometimes, licensing puts unqualified people into business and puts qualified people out of business.

13 total in Colleir and Lee Counties :slight_smile:

DBPR had estimated 425 (mold assessors and Remediators) in Florida until the state opened the door and let the hacks in.
Qualifying for a license today means something, yesterday (2010) was a joke.
Our sales are up 22% over last year so I guess it hasn’t hurt us but it’s wrong (grandfathering).
Qualifications should protect the professionals and the public.

Of course everyone knows my view. Everyone enjoy the weekend, gotta clean the pool and cook steaks.

Are we getting close to an answer?

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pro/division/Servicesthatrequirealicense_mold.html

Needs a License:

Advertising or representing oneself to be a Mold Assessor or Remediator.

Taking samples for purposes of testing for the presence of mold.

If I were a Florida home inspector, this definition from the link you provided would convince me that I do not need a license.

(1) An “assessment of mold” is a process performed by a “mold assessor”, according to this definition — not a “home inspector”.
(2) Any sampling I would take would NOT be for the purpose of “formulating an initial hypothesis” … but to simply report an observation of a substance and allow a laboratory to inform my client of its content. Once my client had the facts provided to him by a lab, he could communicate those facts to an appropriate contractor. No hypothesis of any nature would be involved in my part of the process at all.
(3) Whatever sampling I took, it would not be of anything that I have identified as “mold growth” of any size. Thus, the 10 sq foot rule would not apply since, as far as I know without the results of a test, it’s ten square feet of mud.
(4) No where does this law require that a substance “suspected to be mold” be addressed by a licensed person. The requirement for a license is limited to the sampling of actual mold…a fact that no one is able to determine prior to a laboratory result.
(5) A home inspection report does not involve the “detailed evaluation” of any data by the inspector. It is simply a report of what is observed. Any “detailed evaluation” would be provided to the client by the lab, not the inspector, who is not a part of any “evaluation” process.

The law was obviously written by someone with the assistance of a mold remediator with limited abilities to think beyond their desire to limit his competition.

Its wording makes it virtually impossible to enforce.

This helps, too:

I would never advertise myself as a Mold Assessor or Remediator … and any sampling that I took would NOT be for the “purpose of testing for the presence of mold”. That is what assessors and remediators do. I am taking a sample of an unknown substance to include in my description of the condition of a property for the purpose of preparing a home inspection report. Big difference, in my opinion.

http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pro/division/Servicesthatrequirealicense_mold.html

Wow all that jargon and it states rather in plain english on the left side of the lower box. I don’t see where that comes to confusion.

Needs a license:
Taking samples for purposes of testing for the presence of mold.

Seems kinda cut and dry to me. But let me guess, Nick will disagree.

Why do you think it is taking them so long to produce an official opinion? I know why. What they want the law to be is a bit different than what the law is.

So your saying the official website is not really “official”?

Guys,
When asked for an “official” opinion it’s usually provided in a written response to the party that asked for it. The website can say what ever they are still required to answer the specific question in writing (provided it was requested properly)

These are just my thoughts:

All of the DBPR’s and the Legislature’s language on this issue, leads me to believe that they had another group (other than home inspectors) in mind when they created the Mold Assessor. Just as Mold Remidiators are a subclass of contractors that specialize in Mold remediation. Mold assessors were intended to license entities that inspect for and assess a building and it’s systems specifically for mold.

This is very different from the HI who takes a couple of mold samples and sends them off to a lab as part of a broader Home inspection.

All the language over the 10’ is specifically designed to allow, testing of the visually apparent by Home Inspectors as part of their licensed activities.

The language and requirements for a Mold Assessor license is so specific. The intent can only be to license entities that inspect specifally and exclusively for mold. Not as secondary service performed to determine if it’s mud or mold as part of a general inspection performed as part of a real estate transaction.

Honestly, if you approach this as I do the 10’ makes perfect sense. HI’s and those not specifically licensed are not going to be running around performing Mold inspections. Any Mold testing, would be done as part of a larger inspection. Any excessive levels of mold (greater than 10’) would be refered to the appropiate licensed professional. Just like we should be advising in the case of structural, electrical, ect…

Either way one wishes to interput the law, the 10’ language is writen in it. I believe the DPBR is just trying to figure out how to word this correctly.

Reminds me of Dem’s and Rep on what is a tax increase.

This may also be confusing to the public:

© Use the name or title “certified mold assessor,” “registered mold assessor,” “licensed mold assessor,” “mold assessor,” “professional mold assessor,” or any combination thereof unless the person has complied with the provisions of this part.

Is a certified mold inspector the same as a certified mold assessor?

Last line in law has always intrigued me
468.8424 Rulemaking authority.—The department shall adopt rules to administer this part. History.—s. 33, ch. 2010-106; s. 25, ch. 2010-176.

People wishing to limit their competition would like to see this law interpretted to mean that you need a license before you can order a salad with blue cheese dressing. That’s why they bought the law.

The problem is that, through the legislative process, language was added that makes what they bought impossible to enforce.

Until a lab has confirmed what the substance is … one cannot be taking a sampling of “mold”. They are sampling an unknown substance found in a home they inspected. When the lab tells them what it is (paint, mold, rot, lint, moss, etc) they report that finding to their client in an addendum to an inspection report or simply forward the report from the lab.

Now, the licensed mold guy would love a requirement that forced a home owner to call him for his higher fee to sample the fluffy gray substance collecting around the dryer exhaust vent in the crawlspace but, unless he absolutely knows it to be mold, this law does not require a home inspector to be licensed to sample it.

There are those who, for their own marketing purposes and business plans, would like to see it interpretted in the most limiting and restrictive manner. I don’t blame them, but I also wouldn’t pay any attention to them if I were there.

On your chain of custody you really list unknown substance? :slight_smile:

Lot of wishful think going on here. Still seems strange to me to require mold assessors to have 4 years experience and pass ACAC exam then allow an HI to collect mold samples. Home inspectors can be licensed in 3 to 4 weeks with no experience, really protects the public.

Found 18 licensed GC’s in Charlotte county that offer/perform home inspections with no home inspector license. They say that’s ok and legal.
I’m offering our services to them, but doesn’t seem right to me but it’s their business.

Maybe people mistake mold with lint in Mo. Just doesn’t happen much here.

They say but the law says otherwise.
I wonder what the Realtors in Charlotte say about it, in Citrus we’ve educated most of them and they’ll steer the client away from an unlicensed inspector. What happens if a Buyer wants to back out on the strength of the home inspection and it was done by an unlicensed entity? As of July the DBPR is supposed to follow up on any complaints of unlicensed activity.

Talked to a top listing agent about MIC.

The conversation steered toward licensing…She had no idea

Lost an inspection last week because the buyer was more through than I thought.
The buyer hired an electrician, plumber (complete with boroscope) and a g.c. to inspect the home…No written report. I asked how many estimates, she just laughed.

There are those that will pay to hire the specialist(s) or get the “free” check up the various contractors offer rather than the home inspector. They then need to be sure they can trust that company not to find “extra” defects they can give a quote on.

As far as the agent not knowing only one thing to do, make sure they do. I and 2 other inspectors are pretty active in our local realtors assoc., we try to keep them informed. Believe it or not I think we all get more work from that than by asking for it.

What happens if a buyer wants to back out on the strength of a mold report from an unlicensed mold inspector (home inspector)?

Just asking, not poking anyone.