InterNACHI legislation adds licensed home inspectors to those who are exempt from...

jbushart · July 11, 2011, 3:17am

There are some in your state who would argue that you need a mold license to order a salad with blue cheese. It reminds me a lot of the guys in Washington state who once were able to BS newbies into thinking they had to have a WDI/WDO license (requiring E&O) to inspect a house, just to scare away the competition.

gromicko · July 11, 2011, 3:28am

No. Read lines 37 through 40 in http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill…llText/er/HTML

douglas · July 11, 2011, 11:55am

OK lets go with 5 square feet of visual mold. You do a mold test. What kind are you going to do? Viable or non-viable. Lets say you do a swab test and it comes back Stachybotrys. Now you get the results, now what do you do?

Do you tell them its mold and to call a mold assessor? Do you tell them how to remediate (your not allowed), can you tell the extent of the contamination without a air quality test? SO now the air quality test comes back Pick it high or low, your still not allowed to comment on the remediation or lack there of.

So what is the purpose, besides ripping off a homeowner, is the reason for a test by a non mold assessor? You cannot comment on the findings except, yep its mold, and to then tell them to call a person who will then run their own test and cost the consumer twice. Is that fair to the consumer? Is that professional and moral of a home inspector.

If you cannot tell if something is mold from looking at it (or at least being 99% sure) well then consider a different career. I have yet to find something that looked like mold, tested it and it was NOT mold. I never swabbed a booger thinking it was mold. People will play the, I cannot tell 100% that is mold without testing.

I see water staining, I see wood flooring that is decayed, and damaged drywall. I am pretty sure that greenish/black stuff on the wall is mold.

What many professionals use mold testing for is NOT to determine if mold is there, but what type of mold because that alone can tell an entire story. Different molds take different conditions to grow. From just walking into a place we don’t usually have history. Also to find the levels of air contamination to determine the protocol for cleaning.

So even if home inspectors can DO the testing, it is all fine and dandy when clean results show up, but what about when high readings are noted, then what?

So the wall with 5 sq feet of visual mold is present, and they open the wall and its 50 square feet. I know its VISUAL when tested. But once again, do you want to offer a service and then look like an idiot when the results come in.

Mr. Smith the lab came back with (pick any type of mold) on the swab sample I took. I legally cannot tell you what to do, except to call a professional. Who will then come in and retest the area. How would you feel as a homeowner? My first thought would be, why the hell did I pay the first guy? Do you want to ever provide a service where you cannot be as professional as possible? Shine the best light on your company and yourself?

The way I look at it is, if your 100% prepared to be a professional and an authority on the items you are testing for, then your hurting two people, your client and yourself. If you offer something, do it right, do it professionally and be prepared to follow through and answer legitimate questions.

Does this help Larry? Did I answer your question?

Excellent post Russell (my humble opinion)
We are going to have to call it sampling not testing. (DBPR)
Over the years “people” have called sampling testing so often we have started doing it. Air Quality testing is a good example.

Good job / post

gromicko · July 11, 2011, 12:56pm

Lines 37 through 40 in http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill…llText/er/HTML do not make mention of “square feet.”

What do those line exempt license home inspectors from? In other words, if lines 37 through 40 didn’t exist, how would things be different? This is what the DBPR needs to explain to us. Those lines can’t mean nothing.

rhensel · July 11, 2011, 7:44pm

Thats what a goverment agency “NEEDS to EXPLAIN to US”? The need to explain nothing. The will send down their judgement and that will be that. Sure we can fight it, we can argue it. But do you really think they are going to allow home inspectors to do mold assessments? That would reduce the number by 70% I guess. Doesn’t make sense to me. What about the insurance amounts? Would we then need a Million? Would it have to be mold specific as well as home inspection?

Too many viarables, to many gray area and to much of cluster. I just don’t see it happening. I am so confident I got $500 riding on it.

We shall see, but the senitment according to the FL NACHI newsletter doesn’t look good.

It would be the end of mold assessor licensing. Why would anyone get a mold assessors license? I would just get a home inspectors license and then do mold. Cheaper insurance, way less training needed, way less experience needed. There would not be a prudent person who would get a mold assessors license they would all just get home insepctors license.

Nick I think Nachi Nickels takes pay pal…get your Credit card ready.

gromicko · July 11, 2011, 8:02pm

The DBPR doesn’t get to decide who performs mold tests. The elected legislators of the State of Florida get to decide… and they did. The legislators also get to decide who is exempt from complying with the provisions of mold assessment… and they did.

rhensel · July 11, 2011, 8:07pm

I think they can interpret, can they not? IF there is a question such as this one, can they no give a ruling on the LAW?

PAY PAL…$500 to NACHI NICKELS…won’t happen doesn’t make sense. Kinda like giving an EMT a PA license. The criteria to become a mold inspectors is much more than a home inspector. Just doesn’t pass the common sense test.

Hell if it does happen I will cancel my mold insurance and give up my license and save a TON of money…

As far as the DBPR, I realize they don’t make law, but I do think they interpet and rule on questions and then enforce.

bhoagland · July 12, 2011, 2:17am

Take a break guys. Wait and see. Personally I will be happy just to be able to call mold I see mold and refer it to the specialist. I don’t care what kind it is if it is there it calls for a forensic investigation to determine the cause. The mold is NOT the problem. The conditions allowing the mold growth are. Good home inspectors are qualified to determine that. More qualified than most other trades.

rhensel · July 12, 2011, 2:43am

But that is only 1/2 of the issue. Sometimes the cause has been repaired. Sometimes there is no active defect, now what. Can “good” home inspectors see all mold? What if the house had mold 3 years ago and they just wiped it off. So many issues that are not so obvious, yet can be extremely detrimental. So much more than just what meets the eye.

gromicko · July 12, 2011, 5:51am

Let’s not confuse legally qualified with actually qualified. The two are totally different.

I once asked a friend of mine (who is a judge) if she though O.J. was guilty. She replied “No, he is definitely not guilty.” Then, as I looked at her bewildered and as she looked back at me bewildered, for looking at her bewildered, she said… “Oh, you mean is he actually guilty? Yes, of course he is.”

I’m hoping the DBPR attorneys think like my friend the judge.

rhensel · July 12, 2011, 10:32am

Nick I see your point. I thought that was to be presented. I now see the last sentence of the bill. I may be the one breaking out my credit card. Time will tell.