Maryland Licensing Update

I had two conversations with Mr. Elwood Mosley, head of the home inspection licensing dept. for MD. Inspectors that were in business prior to 2002 and who had previously applied to be “grandfathered” are currently being reviewed by the MD. board and some have been issued a license. They apparently do not have any formal inspection training requirements. On the other hand, all inspectors that started in business after 2002 are being subjected to different requirements. It does appear that most if not all applicants (post 2002) will be required to complete a 48 hour in class inspection course, with the course contents approved by the state. It may not matter if the inspector has already completed a 48 hour course, as I did in 2005. It makes no sense to be forced back to Inspection 101, after already completing the course and having gained two years of practical experience. Not to mention the fact that it will take months to complete the course due to scheduling problems, while the “grandfathered” inspectors can advertise the fact that they are licensed, and the rest of us cannot through no fault of our own. This present a great imbalance, unfair to the inspectors who have worked very hard to establish a new business. I am all for licensing, but this system creates a very uneven playing field.

John Evans:neutral:

Then you have no right to complain, IMO. Your destiny is in the hands of the state…just as you wished. Good luck.

Licensing solves nothing.

Lets be fair to Mr. Evans who clearly has a stake in the outcome of licensing in our state. IMO I don’t believe that he is stating that he really wants licensing so much as he is stating that he would hope that any licensing is fairly applied across the board to all concerned.

I was told last night by an inspector on the western shore, that “letters are already going out to realtors to inform them to get ready to inform their clients not to hire any inspector that is not licensed by the state”, or words to that affect.

Here’s the rub as I see it, according to the FAQ at The grandfathered group will begin to get their licenses beginning now over the next 9 months or year or whatever, before the mandatory date is actually effective. That way there will be at least some state licensed inspectors in the pool. How many is that I wonder? The post 2002 group, which really means the 2007 group(everybody in between doesn’t exist!), will have their applications approved on a STAGGERED basis, some this month, others the next month, and more each of the following months; I presume spread out over a 12 month period. This would appear to be soley for the convenience of the state to spread the licensing income of $400, and 2 year renewal fee of $400, and approval process out more evenly across the entire calendar year.

I expect when the application requirements are finally finalized there will be a rush of applications initially. It seems conceivable that some working inspectors may not be approved for several months, during which time it would be illegal for them to conduct any inspections. Ouch! Doesn’t seem fair if the state could put you out of business, while you wait to be recognized.

By the way, according the the NAHI blog above, there is a meeting tonight the 14th, at which I believe Mr. Mosely from the Commission will be speaking to provide an update to those in attendance. I look forward to any new news that may land on the blog page as a result. IMO that blog is the only real source of current information we have, so please keep it up.

If you are “for licensing”, you are “for” everything that goes with it.

One cannot be “for open marriage” and then expect sympathy when your wife has been unfaithful.

You have control over your business, your market and your destiny…or you relenquish those controls to the state. Go to the New York licensing threads and read what is happening to them…today…with the law that they virtually wrote themselves.

Sorry, but if licensing requirements are applied on an equal basis, I think state licensing will eventually eliminate unqualified inspectors. Unfortunately, the Maryland politicians, true to form, are putting the screws to any post 2002 inspector. The points I made in the initial post underscore the fact that inspectors who fall under the “grandfather” clause are receiving preferential treatment. The “grandfather” deal should NOT exist. Yes, there will be many inspectors affected by this ruling, some may go under! I am trying to contact state delegates and even the governor, to attempt to somehow correct this unfair situation. Like it or not, my guess is all states will establish licensing mandates in the not to distant future. For you to state that I get what I deserve because I do support FAIR licensing requirements is way off base.

John Evans

If you were correct about that, Mr. Evans, there would be no such thing as a bad driver. Doctors, lawyers, and especially home inspectors would not need malpractice/E&O insurance. There would be no such thing as a bad haircut. I could go on…:wink:

Does not even deserve a response.

I agree, but for differing reasons than you, I am sure.

You can - today - observe from 30 states with some form of licensing and regulation that not one of them…none of them…zero…zilch…have eliminated the unqualified inspector. In fact, most report that the bar has been lowered.

Inspectors in Illinois need to achieve a mere 6 hours of CEUs per year, versus 24 for the NACHI member in an unlicensed state.

Arizona requires no continuing education at all.

In all states, the very basic and minimal qualifications for initial licensing has become - in the mind of the consumer - what it takes to be a good home inspector. From there, it is the one with the basic qualifications with the lowest fee who gets the job.

Sure, there is an exception here and there but nowhere, sir…in any state…has licensing made the “unqualified inspector” obsolete.


I spoke with Mr. Mosely by phone last week and posted on another thread the jist of our conversation. He told me that back in 2002 there were only 167 applicants for grandfathering and that today (5 years later) he is having trouble finding most of them (many retired, went out of business, moved, sold, etc.). Also, he is not doing any other grandfathering.

Thanks for that nugget of Maryland information. I know we have one grandfathered NACHI member in Dave Dulaney who ironicly operates out of West-by-god-Virginia!! Are there more? So I’m guessing maybe there remain 100 viable early grandfather applicants statewide? possibly fewer?? And perhaps the geographical concentration of those applicants may be centered around the the Washington/Baltimore population corridor??, or not like Mr. Dulaney out there on the western frontier.

With that said, I wonder how the state can continue to justify the existence of the approval process that provides for the few(er) grandfathered pre-2002 applicants, the “been-here’s”; versus all other subsequent applicants, the "the “johnny-come-lately"s”? Surely, the latter will outnumber the former.

Yes, there are about 100 to 150 inspectors who qualify for the grandfather rule. During my conversations with Mr. Mosley, he indicated that his board is still in the process of reviewing grandfathered applicants, and some licenses have been issued. I do not know the number, but one is too many. We need to be very concerned about the 48 hour requirement, especially for the inspectors that have completed previous 48 hour training.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Mr. Mosely, he didn’t show for some reason. But, it was okay he was replaced by 2 of the nahi commissioners.
Keep checking the blog, perhaps he will post what developed.

For any of you folks that are located near the MD/PA border and inspect in both states like I do, you might want to keep an eye on this.

The proposed PA law seems to be much stricter that anything MD thought about.

I have to agree. I don’t see where either state would accept the SOP of the other. No receiprosity chances there. I would guess that means two licenses

[FONT=Arial]Looks live Mr. Mosely moves around, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]On another note, we have arranged to have Elwood Mosley the Executive Director for the “The Commission” speak at our Chapter meeting on April 17, 2007. I will have more information to send to you about this meeting in the following weeks. If you plan to attend the Chapter meeting on April 17, please send me an email so I can reserve your seat. The April 17, meeting will require a reservation for a seat, so don’t wait[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Jim Minichiello[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Secretary / Treasurer Chesapeake Chapter of NACHI[/FONT]

PA’s proposed law does have reciprosity built into it, but it requires that the license requirements of the other state be equal to or exceeding that of PA. The way I’m reading MD’s legislation, MD’s license requirements wouldn’t be considered equal to PA’s requirements. They don’t seem to be as stringent.

MD’s requirements, however, seem to be more reasonable and much more to my liking.

I’m glad you prefer MD’s apparent advantages over PA. It does seem like PA placed the emphasis differently. Some of us regularly working in Maryland remain concerned about implementation. Also, we haven’t seen any final SOP requirements, so that remains an unknown.

The understanding is that the SOP will be a combination of ASHI and NAHI.

I haven’t followed PA’s battle at all. Are you suggesting it is the PA SOP that will likely be crafted from ASHI and NAHI SOP’s? You are not talking about MD are you? Cause if you were I have to aske where that was learned?