Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I have my license as a NY Professional Engineer, so I thought I would share my thoughts on this topic.
I think it is a good idea to license home Inspectors, as long as the licensing requirements are reasonable and they consider the reality that most home inspectors seem to be independents. It provides a licensed status for inspectors, and helps weed out totally incompetent inspectors and practices which might negatively impact the public or the public's view of home inspectors. It's not a guarantee of competence, but a minimum standard ... like building codes.
While I am not really up to speed on all the details, seems like most of the recent proposals in NY are to license home inspectors similar to a Profession like an engineer or architect, as opposed to just licensing the practice similar to some other occupational fields. It may not be practical or necessary to regulate home inspection as a Profession since this usually requires significant education, testing, and verifiable experience under the direct supervision of a professional already licensed.
For example, to get a PE license in NY one generally has to complete a 4 year college degree, pass a comprehensive all day EIT principals exam, work under a PE for about 5-6 years to get a minimum of 4 years of verifiable engineering experience, and then pass another comprehensive all day PE practical exam to then get the license.
It doesn't seem to make sense to propose professional licensure for home inspectors where this level of technical expertise is not needed for basic home inspections, where the public risk is generally not severe, and where state laws do not even require home inspections prior to sale.
Seems like it would be more reasonable to license home inspection similar to some of the other occupations regulated by the state, like a Licensed Independent Adjuster. They are required to take a state exam, and to either work under someone licensed for a year to verify experience or as an option to the experience (or servitude if you like ... lol) they can take an approved 40 hour training class.
For home inspectors I would think it would be reasonable as a minimum to require completion of an approved training course (say 40 - 60 hours) and require passing a state exam to get a license as a Home Inspector. The next legislative step up would be to make these a requirement to obtain a license as say an "Associate Home Inspector", and then require some form of experience verification to obtain the "Home Inspector" license. The experience verification could have several options.
One experience option could be for an Associate Home Inspector to work under a licensed Home Inspector for a certain amount of time (say a year), and perform a minimal number of verified inspections (say 25 or so) reviewed and counter-signed by the licensed Home Inspector ... or something along those lines. Another option could be for an Associate Home Inspector to perform a more substantial number of inspections (say 200 or so), and to have a minimal number of representative inspection reports submitted for detailed review (say 25 or so) ... or something along those lines. Nothing concrete here ... just throwing out ideas.
And I think any proposed legislation should also address what I think at least appears to be a conflict of interest where a seller's real estate agent is often the one recommending the home inspector. If home inspectors are to be licensed then they truly need to only represent their client, which is usually a home buyer, so they can be free of any potential influence or conflicts of interest.
Perhaps seller's agents should not be allowed to recommend specific home inspectors to potential buyers, and might only be allowed to refer potential buyers to state lists of licensed home inspectors or home inspector organizations (that could have membership requirements that exceed state laws, like an on-line inspection exam and additional experience requirements, so that the clients will get a "warm and fuzzy" that the are hiring someone competent).
By the way, I also think home inspection contracts should be allowed to have limitation of liability clauses, and insurance for home inspectors should not be mandatory. Getting liability/E&O insurance is a risk assessment an inspector should be allowed to decide for themselves, as it would allow consideration that having the insurance might actually attract lawsuits. People/lawyers tend to think that if you have insurance you will settle even the most ridiculous lawsuit because it is cheaper to settle than to be right. Insurance also usually doesn't cover someone for gross negligence, which I think is the real risk of harm to the public, and which can be a cause for losing a license as a check.
I also think that laws should not have mandatory association membership requirements, and proposing this might at least appear to be somewhat self-serving even if it is done with the best of intentions.
I don't think any of the proposed NYS licensing laws mentioned, or the models they seem to be based on, appear reasonable. The NAHI licensing model/proposals seem a little more reasonable than ASHI models/proposals, but I still see problems and issues (like the membership and insurance requirements). I don't see an NACHI proposal on model legislation (unless I missed it), and maybe that could be done if the resources are available. It is always better to propose alternates and revisions, and explain why they are better, instead of just opposing something.
Just figured I would put in my 2-cents (or nickels if you consider inflation and how much I wrote ... lol). 
