Read more here:
Read more here:
What is in the water up there Peter? Artisieans?
Here we go
For all of you state Licensing junkies, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it, and you did SHAFTED.
The original licensing law was just the beginning, and as I predicted, the rest was yet to come, the nose was under the tent. It is the tinkering with the new law that will (and is) going to come back and bite you!
You will now need a chemstry degree along with a fire inspector license to do a complete inspection under the law.
Mold is the key to every attorney to get into your back pocket. Remember all those mold related law suites of years back against apartment owners and rental houses owners. You are next in line and in the sights of many attorneys in the state.
I got slammed on a mold issue with one of my rentals, due to a small leak under the kitchen sink the tennant did not make me aware of, which she maintained made her child sick.
Just remember, you asked for it, now you are going to get it!
Hope ya all have a good insurance policy, you’re going to need it!
Remember what we learned at the outset…before the bill was even written.
Washington inspectors were using a WDO law that didn’t even apply to try to keep down their competition by making it expensive to compete.
These same guys got to the legislature and got a law passed that would allow them to make the rules. What kind of rules would you expect them to make?
This is not a law to protect consumers…it is a law to protect market share.
ABSOLUTLY TRUE!!! Was my contention all along!!! They are able to limit competition to protect their own inability to make it in the real world of business on their own. Much like unions!!!
It has always been my position of the HI laws that it is not the orginal law (which is bad enough), but the tinkering of the law to the special interests after the law is passed that wil come back to haunt you. Hang on, Washington inspectors, the ride is just beginning, and I don’t think you will like the ride.
You think this is bad, don’t forget the language in the original bill. The Home Inspection licensing, staff and administration costs ARE REQUIRED to be self supporting by license fees.
The latest word from the State was that the initial license was going to be $682 for a two year license, and then somewhere around $350-$375 for the renewal 2 year licenses. Ok.
How about this problem. They were basing that initial license fee on something like 1500 inspectors in the state. Well that isn’t going to be even close. Inspectors are dropping out here left and right due to the downturn. So what happens when only 1000 inspectors sign up for the first round of licenses? Does that mean our self sustaining initial license fee will really not be $682 but will be closer to $1000?
Plus the more meetings required by the Board and the paid State Staff will drive the costs up and those are paid by… yep, the inspectors. Add in new bills and language for the Board to address, add more time to the Board and paid State Staff bill that will be paid by…yep, the inspectors. :twisted:
Soooooo glad I chose this side of the line, when I moved from Colo . . .
I have a feeling you are being to optimistic that the drop off of inspectors would only be one third it was last year. In some licensed states there is almost a 2/3 drop off. So then I would not surprised to see home inspection licensing fees triple. Sad, but most likely true.
No unfortunately worse…Liberals :roll:
I would suspect that the first year will be the $682, but then after they find out how many licensees there really is, the following years we will get hammered.
Are you really seeing alot of home inspectors leave the industry? I know of three, but they left well before the recent economic turn down and before the licensing bill was passed.
A requirement to inspect for mold will result in:
1 boilerplate warning of obstructed areas
2 an advisory to have the home reinspected when it is vacant
3 an advisory to have mold testing done
4 any speck of visible mold reported
The information overflow will protect the inspector and provide information over load to the buyer. When some do gooder tries to put a monkey on your back you simply put the monkey on someone else’s back. Delegation of liability.
Fire safety will result in similar language.
A prudent WA inspector would share Mr. Cahill’s post with the state association of realtors and solicit their support in stopping a runaway licensing board looking to do nothing but eliminate their competition.
I’m preparing for the upcoming Kansas law with phrases like: …
We DID NOT perform any mold tests or mold / air sampling evaluations at this property. A visual inspection alone can not verify the absence or presence of mold OR the significance of EVEN visual signs of mold. Almost all homes have some form of mold spores present, most of which are not harmful. Mold however, can cause health and respiratory problems for some people. Mold types and their significance can only be discovered through sampling and laboratory analysis. A competent mold or indoor air quality specialist can provide further information, testing or evaluation for you.
We DID NOT not perform any radon testing or radon sampling or evaluation at this property. A visual home inspection alone can not verify the absence or presence of radon gas. A NRSB or NEHA certified radon specialist can provide more information or testing for you. The EPA suggests that 4.0 pCi/l (pico curies p/litre) and above is the point where remedial action (reduction/mitigation) is recommended. A radon screening test for 48 hours or more that records readings at the property is typically performed at the property, using an electronic continuous reading monitor or other approved device.
Radon Gas is considered to be a “Class A Carcinogen”, and according to health professionals like the EPA, the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, and the local health departments, long term exposure to Elevated Radon Levels is considered to be the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer after smoking.
We’re spending so much time telling them what we don’t do, we’re running out of time to tell them what we did do.
If this WA law passes, I think I might be moving to WA. Sounds like any mold experts will be doing well.
The law has passed. Their board is now exercising its powers to limit the number of inspectors competing against them by raising the cost of doing business.
They already have licensed WDO experts (mold and bugs)…but they want the home inspector to carry the same financial burdens. It was a trick they used to limit competition before their law passed and clearly removed WDO from the SOP. It worked well in holding down the numbers, before, and now they want to put it back in, somehow.
Marketing through legislation. Same old story.
I thought the mold part was a bill or amendment that was going to be added to the law. Was a home inspection law passed that included mold too?
The licensing board is misusing its authority by including it in the SOP. Since they have the authority to write the SOP, I suppose they felt they could put these additional requirements in it.
The law was written to purposefully exclude WDO from home inspections, which ticked these guys off. The WDO law in the state required the carrying of E&O insurance, which part timers cannot afford…and this kept them out of the business.
Now that WDO is no longer a part of home inspecting, there is nothing in the law to keep the part timers out. Thus…adding WDO to the SOP in effect reinstates the activity, which their next step will be to state that it will require “dual licenship”. Watch.
Watching how slickly these licensing boards members are able to further their own personal marketing objectives when the law allows them to…one must fight to kill any licensing law that does not specifically make the board “advisory, only” in nature so that additional legislative action would be required to made such drastic additions and changes.
To me…the biggest question remaining for the State of Washington is this:
Will NACHI come to the defense of its members who are being harmed, or will the fact that this board has a relationship with NACHI Tv/On-line Education Courses force NACHI to remain silent and allow such harm to come to its members?
The licensing board is certainly attempting to reshape the law from its original intent to distinguish clearly between the two professions. Who will assist them by remaining silent? Take notes, and remember when this comes to your neighborhood.