Washington State latest

If you have not seen this, and it is pretty new, some of the inspectors making recommendations to the Washington State Legislature, are apparently making the following recommendations. See what you think, it will affect a lot of people if this goes in as suggested. In fact, it would alter the current WDO requirements. I know a number of ASHI members were involved in this, not sure about other representation.

The following ****Qualifications for a Home Inspector ****have been approved by The Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group. They are presented in bullet format, in no particular order of importance. They are to be considered ****minimum standards ****for a candidate pursuing a license as a home inspector.

****Education ****
A candidate must:

  1. Possess a high school degree or equivalent.
  2. Complete 120 hours of live classroom education as approved by the governing board.
  3. Pass a nationally recognized, psychometrically evaluated, and legally defensible home inspectors’ exam. At this time there are two such exams available.

A candidate must:

  1. Perform 30 parallel, on-site, and fully supervised home inspections with a licensed home inspector who is performing a fee-paid home inspection as defined by the Standards of Practice.
  2. The final five parallel inspections must be submitted to the governing board with the candidate’s licensing application. The five inspections will be reviewed for competency by means of standards established by the governing board.

No other professional accreditation or license will exempt an individual who desires to be licensed as a home inspector from fulfilling the requirements of home inspector licensing.

Possessing a home inspector’s license from a state other than Washington will not exempt an individual who desires to perform home inspections in Washington State from fulfilling the requirements of Washington home inspector licensing.

A candidate must be legally authorized to do business in the United States and the state of Washington.

A candidate must carry $100,000 in Errors and Omissions Insurance or a $100,000 Surety Bond.

Grandfather Clause
Home inspectors currently practicing in the state of Washington must register with the governing board within one year of the establishment of the regulation. Established inspectors will be required to pay the initial registration fee, but will not have to meet the new education and mentoring requirements. Established inspectors will be required to provide proof of having been in the business of home inspecting for at least three years (by providing tax documents, etc.); and proof of having performed at least 250 full and complete home inspections as defined by the Standards of Practice; and proof of having taken and passed one of the nationally recognized, psychometrically evaluated, and legally defensible home inspectors’ exams as approved by the RCW.

Structural Pest Inspectors License
Possessing a home inspector’s license under new legislation will exempt licensees from having to hold a Structural Pest Inspectors License. If and when a home inspector observes evidence of wood-destroying insect activity, the inspector must defer to, and recommend further evaluation by a licensed Structural Pest Inspector or Pest Control Operator.

Limit of Liability
The limit of liability for a home inspector shall be one year from the date of the home inspection.

Governing Board
The following Governing Board makeup has been approved by the Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group.

  1. Number and Makeup of Board Members: the Board will be made up of seven (7) members: six (6) home inspectors and one (1) member-at-large.
  2. Credentials of Board Member Home Inspectors: must have at least seven years of experience as a home inspector in the state of Washington; must meet current state licensing requirements; must have performed 1,000 home inspections as defined in the current RCW.
  3. Board Terms: terms for home inspectors will be staggered for the fist year at two inspectors for one year; two inspectors for two years; and two inspectors for three years; the term of the member-at-large will be three years; thereafter all terms for all Board members will be three years; all Board members will be limited to two consecutive terms as a maximum.

State Representation
We recommend that both the east and west sides of the state of Washington have representation on the Board.

If you are against legislation fine, if you are for legislation fine. Either way it would be interesting to see what the state of WA is considering as their aforementioned SOP???

The above requirements look similar to the ones we use here in AZ. Our SOP came straight from AZ ASHI.

Pisses me off to no end.

Looks like the new law is being written to keep those Idaho punks from crossing over into the state.:wink:

Also looks like it is written to limit any new competition and to get rid of any inspectors with less than 250 (sound familiar?). Maybe the ASHI# guys want to line their pockets with mentoring money!

Ya think?:shock:

Sorry James, but this “punk” will have over 3 years in business in Washinton State by he time the Law takes effect and my new house in Washington will also be completed. Aren’t you one of thos Missouri Punks who cross over into Illinois, a Licensed State, to do your “walk” inspections.

I like it when another of NACHI’s elite Ethical leaders calls other NACHI members names, it shows your level of intellegence, right down there with the grade schoolers.

Next, like another memberof the wonderful NACHI ESOP Committee, I suppose you’ll threaten me with your Karate, what a joke the ESOP Committee is with you as a member.


Lighten up. I was using “punk” in a playful manner.

Besides, you are not an “automatic” in. You see, you will need to convince a board of Washington State inspectors that your inspections meet their (unnamed and undocumented) level of expertise before they will allow you to cross over the state line and steal their business. Depending upon their generosity, this can take you years to come up to whatever standard they decide, arbitrarily, that you must meet.

No grandfathering for you, since you are out of state.:wink:

This law should not be passed and hopefully will be defeated, depending upon how strong ASHI’s power is over the so called “coalition” that is pushing it.

“Grandfather Clause Home inspectors currently practicing in the state of Washington must register with the governing board within one year of the establishment of the regulation. Established inspectors will be required to pay the initial registration fee, but will not have to meet the new education and mentoring requirements. Established inspectors will be required to provide proof of having been in the business of home inspecting for at least three years (by providing tax documents, etc.); and proof of having performed at least 250 full and complete home inspections as defined by the Standards of Practice; and proof of having taken and passed one of the nationally recognized, psychometrically evaluated, and legally defensible home inspectors’ exams as approved by the RCW.” By July 08’ James I will have been in business doing Home Inspections in Washington State for more than 3 years, My Required WSDA License will also be more than 3 years old, all of my inspections in Washington and Idaho have been exceeded NACHI and ASHI Stadanrds, and I will have more than 250 Washington State Inspections. The NACHI Inspectors who have to worry about the grandfather clause, which I believe is wrong and “Protectionist”, are the many who have failed to obtain their required WSDA SPI License, how are they going to prove they met any new standard when they have not met the Standards that have been in place for years. If I have to meet the requirements of the New SOP, so will every other Inspector in Washington State. I’ll voice my objections to tht parts of this proposal I don’t like to the Members of the Advisory Board and to various Washington State Senators, just like I did last January when they attempted to pass another Bill, that one I could see nothing good in.

I wonder how many Washington inspectors can take comfort in the apparent influence that someone in Idaho has over their livelihoods.

Should this moronic bill ever find itself passed into law, I fear you will not find too many open arms to welcome you to the market they seem so anxious to protect. Of course, you know better…:roll:

I had absolutely NO INPUT on the Advisory Board’s proposal, I finally talked to Jerry Domagala our NACHI Rep a couple of weeks ago, this is the board’s proposal, not mine. I agree with some of it and disagree with a lot of it, supposedly we are now supposed to contact our representatives on the Board with our own ideas, but like I said before Jerry Domagala doesn’t represent me, neither does NACHI for that matter

As a licensed business owner in Washington State I have as much right to determine effects on my business as any other business owner does. Or doesn’t your Free Enterprise Ideology include Interstate Commerce?

I still own three homes in Washington and spend enough time there on my sailboat that I could claim part time residence in either State, I could register and Vote in Washington, and when my new house is completed I will be a Washington Resident, once again.

If I can’t find any “open arms” under this Bill, then neither will many NACHI Inspectors, we supposedly, all inspect to the same standards and both my Washington State Business and WSDA Licenses will be more than 3 years old, read the proposal, the part that I quoted. if my Inspections don’t pass the scruitiny of the “Board” then neither will any other NACHI members.


The NHIE is one test, what’s the other? Nick says the NACHI Test is psycometrically evaluated, is it the other test? Am I supposed to be afraid of the “TEST”?

My bet is that the grandfathering clause will be watered down by the politicians so far as to be meaningless, along with the required number of inspections and the mentoring bill.

The Mentoring portion has no “Plan” for how it would be run, to set one up that would be practical would involve the State Spending Money, that won’t happen.

Who knows, when the final Bill is ready we may both end up on the same side, I’d rather have no regulation than completely bad regulation.

It’s not likely that they would be able to use the WSPI requirements as a legal “ruler” to measure any of the inspections that they would be evaluating considering that those requirements are being let go.

All any inspector would have to do is challenge it, take it to court, show a judge that the WDO requirements are no longer valid and that INDEED home inspectors MUST DEFER to a WDO specialist in all current report, and a judge would laugh at anyone trying to hold that inspector to the previous standard.

Nice try with all the criticism and badgering, not to mention the crap you’ve been feeding real estate agents to try to eliminate your competition.

How are you going to undo all the misinformation you’ve been spreading around Lewis?

Oh, and residency in Washington state is determined by continual occupation (CONTINUAL) for one year or more. Good luck. Owning houses isn’t gonna cut it. That just makes you an out of state landlord.

How reliable of a source do you think agents will find you when they realize that all this time you’ve been telling them not to use other inspectors because the WDO laws are “just about to be enforced”. Oh brother!

No, it’s more likely that you will look like an underhanded, low life businessman who isn’t afraid to stooping to scare tactics to ruin your competitions businesses. (Many of us remember your implied threat of going to the media.)

Looks like you’ll have to find another way to distinguish yourself Lewis. Maybe even quality inspections.:roll:

Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance of the Laws of your own State. To be a Resident of Washington and to be able to vote there requires only 30 days, not a year. I spend enough time at one of my homes and on my boat, which is my 2nd residence, that I can choose to be a resident of either Washington or Idaho, just like a “Snowbird”, all I need to do is change my driver’s license.


If the requirement to show proof of an SPI license was to be included in the grandfathering portion of the bill for any experience claimed by an inspector, then it would stand, and without having an SPI License you have no proof of ever having performed a “complete” inspection according to the present State Statutes

I don’t need to tell the Agents anything, if they haven’t recieved a copy of the letter from WSDA I give them one, the one that says they may be held liable for referring an unlicensed Home Inspector, I didn’t write the letter. As far as looking like a “low life” businessman, wouldn’t that be someone who refused to do business in accordance with State Laws, and who hid the fact from agents and clients that a WDO Inspection was required for practically every home inspection?

I’ve been doing enough “quality” inspections Wendy not to have to worry about the 250 Inspection requirement in the present proposal, and all of mine are “Complete” inspections in accordance with Washington State Law, it seems to me that you should be worrying about meeting the present requirements more than you should any proposed ones.

As far as an “Implied” threat to use the media to push my proposals, there was no implied there, if I need to I’ll use them I will, I thought you were a “Professional” lobbyist yet you are against using the media or any other means to push your lobbying through.

Didn’t you tell us a couple of months ago how you weren’t doing any Home Inspections until you obtained you SPI licnese? Why does your Website still say that you do, sounds “lowlife” to me.

Are you lobbying for the socialization of the home inspection industry in your own state, as well, or are you working strictly to put Washington inspectors under the control of their state? What’s in this for you (and please spare me the “save the consumer” nonsense)?


You are wrong on this account. The WSDA has said to me also that they will be pushing enforcement of the current SPI law. Just because a group has been working on writing new legislation does not mean that the current law is void. The current suggested Home Inpection legislation may very well go the same way the last suggestion did. Into committee and dead. If it takes 6 months or a year to pass, are you going to wait and not perform any inspections?

I don’t know about others, but I plan on keeping my SPI. It would be a marketing plus to be able to say that “I don’t defer, I include a pest report as part of my FULL HOME INSPECTION REPORT. My competition defers to another company that will charge you additional money for their report.”

As an example, everything in the house is fine except for a minor leak at the kitchen trap. In my report, it is included with recommendation. The report is complete and there is no further cost to the buyer. Someone that does not carry their SPI would not be allowed to mention the leak, make a recommendation and they would be required to defer to a SPI. I bet you won’t find a SPI that will come out for less than $50 or maybe $75 because they will have to do a complete inspection, not just verify the one little leak. I will keep the “Full Service” attitude and my SPI license. Cost $45 a year. Lose even 1 inspection because of not having a SPI license, $350. Not worth it.

Business is Business James, what do State lines have to do with it?

I have marketed mainly in the Eastern Washington area because we will be back there once our new house is competed and because with the increase in the number of Inspectors in the area I decided to expand my market. Look at a Map of North Idaho and Eastern Washington, I live just outside of Coeur d’Alene, just a few miles from Russel Spriggs, look at the population of all of North Idaho and then compare it to Spokane County in Eastern Washington, why, especially as we have planned to build there, wouldn’t I expand to Washington?

What happens in Washington effects my business, whether or not I live there or not, I have every right to lobby for or against Bills that effect me. Last year I was against SB 6229 which would have regulated HI’s and I contacted the Senators involved and Legislatures from Eastern Washington and voiced my opinion as a Washington Busness Owner about their Bill, was I wrong, didn’t I have the “right” to do that?

As far as Lobbying for Legislation in either State, I haven’t yet done either, I was asked not to raise too much hell until I saw what the Board’s proposal was, I waited. After the KIRO report and after talking to one of the Senators Aides it’s evident that a Bill will likely be passed this year, I would never have proposed regulation of Hime Inspectors myself, and like we have discussed before, my support of any Bill is “Plan B”, to have a better proposal that most HI’s could live with, one written by HI’s and not Political Aides, the Board’s proposal, unless modified greatly IMO, doesn’t meet that criteria and I will fight to kill it, “Plan C”, as written, if it is modified I may support it, “Plan D”, most likely by lobbying the Senators involved and the legislator’s in Eastern Washington.

As far as lobbying in my “Home”, for now, State, no I haven’t, again, like I told you before I did have a conversation with a State Legislator about regulating HI’s in Idaho, but I didn’t bring up the subject. The question was whether or not HI’s should be registered like General Contractors in Idaho, which means paying a $30 registration fee and showing Proof of $300,000 of liability or E&O insurance, no other requirements.

“Their State”? What is that? Does that mean that all the Washington State Inspectors from the Spokane area shouldn’t come across the State line like they do to perform Inspections in Idaho, many more come this way than go to Washington from Idaho because of the WSDA requirement. Shouldn’t they get involved with lobbying over any proposed regulation in Idaho that may effect their business?

What about you? If I have no right to lobby in a State where I am a licensed business owner, and have been for most of the last 20 years, what right to interfere do you have?

Me, I generally happy with the way things are, except for the damed SPI thing, I market that I have E&O and a WSDA License and that clients and realtors should check and see if the Inspector they choose to Hire is insured and licensed, most NACHIInspectors, at least those in Eastern Washington have neither. It’s competition, just like marketing that you do Mold, Radon, Water/Well Inspections, or that you use a Thermal Imaging Camera to detect moisute and insulation problems, if Regulation were passed I would lose much of that marketing advantage as everyone would be the same.

We also disagree on the subject of “Good Inspectors” forcing the bad ones out of business, you say the “Good” will win out over the “bad” inspectors, but you have to look at what determines “Good and Bad”, many “Bad” Inspectors are the Darlings of the Realtors, they never kill a deal, they never upset the realtor, and they seldom represent the client, yet they get lots of the referrals and many Realtors consider them the “Good” Inspectors

Well, in the case of laws that effect people’s lives who reside within a state, I would think that geographical boundaries are pretty important.

I would think that you would, too, since this legislation could very easily backfire on you in committee and become a law that keeps you from doing business in that state. In that regard, state lines will become very significant.

I hate to admit it Stephen, but I’m leaning that way too, I’m not sure though wheter to Market the WDO Inspection as an “added” feature of my Home Inpsection, or as an Additional Inspection like Radon, mold, Water’Well, etc.

My main bitch has been that I am forced to be a Licensed Pest Inspector who does Home Inspections intead of a Home Inspector who chooses to do Pest Inspections.

I don’t believe this new proposal will go much of anywhere, there will be too much opposition to the grandfathering clause and the mentoring, that may be why the Board wrote it this way, from what I’ve heard most of the Board Members are against Regulation. When a proposal is written to be so Protectionist, it must have been written to fail.

Do you read at all James? The first thing is that by the time this Law Passes, if it does, I will be in my new House IN WASHINGTON, All I need to do to become a Washington Resident now is to change my driver’s license and pay my Idaho Income Tax as a part Time Resident, my wife and I spend enough time living on our boat and at our cabin to qualify as Residents, just like the Snowbirds do. The second thing would be that a State cannot limit Interstate Commerce based upon the residency of the Business Owner. My business has been licensed in Washington State as an LLC for almost two years now, the majority of my inspections have been in Washington and in compliance with the present Washington State Laws.

Show me one example of any State being able to limit the ownership of Businesses to residents of their own State. How would they even write it?

Could they say that an Inspector would have to have performed 250 COMPLETE Inspections in accordance with previous Washington State Laws, and that the Inspector would have to prove that he had been a legally licensed business in Washington for three years, been there/done that (at leat I will have the 250 by the time the Bill takes effect, probably by the time it passes if I don’t go to New Zealand in April).

Passing any Bill that restricted the ownership and operation of a business by a Non-resident would be very interesting, think of the ramifications, not even nationwide, but just in Wahington alone, think of the hundreds of business owners in Washington who live outside the State, many right here in Norht Idaho, or would your restriction limit the resident requirement to only HOme Inpsectors, that would sure make it a long way in the Courts wouldn’t it.

Do YOU read at all Lewis?

Since there is no SOP in place currently, I can only deduce that it will be according to a NEW SOP which would NOT include the current definition of full and complete, due to the fact that the WDO laws would no longer apply.


Since there is no SOP currently in effect the only definition of a full and Complete Home Inspection would be one performed by a Home Inspector with an SPI License. You have to perform your Inspections to the present Standard, not one that has not taken effect , the grandfathering clause is about past inspections not future ones under a new SOP. You could not claim to have performed 250 “Complete” inspections under an nonesistant SOP, the way the proposal is written it doesn’t mention where the 250 inspections had to be done, Inspectors coming from another State without the SPI requirement would have performed “Complete” Inspections, but in Washington a Complete Inspection requires mention of conditions conducive to WDO infestation, therefore to do a “complete” inspection in Washington you would need to have done the inspections in accordance with State Law and the NACHI or ASHI, etc. Sop’s which require the reporting of moisture damage, water leaks, earth to ground contact, etc. Without the SPI you cannot legally follow the SOP or the COE, your inspections wouldn’t count as the would be either illegal or partial.

But you aren’t doing ANY Inspections until you get your SPI License right? So how are you going to meet any requirement for a number of Inspections, Draws are not Complete by any Standard?