Thread: Home inspectors need licensing - The Olympian

InspectionNews has just found the following information that might be of interest to you:


Home inspectors need licensing
The Olympian, WA - Nov 1, 2007
And if a home inspection is intentionally or unintentionally faulty, the home buyer has no one to turn to in order to hold the inspector accountable. ...



More...

Similar Threads:

• Without any guidelines for inspectors, how do you know your home ... - Nashua Telegra
• Home Inspector Licensing 2007 Scorecard
• Critics say NH lags on regulating home inspectors - Foster's Daily Democrat
• Regulate builders,inspectors of houses - Nashua Telegraph (subscription)
• Saving Money With Home Inspectors

Here's a great quote from the story...

And if a home inspection is intentionally or unintentionally faulty, the home buyer has no one to turn to in order to hold the inspector accountable.

I don't know about you guys but in my area a lot of home inspectors are sucessful by intentionally perfomring faulty inspections. I just don't know how to compete with them..... They're taking all of my business!!!

I'm thinking maybe I should give up this whole home inspection gig and pursue a career in journalism.... apparently, there is room for good reporting. How does a line like that even make it past an editor's desk????

FWIW..... Washington State has a fairly strict licensing for Pest/Dry Rot and no inspspector could keep a sucessful business w/o adhering to their requirements. The point of the article has merit but it's not as though inspectors in WA state are just running free with no regulation whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

Here's a great quote from the story...

And if a home inspection is intentionally or unintentionally faulty, the home buyer has no one to turn to in order to hold the inspector accountable.

I don't know about you guys but in my area a lot of home inspectors are sucessful by intentionally perfomring faulty inspections. I just don't know how to compete with them..... They're taking all of my business!!!

I'm thinking maybe I should give up this whole home inspection gig and pursue a career in journalism.... apparently, there is room for good reporting. How does a line like that even make it past an editor's desk????

FWIW..... Washington State has a fairly strict licensing for Pest/Dry Rot and no inspspector could keep a sucessful business w/o adhering to their requirements. The point of the article has merit but it's not as though inspectors in WA state are just running free with no regulation whatsoever.

Matt. I think they are referring to the HI in Realtors pockets when they used the word intentionally.

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

FWIW..... Washington State has a fairly strict licensing for Pest/Dry Rot and no inspspector could keep a sucessful business w/o adhering to their requirements. The point of the article has merit but it's not as though inspectors in WA state are just running free with no regulation whatsoever.

That's not totally true, many of us have been fighting and arguing with the WASDA to either enforce the SPI Law or abandon it, many, possibly most, Washington Home Inspectors don't comply with the law, now that the Washington Sunrise Committee has issued its opinion on Licensing, which does away with the SPI requirement, WSDA finally acts and fines the first Inspector, that I know of, for violating the SPI Laws.

News Release - WSDA issues fines, license suspensions on pesticide cases

The inspector who was fined for advertising that she does SPI Inspections belongs to an Association, that I was a former member of, which in my area of the State had only 3 out of 23 members who were licensed SPI's. The "Official" legal spokesman for that association, known on this message board as "Harvey", told the inspector that she was not in violation of any Law, even though myself and every other licensed member and the Washington Attorney General's Office told him, and her, that they were wrong. The inspector was warned by the WSDA several months ago, but "Harvey" told her not to worry, that the "State" could do nothing.

Maybe "Harvey" should pay her fine.

Originally Posted by Lewis Capaul

The inspector who was fined for advertising that she does SPI Inspections belongs to an Association, that I was a former member of, which in my area of the State had only 3 out of 23 members who were licensed SPI's.

You are misrepresenting the facts again Lewis. Why dont you tell these fine folks why you are no longer a member.

Originally Posted by Lewis Capaul

The inspector who was fined for advertising that she does SPI Inspections belongs to an Association, that I was a former member of, which in my area of the State had only 3 out of 23 members who were licensed SPI's. The "Official" legal spokesman for that association, known on this message board as "Harvey", told the inspector that she was not in violation of any Law, even though myself and every other licensed member and the Washington Attorney General's Office told him, and her, that they were wrong. The inspector was warned by the WSDA several months ago, but "Harvey" told her not to worry, that the "State" could do nothing.

Maybe "Harvey" should pay her fine.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

You are misrepresenting the facts again Lewis.

Michael, what "facts" are Lewis "misrepresenting"?

That she was fined?

That "Harvey" told her not to worry?

That Lewis and other told her she should not be doing what she was doing?

If you make a statement like that (stating that someone is misrepresenting the facts) then you should state "the facts".

Why dont you tell these fine folks why you are no longer a member.

And that is somehow applicable to the story and his post? Please explain how.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

You are misrepresenting the facts again Lewis. Why dont you tell these fine folks why you are no longer a member.

Michael, it really does not matter why, what or who. All that matters is that he has done what it best for himself.

The list of reasons why a person has their membership removed can be many from what I have seen. Everything to not giving equal space to the logo to not agreeing or having a different viewpoint with a few members who act as Nicks henchmen. Bottom line is that no one really cares anymore.

As for misstating the facts, it looks like everything is factual that I have seen. Now unless you can show different, I would not be throwing rocks at the glass house.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

As for misstating the facts, it looks like everything is factual that I have seen. Now unless you can show different, I would not be throwing rocks at the glass house.

That's the problem Scott. I don't know the whole story and I doubt you do either. Lewis was rather directly involved in this and what has reported is incomplete and lacks important facts.
He should be the one to defend his "facts". Let's wait for him to respond.

BTW-I am not endorsing false advertising or breaking the law.
The fine received may well have been appropriate.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

That's the problem Scott. I don't know the whole story and I doubt you do either. Lewis was rather directly involved in this and what has reported is incomplete and lacks important facts.
He should be the one to defend his "facts". Let's wait for him to respond.

If you don't know, then why did you tell Lewis:

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

You are misrepresenting the facts again Lewis.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

If you don't know, then why did you tell Lewis:

I know more than he is telling. How about you?

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

I know more than he is telling.

Michael,

Like I said in my post above:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Michael, what "facts" are Lewis "misrepresenting"?

That she was fined?

That "Harvey" told her not to worry?

That Lewis and other told her she should not be doing what she was doing?

If you make a statement like that (stating that someone is misrepresenting the facts) then you should state "the facts".

You seem to know it (at least you state so), and you say Lewis is mis-representing the facts, so you tell us "what the facts are".

I'm still waiting for those facts that you say Lewis is mis-representing.

Cat got your tongue?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Michael,

Like I said in my post above:



You seem to know it (at least you state so), and you say Lewis is mis-representing the facts, so you tell us "what the facts are".

I'm still waiting for those facts that you say Lewis is mis-representing.

Cat got your tongue?

Lewis can answer or himself thank you. I'll be patient.

Michael,

Go read my last post on the other thread you and I have been trading posts on.

That says it all, as do your posts here.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Michael,

Go read my last post on the other thread you and I have been trading posts on.

That says it all, as do your posts here.

They are completely separate issues Jerry.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

You are misrepresenting the facts again Lewis. Why dont you tell these fine folks why you are no longer a member.

One of the main reasons I am no longer a member of your Association Michael is the Issue of members obeying State Laws and following your Associations SOP and COE, which according to "Harvey", Ms Forsyth was.

Harvey encouraged her, even complimented her on her refusal to obey the Washington Law even after he received letters from the WSDA and Washington State Attorney Generals Office, I can post the AG's response if you like and you and Harvey's buddies can explain how after reading that he was right in telling Ms. Forsyth that she could continue to perform Home Inspections and not have to comply with the Warning that the WSDA gave her, 6 months or more ago, to change her Website.

"Harvey's" statement that a Nachi member could disclaim any portion of the SOP that they were not qualified to perform, and that her advertising was not in violation of the COE lead to my realization that the NACHI's SOP and COE was totally worthless, just like any other Associations if members are allowed to rewrite it to fit their "qualifications". This was the basis for my getting "Kicked Out", my refusal to accept the "Great Ones" interpretation of Law and his own Associations rules, along of course with the ever increasing number of meaningless Certifications and Designations like CMI and Move In Certified that Nick comes up with. I was kicked out for demanding higher standards and for criticising and arguing with Bushart and his pack, which includes you. I'm not the only one who was kicked out over this issue, remember Mr. Clark? He was kicked out over a PM he sent, which was pretty mild in comparison with many sent by Members of the Bushart Pack, including Mr. Burkeson who posts here.

Show me where I misrepresented any thing about Ms. Forsyth's fine and what she was told over the past year by Bushart and his supporters, find a Washington State Inspector on your own message board who ever agreed with you or Bushart on your interpretation of Washington Law. Many of us who inspect in Washington State made it clear what the law was and what the penalty could be, many of us also wrote the WSDA over this matter asking the questions which the AG answered and demanded that they either enforce their Law, which most of us don''t agree with, or abandon it, which is the recommendation of the Sunrise Review Committee.

Ms Forsyth was fined because she chose to listen to someone from Missouri who has no knowledge of Washington Law instead of listening to Washington Inspectors who told her what she didn't want to hear, Bushart and his Pack encouraged her, they share the responsibility for her fine, so does Nick who was sent copies of the Washington Law, the WSDA Letter, and the Attorney Generals Response, along with complaint from several members about Bushart encouraging other members to ignore State Law.

In Washington State you do not need any license to perform Home Inspections, but you do need a license to even mention any condition that may be conducive to WDO without an SPI License, Ms Forsyth had no SPI license, refused to get a license (encouraged by Bushart not to) and yet she continued to advertise on her website that she performed "pest" Inspections as part of her HI, again encouraged to ignore warnings by both the WSDA and other Washington Nachi members.

Are you denying that Bushart told Ms Forsyth that the Law was unenforceable and that she could continue to perform Home Inspections and advertise the way she did, even after several other Washington Inspectors clearly said the she was wrong? Before you do I suggest you go to your message board and study the posts under State Legislation concerning Washington and the SPI License posted over the past year, one really interesting one was where Bushart explained how to use Loopholes in State Laws to get around the Law, quite a thread for the Spokesman of the Ethics Committee to to start.

And, as to some of your later posts here, yes I was directly involved in the SPI Issue and complaints to the WSDA, I didn't make the complaint there about her advertising, but I did explain how the WSDA could use Association "Find an Inspector" sites to locate Inspectors who did not have the required license, and I did write letters to the Director of the WSDA asking many questions and for an explanation or interpretation of the Law. I also set up an Eastern Washington Chapter of Nachi and sent emails to every Nachi member in the area, that I could find, asking them if they would be interested in attending a meeting where the head of the WSDA's SPI division would appear and explain the law directly to them, I received two replies out of more than 30 I sent, one was positive one told me that it was none of my business. Back then there were 23 Nachi Members in the Spokane area, 3 with the required license, now there are 6 or 7, where have your members gone?

Yes I was directly involved in the issue, and directly involved in arguing against the "legal interpretations" and advice of your "Spokesman", along with being one of many who have been trying to force the WSDA to enforce their laws. Ms Forsyth is not the only Inspector in violation of Washington Law, but her and Bushart's arguments that she did not have to obey, conducted for way too long on a public message board, made her the example for WSDA to go after first. So many Nachi members have disappeared in the past several months that it hasn't been worth the effort to check and see how many are now licensed. In January ASHI and NAHI membership had 90%+ compliance with the law in my area, Nachi had 10%, maybe the WSDA is what happened to all your members here.

Lewis you know full well that the issue was whether or not an HI could sub out the SPI service.

I response to a complaint, the committee(not an individual) provided their opinion that the HI could.
This occurred after Dr. Soumi responded to the committee's request for clarification on the Washington State law.

All inspectors were also encouraged to review, know and comply with the law and seek competent legal advice regarding matters they where uncertain about.

Sounds like prudent advise to me.

Originally Posted by Lewis Capaul

Mr. Burkeson who posts here...

Lewis,

I had nothing whatsoever to do with what went on in Washington between you, NACHI, Wendy or Bushart, neither did I ever encourage Wendy Forsyth to circumvent any law, period, end of story. Kindly keep me out of what has become your miserable life post NACHI.

There is a price to pay for all the decisions we make in this life you will just have to resolve yourself to sleeping in the bed you have made.

Joe.

Cool... that was a civil response. Glad to see it-- just home it continues.

rr

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Lewis you know full well that the issue was whether or not an HI could sub out the SPI service.

I response to a complaint, the committee(not an individual) provided their opinion that the HI could.
This occurred after Dr. Soumi responded to the committee's request for clarification on the Washington State law.

All inspectors were also encouraged to review, know and comply with the law and seek competent legal advice regarding matters they where uncertain about.

Sounds like prudent advise to me.

The full issue was whether or not a Nachi Inspector could perform a Home Inspection in accordance with your SOP without having either the required SPI License or by subbing out the portions of the Inspection regarding WDO or it's conducive conditions. Bushart said that an Inspector could DISCLAIM all portions of the SOP regarding WDO, not use a Licensed SPI, and still be "substantially" in compliance with your SOP. Looking at what the State, and most competent Inspectors, say are conditions conducive to WDO/WDI you wouldn't have much of an SOP, after disclaiming them, to worry about, that's why months before we parted company I asked over and over whether a Nachi Member could use his own SOP as long as it met or exceeded Nachi standards. There are reasons to disclaim portions of an SOP, snow on the roof, no access, no electrical power at the site, etc., not having the proper license that would allow you to meet the requirements of the SOP is no reason to disclaim it. Just what portions of your SOP is a "Certified" Home Inspector not qualified to perform?

Go back and read some more you'll find that I detest the Washington SPI Law and have argued against it, and even though WSDA had taught Inspectors that the use of Subs was illegal, which I argued against at the time, I admitted that I was wrong, and recommended that newbie Inspectors in Washington State look into using Licensed SPI's as subs. I've also never said that someone needed a license to be a Home Inspector in Washington, they only need the license to perform a complete Home Inspection in accordance with most Associations SOP's, and that without the license an inspector can only perform partial Home Inspections, your leaders, Bushart and Farsetta, decided that "Partial Inspections" performed to get around State Law were "Substantially" in accordance with "YOUR SOP".

My post was about a Nachi Inspector being fined by the WSDA after being advised by your leaders, against the arguments of several Washington Inspectors, to ignore Washington State Law. I'm not responsible for her fine, I told her, repeatedly, that she needed to use a sub or get a license and to change her Web Site like WSDA told her to do back in April or May. Your leaders told her just the opposite, Ms Forsyth and your leaders are responsible for the fine, not those who comply with the law. The argument was over using, or attempting to use, "loopholes" in HI Laws, something which Bushart said he could do to get around any State's Licensing Laws.

Here's the Washington State Attorney Generals answers to question we asked the Director of WSDA, most were in response to "loopholes" Bushart said existed:

Questions and Responses on SPI Licensing
(Cleared by AG 3/26/07)


Question 1: When a home inspector conducts an inspection of a home that is for sale and reports any of the following, must they be licensed as an SPI and follow the rules for conducting a complete WDO inspection (See WAC 16-228-2025):

plumbing leaks and inadequate ventilation
restricted or non-functioning gutters
vegetation touching exterior siding
earth to wood contact
standing water in substructure
failed or missing caulk or grout at water splash areas
conducive debris in substructure

Answer: If a home inspector reports on one or more of the above conditions they must be licensed and must follow the rules for conducting complete WDO inspections. It does not make any difference whether the home inspector actually identifies a WDO such as rot, they still must be licensed and follow the rules.


Question 2: Once a home inspector reports any of the conditions in question 1., above, (regardless of whether they identify a WDO infestation) does the inspection then become a “complete WDO inspection” and must the inspector then follow all of the rules relating to complete WDO inspections?

Answer: Yes, once an inspector has reported any of the conditions in question 1, above, their inspection then becomes a complete WDO inspection and they must abide by all of the rules relating to complete WDO inspections (WAC 16-228-2005 through 2045).


Question 3: Can a home inspector avoid the licensing and rule requirements by not identifying the WDO that caused damage? For example, a house has extensive damage from wood decay fungi (rot). If a home inspector just reported this as “deterioration” or “damage” without identifying that it was caused by rot, would this relieve the inspector from the requirements of the law and rules?

Answer: The laws and rules covering WDO inspections place a duty upon the inspector to report the cause of the damage by identifying the WDO. A home inspector cannot circumvent the laws or rules by avoiding terminology that is found in the rules.


Question 4: If someone is unlicensed and they report on conducive conditions such as those in question 1., above, and they don’t affix an ICN to the report (they wouldn’t have one since they are not licensed) would this in fact be considered an “illegal report”? If so, what effect would that have on the overall real estate transaction? Would it nullify or invalidate the transaction since an illegal inspection report, in theory, was depended on by the buyers in order to make the decision on whether or not to purchase the house? Would it make any difference in answering this question whether the inspection was requested by the buyer (if specifically requested it would be more clear that the buyer was depending on it)?

Answer: It could in a sense be considered an illegal report, but as to how it would affect the transaction is a question for civil courts to determine and beyond the realm of WSDA’s jurisdiction or concern.


Question 5: Assuming an unlicensed home inspector does report one or more of the findings described in question 1., above, does a recommendation to have a licensed SPI inspect the structure, or a disclaimer such as “This is not a WDO (or Structural Pest) inspection” on the home inspection report have any bearing on whether a home inspector must be licensed and follow the rules?

Answer: An inspector cannot abrogate his/her responsibility under the laws and rules by making recommendations or disclaimers on their report. If they conduct, by definition, a complete WDO inspection, they must comply with all of the laws and rules regardless of any recommendation or disclaimer. In most cases such disclaimers would make their inspection report a “false report” and place the inspector in violation of RCW 15.58.150(2)(e). Such violations are subject to civil penalty and/or license suspension.


Question 6: Can an unlicensed home inspector subcontract with a properly licensed SPI to conduct the WDO portion of their home inspection? In this scenario the home inspector inspects all components of the structure such as heating/cooling, electrical, etc. other than those associated with WDOs. The licensed SPI conducts a complete WDO inspection and submits the inspection report to the unlicensed home inspector who either attaches it to or incorporates it into their home inspection report.

Answer: There is nothing in the laws or rules that would prevent an unlicensed home inspector from contracting the services of a licensed SPI so long as certain conditions are met. The unlicensed home inspector would need to either attach or incorporate the licensed SPI’s inspection report verbatim in its entirety so that the Department’s enforcement capabilities are maintained. Any use of the licensed SPI’s inspection report other than verbatim and in its entirety may create a false report and be a violation of RCW 15.58.150(2)(e).

If an unlicensed home inspector subcontracts the services of a licensed SPI, and the licensed SPI’s report is used verbatim and in its entirety, the Department’s enforcement efforts should focus on the licensed SPI. This would not, however, allow the unlicensed home inspector to report any WDO related conditions other than those reported by the licensed SPI. In other words, the unlicensed home inspector could not attach or incorporate the SPI’s report verbatim in its entirety and then proceed to make his/her own calls in addition to what was reported by the licensed SPI. This would violate the statute and rules.


Question 7: Assuming that an unlicensed home inspector is allowed to subcontract with a licensed SPI to conduct a complete WDO inspection, would the unlicensed home inspector be able to incorporate portions of the SPI’s complete WDO inspection into their home inspection report without incorporating the complete WDO inspection in it’s entirety? For example, an unlicensed home inspector may want to incorporate all of the SPI’s findings without identifying that the WDO portion of the inspection was conducted by a different inspector.

Answer: No, (see answer for 6, above) the unlicensed home inspector must attach or incorporate the licensed SPI’s report verbatim and in its entirety. Additionally, the unlicensed inspector would not be allowed to report any additional WDO related conditions.


Question 8: There apparently is a limited market for home inspectors to conduct a quick, “look-see” inspection and verbally report any major problems they observe without issuing a written report. Some inspectors are of the opinion that if they do not issue a written report of their inspection, the laws and rules do not apply. In other words the WDO laws/rules only kick-in when a written report is issued. Would such inspections be allowed under the laws/rules?

Answer: Based on WAC 16-228-2035[1] (and other WDO rules) an inspector, whether licensed or not, cannot verbally report their findings without issuing a written report. The type of inspection described in this question would not be allowed by the law and rules. An inspector’s inspection and report must comply with the WDO laws and rules.



Ms Forsyth chose to believe and follow the advice of inspectors who do not operate in Washington State, now she's been fined $600, like I said Bushart and those who gave her the wrong advice bear some responsibility for her troubles.

Joe you were only mentioned in regards to reasons people get kicked out of your organization, Mr Clark sent an offensive PM to Ms Forsyth who then posted it on your Message board, it seemed pretty mild when compared to PM's you have sent myself and others don't you think? Yet you are still a member, why is that?

She got fined, just like she was told she would by those who work in Washington, others may also be facing disciplinary action from the WSDA. During the Sunrise Committee's research they pulled the names of everyone with a business license that mentioned Home Inspection, now DOL and the WSDA at least have a list of those who went through the trouble of getting a business license, before all WSDA had was a list of licensed SPI's and access, once they were informed, to the various association "Find an Inspector" websites. Now they are in position to better enforce their asinine law, don't be surprised if the majority of future punishments are directed to members of your association, they may have listened to Bushart too.

Again Michael, what have I misrepresented? The Inspector who was fined listened and went by the advice she was given by Bushart and others, isn't that correct?

As far as why I'm no longer a member of your association, if you think that is important to the issue of HI Licensing, I'll gladly post Bushart's reasons he gave in your members only forum of your message board, I agree with almost every reason he stated. Myself I don't believe my membership history has anything to do with the subject of licensing or being fined for failing to comply. I'm happy not being an InterNachi member, which is funny because my posts about Nachi being forced to become InterNachi along with questions about which Logo you would use, was one of the reasons Bushart gave for "kicking" me out, it seems being right about things in Nachi may be reason enough to lose your membership, that's a Nice Logo on Nick's Website...InterNachi isn't it, and he told me that I was confusing Nachi members. Funny.

Originally Posted by Lewis Capaul

My post was about a Nachi Inspector being fined by the WSDA after being advised by your leaders, against the arguments of several Washington Inspectors, to ignore Washington State Law.

And here was the advise given as I stated in my previous post.

All inspectors were also encouraged to review, know and comply with the law and seek competent legal advice regarding matters they where uncertain about.

Your propensity to submerge half truths in a mountain of verbage has not changed. No further discussion is possible. As stated earlier you indeed have made your bed and have no choice but to lie in it. Over and out.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

And here was the advise given as I stated in my previous post. Your propensity to submerge half truths in a mountain of verbage has not changed. No further discussion is possible. As stated earlier you indeed have made your bed and have no choice but to lie in it. Over and out.

You advice Michael is way too late she already listened to your buddy, not to:

"All inspectors were also encouraged to review, know and comply with the law and seek competent legal advice regarding matters they where uncertain about." (Are you calling your buddy James Incompetent?)

Myself and several others told Ms Forsyth that repeatedly, contact WSDA, talk to an attorney, don't listen to someone from out of the State that has no knowledge of Washington Law....I haven't accused you of recommending anything different, but you followed the argument and joined in many times, always on the side of your "leader" who gave her advice the opposite of what you just posted, she chose to listen to what we called in the Army, a sh@#house lawyer. It ended up costing her $600, a real attorney would have been cheaper. It's not what she should of done, it's what she did.....listen to someone who told her what she wanted to hear.

The "bed" I made is just fine Michael, my bed includes obeying the law and providing the best inspections I can to my clients, even if that means getting a license I detest. For awhile it included attempting to stop other association members from making legal mistakes by listening to Bushart and others who know nothing about the laws here, now what they chose to do is no longer my concern, Several of us started out trying to help Ms Forsyth and others, who they chose to listen to is their problem.

What happened to Ms Forsyth is an example of what is wrong with your association, leaders that seldom know what they are talking about, unless it's selling some worthless Certification. Leaders that put their prejudices and beliefs about "licensing" above all else, instead of telling her to get the advice of a Washington Attorney or to Contact the WSDA directly, your leader gave her all the information she needed, to get fined. The issue here isn't even the licensing, it's her failure to do what the WSDA told her to do in April, remove all reference to performing WDO or Pest Inspections from her website.

You could even find the thread on your message board where she complained that she was going to be fined Thousands of dollars, and where I told her it would probably be only $400 or so, and then "someone" told her not to worry that "Soumi" could do nothing. You have a good time there in Nick's Wonderland Michael, but I would follow your own advice, not your leaders.

Lewis,
Was'nt my advise and it was given specifically to Washington members at the time of the investigation into the issue following your complaint.
If the advice isn't followed what else can be said.

Now you may say whatever you like as I am tired of repeating myself.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Lewis,
Was'nt my advise and it was given specifically to Washington members at the time of the investigation into the issue following your complaint.
If the advice isn't followed what else can be said.

Now you may say whatever you like as I am tired of repeating myself.

You're talking about a complaint made back in January or February, which resulted in the WSDA reversing its earlier policy involving subs, Ms Forsyth was told by your leaders that she needed no license, Farsetta and Nick even said that she needed to use a Sub or get a license....your buddy on the other hand told her not to worry that the law concerned only SPI's not Home Inspectors, which still has nothing to do directly with why she was fined, in April she was warned by the WSDA and told to remove all reference to Pest Inspections and WDO from her website, she was again advised by your buddy, and others, that the WSDA could not fine or take action against her, those who Inspect in Washington told her otherwise, even after the warning she refused to contact an attorney, choosing instead to listen to "Harvey".

By the way my complaint was not decided by the ESOP Committee, it never made it to the Committee, Bushart made his own decision after hearing from Dr. Soumi, again my complaint and Bushart's actions on my complaint have nothing to do with the fact that Ms Forsyth chose to listen to him, rather than follow the advice that she was given to see an attorney or comply with the WSDA's demand......It has nothing to do with anything you have brought up, my membership status, SPI Licensing, or the use of Subs....Your Leaders should not give legal advice to people that can be so easily influenced, but then most of them wouldn't have anything to post.

Did or did not Bushart and other "leaders" tell her that she did not need a SPI License to Inspect? Did or did not Bushart tell her of ways to use "loopholes" to get around the law (read again the AG's response to JB's Loopholes)? Did or did not Nachi Leaders imply that she should not be concerned with the WSDA Warning? Again, where was I "misrepresenting" anything about any of the issues discussed.

You seem to be very worried about my membership status, or lack of, you read Bushart's "reasons" for kicking me out of your association in the members only forum on you message board. I don't disagree with hardly any of them. Is getting kicked out of InterNachi for the reasons he stated supposed to embarrass me? I'd think they would be a bigger embarrassment to InterNachi, seeing as his statements prove what many here say, that the easiest way to get kicked out of InterNachi is to voice your own opinion, disagree with a few of the so called leaders, and be right more often than they are. Me calling your association InterNachi was one of the reasons he gave, and another instance of where I turned out to be right isn't it?

Back to the subject of licensing in Washington......it appears that the WSDA's latest grab for power is to get into regulating contracts, they are claiming that Liability Limitations in HI Contracts are possibly in violation of their SPI Law. They claim that such limitation, which are less than the required Bond limits set in State law circumvents the bonding requirement. In my opinion it does not, the Inspector is still required to have the Bond or Insurance and it can be accessed by taking the inspector to court, which would need to be done even if no limitation was included in the contract. Hopefully, sometime next year the WSDA will be out of the HOme Inspection business.

Did Wendy go out of business after this? I noticed she didn't have any post on the NACHO board after September and her website is gone.

Its not a surprise, after all who could do 7,000 posts in such a short time and still make a living doing inspections!

//Rick

Originally Posted by Rick Bunzel

Did Wendy go out of business after this? I noticed she didn't have any post on the NACHO board after September and her website is gone.

Its not a surprise, after all who could do 7,000 posts in such a short time and still make a living doing inspections!

//Rick

Shewas on the Nachi message board yesterday I believe shown as a non-member. It seems she's not on friendly terms with Nick and Bushart any longer. If she wasn't lying just after she was warned by the WSDA to change her website, she has a good appeal, her web site was from one of Nick's fly by night vendors that she had "won", she claimed that she had contacted them several times to update or change her website but that they would not reply. She may have been telling the truth, when you clicked on her site from the message board you were misdirected to a link that wanted you to go to the web site providers page, she caught hell for that but couldn't get that changed either, when you went directly to her site you usually came to a page that showed two boxes "old" and "new". Maybe her free subscription ran out or maybe the provider folded as so many of Nick's vendors do.

I advised her to appeal the fine, or to fight it, she plans on ignoring it. Not a good idea after all the crap she said about the WSDA over the last year or so, ignoring them wouldn't be a good idea.