Yesterday may have been opening day for Major League Baseball, but for home inspector licensing bills we are now about half way through the 2007 legislative season.

Once again it has been an uphill climb for those who feel compelled to socialize and turn our profession over to government control, a big shout out to Washington State. With all the nannies up there claiming that licensing was a slam-dunk, the agony of defeat must be exceptionally painful, put a little ice on it boys.

New Hampshire did not disappoint the freethinkers among us, their motto "Live free or die" proved to be a worthy battle cry which stymied the licensing Nazis once again.

Defeat can certainly take its toll, Kansas will require a much greater influx of money, time and energy to even get close to passing a home inspector licensing bill. What looked like a simple job of swamp draining soon found their minion's up to their elbows in alligators, freedom is hard to kill, better luck next year.

Missouri, how could you licensing gurus screw up something as simple as getting home inspector licensing passed in Missouri? Whatever can go wrong will go wrong, besides just what did you expect when you teamed up with the Realtors, honesty? It looks very unlikely that HI licensing will come to Missouri any too soon. You just might want to consider pushing to get the home builders licensed prior to burdening the home inspectors, don’t you think?

Which brings us to Florida the only possible bright spot on the 2007 HI licensing tour, but have you seen the bill? Not worthy to be used as toilet paper, lacking an SoP no Governor in his right mind would sign it.

It is important to document and make public the waste of time, money & energy the licensing proponents have spent on a failed cause because it will be necessary to not only replace those squandered resources but to go further and spend more good after bad chasing a ideal that appears to be less & less worthy of the expenditure.

Joe
I had to read your post 2 times to fully understand. I don't know why you are aganst the Lic. issue. Every professional occupation that we have is lic. by the state ( Dr, lawyers, engineers) and the general public sees this as a profesional with at least minimal amount of knowledge to get the Lic., If we as HI are to be considered a profesional then we are going to be seen to Joe Homeowner as such. There are a lot of fly by occupations out there and I do not want to be considered one of them. I bring to my customers a professional service and are proud to be Lic.
That being said the people runing my great state of NY (pun) have not as of yet come up with the best or for that matter any rules and regulations on our SOP and continuing Ed required to maintain this Lic. The government might not be all that good but I believe that they have the right idea just not necessarly the right smarts to finish their job on this issue.
In all that being said I truly believe that the Lic. issue will weed out the fly by nighters and part timers and turn this occupation into a professional occupation.

__________________
Well thats my 2 cents.
Brian Kelly
Kelly Home Inspections

Joe, I certainly would not count on that strategy.

__________________
Chad Fabry, Rochester, NY
StructureSmart Home Inspections, Inc.
www.structuresmart.com

Joe, I agree with Brian. Maryland is beginning to license Home Inspectors as of January 2008 and this licensure will begin to "raise the bar" of the Home Inspection industry in Maryland. The licensure will provide protection two ways.

Firstly, the license will protect the consumer from fly-by-night inspectors that do not know a defect from a hole in the ground. The incompetent inspector's license will be removed and the legislation requires that only licensed inspectors can perform inspections.

Secondly, the good inspectors wil have protection against these bad inspectors.

To me this is a win-win.

Pete,

Sorry to tell you this, but you're in fantasy land.

New Jersey had one of the toughest licensing bills in the country. By the time it actually took effect, the law is, well, it's useless.

Here's what happens:

Wanna-be inspectors will cry "it's too hard to become licensed"

People out for a quick buck will cry "continuing education is too much"

A stupid arguement in NJ was there wasn't enought inspectors to keep the housing market moving quickly. Now, a lot of inspectors are lowballing just to keep the cash flowing.

It's sad, really sad; NJ tried to raise the bar but ........

Just watch and see who will (try) to lower the standards; for your sake I how they don't


Darren

New Jersey Home Inspection - About the House!

Tennessee is now into it's 10th month of licensing.

I saw an increase in the home inspectors in business in my area.
I have only been asked for proof of my license maybe a half dozen times.
It is possible for someone to be a licensed home insepctor and have NEVER inspected a house.
It IS harder to become an inspector now than it was before, AND it does cost more to start up. This, MAY keep some poeple from entering the profession, but probably not much.

I have not seen much difference at all from licensing. It just costs me about $150/year more than it did before.

However, the BENEFIT of licensing is: twice I was able to tell a builder that as a licensed home inspector, I AM qualified to inspect his "perfect" home - cuz the State says I am. Before, they could throw up a flag and say inspectors were not qualified to inspect homes, so no one should use them. That bit them in the foot a bit.

I'm not sure if the public is any safer now than before. I'm not even sure IF or how many complaints have been lodged against inspectors.

After fighting licensing for a decade, we ended up with it anyway - and it's not too bad (for now).
Your mileage may vary.
JF

Jack,

What kind of requirements are on the license? Do you have a link to your state's licensing? I have some questions and would like to read what the requirements are. I know it is only a matter of time before Florida requires a license too.

1. Do you have to carry E & O?
2. Did it have educational requirements and number of inspections?
3. Was there some kinda apprenticeship for new inspectors or inspectors that are still fairly new?

I agree with Jack. We have been lic. for 11 years.
We have a increase of applicants each and every year.
They are trying to change the associate program because many can't get mentors.
As far as weeding out bad inspectors that's not going to happen. They haven't weeded out bad builders yet have they.

If you want to see our SOP go to North Carolina Licensed Home Inspectors Association and there will be links.

__________________
Mike Schulz License 393
Affordable Home Inspections
www.houseinspections.com

Texas had an apprentice program along with minimal education requirements back in the stone age when I started and it was very difficult to find a sponsor.
Not long after, they allowed substitution of education hours which opened the flood gates.
A few years later they upped the education requirements which caused an in-rush to beat the clock.
I still favor the apprentice/mentor program, but then I have not been to one of the inspector schools. I have attended several "events" at some of the local schools and one paid CE class. I was never impressed with the knowledge nor professionalism at any of the schools I have had dealings with in the Dallas area.
I actually like licensing just because it does create some boundaries and minimal protection should someone decide to sue.
But licensing will never get rid of unprofessional inspectors. Even doctors and lawyers have their share of quacks.
Inspector licensing in Texas is supposed to protect the public, not the industry, so I suppose it does insure at least a minimal level of protection.

__________________
Jim Luttrall
www.MrInspector.net
Allen, Texas 75002

I see licensing has one positive effect in this area. I've seen other companies in this area hire people for only the summer months to do home inspections. Now those people are not available since they have no interest in getting licensed. That alone makes me happy that we are now required to be licensed.

Sorry I don't have a link to TN licensing, but you could probably Google it.

In a nutshell, for a new inspector:

90 hours of approved HI training
Pass the NHIE
Have 500K E&O insurance
HS grad or GED
Send them $300

There is NO apprentice or training provision in the law.

I was able to be grandfathered in because:
I had been a HI for over 3 years (proof was copies of business license or Inc. papers..
I had done more than X number inspections. I just forgot the #, I think it was 150. The list had to have clients name, inspection address, date of the inspection. It also had to be residential, 4 units or less. Commercial inspections did not count.
Have proof of E&O
Send them $300

I must say the licening does work if it is enforced. This was just posted on the TN website of two individuals who were caught for inspecting without a license this past month.

Home Inspector Licensing Program

Respondent: William Ritter, Knoxville, TN
Violation: Unlicensed activity
Action: $250 civil penalty

Respondent: Don McGonagil, Nashville, TN
Violation: Unlicensed activity
Action: $250 Civil Penalty

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

You can trust that I will do whatever I can to disrupt those who promote licensing, to create confusion and inject chaos into the system. There is no real reasonable way to negotiate with those who are attempting to socialize our profession and turn our profession over to government control.

The reason that licensing proponents have such a difficult time getting bills passed is because those who favor licensing are by & large liars and the legislators are on to the lies. Had the inception of licensing been sprung from the loins of consumers we would have been licensed decades ago. But the push for licensing is not consumer driven no all licensing laws were created by home inspectors seeking to gain an unfair advantage over their competition. The good thing is that it takes very little effort to inject chaos, create doubt or an atmosphere of disharmony.

I would venture to say that it is on a scale of one thousand to one. For every thousand man hours or dollars of effort to get a bill passed it only takes one hour or dollar to inject enough chaos to knock down the house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

Under these dire times the spare thousand dollars & man hours necessary to see a bill passed should be harder & harder to come by, hopefully those of us who are not currently licensed will be saved the from the plague that is decimating our profession.

Joseph
I guess your world is all gloomy. I am proud that my State has made this profession a License one. Where is the fact that any profession is licensed is worst off because of it? Your comment on the so called fact, you state that all of those who favor licensing "are by and large big fat liars" is showing your frustrations with our trade. Not sure where these come from but the general public still and always see and trade that is licensed by any government body is a good thing for their protection.
My guess is that you would be better off in New Hampshire, as their moto is "Live Free or Die" and nothing is regulated in any way. Then again that state is not the most profitable state to do business in.
I guess that the best thing about living in the US, is that we are all intitled to our own opition, no matter what anyone else thinks.

__________________
Well thats my 2 cents.
Brian Kelly
Kelly Home Inspections

Brian,

Where do you get the idea that my world is gloomy? Do you think those who are feverishly working to socialize and turn our profession over to government control live in a sunny world?

Besides the edge that those of us who refuse to accept that our profession is best served by government intervention is so large that it only brings a smile to my face.

I mean, to know that tens of thousands of dollars of licensing PAC money and thousands of man-hours of work to dot every "i" and cross each "t" can be flushed down a rats hole with a well placed newspaper editorial or a few well worded letters, wouldn't that knowledge alone give a bit of a rise to your step?

The next big campaign to slow those who are attempting to gain an unfair advantage over their competition through licensing legislation will come from the push to remove grandfathering clauses from home inspector bills, you may join the discussion here if you like.

All the best - Joe.

As Mike said, we have had licensing for 11 years here in NC. With that perspective, there have been good and bad results.

The good: It has raised the bar for entry into the profession. We are required to pass a realtively difficult exam, prove financial responsibility and complete at least 12 hours of continuing education each year. This does put us more on par with other professions and creates a higher level of consumer confidence in Home Inspectors in NC. Plus, licensing creates a way to get the truely bad actors out of the profession.

The bad: Government control over the business is subject to all the problems and ills of any other governmental endeavor. Their urge to create confrmity (read standardized reports) and overreaction to minor problems by board members who do not understand the nature of the industry and with agendas of their own requires constant vigilance by Inspectors.

The truely ugly: By giving government control over the industry you open it up to the vagaries of state politics. Licensing board members are mostly political appointees and are subject to pressure from other interest groups (read realtors) that clearly DO NOT have the best interest of the Home Inspection profession at heart. This is what is playing out now in Raleigh. With some 60,000 realtors, making literaly millions of dollars in political contributions each year vs less than 2,000 Home Inspectors, making virtually $0.00 in contributions each year, who gets the ears of the legislators???

This is the playing field that licensing creates.

Right now we are fighting a move (from guess who) to prevent Inspectors from putting anything that can be interpreted as a safety upgrade into the summary sections we are already required to have. Examples: a 1920 house with a porch 6' off the ground and no railings. Lack of smoke detectors in the same house. A 1980s deck 10' off the ground, nailed to old Masonite siding with no bolts. None of these items could be included in the summary, meaning clients will not be able to ask for them in repair requests. Unfortunately many of them never read the body of the reports anyway once they see the summary. This proposal will eventually result in getting someone killed.

Good luck with licensing. If your state does require HI licensing be sure you have a strong, politically active state association. If you have multiple associations you had better learn to work together before it is too late.

As you can guess I get a bit wound up on this one......

Fred said:
Lack of smoke detectors in the same house. A 1980s deck 10' off the ground, nailed to old Masonite siding with no bolts. None of these items could be included in the summary, meaning clients will not be able to ask for them in repair requests.

Fred....I am wondering why a buyer can not ask for a repair that is not in the summary? I thought they could ask for any repair they wanted but the seller does not have to comply. I am in NC so I am truly interested in your repsonse to help CMA! Thanks!

Dick,

The realtors are supposedly bound by the limitations of the sales contract. Unfortunately many of them lack the will to tell an aggressive or manipulative client that there are some things they cannot have. So, the obvious solution is to make the Inspector do the dirty work for them.

Unfortunately we have all seen buyers ask for everything in our reports, with no intention of making the repairs. They simply use our reports to beat up sellers on price. Sellers and realtors do have a legitimate interest in putting a stop to this, at least as much as possible.

What they want to do is make the summary compliant with paragraph 13-b of the Offer to Purchase, which basically limits repair requests to items not functioning as intended. They then interpret this to mean that it must have been a code requirement when the house was built. If not, it must, by their definition, be functioning as intended.

I can understand this if it is something like crawl space insulation or even ungrounded outlets in an older home, but something that is a clear and present safety hazard, but is not broken, should be in the summary, and the clients should be allowed to ask for it. Heck, even if they are not allowed to ask for it it should still be in the summary just to get the clients to understand how important it is.

If you are a member of the NCLHIA (North Carolina Licensed Home Inspector's Association, for the rest of you :-), I will be covering this in much more detail in the next Probings, due out in a few weeks.

Thanks for the response. What I got from what you said is that a buyer can still ask for repairs that are not in the summary but the realtors are trying to change that. Is that correct?

Fred,

It appears that you have experienced the dark side of home inspector licensing and I feel your pain. We here in Florida are still fighting the good fight, wish us good luck.

The one thing it appears that you have totally backward is the notion that home inspectors working together across associations is helpful in stopping the spread of licensing. Nothing could be farther from the truth, the only thing that happens when home inspectors begin to work together is compromise and piss poor legislation that gets enacted into law.

States where there are groups of home inspectors working at cross purposes in regards to licensing have the very best chance to defeat legislation. Remember, that to legislators you are not a home inspector but a voter, as a matter of fact that is the way they see everyone, and the very last thing they want to do is to disappoint a voter.

So... when they see a group of voters who can't agree on something they themselves have little knowledge of like home inspector licensing, it paralyzes their thinking and creates doubt. Agreement or harmony within our profession will guarantee the passage of licensing and must be avoided at all cost it is really our only hope.

Joe.

Joe,
With all due respect.....
You do have an interesting strategy. Might even work, for a while. Eventually, though, other interests are likely to see a fractured and disorganized Home Inspection profession and decide they have a clear path. Here in NC we already have licensing, so we now have to deal with the political fallout. Sowing the seeds of confusion among your opponents is always excellent strategy, but when you are working in a political environment with this much at stake you had better have your own ducks in a row.

Fred,

It has worked here for 15 years and there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to work.

In a nutshell everyone including legislators know that licensing has failed to live up to its billing or the expectations of those who have worked so hard to get bills passed, essentially home inspector licensing has failed in the following areas.

1). raising the bar
2). limiting competition
3). protecting the consumer

Licensing’s failure lies in the fact that the efforts to get home inspectors licensed has not been derived from consumer complaints of being cheated by home inspectors but by home inspectors seeking an unfair advantage over other home inspectors in the marketplace, and the legislators were wise enough to see the charade of attempting to pit one class of voter against another class of voter and acted accordingly. Where licensing has been enacted, the legislators not seeing any outcry from disgruntled consumers did pass laws but these laws set the bar so low that any voter would be allowed to enter or continue in performing home inspections. So, the conditions almost everywhere licensing has been passed is a weak mishmash of gibberish that does little to protect the consumer or limit the incompetent home inspector from receiving a license, in essence home inspector licensing laws are little more then a nuisance tax on our profession.

Couple that fact with a state like Florida which has mandated Sunrise laws already on their books and you get 15 years of legislation and no laws enacted. No, we will continue to sew what continues to grow and gets harvested. Our new crop includes working to eliminate all language regarding grandfathering. By forcing everyone to jump through the same hoops necessary to be licensed the language that is commonly inserted to allow a slect group of home inspectors to ride free can be nullified.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that many high ranking office holders in many HI associations have never had to comply with the current entry requirements foisted on their new applicants. By forcing these old dogs to submit to the same tests and requirements that they want everyone else to comply with to be licensed will surely help reduce their taste & enthusiasm for licensing legislation.

Since it is very provable that licensing solves nothing, the next move should be to get these useless laws that encumber honest hard working home inspectors (read voters) and serve no public good repealed.

All the best.

I have been a licensed NC HI for 4 years but I have been a licensed electrical contractor for 32 years, a licensed HVAC contractor for 27 years, and a licensed plumber for 23 years. I have to say that in NC there are very few rogues in any of the trades I mentioned above. They get weeded out fast due to shoddy work. I like to read the trade newsletters with the violations of the riff-raft.

Before I went after my HI license I made sure it was not a useless, any-one-can-get license. In NC you have to have some degree of knowledge. I was looking for something that was a bit easier on the body than trade work but I did not want to waste my time if it did not mean anthing.

I think that if a state allows a person to hang up a HI sign with no license then what have you got? In my opinion....nothing but a person that may have knowledge but may not. No offense meant but at least in NC you have a way to complain if you get a bad inspection. In a unlicensed state a buyer has no recourse except court.

I am proud to be a licensed NC Home Inspector. If NC did not have licenseing I would not have become a home inspector.

I have to get a permit to do a electrical, plumbing, or heating job. I would not be opposed to the having to get permit to do a home inspection. I like regulation..it makes what I do more valuable.

This is my opinion....yours may vary.

[quote=Joseph Burkeson;1202]Fred,
......
essentially home inspector licensing has failed in the following areas.

1). raising the bar
2). limiting competition
3). protecting the consumer

Generally I would agree, except for # 2. It has been useful for limiting competition. As far as raising the bar, yes, but to a lesser degree than most people thought. It does offer marginal protection for the consumer, but I would argue that the market itself does a far better job. The incompetent Inspector gets no referrals, and soon he is looking for a different line of work.


Couple that fact with a state like Florida which has mandated Sunrise laws already on their books and you get 15 years of legislation and no laws enacted. No, we will continue to sew what continues to grow and gets harvested. Our new crop includes working to eliminate all language regarding grandfathering. By forcing everyone to jump through the same hoops necessary to be licensed the language that is commonly inserted to allow a slect group of home inspectors to ride free can be nullified.

Not sure what Sunrise laws are. Can you tell me how that works?


Furthermore, there is no doubt that many high ranking office holders in many HI associations have never had to comply with the current entry requirements foisted on their new applicants. By forcing these old dogs to submit to the same tests and requirements that they want everyone else to comply with to be licensed will surely help reduce their taste & enthusiasm for licensing legislation.

That is how it was done in NC, everyone had to pass the exam and prove financial responsibility. No one was grandfathered in.


Since it is very provable that licensing solves nothing, the next move should be to get these useless laws that encumber honest hard working home inspectors (read voters) and serve no public good repealed.

Ahh, a true Libertarian!

Problem is, politics, like all nature, abhors a vacuum. Government is loath to give up power once gained, particularly when powerful interest groups (read large campaign contributors) have something to gain.

I am glad you have had success so far. Best of luck in the future.

Joe that doesn't hold true here. In fact most home inspectors where scared just like you. It hurts until it's over, then you'll say what was all the fuss about. The Realtors brought about the Lic. in this state. They cried over every little thing because it was hurting there sales. I remember when I got my lic. in 96 the public was unaware of home inspections in the most part. The northerns who moved here really brought it in the lime light.

Fred has been with the NCLHIA for as long as I can remember and is up on all the topics and can fill you in better. He is also the editor at this time for our news letter. ( Fred I hope your hip is better!).

My business really did not take off until I was lic. When you can say you are lic. people trust you more then just being Jo-Smo.

Being part of the NCLHIA has been great. They have been a important part of bringing things to the NC board and try to bring justice to the home inspection field.

We have been fighting for our rights for the new standard summary. If we didn't the Realtors would run us over and the board would act in there favor.
If you ask me there should be no Realtors on the board. Thats like putting a fox in the hen house.

__________________
Mike Schulz License 393
Affordable Home Inspections
www.houseinspections.com

Mike,
Thanks for the kind words, both for myself and the Association. My hip and knee are doing much better, thanks.

Joe, Mike is pretty much right on target about how things played out for a while here in NC. If you do wind up with licensing, just be sure your board is dominated by Home Inspectors, otherwise "other political interests" will tend to dominate.

Ironically, the one realtor on our board, John Hamrick, has, in many ways, been the Home Inspector's best friend. He has a good understanding of the business, common sense and a lot of influence. He has put the brakes on several moves by the "unfriendlies" in the real estate industry. Unfortunately John has been there for 11 years and may not remain much longer, and I am very concerned that the realtor replacement may be the opposite. In which case we (and homebuyers in NC) are in deep doo doo.

Dick,
Sorry I missed your message earlier. My understanding, and I am not a realtor, nor do I play one on TV, is that clients can ask for pretty much anything, but the realtors are supposed to limit repair requests to items covered in paragraph 13-b. I will talk to realtors this week and see what I can learn. If I come up with anything different I will pass it on, or maybe just put it in the next Probings, since most people on this list are probably not interested in NC real estate law anyway.

Thanks Fred...I look foward to the Probe...

Regarding the NYS Inspection Lic: I belong to ASHI and NAHI Local chapters and there is one inspector from both associations on the NYS. Board. Both men are serious about getting the changes in the law right, not fast. They believe that this will to protect both the home buyers and Inspectors.
I understand that they are working on the SOP and Training now. Good Things do take time. JG

Joe.

As shown by your posts above, you continue to be against anything which will require you to act and become professional ... at least, that's the way your posts come across to me.

You seem to be anti-licensing and keep saying that HIs should be ruled form within, but you are against those controls too, unless you happen to fit in.

The problem with policing-from-within is that it has failed for over 30 years now, and it will continue to fail.

You rail against licensing 'because it will not protect anyone', yet fail to mention that 'no one is protected without licensing'.

Your logic, if there is any, continues to escape me.

And, no, I am not 'one of those' you keep referring to who are pushing for licensing. *I WAS*, but really no longer care, there are too many 'new guys' like you who insist that they cannot be made to do any better - and then you refer to 'everyone who does not think like you as "licensing Nazis".

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

Jerry,


Did you get that from you buddy "Herr Montenbuler"?

From my involvement in Licensing in the States that I actively chose to participate in...

There is a disparity between what the Legislators want and what the HI Industry wants.

Legislators look at Licensing from a revenue standpoint (Minimum Entry Level Standard)....

Home Inspectors look at licensing as a "Raising the Bar" and/or preclusion of Entry to the Industry Standard/Standpoint.....

Holding to this Standard precludes Licensing from occurring and also increases revenue to Legislators knowledgeable of the wants and needs of the HI Industry.

This is what you call a Win-Win scenario.

__________________
Joseph P. Hagarty
Main Line Inspections, Inc.
http://www.householdinspector.com

Perfect, just what I had hoped for when I started, anything short of no licensing is a compromise and ultimately leads to licensing.

Universally chaos rules, enough chaos injected into any system leads to increased entropy and imminent failure for that system.

Licensing abhors chaos and seeks order and agreement to become law, insure that this does not exist and chances are good that licensing can't be realized. Its like trying to cultivate corn on a coral reef or grow oranges at the south pole.

Compromise=Licensing

This is one of the more curious threads I've read lately. I personally don't see any point in railing against licensing. If you're good at your job, licensing cannot hurt you. Does the minimal fee structure set anyone back? Can a decent Continuing Ed program be anything but beneficial? Note I said decent CE. Something we're getting better at in N.C.
Will there always be bad eggs in any industry? Sure. But I not only think, but I'm sure that licensing eliminates a certain number of hacks watering down my market share. Now not as much as hack realtors mind you, but that's a story for another thread.
I keep my contractor's license and it's a lot easier to get that license than an HI license. No CE, no experience, just pass a test. A decent licensing program will have to have a greater experience coefficient than even N.C. I think I should not have been allowed a license strictly because I was a licensed contractor and could pass a multiple choice test.

But a decent licensing board does serve a purpose (and I choked only a little saying that).
And I'll go further and say that E&O should be required. It just should be predicated on volume and more competition is needed.

Jeff Mathis
Grimesland, N.C.

Okay, I lied. I said I wouldn't comment on licensing again. I posted a long (too long probably) explanation of how licensing will never make a difference until licensing and insurance are addressed as separate issues. Since the format changed I can't find that post.

The short version........ Despite Tim's apparent belief, insurance doesn't make one better at this job or more professional. It MAY sometimes protect the consumer, but certainly not always. It MAY sometimes protect the Inspector, but almost never.

More expensive licenses, significant training to get the licenses and keep the licenses, and significant contributions to a recovery fund that is awarded through mandatory binding arbitration would protect the interests of home owners from fly-by-night inspectors and inspectors from frivolous lawsuits.

I'm with Dick. I wouldn't do this job without a license. However, I think E&O benefits lawyers and few others.

__________________
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
- Paul Fix

The most vocal folks who are against licensing, I have noticed fit into the following categories:

1. It might be that they would have trouble meeting the requirements.
2. It might be that they don't think they need insurance.
3. It might be that they simply do not like anyone telling them what they need to do.
4. They are being told by others that licensing in bad.

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

In regards to all those who work hard to promote licensing there appears to be a set of similar tendencies the licensing proponents all have in common, a poker player would call them tells. once known and understood they could easily be used against them to help destabilize their efforts.

The licensing proponants are all imbued with righteousness indignation, believing that their stand is the proverbial high road and they are somehow benefiting society and fostering the greater good, something akin to being a crusader. To their detriment and demise it is totally beyond their puny scope of existence to even consider the notion that their efforts are in direct opposition the the freedoms and principals our country was founded on.

When defeat comes to a group like this who believe they have god on their side and their fight is noble they become devastated and disillusioned, it is at the exact precipice of defeat that we who oppose the socialization of our profession can do the most good by making it as painful as possible. How many of the licensing Nazis who poured their heart & soul into getting licensing passed in New Hampshire will be back next year to once again possibly get their teeth kicked in? Not many, that group will be forced to reinvest and regroup just to fight the very same uphill battle once again with new untested troops, the natural bias against getting legislation passed will once again have to be overcome.

Another weakness all licensing proponents display is the propensity to believe their own rhetoric and propaganda which makes them very vulnerable to outbursts of anger when you screw with one of the tenets of their belief system.

Remember it takes hundreds of man hours to diligently craft a licensing bill and then it takes thousands of dollars to see that bill through the legislative process but it only takes one dedicated person to spoil all that hard work and effort sending them back to the drawing board next year. Be that person.

Licensing solves nothing, chaos rules!

Scott,
It's not at all that I don't think I need insurance. It's why I need insurance that gets to me. I need insurance because I may get sucked into a lawsuit that I wouldn't be in otherwise, if it weren't insurance. I speak from experience.

NOBODY cares more about consumer protection than I do. At the same time, I have no interest in swelling the pockets of attorneys and insurance companies at the expense of Inspectors or Companies. Again, if all Inspectors were required to pay into a meaningful recovery fund consumers would be protected.

I don't know how it is in TN, but in TX lawsuits are more popular than Nascar. Insurance companies are in business for the same reasons we are....profit. I'm just saying, remove the profit incentive and get serious about protecting the consumer AND the tradesmen. Insurance settlements are about getting them out the cheapest way possible. It has nothing to do with defense or justice. And if you, the insured, are uninsurable afterward so be it. I would have no trouble at all paying the same amount that insurance costs every year into that recovery fund.

And after saying all this I am reminded that I've given 7 hits to a site selling what I don't believe to be beneficial to anyone. Go figure!

__________________
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
- Paul Fix

Thom,


I don't ever recall making that statement. When/Where???

Everyone should have to meet their states minimum requirements. There should be know grandfather clause and everyone should have to take a 120 hour class and the states test, one can never stop learning, correct?

We have thousands of home inspectors in Florida that this bill, due to what is referred to as a "grandfathering clause", will not even address. If legislation such as this is necessary, which many feel it is not, why would our legislators even consider allowing thousands of home inspectors to be exempt from it? It makes no sense. No grandfathering will help ensure that the inspectors at least know the basics and did not get a free pass because the simply payed for an occupational license 3 years ago. The Florida bill is a joke and offers no consumer protection. Do away with the grandfather clause.

I know there is no consumer protection without a bill, which is true. I am not aware of a huge out cry from the consumers that we need to be licensed anyways. How can a bill that many inspectors will be exempt from ensure the public the inspector they choose is competent? With this bill we do not even have to take the exam.

As a proponent of good licensing and having worked in two licensed states, I have seen the benefit of licensing. I look at home inspector licensing as a form of protection, first for the home inspector and secondly for the consumer.

I keep on hearing of lawsuits against home inspectors in the states the have mandated E&O, simply because they have the coverage. Can anyone share a case or state that this has happened?

Lawsuits usually start when a home inspector screws up, or they ignore the alleged problems and calls, letters from a client. This is what drives my EW business, trying to defend home inspectors or helping those that have the problem.

I'm not a fan of mandated E&O, I think it should be a personal choice. With that said I would not work without it.

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

Matt,

Are you in Florida?

Please update your profile so we know where your at.

Tim,
If I have misinterpreted, please forgive. I don't know if it was the deleted thread from this link or another, but I seem to remember your having said something about an Inspector who "probably didn't have E&O." I took that to mean what I insinuated about your opinion. Again, if that is a misstatement, please accept my apology.

Scott,
I can give two from personal experience. One was brought on 7 years ago by a Realtor who was being sued for $20M by a widow for her plumber husband's electrocution. Though the electrician admitted full responsibility for jumping a gfci receptacle to "fool the Inspector" if he came back (I never was called for a reinspect), the Realtor claimed that saying "No ground fault protection and reversed polarity. DO NOT USE THIS RECEPTACLE UNTIL REPAIRS ARE MADE. Using this receptacle may result in electrocution." was not strongly enough worded that she should have been concerned about the problem. As an aside, the Realtor's slum lord mother owned this POS I inspected. I hired a lawyer to watch the E&O lawyer because they were going to strike a deal to get them out and leave me in. $15,000 in fees later I was exonertated. Important. The widow never sued me. The Realtor's Insurance company brought in everyone that had E&O. Two years after the suit I Inspected a home that had eerie similarities and almost identical infractions. Guess who owned it?

Case two, about 5 years ago. Three years after an inspection, a Client sued me and the seller because he had drywood infestation in the wood shingles of his overlay. I am not a termite inspector. "The infestation caused water infiltration that ruined everything in the house because of the mold, including all the wood furniture and granite counter tops." The suit was for $490,000 on a $290,000 house. Their Insurance company had already paid them for all repairs to the house and for all loss of personal belongings. Court ordered mediation was dictated. The Plaintiff always goes first. They brought pictures of the rehab process. Several contrators had quit. The house had sat for months with an opened roof. The contractor who actually completed the work couldn't be found to testify. The mold experts had no recognized certifications. No termite company would testify supporting their allegations. Fortunately, I did not have to hire a second lawyer this time because I knew the attorney for the E&O company and he knew me from work I had done for him. After their presentation a break was taken and my attorney called the Insurance Comapny with the recommendation to go to court. The E&O company said to offer them $10,000 to be split between the Plaintiff, the Lawyers, and the other Insurance Company. Further, he was instructed to give them 5 minutes to mull over the offer. At the end of five minutes we were to walk out. They took it.

In neither case did I receive any contact before I served with the suit, so there was no opportunity to investigate or address concerns. I don't believe that law suits usually start for the reasons you stated. I believe they sometimes start for those reasons, but as frequently they start because lawyers and professional suers (sewers) accurately assess that most Insurance Companies will settle out of court rather than take the chance of a jury awarding more than the settlement costs. Counter suing for frivolous is practically impossible. In order to prevail, it must be proven that the Plaintiff absolutely knew his position was frivolous.

Serendipity strikes. Last month I did a job for a lawyer who hired me after I had been the third party Inspector in a case he had litigated. He asked me if I remembered the Plaintiffs in my second case. I assured him that I would never forget them and asked him why he had asked? He told me that they are well known around town and had, since my case, sued 5 or 6 other contractors in unrelated matters.

I may be the only one with examples for you, but I doubt it. I hope others will give them.

__________________
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
- Paul Fix

Thom, things happen.

You got caught up in the typical "Shotgun" lawsuit. They go in and name everyone and everyone gets caught in the blast. I had one like this about seven years ago as well and it was over termites. I don't know of anything one can do to stop this type of lawsuit.

I did not realize that TX had a mandated E&O. What I was talking about were the states that have mandated E&O.

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

Sorry, got caught up in the moment and didn't mean to confuse. Texas does not have mandated E&O. I had elected to have it. If they mandate it, I will figure out what else to do for a living.

I don't feel the same about mandated liability insurance, but no one ever mentions that.

One more rant...Two years ago our illustrious Gov signed into law a medical malpractice cap for punative damages. It's $250K. So a Doctor can kill your kid or amputate the wrong leg and be liable for less than a home inspector who errs or omits.

__________________
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
- Paul Fix

Thom,

This may have been what you were thinking. I was referring to the fact that this guy most likely didn't have anything to sue for. Either way, no harm done.

From anther thread:

Re: Agents inspector missed a bunch.
I wonder what the buyers would have thought if they trusted the other inspector and bought the place?

This inspector is just waiting to be sued. Probably does not care. Most likely no insurance and 10 bucks in the corporate account. Sue him and he closes shop, opens another corporation, files for the same fictitious name as before and he's back in business without even having to make up new brochures.

Sad but ofter true.

PS: I would have liked to have seen the seller's disclosure on the house. Probably nothing noted. Seller: "I've never noticed any problems"

This is where a mandated consumer recovery fund would be helpful.

Do you know how and what a Recovery Fund is or works? It is not as simple as it sounds. I think that Texas is the only state with a Recovery Fund at this time and that might be for a good reason.

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

Scott,

I know it's a fund, which is available to compensate consumers who have suffered losses due to a home inspectors fraudulent, deceptive or dishonest practices.

It would offer the consumers some protection. Please fill me in on the dis-advantages of having one. Thanks in advance.

It is quite obvious to most folks that more laws rarely solve any problem and in most cases only make things worse. Consumers have all the recourse necessary already through the court system proving there is no verifiable need to encumber home inspectors through senseless licensing legislation. Save your time and resources for something worthwhile.

Joe,
Speaking from experience, we had a lot more than just one voice speaking out against licensing, to no avail. It was coming thru no matter what we did to fight it. The best we could do was try to minimalize the damage, and try to get something we could live with. Now, don't try to give me that crap about how we didn't try hard enough, cowards, liars, blah blah blah. You were not here, and have no idea what was going on in TN.

While I have found that licensing has not really made any change in my business, who knows what changes may come at the whim of some elected yahoo in the future. New Jersey is a perfect example of that fisaco.

I wish you well in your fight, but I will go out on a limb and predict that FL will be a licensed State within 5 years - probably sooner. I would be willing to wager that in 5 years, there will be at least 5 more States licensed.

You may want to start checking out the map for a State that doesn't even have licensing on the agenda - then move there. You will be safe for a while.
Or you may get enough support (and checkbooks) to lure those elected idiots away from the licensing focus.

At any rate, good luck with your fight.
JF

I will fight it here to the bitter end, if & when it happens I like the thousands of inspectors in Florida will be licensed. They can't write a licensing law here in Florida that I can't comply with, after all... I am an ASHI member too.

A little birdie has just told me that Georgia will be one of the next states to have home inspector licensing legislation introduced. It will most likely mimic the laws in several of the other surrounding Southern states.

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

Well another one bites the dust... Home inspector licensing in the sunny state of Washington went down in flames, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the TIJ board could be heard all the way down to Tampa.

My guess is that it will take at least another $100K and ten thousand man hours to get this thingy through next year. Another win for freedom, liberty and the American way and another blow to socialism and big government.

I hope the licensing boot-licker's are feeling the agony of defeat as the winners eat their Wheaties the Breakfast of Champions.

Next year should be the best when the grandfather clause is eliminated and all the licensing pushers will have to jump through the same hoops as everyone else to get licensed, its gonna get messy, be sure to wear long pants.

No Grandfathering In Home Inspector Licensing Laws!

I guess we won one for the Gipper

Way to go, Washington. Missouri will be the next state to defeat pending licensing legislation. Then, Florida.

Remember when everyone thought that licensing was inevitable? Now there is discussion of repeal in states where it has failed to deliver.

Hello to all from Louisville, Kentucky. This is my first post on this board.

Kentucky past it's lisence law in 2006. The grandfathering period was over at the end of this january. This is the reason that I am now becoming a home inspector. I like structure.
I've been an electrician in the past. It takes years of experience, school, apprenticing under a lisenced electrician to become proficient at the trade. This is all to insure that your work will be done in a professional and safe manner. Now I work for Ford.( I think you know how my company is doing.)
I have waited until now to join the home inspection profession because of the lack of structure. I like the fact that I am required to show education and testing(NHIE) to begin the career.
I feel the service that is provided with home inspection is not just the report, but the knowledge of the individual behind the flashlight. I would be hypocritical if I did not hold myself to at least the same standard as the tradesmen that built the house I inspect.
The more I learn, the more ignorant I realize I am. I have a lifetime to satisfy my need for knowledge.

Anthony,

Welcome to the board, well all I can say is that you like other licensing proponents are consistent in the reason why we should all be licensed. It is always about you and what licensing can do for you, I should have known.

Joe.

Quite the contrary Joe. I firmly believe that the profession is about consumer protection. Ensuring the public that there is a standard of education, testing, and insurance within their area helps the potential homeowner. It reasures them that an inspector has basic knowledge and offers additional avenues if they hire a bad apple.

Most consumer groups tell individuals that before you hire anyone to check credentials and insurance.(Kentucky requires general liability) This helps reassure homeowners who have an inspector coming through their house.

If in the process of consumer protection from the state I get inconvenienced by educating myself, both parties win.

We can structure our own industry without Gov involvement.

Matt,

Have not been able to for over 30 years, why do you think that is possible now, with home inspectors EVEN MORE fractured than before?

Self-policing is not going to work. Never has, never will. At least, not unless you are the fox ... the chickens will disagree (I am sure).

Anthony,

"I feel the service that is provided with home inspection is not just the report, but the knowledge of the individual behind the flashlight. I would be hypocritical if I did not hold myself to at least the same standard as the tradesmen that built the house I inspect.

The more I learn, the more ignorant I realize I am. I have a lifetime to satisfy my need for knowledge."

You have an excellent insight into this profession and what is involved.

Welcome aboard inspectionnews.com and welcome to the Home Inspection Profession.

We (HIs) need more like you.

Joe,

"It is always about you and what licensing can do for you, I should have known.

Joe."

And with you it's all about defeating something you dislike even though it will be the best for the profession and for the public, but not for "Joe", so you are like all the others you complain about ... It's all about what's for you.

__________________
Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
www.AskCodeMan.com

Joe,

You are misinformed. The Washington Bill did not go down in flames. It in fact passed. As we had hoped, the Senate passed the bill amended by the House and the bill will go to sunrise review by the Department of Licensing. A lot of work by The Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group, ASHI, NAHI and Washington Association of Realtors got the billed into something that home inspectors in the state could live with.

It remains to be seen if the bill passes the Department of Licensing "litmus" test. Senator Spanel never shared the consumer issues that were driving the bill and WHILAG isn't aware of any issues. The DOL review timeframe was shortened from 2008 to 2007.

//Rick
Pacific Crest Inspections Home inspections located in Anacortes offers home inspections in Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom and Island Counties

Don't blame Joe, he got his conformation from Jim Bushart the NACHI spokesperson and head cheerleader!

__________________
Scott Patterson
Spring Hill, TN
http://www.traceinspections.com

If you guys truly believe that having your bill sent to review by the Sunrise committee is winning, well then let me know when we can all get together for a friendly little game of poker.

I hope the licensing proponents here in Florida are as victorious as those in Washington State.

Old Star Trek clip reveals how to defeat the efforts of the pro HI licensing lobby... Or maybe I'm just lying.

Enjoy!

I think this thread has now surpassed the *garage door testing methods* thread.

OK now, don't make me ask the question, "How do you all test gara....."

I have been asked to compose a letter to balance the one being circulated by NAHI here in Florida, I am posting it here for anyone to use in whole or part.

Joe,

I like it.

Can you send him one like that on our home owners insurance so that we all don't end up moving out of the state in the next three to five years.

The sponsor of Missouri's bill, Mike Parson, announced to a reporter in the state capital that he is not advancing the bill. It is dead. Missouri remains free from home inspection legislation.

It appears that using chaos theory and exposing your opponents dirty deals to the light of the free press is a valid method of defeating home inspector licensing legislation bills throughout the country.

Uncovering the clandestine dealings between the so-called home inspector coalition & the Realtors exposed the sham to the`public for what it was... a protectionist plan to allow Realtors to control the home inspection industry in Missouri.

What is your assessment of how much time & money was thrown down a rats hole on a supposed done-deal slam-dunk licensing legislation bill in Missouri?

I figure a quarter of a million dollars were wasted, imagine the results had those dollars been funneled into marketing & education instead of this nonsense? Hopefully next year the true concerned home inspectors of Missouri will help to empty the licensing Nazi's coffers and send them to the poorhouse once and for all.

Really?

Joe, you're going to have to point me to those threads, because what's been happening in Washington State hardly made a blip on TIJ. Hardly anyone from outside of the state showed any interest and I'll be darned if I can find one post with wailing or gnashing of teeth - even metaphorically. You haven't been dragging plastic wrapped bales of brown vegetable matter out of the ocean off the coast down there and been smoking it have you? Joe, you sly dog! Who would have ever expected you to be a potty-head?


Holy Sh*t! Did someone actually spend $100K trying to get that bill passed? (Oh, wait a minute - I see a reference to "blow" in there. Now I get it.) Funny, I thought it was the most powerful Democratic Senator in a Democratically-controlled state senate who got a bug up her butt about licensing who started the whole thing without anyone spending a dime. As best I could tell, nobody on either side of the issue spent much at all. Some gasoline to drive to Olympia. A few dollars on coffee and snacks once or twice a month. Maybe a little for bandwidth for some e-mails. But no real expenses for anyone in favor of it or anyone trying to defeat, as far as I could see.

Maybe one or two inspectors lost a job or two, because they chose to attend the hearings in Olympia, but there weren't any fancy high-paid lobbyists running around Olympia trying to wine and dine anyone. Heck, it wasn't even that much of an issue in Olympia. Despite the noise that folks on both side of the issue made for months, not a whole lot of people showed up for any hearings. The truth is, there's a lot of apathy here toward the whole subject of licensing and the number of people actually making noise is comparatively few compared to how many inspectors there actually are. Most inspectors here probably sort of yawned and said, "Home inspector licensing law? Really? Wow, I had no idea. Well, I've gotta job to go to, so let me know how it comes out."

Despite all of the rhetoric coming off of this and the NACHI board about how the people who were behind it are involved with training or are established inspectors who wanted to keep out competition, I couldn't find one single person in the state who could corroborate that with any real facts. Where do you get your information. You must have some amazing sources down there in Florida, Joe.


Maybe so. Could you tell me who they are, so I can interview them? I live up here and I can't find a whole lot of folks that were happy about the prospect of licensing, let alone any that could qualify as boot lickers. Oh, wait a minute. I just remembered, wasn't it your buddy Nick Gromicko who told Larry Stamp that he was personally pushing SB5788, and that when he, Nick Gromicko (not NACHI), pushes something, it usually gets passed? So, I guess Nick would be one of those so-called boot lickers who is feeling the agony of defeat. Huh! Who would have ever thought that with all of those members' dollars, that he could have used for a lobbyist, eating a hole in his pocket that Nick would have been defeated. Wow! I guess that is something to crow about.


That's a helluva crystal ball you've got there, Joe. Gosh, it must be fantastic to be so all-knowing and wise. Can you teach me the secret of how one accumulates all of that wisdom and becomes so worldly?

OK, I truly don't know where Joe comes up with this stuff, but if he were to submit to a urine test to determine whether he's been dabbling in happy smoke, we might come to understand. Anyway, here's what's I can tell you about what's going on in Washington State - the licensing bill - SB5788 - is NOT dead. It's been temporarily sidelined while a sunrise review is being done.

We hope the bill is dead, but we won't know until the sunrise review is completed and returned to the house committee that sent it there. Then, depending on what the Department of Licensing reviewer has uncovered and recommends, it could once again rear its ugly head. The simple truth is that the most powerful democratic senator in a democratically controlled state government in a heavily democrat state, for whatever reason, wants to notch her holster with this bill, and unless someone can change her mind, it's liable to be revived this fall and see passage early in the next legislative session, because she's acting like a pit bull clamped onto a bull's behind and doesn't seem to want to let it go.

As of 10 days ago, which is the last time I talked to anyone from DOL about this, DOL still hadn't assigned the study to a specific caseworker because it hadn't officially begun the process yet. As soon as they get it the clock starts ticking and they have a certain time line to meet specific benchmarks in the sunrise review process. When they begin, they'll start soliciting input from home inspectors and anyone else they think the proposed regulation will impact. Maybe that will be the alleged "stakeholders" that the Senator told the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee had all been 'consulted' at the first public hearing on the bill.

The sunrise review is a study to determine whether the proposed legislation is justified. It is done only at the request of the chairs of the legislative committees. The only victory that anyone can ballyhoo is that they've managed to get the bill punted to DOL for the Sunrise Review. If Senator's Spanel and Kohl-Welles have their way, the sunrise review might just end up being a minor speed bump and nothing more.

According to legislative guidelines here, it's the intent of the state legislature that all individuals have the right to enter into any business profession, unless there is "an overwhelming need for the state to protect the interests of the public by restricting entry." Enhancement of professional status alone is not enough to justify regulation. Now, I've never seen where there are are hundreds of reports of incompetent home inspectors on the TV news or in the newspaper here. I did see where KIRO7 suddenly dug up an old still-unsettled case from about 4 years ago that one of the Senators conveniently used as a backdrop to declare her resolve to put controls on home inspectors, but that is about it, so one would logically expect that a fair process would see the bill's demise. One would logically expect that, but I think it's too soon to count chicks.

Anyone who wants to know more about the sunrise review process can find out more about it at The DOL website. It will explain that a business profession should be regulated or its scope of practice expanded only when:

"-Unregulated practice can clearly harm or endanger the health, safety or welfare of the public, and the potential for the harm is easily recognizable and not remote or dependent upon tenuous argument;

-The public needs and can reasonably be expected to benefit from an assurance of initial and continuing professional ability;

-The public cannot be effectively protected by other means in a more cost-beneficial manner."

That said, if they decide that a profession must be regulated, it's policy that they implement the least restrictive method of regulation that's consistent with the public interest.

So, let me give you the Reader's Digest version of what's going to happen:

DOL assigns it to a caseworker.

That caseworker is responsible for researching laws in other states to see what's worked, what hasn't worked and what affect - positive or negative - licensing has had on the profession.

That caseworker will collect input from stakeholders, special interest groups and others.

That caseworker will figure out what regulation will cost and whether there is sufficient number of inspectors in the state to pay for it.

The caseworker will turn his/her results over to his honcho and then the honcho will decide whether he/she feels the proposal is justified and there's a way to pay for it, based on the data the caseworker collected.

If DOL decides that regulation isn't warranted. or the benefit doesn't justify the cost, it's sent back to the committee chair with a recommendation to kill it.

If DOL decides that it's necessary and there are sufficient numbers of home inspectors to pay for it, but that the law is too restrictive, they'll send it back with a recommendation for modifications.

If DOL decides that it's not too restrictive and it's necessary, and the program will generate enough revenue to pay for itself, it will get sent back with a recommendation for passage.

From there, it's back into the legislators' hands.

They can still kill it, if there is overwhelming opposition and they're afraid it will hurt them politically. That's not likely. Home inspectors here as a demographic have about as much power as a gnat on a bull's ass. Without powerful allies, they're pretty much at the mercy of the pols.

If the legislators don't think it will hurt them and could do them some good politically, while still benefiting the consumer, they'll probably pass it, in which case, it's sent to the governor for signature.

The governor, also a lady democrat, will probably sign it, unless there is a really good reason not to. This is where DOL's sunrise review can come in handy, because DOL also recommends to the governor whether they think it should pass or should be defeated. If DOL doesn't recommend passage, there's a chance she'll veto it.

If there aren't enough votes to override a gubernatorial veto, then it dies and not before.

Folks in Washington State on either side of this issue should neither be congratulating themselves nor feeling defeated, because this bill is still far from dead. The DOL guy said they called it the "bill that wouldn't die."

So, inspectors, take this "scorecard" with a grain of salt and keep your ears to the ground in your own states, instead of giving credence to the megalomaniacal rantings of an inspector in another state who has less than a clue about what you have to go through in your own.

For those of you in Washington State, if you're really interested in this thing one way or the other, write to your pols and talk to influential friends about it and ask them to write to their pols, because the sunrise review is all about gauging interest one way or the other.

For more information about the process, go to: WA State Licensing: Sunrise review reports

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O'Handley

Mike,

As always thanks for your contribution to our little licensing thread, it would certainly be a dull world if we all agreed. In regards to blowing smoke, an old Irish proverb so eloquently says... Smoke your pipe and be silent; there's only wind and smoke in the world. Good advice if you ask me.

Joe.

Defeated Missouri Home Inspector bill follow up. Posted for all the folks who said it couldn't be done, good work Missouri!

Inject what you may. But make sure it is the truth. THAT, is not.

__________________
Randy Aldering, RHI CHI
Housesmithe Inspection
www.housesmithe.com

And... What is truth?

Update:

I'd completely forgotten about this thread. Well, this year the same Senator, for the 3rd January in a row, again introduced a bill in the Senate to regulate home inspectors.

This time, the Washington Home Inspectors Legislative Advisory Group (WHILAG), a coalition made up of home inspectors from all of the associations as well as independents, had done their homework and she found herself facing a companion bill introduced in the house that WHILAG had authored, as well as many key legislators that WHILAG had educated about the profession. Seeing the prospect of another killed bill, she finally invited WHILAG to meet with her and work out differences between her bill and the WHILAG version. The bill then breezed through the senate, went on to the house where a couple of slight housekeeping amendments were made, and then it passed the house 93 to 0 and is currently on the governor's desk awaiting her signature.

In the end, through WHILAG's efforts, backed by some strategic lobbying, home inspectors ended up with a board made up of 100% home inspectors instead of the real estate folks and educators that the senator had originally wanted on the board. There is no requirement to be a member of any home inspection organization, in order to be a member of the home inspectors advisory board, and no more than two members from any single home inspection organization may sit on the board at the same time. So, technically, it's impossible for members of any single home inspectors' association to control the board. In fact, it's just as likely that the board makeup could be 100% independents, or made up of one from each of the nationals and the rest independents. What's key though, is that it will be home inspectors and not non-inspectors making decisions about our profession.

But that's not the most significant thing; if she signs this bill into law, home inspectors here will finally, after 18 years, again be separated from the pest inspection business and will be able to write up rotten wood and conducive conditions, without the need to be licensed as a pest inspector and carry coverage for pest-related issues. To those of you in the majority of other states where that's the norm, that's no big deal, but here it is huge 'cuz it was the pest guys who foisted that rule on us back in 1991 and it's been sand in the shorts of home inspectors ever since.

Whether or not licensing will not "solve" anything, as Joe is so fond of saying, won't be known for a few years. We should be able to tell you whether it was a good thing or a bad thing for inspectors here somewhere around the middle of 2011.

First though, one thing at a time; let's see if she signs the bill into law or vetos it.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

As the way it should be. Congratulations, hope it passes reading.

__________________

I'll be willing to bet thousands that if & when licensing comes the board will be populated with political appointments from the Governors office and those who do in fact become board members will be clueless as to who we are and what we do.

Inspector disappointment with the process & results of licensing legislation is the number one outcome experienced when working with the government.

Elected officials will forever and always put their re-election priorities before doing what is right and that is why incompetent home inspectors are handed a license, they are after all voters too.

Well if thats the case then inspectors need to assure their interests are represented which does not appear to have been the case in every instance of licencing.

Cheers,

__________________

And just how do powerless home inspectors insure that their interests will be represented when working with lying, cheating government officials who's only goal is to be re-elected?

The wise home inspector would be much better off resisting any intervention of government into our profession. There simply are no cases where state licensing has benefited our profession, none.

Okay Joesph, whatever you say. You seem to be the lone voice of reasoning to suit your agenda. Carry on!

__________________

It appears that Missouri HB 2057 proposing the licensing of home inspectors has been shelved.

No one could show the "Show Me" state a demonstrated need.

A room full of dejected ASHI presidents had to leave the conference room to look for inspection work, having had their hopes of making money mentoring inspectors under the new bill dashed to pieces.

James,

No doubt to see your posts everywhere on licencing, everyone owes you a great deal of gratitude. For once your big mouth staved of licencing!

Btw James why do you feel it necessary to hack this board and the ASHI board, after your little rant about hacking?

__________________

I congratulate the wisdom of those leaders in Missouri who saw past the empty promises and false sense of consumer protection touted by those who push licensing as the panacea that will cure all of our profession's ills. The licensing proponents remind me of dime store novel snake-oil barkers who push their worthless colored water in fancy glass bottles at carnival sideshows.

Furthermore I hope the license pushers pissed away their entire bankroll in this useless folly and that word spreads far & wide that resistance is not futile regarding home inspector licensing and that bills can be defeated.

Florida is a perfect example of failed home inspector licensing legislation. Since the bill's signing the effective date has been pushed out once and it still has not been funded. Faced with the cut-backs Florida will endure the money may never materialize, and if it does there is a group preparing to get the state attorney involved in nullifying the bill based on the sunrise study.

Remember, chaos is the fabric of the universe and all systems gain entropy, In other words... it don't take half as much effort to tip the applecart as it did to load it.

Bravo Missouri!

Licensing vs non licensing

Either way, it still comes down to "buyer beware"

There are good and bad inspectors in any state with licensing and does not have licensing.

I don't see where licensing will deal with/find/take out bad inspectors.

The free market will take care of that, in both situations. Bad inspectors will be found out (license or not), will lose business, and thus financially forced out of business.

The good drives out the bad

Consider other licensing: doctors, lawyers, Real Estate Agents etc. They all have their share of bad apples, however don't see/hear of those licenses being revoked very often.

Consumer protection NOT!!! The consumer should always research, get recommendations, and should not rely on government licensing as a gurantee of a competent person, no matter what the profession/industry.

And who protects the inspectors from unscrupulous associations if there is no outside oversight, never mind the public?

__________________

The last I heard, membership in "associations" (unscrupulous or otherwise) is voluntary. Protecting one from his own choice is about as Socialist as you can get.

Joe B.

I like the last paragraph of the letter you drafted to Govenor Crist.

So you really do support licencing as long as it meets a SOP that will protect the public!

Thats great news. Congratulations. I couldn't agree with you more!

Cheers,

__________________

Michael,

Going my way? Thats funny coming from someone of your ilk and lowly qualifications. Btw did you ever find your flashlight? I know where it is.

__________________

James

You are being a hypocrite again, considering your record of abuse of power!

__________________

Raymond, you're so predictable. Better watch out, Brian doesn't like personal attacks on his board.

Michael

Whats the matter Michael, don't like the heat?

__________________

Excuse me?

.... okay you are excused.

__________________

No heat in here.
There is a lot of smoke however.

Raymond, if you love licensing so much I suggest you move to the states. Maybe Texas would suit you.

Michael

Do you have any room at your house? I hear there is a lot of smoke at your house! And I don't mean the meat smoker out back.

__________________

Hearing voices again?

Up your meds Raymond.

Raymond Wand

The same applies to HI organizations. Buyer beware Research, ask questions of others, Get all the advice you can get, then you can make a educated decission. Knowledge equals personal power and responsability.

So, in your world then, all HI organizations should be subjected to licensing? And I guess that would apply to just about any organization? Don't know about you up accross the northern boarder, but we have this nifty little right, in our constution, FREEDOM OF CHOICE, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

You seem to believe that government, through licensing, can protect you from yourself. Freedom, try it, you might like it. Now, take a deep breath of fresh air, before the government a licenses(and taxes) that.

How about a litte personal responsibilty in the decissions we make in life.

And, when, will we need a license, so we can make decissions on our own????

Michael

You don't tolerate heat very well!

__________________