Thread: state licensing for home inspectors

Ren

to each their own. i don,t agree with your last paragraph. my realtors know i don,t mess around and give them the best toughest inspection they can get. and i do more seller to buyer inspections then foreclosures and short sales. guess things are different state to state. don,t know why so many inspectors don,t like realtors. after all we would not be in business if they did not exist. remember there are bad and dishonest inspectors and agents. just find the honest ones

cvf

In Michigan, most licensing prohibits convicted felons from any professional practice. We do not have licensing, but we do have at least one convicted felon (breaking/entering - theft) performing home inspections. THAT has to be good for the profession.

Originally Posted by Randy Aldering

In Michigan, most licensing prohibits convicted felons from any professional practice. We do not have licensing, but we do have at least one convicted felon (breaking/entering - theft) performing home inspections. THAT has to be good for the profession.

Lets see. A stupid kid regretfully follows some clowns into a home even though he new and felt and believed it was wrong and illegal and did nothing but want to get out of there before he went in. A cop sees them go in. The kid is regretful as hell even before entering and is already on his way out just after entering to get the hell away from there and.................................... He cannot hold a Professional license for the rest of his life.

Sorry. In many many many....big percentage of cases, people become career criminals. But one screw up from pier pressure and no Professional license for the rest of his life.

Sorry but I for one find that completely asinine. Maybe a long probationary period and some counseling to determine if he is one of those career criminals but seriously....the rest of his breathing days?????????????????

I find that to be one of the most alarming and ridiculous things our justice system ever put forth. I am not talking kid as in under 18 were it may not be on his adult record but a legal adult (which most kids are certainly not adults at 18 as far as I am concerned.).

When exactly has someone paid for one stupid act he did as a kid/adult. Oh I know.

For Life!!!!!!! After he is gone we absolve him from that sin.

Before you ask. If outlined something like I put forth would I trust a 30 year old man who had one stupid act into my home to inspect it. Yes. As resounding yes.

How do you feel about an inspector in a previous profession that stole $300k from the school board now plying his trade?

I make no apologies, I am tired of criminals up here being treated with kidd gloves.

I understand that flogging criminals has a very low recidivism rate.

We have criminals out on bail committing other crimes.

Or how about CMI supposed police background cheques that are not conducted.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

How do you feel about an inspector in a previous profession that stole $300k from the school board now plying his trade?


Or how about CMI supposed police background cheques that are not conducted.

Raymond. Do you really believe that a crook would lie about their past on a notorized statement?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

How do you feel about an inspector in a previous profession that stole $300k from the school board now plying his trade?

I make no apologies, I am tired of criminals up here being treated with kidd gloves.

I understand that flogging criminals has a very low recidivism rate.

We have criminals out on bail committing other crimes.

Or how about CMI supposed police background cheques that are not conducted.

I am not talking about a true adult stealing 300,000 from a school board or someone that is a career criminal, or a rapist or mas murderer. As a matter of fact the last couple of churches I know have people that have never been arrested, adults, that I can guarantee they committed crimes but charges dropped for some foolish reason, or should I say, the law.

I am not asking you or anyone for apologies for anything. I am just supplying real food for real thought. Just because someone did something foolish in their young life and paid the price..............I just don't think they need to pay that price for the rest of their breathing lives. I am quite sure there are way to many people to count that have committed sins against man kind and have never paid the price. You may have just hung out with him quite unsuspectingly .....last night. The difference between him and the poor fool that screwed up once in life paid the price but has always has been truly a good person. I will not condemn that man for the rest of his life. No professional license? Why don't we extend that and not let him work under a professional for the rest of his life. Lets go one further and have him supervised and followed the rest of his life. Lets just take everything away from him and never let him ever have anything.

What is a "professional" (I really don't need that explanation). Where does that invisible line get drawn. Don't continue on with education or just learning itself because you can never be a "Professional"!!!!!

Dan

People lie for all sorts of reasons whether its on an affidavit or otherwise, even on the witness stand.

Originally Posted by Jack Feldmann

When TN started licensing in 2005 there were aboiut 400 inspectors in the State. Within a year or so, there was close to 900.
With the downturn in the economy, the number is back down to around 400 again.
The interesting thing I learned about licensing was you could be a licensed home inspector without ever having inspected a house. I was hiring an additional inspector when licensing started, and got several applications. The guy I ended up hiring had never done a home inspection. He had taken the training, passed the exam, and got E&O insurance.

Licensing did nothing to protect consumers in the State (the intended purpose).

Casting no shadow on you, but a licensing agency that licenses an inspector that has never done an inspection is worse than bad. The "training" you referenced should have included mandatory inspections. A tip - - - never get surgery from a surgeon licensed in your state

Mike Holmes has never done an inspection, he only thinks he knows how and further demonstrates that he knows nothing by sub contracting inspectors to do the work for him.

It's ironic that a common gripe on this board is that we should be treated like doctors, lawyers and other professionals but then there are complaints about bare minimum standards amongst us in regards to behavior and education to perform the profession.

I don't necessarily have a strong opinion about licensing one way or the other and am generally not running around expecting to be treated like a doctor.... I'm just pointing out the irony.

Ted; FYI, this fellow is an adult, was when he committed the crime, and was when he was sentenced last year. No excuses. As far as kids making mistakes, maybe it is time for this country to get back to raising kids with a sense or responsibility and self-discipline.

I'm all for licensing. It's an important step in becoming a professional organization, But it is only a first step. The intent is to provide protection for both the consumer and the inspector.

Right now licensing is regulated on a state by state basis, which means our fate is in the hands of politicians and their politically motivated objectives.

Some states are also influenced by Realtors or builders or other special interest groups. They can all control what we do and don't do. - They influence the standards of practice, Liability, and police our profession, which is not always in the best interest of the profession. The State Board writes the rules and standards as they see fit - They go through the process of "public" input but it has very little influence over their decisions.

Our long range goal should be to work toward a national regulating board that controls our "Standard of Practice" - governed by the profession and industry experts, not politicians.

Similar to the "National Electrical Code". The electric code usually changes for improved safety and not for "More Votes". It can also be modified or changed by input from the profession or experts in our field.

There was an effort by A.N.S.I. to develop a national standard which I thought was a move in the right direction. Unfortunately, too many "tree hugging" organizations and politicians put a quash on it.

In order to succeed we need a strong National Influence. Today it is too fragmented with no real strength in the numbers.

That study by Butler College that found no significant differences between states with HI licensing and those without is very interesting and shouldn't be surprising. In every licensed profession and trade, there are licensed individuals that are not proficient in their practice. In most professions, obtaining a license is usually, as simple as passing a test, even if a very difficult test.

As we work to create licensing in Colorado and I study what other states have done, I am realizing that creating meaningful and effective licensure is indeed difficult. And I am starting to wonder how beneficial existing licensure in the states with it, really is to both HI and the public.

The real proof as to if licensing would make better inspectors or rather protect the public, would be to check the rates of E&O of inspectors in states with licensing and those that do not require it. (I don't think unlicensed states have a higher rate, because they don't seam to have any bigger problem with (more) litigation. They play a #s game based on risk. I have held licenses in a couple of different fields. Frankly, I think licenses can limit a good inspectors freedom to do a complete job. I have heard many times where State regs will limit an inspector on how far you can report on WDI, Radon and or Mould. (or even if you can udder the "M"-word)

my opinion is that most licensing is a tax and someone is going to pay it (the consumer). I also like personal responsibility and accountability.

Why is it in most states, the hours of training required to cut hair is many times longer (about 10X longer) than it is to become a certified EMT?

Well, this is one rambling thread. Bottom line is simple for my simple mind. Licensing presents an up-front investment of time and money on the part of the applicant. That automatically weeds out some competition. Continuing education weeds out some more. What little insurance requirements we have weed out some more. (I wish E&O was required) I'm quite happy to minimize my competition because reality is that no matter how much you'd like to have it different, Realtors will dictate the majority of our business. The out of town buyer will almost always tell the agent to call whomever THEY like. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get around the crap Realtors while not pissing off the ethical ones.
Licensing does protect the consumer. But mostly, it protects me.
Jeff Mathis
Greenville, NC

Update on licensing in Colorado:

At the last minute, or at least, the last week before a bill had to be submitted to the Colorado legislature, the Colorado Association of Realtors decided that the proposed bill might not be passed and instead, submitted an application regarding licensing to the Sunrise review process. Next October, the Dept. of Regulatory Agencies will make a recommendation as to whether they deem licensing home inspectors in Colorado is needed or not.

And so it goes..........

- - - Updated - - -



- - - Updated - - -



- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

Update on licensing in Colorado:

At the last minute, or at least, the last week before a bill had to be submitted to the Colorado legislature, the Colorado Association of Realtors decided that the proposed bill might not be passed and instead, submitted an application regarding licensing to the Sunrise review process. Next October, the Dept. of Regulatory Agencies will make a recommendation as to whether they deem licensing home inspectors in Colorado is needed or not.

And so it goes..........

- - - Updated - - -



- - - Updated - - -



- - - Updated - - -

Isn't it funny how they always seem to get involved in home inspector licensing.

And to think "The Colorado Association of Realtors" had the yeah or neigh in all this?????

Why are they even involved in something they know nothing about anyway.

Home Inspections should be completely independent of Realtor Associations. They are two completely separate businesses.

Never mind!

Randy,

In Washington State the association of Realtors (.ie WAR) was pretty neutral throughout our licensing effort. The main catalyst was a technical school that had some politicians in there pocket. The revised bills kept coming back with huge education and CE requirements. The local inspectors would ralleye and bring things into alignment until we got a bill we could live with. One thing that did change after we were licensed was the 3 inspector referral rule. Realtors can be fined if they only refer one inspector. This does make things a bit more competitive but the established Realtors still do what they want.

//Rick

Originally Posted by Rick Bunzel

Randy,

In Washington State the association of Realtors (.ie WAR) was pretty neutral throughout our licensing effort. The main catalyst was a technical school that had some politicians in there pocket. The revised bills kept coming back with huge education and CE requirements. The local inspectors would ralleye and bring things into alignment until we got a bill we could live with. One thing that did change after we were licensed was the 3 inspector referral rule. Realtors can be fined if they only refer one inspector. This does make things a bit more competitive but the established Realtors still do what they want.

//Rick

In our state the law makes it illegal for Realtors to make any referrals for inspectors. They can't provide a list of three, four, five or whatever. They are only allowed to provide their clients with a "hand out" sheet from the state that provides a website of all licensed inspectors.

But like Rick stated, it doesn't much matter what the law says, the Realtors still do whatever they want, and refer or badmouth the inspectors of their choice.

The home inspection law is much tougher on inspectors as they have to answer to the "Home Inspector Board" -- "Overzealous bunch" while Realtors face the "Realtor Board" for disciplinary action. The Realtor Board is not as tough and usually sympathizes with them.

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

In our state the law makes it illegal for Realtors to make any referrals for inspectors. They can't provide a list of three, four, five or whatever. They are only allowed to provide their clients with a "hand out" sheet from the state that provides a website of all licensed inspectors.

But like Rick stated, it doesn't much matter what the law says, the Realtors still do whatever they want, and refer or badmouth the inspectors of their choice.

The home inspection law is much tougher on inspectors as they have to answer to the "Home Inspector Board" -- "Overzealous bunch" while Realtors face the "Realtor Board" for disciplinary action. The Realtor Board is not as tough and usually sympathizes with them.

I thought it was only the listing agent in MA that is not allowed to recommend inspectors but a "buyers" agent can recommend inspectors for their clients......

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

I thought it was only the listing agent in MA that is not allowed to recommend inspectors but a "buyers" agent can recommend inspectors for their clients......

Your correct with that. It is only for sellers or listing brokers.

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

I'm all for licensing. It's an important step in becoming a professional organization, But it is only a first step. The intent is to provide protection for both the consumer and the inspector.

I disagree. I submit that licensing does next to zero in improving professionalism.

We might be seeing a reverse trend in professional licensing in it's earliest infancy being born. In July, Kansas let their five year old license law sunset. A few other states have tried deregulating some professions including home inspectors and a few others are discussing it. The Belmont University study in Ohio found little difference in professionalism between states with HI licensing and those without (in the sampled states).

Many people have a knee jerk reaction......"You mean anyone can hang their shingle and call themselves a home inspector? Why isn't there a law?"

That may be understandable but when pressed to name a profession where licensing has removed the incompetent, the lazy, or the bad characters, they confess that there aren't any.

I think licensing creates a false sense of security with folks. Most people fall into the trap of thinking, "he/she is licensed, so they must know what they are doing." When a profession is unregulated, people, at least some, will do more due diligence in researching when hiring someone rather than just pick a name based strictly on price.

A good argument for licensing is that bad licensees can be disciplined by a regulatory board, and while there is merit to that argument, for someone harmed by a licensed professional, the recourse remains the same.........sue them.

I agree with Lon Henderson 100%!

Licensing means nothing except it puts more money into the State coffers and creates a few jobs for those in government.

A good indication of if licensing has any effect on the quality of inspectors out in the field would be to look at E & O insurance rates. I'll those that are in a stat that requires licensing are not getting any break on their rates because they are les of a risk at screwing up missing things, or turning out bad reports...that put the public at risk.

Back in the early 80s, Colorado did way with Vehicle Inspections because those "they were licensing" were screwing over the pubic by selling them unnecessary break jobs, squirting oil on their shocks and claiming they needed new shocks or struts... After they did away with the "State Approved" inspection stations....accidents caused by faulty equipment actually went down, not up! Why? because people can take care of their own things better than if hey are lulled into
thinking the State is looking out for them.

I've been gone from Colorado for over 25 years, I hope they didn't get someone into the state legislature that reinstated the Car inspection requirement...But if they did, I'll bet that Legislator is getting a payoff somehow from that licensing requirement.

All professional people (in this state) are licensed

To name a few: Doctors, lawyers, Dentists, Nursing, Anesthesiologist, Teachers, Electricians, Plumbers, HVAC Contractors. AND ALL FOR GOOD REASON - It protects the people and it sets a STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE for these professionals. Additionally, it requires many of these professionals to carry E & O insurance to pay for errors or neglect. Licensing also requires the professional to have a level of experience, work under a mentor for a period of time and take continuing education and training.

All of the above - keeps the rift-raft out, It takes money, educations and commitment to remain licensed. Professionals that require licensing have to maintain a set standard or the can loose their privilege to practice.

Licensing "Increases professionalism" - MAKE NO MISTAKE.

Suing someone with no insurance or no assets means nothing - you can get all the suing-in you want but you get nothing from nothing.

Is it perfect - NO of course not,

"But to all those that are against licensing I ask you this - would you hire a non-licensed heart surgeon in a non regulated industry to operate on you???? Would you allow a non licensed surgeon to even practice the profession???

We need some sort of protection from sleaze bags. Would you buy a bottle that was labeled Aspirin, if you couldn't be sure it was real?

Really!! Be real!!

What benefit is there to the consumer if professionals are not licensed?
What protection is there to the consumer if the professional is not required to be insured? (don't say "take em to court").
What standard of performance would you expect from non-licensed, non regulated professionals (buyer beware attitude?)

I would like to hear the benefits of not being licensed?? Can you name a few?? I can't.

Originally Posted by Rick Bunzel

Randy,

In Washington State the association of Realtors (.ie WAR) was pretty neutral throughout our licensing effort.

//Rick

Sure. And back on 2009, the MAR claimed that they, too, were "neutral." But, I was able to throw a "privileged communication" clause into the bill. The people at MAR and the trail lawyers flamed out and went nuclear. Their response was a "strict liability" clause amendment. It would have been very interesting had the bill passed. One or the other of those would never have withstood court tests; my best guess is that it would have been the strict liability clause that would have been found to be unreasonable. We will never know.

In the end, we remain unlicensed, which is a double-edged sword. The true reason for licensing is industry capture - nothing else. There are peripheral benefits for some groups, but licensing tends to benefit those that are doing what is being regulated at the time regulation is initiated.

As it is, there are now more people in Michigan calling themselves home inspectors than ever before. Too many of those will end up being $25,250.00 home inspections for the buyers.

And so it goes.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Rick Bunzel

Randy,

In Washington State the association of Realtors (.ie WAR) was pretty neutral throughout our licensing effort.

//Rick

Sure. And back on 2009, the MAR claimed that they, too, were "neutral." But, I was able to throw a "privileged communication" clause into the bill. The people at MAR and the trail lawyers flamed out and went nuclear. Their response was a "strict liability" clause amendment. It would have been very interesting had the bill passed. One or the other of those would never have withstood court tests; my best guess is that it would have been the strict liability clause that would have been found to be unreasonable. We will never know.

In the end, we remain unlicensed, which is a double-edged sword. The true reason for licensing is industry capture - nothing else. There are peripheral benefits for some groups, but licensing tends to benefit those that are doing what is being regulated at the time regulation is initiated.

As it is, there are now more people in Michigan calling themselves home inspectors than ever before. Too many of those will end up being $25,250.00 home inspections for the buyers.

And so it goes.

- - - Updated - - -

Now why the devil did it do that?

- - - Updated - - -

Now why the devil did it do that?

ken does a license make you a good driver--a good dentist--a good real estate agent--a good lawyer--a good baker -a good chef--a good nurse. i dont think so it is a piece of paper--my people know how good i am---cvf

I think for the most part, Licensing is a mindset and those in states that grow accustomed to more regulation, "feel" it is better this way, when the #s really don't pan out. It's the same with may aspects when it comes to control. States like MA and CA have lots of rules and after a time the people accept this control and want more of it.

Is the cancer rate lower in California because of the requirement to put a label on everything that may cause cancer in the state of California? I'm not even going to ring up licensing and control of Firearms vs crime rates in different states.....MA vs UT or NY vs CO, ID, AZ....No, I will not bring that up...
I like living in a state were we have freedoms to succeed or fail. It is called personal responsibility. I do not see any evidence that Sates that license HIs protect the consumer. But I can see that the added cost of the regulations do figure in to the price of the home! And that harms the consumer and their ability to purchase a home.

Originally Posted by CHARLIE VAN FLEET

ken does a license make you a good driver--a good dentist--a good real estate agent--a good lawyer--a good baker -a good chef--a good nurse. i dont think so it is a piece of paper--my people know how good i am---cvf

Charlie,

Not Ken here, but no license makes anyone "better", but licensing DOES provide the ability to place controls and punishment on the licensed persons who are "bad" at whatever they are licensed to do, whereas not having licenses means not having ANY controls other than 'take them to court', yeah, right, some of us here have been debating the relatively minor cost of inspection reports being passed along and used and that 'no one will go to court over that' - it is not 'the cost', it is the theft of the services, and one even stated that there is no comparison between architects and home inspectors because of - get this - 'cost value' - all 'cost value' has to do is whether or not the theft is 'petty' or 'grand' but it is still theft ... oh, yeah, this is still on topic as that 'theft' would not have occurred (in Oregon) without the inspector being licensed and the law stating such.

That is just one advantage of licensing ... however, there can be 'good' licensing and there can be 'bad' licensing, and sometimes in the same statutes.

There ARE distinct advantages to having to be licensed.

There ARE distinct dis-advantages to having to be licensed.

NOT being licensed does NOT make one a better inspector, so why do you and some other think that being licensed is supposed to make one a better inspector? Seems to me you and the other are putting forth the argument that NOT being licensed makes one a better inspector - are you really saying/meaning that?

jerry---say what--dont get where you are going with this---cvf

Originally Posted by CHARLIE VAN FLEET

ken does a license make you a good driver--a good dentist--a good real estate agent--a good lawyer--a good baker -a good chef--a good nurse. i dont think so it is a piece of paper--my people know how good i am---cvf

Charlie, The piece of paper does not make a person a good anything, but it does as I mentioned previously protect the purchaser of the service through mandatory E & O insurance, it ensures that a minimum standard is met and it requires the person who conducts the service to have minimum qualifications and continued education.

So now will you please answer my question. - How does NO licensing or NO regulation make the home inspection industry more professional??

I challenge any of you who are against licensing to respond.

After reading and hearing the same arguments from folks on this thread and on similar threads over the years it is evident that most who do not agree with licensing also do not understand that a good licensing program also protects the inspector. Yes, a license law offers protection and in most cases some relief to the consumers who have been damaged in one way or the other; but on the other hand the home inspector is also provided a safety net of sorts.

I have also observed that many who are against licensing share a common fear; and that is the fear of having to meet any new requirements to obtain a license. Some are fearful, some just do not feel they need to justify anything and others just do no want to be told they must do something.

Prescribed state standards offer far more protection in the eyes of the court over the association standards that many spout about using. Many good licensing programs also place a time limit of liability, some have one year, many have 3 years. If you are in an unlicensed state you liability is most likely 5-7 years and in some cases even longer if an issue arises and is taken to court.

I have worked under a home inspector license for over 14 years in one state; 7 & 3 years in two other states and I have performed inspections in several other states that do not require a license. I can honestly say that I feel safer from the liability standpoint of working in a licensed environment.

This debait will continue but with only 16 or so states not being regulated in some form or shape it will become increasingly difficult to justify not being licensed to the consumer and to the law makers across the country. License programs are not cash cows for the States coffers, they normally produce just enough revenue to support the administration part of the program and often they do not do that. This is why many states lump all of their licensing programs in a licensing division instead of a freestanding department.

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

Your correct with that. It is only for sellers or listing brokers.

I guess I did not know that either. The sellers agent stands to make as much as a listing agent so why is it just the listing agent that cannot refer.

I could and do understand why both should be out of the picture of home inspection. But one and not the other.

Probably been answered but I skimmed by and caught that.

Another perspective on lic or no lic.
From my experience from being involved in complaints against inspectors for the past 7 years in a licensed state 50% or more of complaints are not valid. A lot of them are a result of a contractor trying to sell the client something, others are simply due to the client not understanding what our limitations are.
If that's the case the state advises the alleger the inspector did meet the states standards, and the complaint is closed.
From my understanding once that happens its a lot harder for the client to prove his case with legal action, and or trying to collect on the inspectors insurance.

Question for inspectors in un licensed states.
If a client has a complaint against you how do you handle it without hiring a lawyer, paying to correct an item, or refund the inspection fee to make it go away?

For those in Colorado: The sunrise review was released yesterday. The conclusion of the review is:

Recommendation – Require all home inspectors in Colorado to obtain a license prior to providing home inspector services. Licensed home inspectors should be required to pass both an examination and a fingerprint-based criminal history background check prior to obtaining a license. A seven-member home inspector board should be created to provide regulatory oversight of home inspectors. Licensed home inspectors should be required to complete continuing education.

Presumably, a bill will be introduced creating licensing for home inspectors in this session. It still has to pass, of course. If passed, it's unlikely that it will take effect until late next year and more likely sometime in 2017.

Lon wrote in part:

A seven-member home inspector board should be created to provide regulatory oversight of home inspectors.

I think thats a very good idea it takes the conflicts and inadequacy of associations to oversee their own. Levels the playing field. Thats what I would like to see occur up here in Ontario.

Charlie, your state's Department of Regulatory Agencies, Office of Policy released an association membership requirement comparison on Friday. See page 8 of their Sunrise Review http://www.nachi.org/documents2012/C...n-Industry.pdf

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Charlie, your state's Department of Regulatory Agencies, Office of Policy released an association membership requirement comparison on Friday. See page 8 of their Sunrise Review http://www.nachi.org/documents2012/C...n-Industry.pdf

In one our meetings, we had a representative from DORA (I forget his name), who told us that there was zero chance that DORA would accept any association's exam as a qualifier for a license. Rather, DORA would create its own test that all HIs would be required to take (read that as no grandfathering).

Of course, even if that is DORA's position today, it isn't in concrete or what will be in the actual license law.

The Sunrise recommendation of 24 hours of continuing ed every 3 years mirrors the requirement for Coloradan real estate agents. That that is far less than any of the HI associations require.

For Coloradan HIs, next year will be interesting.

In Colorado:
On 1/16 we had a final meeting with the Senator introducing the license bill for final tweaks. Senator Todd is planning to introduce the bill on 1/23.

The real fun is about to begin..........

Lon

I assume you've seen this?

2014 Sunrise Review: Home Inspectors

http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite...&ssbinary=true

This may be a little late for your original post. But the change has been recent (6 mos). In Texas.. The Texas Administrative Code states that you first need to be a assistant inspector, get a license for that for a fee of 150.00 bucks or so and be sponsored. Only then can you apply for a HI license. You must submit fingerprints for background checks on each subsequent renewal. To get an HI license you must go through the apprentice process for at least 3 months B4 you can even apply. Then the cost is 220.00 for the next 2 years. Etc....

It seems to me that this is more about money and revenue as is most things in Texas. Then of course you have to have liability insurance to cover each occurrence if a dispute arises of at least 100,000 (per occurrence). You must show that insurance is in place prior to issuance of the license and it will be revoked if it is found that you have none. Additionally, if you violate any of the administrative laws in this process and are found guilty, the state will revoke any other licenses you hold with them even if they have nothing to do with HI.

As I have read in these posts, these laws have little if nothing to do with how good or bad you are as an inspector, and everything to do with recovering revenue that may not ordinarily get. But this is just my opinion. If any Realtor wants to champion license requirements.... My suggestion to them would be to bend over and spread them wide. Somebody has to pay for it.

Just one mans opinion....

notes for my meeting--can you or anyone tell me how do you get a license in your state to be a HI-requirements

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Lon

I assume you've seen this?

2014 Sunrise Review: Home Inspectors

http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite...&ssbinary=true

Oh yeah. I was in regular contact with the author while he did his research.

Originally Posted by Mike James

This may be a little late for your original post. But the change has been recent (6 mos). In Texas.. The Texas Administrative Code states that you first need to be a assistant inspector, get a license for that for a fee of 150.00 bucks or so and be sponsored. Only then can you apply for a HI license. You must submit fingerprints for background checks on each subsequent renewal. To get an HI license you must go through the apprentice process for at least 3 months B4 you can even apply. Then the cost is 220.00 for the next 2 years. Etc....

It seems to me that this is more about money and revenue as is most things in Texas. Then of course you have to have liability insurance to cover each occurrence if a dispute arises of at least 100,000 (per occurrence). You must show that insurance is in place prior to issuance of the license and it will be revoked if it is found that you have none. Additionally, if you violate any of the administrative laws in this process and are found guilty, the state will revoke any other licenses you hold with them even if they have nothing to do with HI.

As I have read in these posts, these laws have little if nothing to do with how good or bad you are as an inspector, and everything to do with recovering revenue that may not ordinarily get. But this is just my opinion. If any Realtor wants to champion license requirements.... My suggestion to them would be to bend over and spread them wide. Somebody has to pay for it.

Just one mans opinion....

notes for my meeting--can you or anyone tell me how do you get a license in your state to be a HI-requirements

If you would do a little more research you will find that home inspector licensing usually cost more than it brings in to the coffers and for many states they are just happy to breakeven.

Originally Posted by Kevin Wood

Looks like we are thinking on the right track Raymond. I don't think distance or Association can separate the thoughts of those who are true Professional's in this field.
7 is a good number.

In our deliberations, I advocated for no mention of any associations in the law, but was out voted. At last Friday's meeting, we approved a change in the HI Board from seven to five; three from each of the "big" three HI associations and two members selected at large by the governor.

If licensing becomes law here, Colorado will have reciprocity with other states having similar requirements for licensing. Existing HIs here having sufficient experience, i.e., 200 paid inspections, etc. will be "grandfathered", but will have to have E&O to continue to practice.

In Colorado, the Dept. of Regulatory Agencies, creates its own exams, so none of the HI association's exams will be accepted. If not grandfathered, new HIs will have to pass a test created by DORA after taking "approved" schooling or coursework.

Of course, the bill may not pass or could be heavily modified in legislative deliberations.

In our deliberations, I advocated for no mention of any associations in the law, but was out voted. At last Friday's meeting, we approved a change in the HI Board from seven to five; three from each of the "big" three HI associations and two members selected at large by the governor.

At least with two independent outside appointees the associations won't be able to sweep stuff under the rug. Hope that's the way things go up here. We have too many business interests and conflicts on the licencing panel set up by our consumer affairs ministry in my view.

Good for you Lon! Associations should be left out of the equation, too bad it didn't fly. You're not just another pretty face. You're a smart fella.

Update for licensing in Colorado: It's dead for now.

Today in the Senate committee hearing, they voted to kill it. We may well revisit this in a couple of years, but for now......it's over.

Congratulations, or should I say I am sorry to hear that?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Congratulations, or should I say I am sorry to hear that?

On one hand, we had compiled a good bill that all of us felt like we could support. On the other hand, most of us didn't see a need for it and none of us heard a demand from the public for licensing. Some of us have concerns that a future bill might be more objectionable, so it's a mixed response. No crying in our beer but no party either.

Wow! The Denver Post got on it quickly.

Senate committee kills bill to license Colorado home inspectors - The Denver Post

I don't know how many inspectors from Colorado read this forum, but a heads up for any who do. Licensing for home inspectors is coming to Colorado. With the democrats regaining control of the Colorado Senate, the Colorado Association of Realtors (CAR) immediately began putting together a Sunrise request for a new license bill. The Sunrise has been assigned to an analyst and the Sunrise review is underway. The recommendations of the Sunrise will come out in October, 2019. A bill will be submitted for vote and the vote will likely be in January or February of 2020. We will probably see licensing requirements take effect in the summer of 2020.

The bill that the home inspector community put together and advocated back in 2014 was well thought out and balanced. I have started campaigning with CAR and a few legislators to dust off that bill and resubmit it when the time comes. Licensing will surely happen this time and we need to make sure the license bill is a good one.

And, the radon mitigation industry in Colorado has submitted a Sunrise request to license radon mitigators and testers in Colorado which would require any home inspector who does radon testing here to get certified and licensed. I don't know what chance this will have of passing, but I wouldn't bet against it.

Originally Posted by Lon Henderson

I don't know how many inspectors from Colorado read this forum, but a heads up for any who do. Licensing for home inspectors is coming to Colorado. With the democrats regaining control of the Colorado Senate, the Colorado Association of Realtors (CAR) immediately began putting together a Sunrise request for a new license bill. The Sunrise has been assigned to an analyst and the Sunrise review is underway. The recommendations of the Sunrise will come out in October, 2019. A bill will be submitted for vote and the vote will likely be in January or February of 2020. We will probably see licensing requirements take effect in the summer of 2020.

The bill that the home inspector community put together and advocated back in 2014 was well thought out and balanced. I have started campaigning with CAR and a few legislators to dust off that bill and resubmit it when the time comes. Licensing will surely happen this time and we need to make sure the license bill is a good one.

And, the radon mitigation industry in Colorado has submitted a Sunrise request to license radon mitigators and testers in Colorado which would require any home inspector who does radon testing here to get certified and licensed. I don't know what chance this will have of passing, but I wouldn't bet against it.

Lon,

Please keep us updated as to what happens and how it progresses. CA is not licensed at this time either. I understand many of the positives and negatives and personally, I am on the fence as to whether it provides adequate protection for buyers and owners. I do see a conflict of interest when it is overseen by the same organization that oversees real estate agents.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Lon,
I do see a conflict of interest when it is overseen by the same organization that oversees real estate agents.

Ya,.. we all know how ethical those idiots are.
On that note.. if they just did away with the realtors referring their "rubber stamping yes men" then that would also weed out the idiots and PTers.
It would effectively narrow the paying field down to two reasons the client will choose you.. price and / or experience.

Someone should've just called me before they write that bill into law, would save them a ton of time and effort.