New, Washington State Home Inspector Licensing Requirements to Affect Home Buyers and Their Realtors

This is very interesting;  Here is California our pest inspectors have to be licensed, but our home inspectors do not.  Of course the pest inspectors can do the repair work, but the home inspectors cannot.

As a home inspector and pest inspector in Washington, are you able to do the repair work on problems you discover when inspecting a property?

Interesting -- likely more states will begin to have more rules about licensing.

Home Inspectors in INdiana have been licensed for about two years now.  This has been a good thing.  I think it helps Realtors eliminate a little liability of their own when the people or companies have to be licensed by the state.  It helps to ensure a better educated professional too.  Sounds like good news for Washington state.

Great post Jason and fun to see you here----keep posting:)

Thanks, for the additional info Jason.

Now I'm just curious to see if other states start moving in the same direction.

Hi,

Yes, great post Jason, but I'm sorry to say that it's full of factual errors. Here are the facts:

Fact:All home inspectors, new, seasoned or otherwise, did NOT have to be licensed as of September 1, 2009 - onlythose in the "very new category" had to be licensed by that date - experienced inspectors and newer inspectors may still practice legally up until July 1, 2010 and there's absolutely nothing wrong with an agent referring clients to inspectors in those two categories - even if inspectors in those categories don't have a license yet.

Fact: The September 1 deadline was the last day that "experienced" inspectors could be grandfathered and it was the day that "very new inspectors" - those that weren't in the business on July 12, 2008 and haven't yet completed the requirements for a license - had to close down their businesses until they've completed all licensing requirements.

Fact: If an experienced inspector - an inspector that had been in the business at least two years and had completed at least 100 inspections, as of June 12, 2008 - failed to take the required tests and provide proof to the Department of Licensing by September 1st that he or she qualified under the "experienced" category, that inspector could not be grandfathered and must, literally,  find the time to somehow go back to school to learn the trade all over again by July 1, 2010.

Fact: "Experienced" inspectors that failed to make the deadline now have until July 1, 2010 to complete a state approved 120 hour Home Inspection Fundamentals course, complete 40 hours of supervised inspections under a licensed inspector, complete five written reports that comply with the new SOP, and must then take and pass the National Home Inspectors' Exam and the Washington State Home Inspectors' Exam.

Fact: Between now and July 1st of 2010 "experienced" inspectors may still practice home inspections legally and any real estate person that refers clients to them is not breaking the law. However, after July 1, 2010, if an "experienced" inspector has still not completed all licensing requirements, that inspector must close up shop until the requirements have been met. At that point, it would be illegal to refer a client to that inspector.

Fact: Until July 1, 2010, an agent would only be breaking the law if the agent referred clients to a very new inspector that hadn't yet completed all requirements for licensing.

Fact: All "newer" inspectors - those who were in the business on June 12, 2008 but had not yet completed two years in the business or 100 inspections - also have until July 1, 2010 to complete all of the licensing requirements and may continue to practice home inspections legally.

Agents are not breaking the law when they refer a client to an inspector in this category. However, if an inspector in this category fails to meet all requirements by July 1, 2010 the inspector will have to close his or her doors until all requirements have been completed.

So, until July 1, 2010 how will an agent know which category a home inspector falls into?: It's not going to be easy; if the agent has never met a a particular inspector, and doesn't know for a fact that the inspector was in business on or before June 12, 2008, short of demanding to see a copy of an inspector's business license that's dated prior to July 12, 2008, or going onto the DOL website and checking the date that the inspector's business license was first issued, there is no way for agents to know if the guy who isn't licensed is practicing legally

Obviously, some agents will simply opt to refer their clients only to those inspectors who've already been licensed; however, if an agent knows that their inspector falls into the "experienced" or "newer" category the agents should not be afraid to refer clients to that inspector for the next 10 months. It would be a good idea though, to ask the inspector when you see him or her, "have you been licensed yet?" as a way of prompting the inspector to get cracking on the licensing requirements.

There's another fundamental error in your post and that has to deal with the advantages of using an inspector with an SPI license. You state:

"It is important to note that a licensed home inspector without an SPI license will now be allowed to identify conducive conditions for Wood Destroying Organisms (WDOs) (i.e., leaky faucet or rot). However, they will not be allowed to identify WDOs or damage caused by them..."

Only partly true. In addition to conducive conditions, a home inspector that is not licensed as an SPI (structural pest inspector) mayidentify WDO (wood destroying organisms - fungal rot, mold, etc.) but may not identify WDI (wood destroying insects) or damage suspected to be caused by insects. The pest law states:

A person licensed as a home inspector under chapter 18.280RCW is exempt from licensing as a structural pest inspector except when reporting on the identification of or damage by wood destroying insects. [2008 c 119 § 23.]

Under the home inspection rules, an inspector may identify any damage seen, and has a duty to do so; however, if the inspector suspects that the damage is caused by insects as indicated by frass, emergence holes or the presence of live or dead insects - the inspector is simply not allowed to say, for instance, "That damage has been caused by termites," or that nest of insects that I found in all that damaged wood in the base of your wall is carpenter ants," and has to inform the client that he or she isn't qualified to determine what caused the damage or what kind of bugs they are and must refer that to a licensed inspector. So, the only advantage is that the SPI licensed guy/gal can say, "That kind of damage is definitely caused by annobiidae," or "Those bugs right there are wood-destroying insects - they are ________." That doesn't seem like much of an advantage...keep reading.

Then you go on to say:

"...and will not be required to carry insurance/bonding. (Some home inspectors may choose to carry insurance/bonding anyway; check with your home inspector to be sure.)"

Why is it that so many inspectors insist on spreading the disinformation that an inspector having an E & O policy is some kind of great advantage for the client or the agents when that simply is not the case. E & O is only an advantage in a situation where the error or the omission is catastrophic - like the house is going to fall down or the entire floor joist system and half of the walls needs to be cut away and replaced, it does little good for a client where ordinary pest issues are involved.

The truth is that most claims against inspectors are worth less than the deductible required for an E & O claim, so the insurance companies are never contacted anyway and the inspector ends up paying out of pocket. Therefore, it makes more sense to ensure that the inspector has the financial means to pay for these smaller claims or is the kind of stand-up person that will somehow make it right even if he or she doesn't have the cash. 

Inspectors don't pick up the phone and call their insurance company whenever they screw up; to do that would be downright foolish, since most carriers will automatically bill the inspector for the entire deductible the second that a claim number is assigned to the case - and the inspector has to pay that even if the insurance company never pays out a dime.

Besides, it's not a very smart thing to do - you get one, maybe two, shots at making an E & O claim before the insurance company cancels on you and then you become uninsurable. This is simply a marketing ploy; inspectors that claim this huge E & O advantage are either playing a shell game with disinformation or they simply haven't bothered to learn how their policies really work.

You go on to say:

• "If WDOs or damage are found during the home inspection, a home inspector with SPI licensing can identify the WDO and damage right then and there, rather than calling for another professional to come out later, saving the client additional time and cost. (This is really no different than calling out a licensed plumber or electrician.)"

I'd like to see where this is going to save the client time and money. If there are conducive conditions for rot and rot present, don't most clients demand that the seller fix those pest conducive conditions and repair the rot at the seller's expense or they walk away? 

I guess you're tying the "additional time and cost" to only insects, huh? Well, under the existing bug law, a home inspector licensed as an SPI can identify WDIs and damage caused by WDI's but the inspector is not allowed to perform a more thorough invasive inspection and is, more often than not, also not a licensed pest control operator, so the inspector is unable to tell the client all of what it's going to take in the way of repairs, and what it's going to cost, to fully repair the pest conducive conditions and do a treatment.

Also, since from this point on any inspector licensed as an SPI as well as a home inspector isn't allowed to do any work on the home for at least one year after the inspection, the inspector isn't allowed to remediate or repair the damage, right? So, bottom line, in order for the client to know what it's going to cost to eliminate the bugs and repair the damage, the inspector must still call for a 3rd party to get involved, .

If an inspector who is not licensed as an SPI sees conducive conditions and rot damage, but no bugs, he's still going to instruct the client that the conducive conditions that caused the rot need to be addressed, that a more thorough invasive inspection of the structure is going to be necessary to fully identify the scope of the rot and that 100% of the rot needs to be removed before the structure can be restored. That inspector, just like the licensed SPI guy, is going to tell the client that it's going to be necessary to bring in a specialist to do all of that. Right?

It's been my experience here in Washington that the overwhelming majority of homes that I look at will have WDO (rot) and conducive conditions but that actual "infestation" by real WDI (wood destroying "insects") is practically nil - probably only about 1%. It seems in the face of that, to me anyway, that it makes more sense to refer all suspected WDI issues to a bug guy. The bug guy isn't constrained from tearing into that house and determining the full extent of rot and insect infestation, as I am, and the bug guy is even allowed to do the repairs if he or she offers that service. That's a huge advantage over home inspectors.

So, the only difference between what was before and what is now is that now we here in Washington State will have to get used to dealing with bug issues the way that they've always been dealt with in the other 49 states and the way they used to be dealt with here. We're essentially going back to our roots. Who knows, maybe it will help to revive the struggling pest control industry in this state that had been decimated after home inspectors had been forced to be pest inspectors for so long.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O'Handley, LHI #202, Kenmore, WA