Undermining the Licensure Law in Washington - Before it even takes effect!

Paul, I cannot imagine what the driving forces behind this bill would be.  While some of the education providers might be behind the education change the inclusion of the word "mold" is a little more perplexing.  I actually don't have a problem with reporting on mold or mold/like fungal growth being present in a home and perhaps this is what they are getting at.  I am baffled really.  I don't believe they can possibly be expecting the home inspectors to "test" for mold----that would be completely ludicrous.

Paul, in re-reading the bill it says, "looking for mold and certain fire and safety
hazards as defined by the board."  The words "mold and" have been inserted in the original law.  Looking for mold would not be testing in my opinion, and it is to be defined by the board what it would include.  I guess as worded it would be hard to have a lot of heart burn with it.  I have a bigger issue with initial home inspector training leaving the classroom.

I should think that if no mold were visible at the time of inspection it would be no different than anything else we have to defend ourselves about.  It is really time for the mold hysteria to just "die-off." There will always be someone and their lawyers ready to pounce on us.  Take LOTS of pictures, take LOTS of time, and set expectations----that is the best protection against litigation---trying to avoid providing good service to the consumer will guarantee litigation.

As someone on the home inspector licensing board in the state I found this development interesting. I have had more than a few calls from inspectors disgruntled about one thing or another. I think, because of my online presence, I get quite a few of those people contacting me. However, both of the items here are a blindside to me. Never heard a "serious" peep about online education. I heard a bit of grumbling, but no clue the folks had legislators who would submit a law change. The mold language I would really be curious who is wanting that. We have had many people speak at board meetings and, other than a lawyer I remember one time way back, nobody has asked to have mold added to the standards.

Paul, you said,

"None of that will protect me from a lawyer with a sympathetic jury and vague standards and a client that is sure that someone else owes them."

I would change that to say, "Nothing will protect me from a lawyer with a sympathetic jury and a client that is sure that someone else owes them----regardless of whether the standards are vague or precise."

A bit cynical but probably accurate:)

Hi Paul. Glad to see you are active and wrting a letter to your local representative!  I am curious as to the response you will get, especially if there is no response.  It may be a stretch, but I include a non-response as something that should be included in the category of ethics reform. 

Back to the mold issue.  What is mold?  Is mold a failure of a building component?  Is mold under the jurisdiction of the board of health?  Is mold under the jurisdiction of the building inspector?  What happens if the home inspection is during the school year and there is a home science experiment on mold?  (Yes, this was an actual assigment where the students had to place bread in certain areas of the home and observe the results)  Oops, I'm off track again.

I have yet to see what the SOP looks like, so my only comment is that the criteria for mold be similar to other condition reporting requirements.  I can think of several SOP that require reporting on signs of previous and active water penetration, signs of previous and active water leaks.  Is this the same intent with mold?

I am also curious as to whether the lawmakers and board will allow the inspector to specifically exclude mold and still be able to perform a home inspection.