Text of Letter to State Commerce and Labor Committee

RE: SSB6433 Con

To the Honorable Rep. Conway,

I wish to thank you for your service to the State of Washington but I would also be remiss if I did state for you the reasons that I oppose the above referenced legislation.

For reference, I am a Licensed Home Inspector (#215) in the state who works and resides within the state. I am also a Structural Pest Inspector (#69702), ASHI and InterNACHI certified and code certified through the International Code Council.

The proposal before your committee will substantially weaken the protections that are the primary reason for the development of the Home Inspector Licensing program. Those protections are three-fold:

•· to develop qualified individuals recognized by impartial standards as competent to perform a home inspection in response to injury, financially, to the consumer;

•· to provide for improving inspector performance through continuing education;

•· and to provide a means short of active litigation to regulate the inspection industry by elevating inspectors into the same category of real estate professional as a Realtor or appraiser.

SSB6433 effectively legitimizes the inspectors that are currently in violation of Washington State law who are actively performing home inspections while not licensed. Indeed, I have several individuals in my area who are operating in this manner. This obviously weakens the consumer protections intended. Granting inspectors who operate outside the existing law immunity will not strengthen the protections but will convey a message that the State is not truly interested in consumer protection when it comes to the largest investment an individual makes in their lifetime. This will lead to consumer injury, both financially and, potentially, personally. A home inspection is first and foremost a safety inspection.

On a personal note, it always conveys a negative message to the inspector who has complied with state law, invested the time and money to successfully become licensed and operated in good faith. Rewarding unethical or incompetent inspectors would be damaging to the consumer and my profession. Undermining the business of the law-abiding inspector does not constitute good representation of the citizenry, the state or ethics.

Likewise, the weakening of the continuing education requirements as proposed in SSB6433 will further increase potential harm to the consumer. The initial training requirements set forth are those necessary to become a beginning inspector. There is still a tremendous amount to learn. Indeed, that process never stops. Allowing an inspector to wait six years to provide for continuing education will make his/her skills obsolete in the first two years. As an example, look at the evolution of the energy code in the past 4 years and the proposals ahead of us - do we willfully want to create inspectors that are ignorant of those changes? Clearly, no. The same applies to the electrical, structural and plumbing systems of the home.

There are reasonable changes that should be made to the existing Home Inspector Licensing laws. Weakening existing law is not one of them and is highly detrimental to protecting the consumer.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters, and I trust you will consider the ramifications of this legislation.

Respectfully,

Paul Duffau