hmiller

Hey thanks for the tip! I had been thinking about upgrading, and now the price is right. I can still fit this one in the 6' bed of my Ranger pickup. I picked mine up on the way back from an inspection today.

In Washington the State (L&I) amended the the AFCI requirement of the 2008 NEC, requiring them for the bedroom circuits only. But then several municipalities, including Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue and more chose to adopt the full 2008 NEC. 2008 NEC Wash AFCI That will be fun during inspections. Some homes will have them and some will not. I think we need a flow chart.

My garage GFCI outlet did the same thing and it was also a loose connection creating a high resistance connection. Replaced the GFCI and cut the scorched wire back to good material and all has been good.

Hmmm Maybe LP does stand for "Lousy Products"? Thanks for the link.

I was not aware that any banks required a home inspection during a refinance. An appraisal for sure, maybe a pest inspection, but a home inspection? Throughout my own years of home ownership, I have never been required by a bank to have a home inspection for a refi. Is this for FHA and VA loans? .....or?

Got it. Thanks Richard. I just went back to the DOL's site, and alot has changed since the last time I looked. New forms that are relevant, and more information than before.

Thanks Jerry I was thinking that it worked the other way around. (....pass the test, then apply for the license) So that is good to know, with May 1st rapidly approaching.

So any ideas on where the testing will be taking place, and where to schedule an exam? It looks like you take the exam first, then upon passing, fill out the department HI license application, and provide the documentation required, as well as the $$$$$...... Right?

Never OK to double lug that way. Essentially those conductors have no adequate OCPD, and would have to melt and catch fire to break the circuit, if an overload occured. It is just wrong, wrong , wrong......

Wow, what an interesting thread. I have to say that it is surprising that the "anonymous inspector" would not come forward for an easy $2K, if this were true. I would be pretty proud of the accomplishment. I am still trying to figure out how this inspector allegedly paid $65K, along with the E&O carriers settlement (like $55K) and was able to pay off any mortgage on a single family home in this area. And no legal fees were paid? I find it hard to believe on that basis alone. (most homes are well over $200K in this area) Although I have to admit that just because Joe says "it aint so" really does not mean alot to me. After all, his conflict of interest would only allow him to come to one conclusion. He founded "Elite Inspect Insure" and sells E&O to home inspectors according to his website. (I am surprised Buschart did not make that point, as he has over on the Nachi site a number of times. But that would contradict his objective of attacking Mike ...which is the only logical reason for his presence here.) The premise of this story questions the value of E&O Insurance, and Joe would naturally be unhappy about that. As inspectors we would be upset if real estate agents were going around telling our potential clients that they did not need a home inspection. Stranger things have happened The jury is still out and Innocent until proven guilty ...are adages that come to mind for me... Come on "anonymous inspector", take the cash and run......

I know this was not the question, but; I would be concerned about leaks at the flashing for the roof penetration of the B vent. There is good old Henrys' Tar plastered all the way around. Not exactly my idea of a long term flashing solution.

Great subject and obviously controversial. First all of all safety is paramount. Any inspector traversing a roof has to keep that in mind. That said, I am surprised when inspectors say that they flat out will not walk on any roof. I have walked too many roofs to see what I would have missed, had I stood at the edge, on top of a ladder. While there are times that I will not walk on a roof because of the potential to damage it, or myself, these are cases that are far and few between. And certainly I agree if the roof is obviously toast, I will not even waste my time, but just refer it to a roofing specialist. This has nothing to do with testosterone. If you are charging a "full inspection fee", for a "complete home inspection" then accessing the roof to inspect it is just part of the job description. Just like any other professional that has to access the roof for their job. Hell, even the satellite dish guys go up on roofs. Saying you can inspect the roof sufficiently with binoculars, from the ground, is laughable. And while you may convince real estate agents and your clients that this is acceptable, you are not going to convince me or any of the other inspectors that routinely traverse roofs.

Ah....Thanks for that insight Mike. This whole legislative "process" is something I am still learning. I did not know that the mold language could be reinstated at a later time. So in essence, the Senators can pull the language, and temporarliy appease those against it, then later put it back in, and get it passed into law? Seems like a "bait and switch" scheme to me. ...Something that the legislators would make a law against to prohibit out here in the real world.

Looks like some good news. Steve Smith reported on his blog that the legislators have removed the mold language from the bill. See his blog at;Steves Blog

Mike and Richard...I had to laugh. It is a zoo over there. I don't engage the individual you are referring to in topics on that message board anymore, primarily because there is no chance at having a rational discussion. In fact a Washington Inspector who was following his advice ended up getting a fine from the WSDA for performing pest inspections without an SPI license. I suppose it is good reading for the entertainment value, but that is about it. Now to the Mold issue. I have written all three of my legislators, and awaiting replies. I also wrote every member of the committe for which this bill is currently referred to. Like Mike said, Jeanne Kohl-Welles is the chair of this committee, and actually she is the only one who has replied so far. I have posted the Senators reply here; *************************************************************************************************************** Thanks for your message, Harold. I'm in agreement with you in your concerns and had informed Sen. Parlette that we'll have a proposed substitute for the bill hearing that will modify the language. Nonetheless, I believe the bill addresses the legitimate issue of disclosure of the presence of mold to potential home purchasers while knowing the challenges you've identified. I'd appreciate your providing any concrete suggestions you have to the committee staff attorney working on this bill, Alison Mendiola who I've copied. Regarding the language on Internet instruction, I have informed Sen. Parlette that we'll be working on language to place strict limitations. Again, any suggestions you have would be appreciated. Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles Chair - Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection Committee ****************************************************************************************************************** I figured we could all benefit from the Senators reply. I am working on a response, and again urge others to make their voices heard. This is so important. So apparently they will be working on a substitute bill, reworking the language. My preference would be that the bill did not have the word mold in it, but that is clearly not the intent of the Senator. The bill is all about mold disclosure and intends to put inspectors right in the middle of this controversial subject.

Mike You bring up several good points, and I absolutely agree. For instance the mold stain that occurs on floor joists and beams is common. After all many of these homes are constructed during wet weather. It takes the first year, or so, for the lumber to release that moisture and reach its' equillibrium content. In this time that moisture is feeding a variety of molds, mildews, etc. .....Even when the crawl space has proper ventilation, and drainage. What was not present during an inspection in the Spring may have developed and will be visible in the Fall. I have attended a number of WSDA Technical Seminars where Dr Jeff Morrell (Mycologist from Oregon State Univiersity) has spoke on the subject of molds in structures. He has some great information on the topic at; http://www2.wwpa.org/SERVICES/ProductSu ... fault.aspx Based on everything I have learned from Dr Morrell, such mold stain on framing lumber, is of little concern. But trying to convince the general public of this is a huge challenge. ...We can thank the "Mold is Gold" folks for these hysterics. ....and the "sensationalist media". To me the greatest harm to the consumer is not their health, but rather their pocket book. Everything to do with mold is expensive and that is how consumers will be hurt. Unregulated and unscrupulous mold remediation contractors cashing in on the fears of those who do not know any better. In fact a gentleman from the Wa St Dept of Health spoke at one of our seminars a few years back. And he was called out to a home where the contractor told the home owners they needed it torn down because of the mold. And while it had mold, it was not significant enough for it to be condemmed. Rather the contractor wanted to "sell" a new home. He said that he has never seen a home that the problems could not be fixed. But you have to be careful about the contractor you chose.

Thanks for the getting the information out guys. I learned about this bill through Larry Stamp, who referred to this site in his emails. I have e-mailed all three of my representatives about this bill, and voiced my concerns about requiring mold to be a part of the home inspection. While the sponsors intentions are likely for the good of the consumer, she does not understand the implications of mold as a part of a home inspection. The WSDA provided a guidance letter to Structural Pest Inspectors 6 years ago, because they realized the issues surrounding mold. In short the letter indicated that it is best to leave the determination of mold to a trained specialist. The guidance document can be found at this link. http://agr.wa.gov/pestfert/docs/moldguidance.pdf