Washington State Pols Want Us to Find Mold!

[hausdok]

Hi,

Well, not to be a sourpuss but I think that

legitimate issue of disclosure of the presence of mold to potential home purchasers[/quote)means that she doesn't get it. If she did, she'd understand that the "challenges" you identified, though they might seem simple on the face of it, make identification of all mold in a home a mission impossible task, that's why I favor a buyer beware warning label telling the client to go out and get an IAQ firm in to go over the home after we do. I think there should be two copies of that warning and the client should have to sign them - one the client keeps and the other we keep; that way, there's no question that they were warned in the strongest possible terms about the potential for mold to develop after even the best inspection possible.

Oh well, lets keep up the pressure - talk it around and get people to understand it; if you have a favorite lab you refer this stuff to, have a conversation with the techs over there and see if they are in our ball court or whether they want us to do it so that they're insulated from liability for missing it. If they're on the sides of the DDM (don't do mold) inspectors, get them to write and call their legislators.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Brandon Whitmore]

In Oregon, I believe that you can deviate from the state required SOP's; you just have to put it in writing on the inspection agreement. Will it be possible to exclude mold in your agreement/ report if it does find it's way into the SOP's?

[hausdok]

Hi,

Yes, it is possible to exclude it under the SOP if it's not a required item or if there are extenuating circumstances that prevent you from inspecting for it. For instance, an inspector can exclude a roof if the roof is too slick and wet to go up on and inspect, because an inspector isn't required to do anything that the inspector feels places him/her in danger. However, she is trying to make it a requirement to look for mold as part of the routine; so, short of not being able to see into the walls, she means everywhere else we're looking.

The issue isn't so much that we should report something we suspect; it's placing an expectation in the minds of our clients that we must inspect for and find mold and that if we don't report any suspected mold the home is clear of all mold - which would be absolutely untrue in 100% of the cases 24/7/365 because mold is always there - you're breating it this second. Inspectors get bit on this stuff when a homeowner find something after the inpspection and gets the idea that the inspector screwed up and then believes the media hype that his brain will turn to putty or some such nonsense after being exposed to it. Trying to convince the homeowner after the fact that the stuff really wasn't there at the time of the inspection is an uphill battle unless they were with you to know that it wasn't there. If they were, then they'd have no reason to call you, no? So, they find something and now they think that they've got a cause of action; they pick up a phone and call their local bloodsucking member of the bar and the next thing you know the bloodsucker is threatening lawsuit unless we cough up big bucks.

I just think that there really isn't any way that we can do this without opening ourselves up to a can of worms that'll turn to snakes and bite us so bad that we end up losing our livelihood because of a bunch of overblown media hype.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[hmiller]

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

[hausdok]

Hi,

Yes, that's true; the chairman of the inspectors advisory licensing board notified us all via email last night that it has been pulled.

However, it is too early to let out a sigh of relief; my experience has been that sometimes legislators will intentionally mislead those who are trying to oppose their legislation by putting out misinformation. A few years ago, the senator that eventually pushed through legislation here met with representatives of the coalition that was opposing her bill as it was written. She listened to them, assured them that she understood and agreed with their concerns, and then she ushered them out of her office and told them that they had nothing to worry about. The next week at the formal hearing before the committee that was considering her bill the committee chairperson asked her whether she'd consulted the coalition; she told them that she had but that the coalition really didn't know what it wanted. When they heard about that, members of the coalition couldn't believe it; many hadn't attended the meeting because they'd trusted her. After that, the coalition never trusted her again.

I think it's still going to be a good idea for inspectors to go to next Thursday's hearing and be prepared to weigh in and counter any comments made by the mold warrior crowd that wants mold included in the SOP. I'm pretty sure that they'll show up and voice their displeasure with mold being deleted from the bill and they'll demand that it be reinstated. If inspectors don't show up to counter those arguments, the committee can decide after the meeting to reinstate mold in the bill and send it back to be re-written and then sent to the senate floor for a vote without another meeting.

Inspectors don't have to speak; they can show up, sign in and check off that they intend to speak for or against aspects of the bill. Then, if nobody speaks in favor of re-instituting mold in the bill, they can simply pass when their name is called to speak. Key to this is getting there and signing in early and trying to get into line right behind one or more of the mold warriors; because, if you don't sign in as one of the first 12 to 16 people on the sheet, you probably won't be given a chance to speak. Even if you get there late, make sure that you put your thoughts opposing mold down on paper and present them to the committee secretary; they have to at least review your written comments even if they haven't given you an opportunity to speak.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[hmiller]

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.

[hausdok]

Well,

Think about it; if it is slated for a hearing with the mold requirement in there, and a bunch of folks show up to protest it, they're liable to be pushed into a situation where they have to pull the mold stuff out before they can send the bill to the senate for a vote. On the other hand, if they pull it out before the meeting and more people show up demanding that mold be included than protest it, then they'd be compelled to add it back in before sending it to the senate floor. It's politics and the way that pols get things done. It's one of the reasons there are so many lobbyists paid to hang out in capitols around the country and constantly monitor this type of thing; if there weren't, can you imagine the kind of mischief politicians would be up to?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike