Marc Posted April 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Marc, You and I have had discussions abt this in the past and I guess I didn't really understand this proposed regulation. Also, would you please explain to me why you persist in bring ASHI into this discussion ala 1976. To give the legislators a brief summary of the history of mold exclusion. If I'm going to support the removal of an exclusion, it helps to explain the origins of that exclusion. ASHI was created in 76' was the first to exclude mold reporting. My message is this: it's time to bury this 38 year old exclusion. Some of us have been around nearly since 1976 and until the "other" organization came around I regarded mold objectively. I have lived through uffi, lead, radon, iag, asbestos, formaldhyde, eifs, etc. Mold is, and should be, scary for inspectors.It is my opinion 99.9% of the discussions abt mold I have in a normal day is refuting BS. If you think it is the mold you see that is the only problem, we got some explaining to do! That's not what I think. Home inspections are visual inspections and that why this proposal stops at visual. Why should this proposal deal with all of these other environmental conditions at the same time as mold growth? Kurt, I've had to deal with far worse contention than that for the last couple of months. Responding in a similar manner in the presence of legislatures would not help my case. It's my burden. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Well Marc, while I disagree with your efforts, I note that you speak very well for your hearing impairment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Did anyone involved in this poorly written and thought out Bill consult with experts from the medical/scientific professions, IAQ profession, insurance profession, home inspector profession, or even the home inspector profession licensing board? Good point. That was another area of frustration for me. The short explanation is that the Senators on the Committee and the attorney who does the codification for this committee are the ones in control of language. During committee hearings, you are not allowed to speak until you're asked for. You're not even allowed to raise your hand. You can only witness, groan and sigh. I don't have a problem with reporting on mold when I see it. But making it a "requirement" that is punishable under law for missing some mold in a crawlspace under some insulation or under the carpet on the tack strip or wherever it could be difficult to locate is absurd. That is a detail that taken care of by the Regulatory Body by design. The legislature doesn't meddle in details. Environmental issues like mold should be excluded from a home inspector license law, as it has been done in several states already. If inspectors must report on mold why not other environmental concerns, like lead or formaldehyde off gassing? One thing at a time, though I've no intention of doing this again with the other issues. They're different. Can you see asbestos fibers? The lead in paint or plumbing solder? Doesn't come within our purview. Mold can be seen sometimes, that's us. I hope it is not too late to stop this action. I will be on the phone shortly trying to let folks know about this and hopefully getting a few more involved to voice opposition to this poorly thought and conceived legislative action requiring home inspectors to add mold reporting to their report. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Marc, insurance companies, not ASHI excluded mold. I am failing to communicate here. I apologize for lumping mold in the same category as the other environmental issues of the past. they are different and science and the home inspection profession helped control the hysteria that went along with them at those "times". I remain anti-mold. if this passes, as written, I may just move there to pursue a career in litigation support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Well Marc, while I disagree with your efforts, I note that you speak very well for your hearing impairment. That makes my day.[:-slaphap THANKS Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Marc, insurance companies, not ASHI excluded mold. Good point. I'll use that. I am failing to communicate here. I apologize for lumping mold in the same category as the other environmental issues of the past. they are different and science and the home inspection profession helped control the hysteria that went along with them at those "times". I remain anti-mold. if this passes, as written, I may just move there to pursue a career in litigation support. Ferry seems to imply in a very clear manner that an SOP does carry weight in litigation involving home inspectors. Are you suggesting that Judges are in the habit of tossing administrative rules from the get go? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Marc, insurance companies, not ASHI excluded mold. Good point. I'll use that. I am failing to communicate here. I apologize for lumping mold in the same category as the other environmental issues of the past. they are different and science and the home inspection profession helped control the hysteria that went along with them at those "times". I remain anti-mold. if this passes, as written, I may just move there to pursue a career in litigation support. Ferry seems to imply in a very clear manner that an SOP does carry weight in litigation involving home inspectors. Are you suggesting that Judges are in the habit of tossing administrative rules from the get go? Marc I don't know "Ferry" but a Judge can pretty much do as they want in their court room.... Administrative rules will not stop a plaintiffs attorney from filing a lawsuit. Then it is up to you to defend yourself or settle! Right or wrong the burden of defending yourself in a bogus lawsuit is on you. It could take a year or longer before it ever gets to a judge, and the dollars are going out the door like air flowing through an open window during this time while you are trying to defend your case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Did anyone involved in this poorly written and thought out Bill consult with experts from the medical/scientific professions, IAQ profession, insurance profession, home inspector profession, or even the home inspector profession licensing board? Good point. That was another area of frustration for me. The short explanation is that the Senators on the Committee and the attorney who does the codification for this committee are the ones in control of language. During committee hearings, you are not allowed to speak until you're asked for. You're not even allowed to raise your hand. You can only witness, groan and sigh. Marc, bless your heart! I have testified in a dozen plus legislative committee hearings over the years and this is why you get on the agenda prior to the meeting. It is uncommon for them to not allow the public to comment. Again, SB 66 as it is currently written needs to be defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Sweet Bejeezus yes. I'm all for making reporting requirements rigorous, but that bill, as written, is a complete and total mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 the longer this thread remains alive, the more I am getting to like Marc! Scott and I have worked together several times on this type issue and for the record it is damn difficult! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Sweet Bejeezus yes. I'm all for making reporting requirements rigorous, but that bill, as written, is a complete and total mess. How would you write it? Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Sweet Bejeezus yes. I'm all for making reporting requirements rigorous, but that bill, as written, is a complete and total mess. How would you write it? Marc Not speaking for Kurt, but it is not that simple... What I can see that is missing is verbiage that provides protection for the home inspector for reporting on something as volatile as mold. This would include a clause that would protect the inspector if mold was not discovered during the inspection but later found to no fault of the inspector. We all know that mold can appear just about overnight in a home when the power if off and the conditions are just right. The bill needs to give direction to the body that will make the rules that will cover this. Just telling them to do it and not providing the base to work from is dangerous. The bill must provide a limit of liability to the inspector otherwise you are going to have inspectors saying mold is in every home, and honestly it is! SB 66 needs to be scrapped. Then if folks really want a bill like this, the various professions like medical, IAQ, Home Inspectors, Insurance, etc. need to be involved in its development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Yeah, that's close enough. Any variation on these thoughts. Good work Scott. Now, it's a wide open hole ripe for plunder. A void, a black hole of despair. Abandon all hope ye who enter kind of thing.... Woooooof......I'm still trying to catch my breath.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Texas Department of State Health Services controls the mold inspections/remediation. Attached is a consumer information file about same. Download Attachment: TX-DeptHealth_Mold.pdf 297.85 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 FWIW I've selected the relevant verbiage from the TREC SOP that addresses mold. This is from our new SOP that went into effect on 01/01/2014. I didn't include all the text under the (3) General Provisions section as it does not pertain to the mold conversation. If interested the entire SOP can be read here. TX TREC SOP ?535.227. Standards of Practice: General Provisions (3) General limitations. The inspector is not required to: (Text omitted for clarity) © determine: (Text omitted for clarity) (iii) the presence, absence, or risk of asbestos, lead-based paint, mold, mildew, corrosive or contaminated drywall "Chinese Drywall" or any other environmental hazard, environmental pathogen, carcinogen, toxin, mycotoxin, pollutant, fungal presence or activity, or poison; (effective 01/01/2014) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Nolen, that sound pretty good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Texas Department of State Health Services controls the mold inspections/remediation. Attached is a consumer information file about same. Download Attachment: TX-DeptHealth_Mold.pdf 297.85?KB Doesn't mention any regulation of mold inspectors, just mold consultants (assessments) and mold remediation. Effectively outlaws mold inspectors who don't include assessments in their service. That's good. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Marc, I would infer that according to the TX State Dept of Health that they may not be any such animal as a "mold inspector". Reading their first piece of information the seem to define who can do mold work and then define licensing, certification, etc.. TREC states it pretty clearly their position for what we as inspectors must do or not do. Now, if someone holds himself out to be a "mold inspector" that is likely a whole different can of worms and maybe that person can write their very own SOP. Not for anything I'm glad I'm in TX under the TREC SOP ... at least for this item. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 This is what the state of TN requires in our pre-inspection agreement: 4. A statement that the report does not address environmental hazards, including: (i) Lead-based paint; (ii) Radon; (iii) Asbestos; (iv) Cockroaches; (v) Rodents; (vi) Pesticides; (vii) Treated lumber; (viii) Fungus; (ix) Mercury; (x) Carbon monoxide; or (xi) Other similar environmental hazards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 We put value on an SOP and on laws yet any judge can do whatever they want? Sounds like we should de-emphasize SOPs and focus on just making the client happy so litigation doesn't ever happen in the first place. Clients wanna know if there's mold in the house. I dunno. Maybe I'm just exhausted. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 There's always mold in the house. The question is do we want a bunch of yahoo's running around creating an extreme burden on everyone, even the buyer's even though they don't know it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2014 Texas Department of State Health Services controls the mold inspections/remediation. Attached is a consumer information file about same. Download Attachment: TX-DeptHealth_Mold.pdf 297.85?KB Just noticed that Texas Administrative Code, Section 295.303 EXCEPTIONS, specifies that the Texas regulation of mold assessors and mold remediators does not apply to 'residential real estate inspectors' which I take to mean HI's. That leaves HI's able to report mold growth if they choose to do so. (a) Exceptions. This subchapter does not apply to: (1) the following activities when not conducted for the purpose of mold assessment or mold remediation: ... © commercial or residential real estate inspections; and... Looks like a good law. It's doesn't require a consumer to get an assessment or to remediate mold. It just regulate the guys who do them. Mold inspectors disappear into the Texas sunset. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted May 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 SB 66 came up for consideration in a House Committee meeting yesterday AM. With 12 other Bills on the agenda, my spouse and I, along with the Senator who authored the Bill, waited 3 1/2 hours for it to come up. I had about 3 minutes worth of a very concise presentation to deliver, but the Committee took but 5 seconds to vote unanimously in favor of the Bill once the Senator finished a 45 second intro on the history of his Bill. I didn't even get to open my mouth. It comes before the full House tomorrow and we all expect a slam dunk. Once it passes, this story will be but half finished. The other half is what the HI Board will do with this new law. In 11 years, I've rarely seen this Board accomplish much. The legislature is much easier. The Senate Committee that first considered this Bill made it clear but didn't put in into the language, that no lab sampling/testing would be required and that only visible mold would be reported, just like with everything else we report. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 Here come the lawyers with the "Inspector either saw or should have seen"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted May 22, 2014 Report Share Posted May 22, 2014 This is not a negative reflection on Marc and his hard work, but is this regulation as silly as I think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.