IN TN a law is on the table for approval within the next 30 days. Are there any other TN agents want to sound off on this? Is it a good thing? Some may think to have the inspectors regulated and held to a standard is a good thing. But is there more at stake here? In dealing with REO properties I often perform a driveby inspection or a bpo or more. Now its not far fetched to say included in the legal part of this is that they would require me to get another license just to do this. Now it may seem funny but it was not that long ago when as a person who has gone thru the trouble of getting a realestate license could say based on my jugement or in my opinion this property has a market value of ... then they passed a law dealing with appraisers and thier license and part of the result one holding a realestate license may not use the term value unless they also hold an apraisers license. At one time you could write up a contract to buy or sell land, or write up clauses but now the law says unless you have an attorney license you cant do it -you have to have them write it up and you fill in the blanks. So just curious is this a good or bad thing?

That law you mention is not on the table anymore, it passed the General Assembly and is awaiting the Governor's signature which he has said he will sign.

The Tennessee Association of Realtors and two state home inspector groups were united in getting this law passed because we all want more competency and professionalism in the home insection industry.

In Tennessee you have to be licensed to practice law, i.e. write legal documents like contracts.

In Tennessee you have to be licensed to practice real estate, i.e. broker sales.

In Tennessee you have to be licensed to appraise properties to establish and determine value.

In Tennessee you very soon will have to be licensed to call yourself a home inspector.

I see all these laws as good deals for the industry and the consumer.

I like your disclaimer Jim ...you would not even have to say such things if it was not for all the rules and yes I know its on the kaar web site but I wanted to see what others thought - and yes thanks for your input - I have not decided if I agree with adding another law or not - for every law that's added some pervious rights or privileges are removed from the individuals hands and turned over to a governmental body --so like I said I am undecided any one else have a voice even if your not in TN? And yes I can see without laws that those who are unscrupulous will abuse a right or privilege. Maybe they might think of passing a law I can not rekey a home because I don't have a locksmith license. Or maybe use tax records for property research because I don't have a cpa license. I agree there should be uniform standards to meet but another law? And lets face it just because you have a license paid a tax to another regulatory body dose not mean the things you will do are competent or right -atty's right poor contracts all the time -appraisers get in trouble for poor appraisals -lets face it we have all had a deal killed by an appraisal that was to low and even some of the documents now on the TAR website are poorly formed and are having problems in court system -if not then they would not have to be amended so many times.

TR
What on earth is your point in all that rambling? Illinois already licenses home inspectors which is a good thing. Since a buyer has to depend on the inspectors opinion there should be some regulation to insure that the inspector has had some verifible training.

My point was just to hear what others thought on the topic -sometimes you must "spread the word" to invoke a response, but truly I think certification and standardization are enough and a law only takes away from the individuals. Granted a majority must not because the Realtor boards did suport getting this in place. But sometime its ok to be apart from the majority.

This thread has been edited by the moderator to get it back to the subject at hand, which is home inspector licensing in Tennessee.

TR Lawrence seemed to have opened the thread up in an effort to hear opinions from anyone outside of Tennessee concerning home inspector licensing in general.

Comments and discussion, even discussion in which the participants vehemently disagree, is welcome. Personal attacks on any individual or any profession in general should be avoided at the risk of having them edited and/or deleted. I started with my own post and deleted it since it seemed to have been taken the wrong way. All posts concerning my post were then deleted as well. My apologies to all who took time to respond to my post only to have their posts edited and/or deleted.

I believe my wrongfully deleted Original post was in support of licensing home inspectors. Illinois now licenses home inspectors and this seems to have reduced their numbers to the ones with training and experience. Gomer with Flashlight and clipboard is now gone.

I sent Paul a copy of his "wrongfully deleted Original post" so that he can re-post if he feels it was germane to the thread topic. I felt that it was a direct response to me and my deleted post and no longer made any sense out of context when I deleted my own post.

Let's go back to the Tennessee law, the Illinois law, and any other discussion about relevant laws in the states.

As with most states where home inspector licensing is under consideration, eventually it does become a reality. So it probably is likely that Tennessee home inspectors will become licensed and regulated, probably sooner than later.

While many believe that licensing is good overall, there are many who don't. The pros and cons continue to be debated heavily, both in individual states among home inspectors and state trade associations (such as CREIA in California and KREIA in Kentucky) and national home inspector trade associations (such as ASHI, NAHI, SPREI, NACHI, etc.)

In some cases, it provides relevant standards for home inspectors and enforcing goverment authorities. However, in the case of Pennsylvania, there is no money in the budget for enforcing authorities, so although Pennsylvania has licensing and standards per sé, there is no current enforcement, and it appears that there will be no government enforcement for the foreseeable future. So the Pennsylvania inspectors, even with licensing, are left to self-regulation, which, I believe, is not necessarily bad.

Most of the time it seems that the groups who support home inspector legislation are older, established home inspectors who are trying to keep out younger, newer inspectors, as was the case here in California a couple of years ago. ASHI and CREIA attempted to create licensing standards controlled and regulated by ASHI and CREIA (since California also does not have the money to do new things) to the exclusion of all other entities. Eventually, the bill was seen for what it was and was gutted and turned into legislation regulating check cashing businesses.

Russel,
Please explain what could be the possible downside to requiring state licensing, training requirements to regulate the home inspection field. In Illinois I have not seen any hinderance to anyone wanting to become a home inspector. The state just says that you have to meet x requirements for a license. Then you can call yourself a home inspector. There is NO downside to the end user and that is where the buck stops! Protecting the consumer is the reason for licensure! A seller or buyer should have at least some hope that the inspector really knows what he is doing as this is the single biggest purchase most people make in their lifetime.. So tell us from a Home Inspectors position what is the downside to requiring a license.

I do not see any downside at all...only an upside.

In the Tennessee scenario it's 2 Tennessee home inspector groups, the Tennessee Association of Realtors, the Tennessee Real Estate Commission, almost 100% of the General Assembly, and our Governor that is supporting this bill.

It will become law soon and proabably go into effect sometime in 2006.

I don't believe anyone wants to keep anyone out of the home inspection business (especially the younger guys; they have better eyesight ) but we do want some minimum standards for home inspectors to have to adhere to, some minimum competency levels, some continuing education provsions, AND some mechanism to enforce those standards.

I can't imagine how anyone that calls themselves a professional in the home inspection industry could not support such legislation.

As for ASHI and another group wanting to write and regulate their own standards; that really smack of the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

It just depends on how the legislation is set up as to whether or not there is a downside. The legislation here that CREIA and ASHI were sponsoring had lots of downsides, which is why it did not pass, why the sponsor gave up on it and allowed it to be gutted and amended.

I forget which state it was, but one of the states that instituted licensing within the past few years resulted in about 75% of the home inspectors quitting. Now on the surface, that is not necessarily bad in and of itself if those 75% were incompetent. Somehow, I don't think that's the case. I think the rigamarole (rigamaroll?) that one had to go through to get licensed caused many to quit the business. So what happened is that there are not enough home inspectors to provide what many of us see as a valuable service to the public. I'm thinking it was Louisiana, but I'm not sure. Anyway, what also happened is that since there are not enough home inspectors to meet the demand, prices for home inspections went upwards--don't necessarily dislike that, per sé. However, with a much smaller supply of home inspectors, and rising prices, people in that state are now skipping the home inspection altogether. How does that serve the public good?

I fully support licensing home inspectors. But it has to be done right. Yes, Jim, you're exactly right. ASHI and CREIA writing the standards, enforcing the standards, certifying inspectors, etc., is like the fox guarding the hen house. That's why I was against that specific legislation. Some home inspector licensing is not necessarily better than no home inspector licensing.

I write my legislative representatives here on a monthly basis seeking someone to sponsor licensing legislation again. No takers yet. Still working on them. Just sent off the April letters last weekend.

My preference would be something similar to what Massachusetts has as far as the Realtor/Home Inspector relationship goes, and something similar to what Texas has as far as standards, enforcement, etc.

My #1 preference, however, still is for the industry to take care of itself. That probably is not possible; just the mere fact that we have eight national home inspector trade associations indicates that. We need to have only one, like NAR, and then each state, each county, whatever, can have smaller chapters (CAR, SDAR, NSDCAR here).

I simply will never be a fan of government rules and regulations; but that doesn't mean that I'm not a realist. Sometimes, as Mr. Spock once said, "The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few."

Russel,
Perhaps you might try contacting CAR's Governmental Affairs person who I am sure would be happy to help you get home inspector licensing legislation on the agenda

They weighed in on the last go-round, but they typically are not the type of organization that goes after someone else's profession, i.e., home inspectors. They tend to stick with Realtors and real estate legislation as far as their sponsorship goes. Now if something else comes up in a profession that they are interested in, then they don't mind weighing in. But apparently they, and I, believe it would be wrong of them to try to institute legislation on someone else's profession. They really do have enough to worry about with their own profession.

Hey Russel,

No one is "going after someone else's profession" by supporting a home inspector licensing law.

The Tennessee Real Estate Commission's stated mission is to protect Tennessee consumers, not exist for the benefit of real estate licensees.

http://www.state.tn.us/commerce/boards/trec/whatwedo.html

"The mission of the Tennessee Real Estate Commission is to protect the public through establishment and administration of minimum requirements for candidates and licensees, effective professional education of licensees and enforcement of professional conduct."

I'm not sure which Agency will be regulating Tennessee home inspectors but their mission statement shold be very similiar to the above.

Paul's post talked about CAR.

I think there would be a big difference between a "Real Estate Commission" and a state "Association of Realtors."

One, the real estate commission, exists for the purpose quoted. The other, the association of Realtors, exists for Realtors.

The association of Realtors, in my opinion, should not be instituting legislation regulating someone else's profession, such as home inspectors.

The real estate commission, I believe, could and should institute legislation regulating any profession having anything to do with real estate, including home inspectors, Realtors, plumbers, electricians, roofing contractors, and others, when necessary and in the public's interest.

Russel,
It sounds to me that is is you that has a problem with getting the California Association of Realtors involved in calling for home inspectors to be licensed.

CAR has the political machine in place to get it sponsored.

In my opinion sponsoring such a bill is in the consumers best interest and just another way that we Realtors are helping to look out for our clients best interests because it is our clients that pay the price for an unqualified inspector.

And before you get that itchy edit finger going this is not an attack on the home inspection industry but a statement on unqualified people calling themselves home inspectors.

CAR has the politial machine in place to get a lot of things done. However, they focus on their clientele, which is Realtors. They don't sponsor legislation trying to legislate someone else's profession, and I agree with that.

If the legislation is there, and they have an opinion, they can voice it, as can anyone about any legislation that is there.

Sponsoring legislation is a different matter altogether, at least in our state. We tend to try to play nicely with each other rather than one trying to regulate or license the other.

So what would be your solution to having some sort of mandatory standards of competency for home inspectors AND more importantly, some enforcement mechanism to make it work???

Hey, Jim.

As I said previously, I like the Massachusetts legislation relative to the Realtor/Home Inspector relationship. Too often throughout the nation (just read some home inspector web sites--inspectionnews.com and nachi.org, just to name a couple), Realtors are more interested in their commission paycheck than dealing with the issues that a home inspector has identified. I personally think it is a conflict of interest for a Realtor, who is getting paid by the seller, to be referring a home inspector. Logic there dictates that the Realtor will choose the home inspector who misses things, doesn't note certain things, or downplays things.

Now you and I both know that there are many, many good Realtors who want only the best for their Clients, regardless of whether they are the listing agent or the buyer's agent. And if you read my posts throughout the various Internet sites, you'll see that I often come to the defense of Realtors; maybe that's because I sat on that fence for six years one time, I don't know. But I'm an optimist. I look for the best and expect the best, and when it doesn't happen, then and only then will I resort to government action.

I had a Client a couple of years ago who called complaining about the $85 service charge and $14.99 that the HVAC tech charged her for an air filter. I noted in my report that the filter needed cleaning or replacement. In talking with her, she said that her Realtor had said not to worry about reading the report because Mrs. Realtor would take care of everything. Well what does "take care of everything" mean? So I suggested that my Client call Mrs. Realtor since she volunteered to take care of everything. In following up later, it seems that Mrs. Realtor didn't want to deal with "too many small issues," so Mrs. Realtor ignored them. Prior to that callback, Mrs. Realtor had been using me regularly to the tune of about an inspection a week, most of them 900 SF condos. Well, the Realtor made a commission of $12,000 on that $400,000 condo. I made $199. Haven't heard from her in two years now. Hmmmmmm. And there are too many horror stories like that in the home inspection industry concerning Realtors. Realtors have their horror stories about home inspectors, but it does work both ways. So in that respect, I would have to submit that licensing, testing, and regulation in order to become a Realtor didn't work in that case.

CREIA does a creditable job here in California in helping create standards for home inspectors. CREIA is specifically referenced in our Business and Professions Code, so basically any home inspector who works in this state, if he follows the law, basically must follow CREIA Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics.

Both CREIA and CAR are very powerful here. They support each other when necessary. Sometimes they also are on opposite sides of the fence. But I don't believe either of them would sponsor legislation trying to license or otherwise regulate the other's industry.

If there is going to be licensing, and I believe even California eventually will have it, then I believe the government should license it, regulate it, etc., and not a specific trade or business association.

Plumbers are not licensed or regulated by the Plumbers' Union. Ditto for electricians. Ditto for Realtors. Etc. Therefore, I believe it should be the same for home inspectors. The state and a specific state licensing/regulating body/committee should do the licensing, regulating, and enforcement.

Passing licensing/regulation and then letting the home inspectors and/or their trade associations do the enforcement would not seem to make sense since those same home inspectors and/or their trade associations probably failed to begin with, which is why someone resorted to licensing and legislation.

I like the TREC's licensing/regulating/enforcing procedures in Texas. I think that was a very good law that they passed down there.

On the other hand, I believe there is one state where the state Association of Realtors regulates home inspectors. Huh? Definitely cannot agree with that. That's like attorneys regulating doctors because attorneys are involved in so many malpractice lawsuits involving doctors. Doesn't make sense to me.

That's the way the new Tennessee law will work; it will be administered by the state.

Associations of Realtors, whether they be state, local, or national have no regulatory authority over any other profession and frankly, not much over their own.

Real estate licenses are issued and regulated in most states by a state real estate commission or licensing board.

What state is that where the Realtors regulate home inspectors???

I'm thinking it was a Southern state. I don't remember, but I believe I can find out within the day. I'll be back. . . .

Here's an example of a thread on a fully public home inspector web site that, while it has some useful information, a lot of it should be reserved for a private home inspector trade association web site.

Some of the talk does absolutely nothing to create a healthy relationship between Realtors and home inspectors and seems to seek to create problems rather than solve them.

http://inspectionnews.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000500.html

One person says something to the effect that "since Realtors are always late." Perhaps, "If the Realtor is late for whatever reason, I can always get started. . . ."

Considering the traffic that we put up with in San Diego, I rarely am late, and Realtors rarely are late.

At our early morning inspection yesterday, we were told that we would be inspecting a 1,600 SF house. Nope. It was a 1,600 SF duplex, and the public records that I pull from RealQuest before every inspection was no help. So with two kitchens, four bathrooms, two water heaters, two furnaces, two compressors, and two garages, I knew we were going to be late for our 11:30 inspection since I had only sent two inspectors instead of three. So I called the 11:30 Realtor and postponed that inspection by an hour. She was very appreciative of my call (rather than just showing up late) and very easy to work with, very professional. Fortunately, most of the Realtors I work with are like that. Professionalism requires positive communication. Some of it, I suspect, has a lot to do with my Southern attitude about things and my former experience as a Realtor, knowing what many Realtors go through in their own profession.

And how is this relevant to this thread?

Well, if Realtor associations are trying to license home inspectors, it does show some of the animosity between the two groups, as well as some of the professionalism that exists between the two groups.

In Texas, it seems the TREC is overloaded with Realtors. So Realtors have almost a supermajority say in licensing, regulating, and enforcing the regulations on home inspectors there. That I disagree with. The standards themselves in Texas are great. Enforcement by appropriate individuals acting as a commission might leave a little to be desired.

Realtor Associations can't license anyone, not even themselves.

Association of Realtors are trade associations that theoretically exist for the benefit of their dues paying membership.

The Tennessee Association of Realtors (TAR) is in full support of the General Assembly and their bill to regulate and license home inspectors. Our General Assembly passes laws; not TAR.

In Tennessee real estate licenses are issued by the state's real estate commission.

There are several real estate licensees that are also Realtors in addition to being members of the Tennessee Real Estate Commission. TREC commissioners are appointed by the governor. It goes without saying there may be some politics involved in these appointments.

One would think at least a superficial knowledge of the subject would be necessary in order to be an an effective commissioner.

Home Inspector licenses will be issued by whatever the state decides will regulate home inspectors.

There may be some animosity between TAR and some Tennessee home inspectors. There also seems to be some animosity among various home inspectors and different home inspector groups.

Everyone not being in agreement on all things is what makes the world go around.

Russel you are missing the key point as usual.

It is the individual state that does the licensing and whatever state agency is decided on will administer and enforce the licensing provisions.

Realtor organizations are simply trade organizations and have no standing with the state to enforce licensing.

Animosity between Realtors and Home Inspectors is not relevant to the fact that Home Inspectors should be licensed, regulated and admininstered by a state agency.

I have checked out several of the Inspector Forums and the common thread to animosity between the two groups seems to be that we make more than the home inspector so how dare we expect anything from the inspector.

Since Realtors are regulated by the state and our associations a complaint can be filed against us and should the complaint be proved then action is taken against us. Nothing can be done about an unlicensed inspector except not to use them again or possibly file a lawsuit. So get over this animosity hangup because it is not the realtors that will be licensing the inspectors.

Good, because there is too much animosity between the two groups already.

That's why CAR would not sponsor home inspector licensing in our state. CAR lets CREIA sponsor home inspector legislation, and CREIA lets CAR sponsor Realtor legislation. Then, once the legislation is open for discussion, both groups will voice their opinions as they see fit.

That's the point that Paul seems to have missed in my discussion of the animosity between Realtors and home inspectors. CAR sponsoring home inspector legislation would do nothing but increase the hostility between the two groups, and the same would be true if CREIA sponsored Realtor legislation.

STILL missing the point Russel.

CREIA will not call for licensing since it feels it can police its own which even you admit is not a good idea since it is a voluntary organization.
The animosity is due to what we make compared to the inspectors. They chose their profession so get over it.

AGAIN CREIA would not call for realtor regualtion BECASUE WE ARE ALREADY REGULATED BY THE STATES not because of any lame reason as sticking to their own profession. Realtors have no problems with competant inspectors it is the incompetant ones that licensing and requlation would help to weed out that we have our problems with.

Your own fellow inspector Kevin even stated that there is no downside to licensing and regulation so why do you keep trying to sidestep the real issue of should inspectors be licensed and regulated by the states.

What home inspectors do is just a little piece of the big puzzle we put together everyday for a sucessful real estate transaction.

Hey, Paul.

I thought I was pretty clear and definitive in my earlier post:

A failure to read? That, not money, seems to be the major point of contention between home inspectors and Realtors. Home inspectors write up a report and Realtors then say, "Oh, don't worry about that" or "Your insurance will take care of that after escrow closes" or "Oh, I see that all the time. It's nothing to be worried about" or "He doesn't know what he's talking about." I make more money than 90% of the Realtors out there, so money is not the issue with me. It's the incompetent Realtors who are the issue with me. And interesting, since Realtors have been licensed and regulated for quite some time in all fifty states, licensing and regulations seem not to have kept the incompetent Realtors out. So to think that licensing and regulations will keep incompetent home inspectors out is laughable at best. If one thinks that licensing and regulations is the panacea to poor home inspectors, one truly does have blinders on.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on how to go about licensing. And that's okay. Folks disagree with other folks all the time.

I don't want Realtors involved in my profession any more than Realtors want me involved in their profession. They each do different things. Sometimes they overlap; most of the time they don't. All of the time they shouldn't.

I don't even want Realtors interpreting my reports because they don't do it consistently. Hmmmmmm, where have I heard the complaint about consistency before. Seems we all have problems, don't we?

To each his own. I believe that if one takes care of his own problems, provides the best that he is capable of doing, communicates appropriately about everything, follows up, provides the best customer service, etc., then one will be so busy that one needn't worry about the competition and what they are doing.

I can't do every inspection, but the ones I do are done right.

Best wishes.

I want to thank those who have responded to this thread and Russel even though I am a Realtor I follow along with what you have said - I think you have said it better than I ever could have -mainly because you seem to have a greater knowledge of it than I. State licensing dose not keep incompetence out of any profession but their should be uniform standards and a method of accountability. Trade groups should voice thier minds about things that effect thier profession but should not be a leading force involve another profession.

Exactly.

I'm all for standards, which is why I belong to a national home inspector trade association. However, because CREIA is mentioned specifically in our California Business and Professions Code, by law I think I kind of have to inspect, at a minimum, to the CREIA standards.

The fact that CREIA already is mentioned in our California Business and Professions Code, and that CREIA does a creditable job in setting standards and ethics codes in California, probably is a significant reason why we don't have home inspector licensing per sé. However, the fact that CREIA has about 1,200 members but that there are upwards of 5,000 home inspectors in California says something about everything that we have discussed in this thread.

I fully support statewide standards like Texas has. I think that's good for the public. Then one doesn't necessarily have to join a trade association, although I fail to understand why anyone in any business would not belong to at least one of the trade associations in the profession they have chosen.

I don't know if Texas requires continuing education, but I would fully support that as well--AFCI is a good reason for continuing education, as well as the fact that codes generally undergo revision every three years. Technology changes, and home inspectors need to keep up with that technology and the changes in the codes.

Why did Tn not just take the requirements for home inspection of new home and let it apply to all homes?
This bill will lower the license requirment for new homes but raise it for older homes

I believe you're talking about codes inspection for new homes.

That and a home inspection are 2 different things.

The bill isn't about licensing homes but the industry that conducts inspections for home buyers.

Hi Jim
HB#6 will remove the bill that passed in 1997 and become law.
Both are for home inspection.

OK.

Here's the bill, I don't see anything about a bill that passed in 1997.

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/
Bill Summary for *HB0006 / SB0302

"This bill would establish licensing provisions for home inspectors. This bill would make it unlawful for anyone to act in the capacity of a home inspector without having first received a license from the commissioner of commerce and insurance. The commissioner would be authorized to issue citations to those acting in this capacity without a license. This bill would require that persons applying for licensure as a home inspector be at least 18 years old, have graduated from high school or have a GED, have not been convicted of a crime that has a bearing on home inspection, not be the subject of disciplinary action relating to home inspection by another jurisdiction, submit an application, and pay the requisite fee. The applicant would also be required to pass a competency exam and obtain a certificate of insurance in the amount required by the commission. Also, the applicant must have completed 90 hours of a commissioner-approved training program or course of study involving the performance of home inspections. This bill would allow a home inspector to receive a license within the first 180 days after implementation of this bill without the requirement that such person have completed 90 hours of a commissioner-approved training program or course of study involving the performance of home inspections. To qualify, an applicant would have to furnish evidence that such person has been a home inspector for the last two years and has performed over 150 home inspections over the course of his career. To renew a home inspector license, the holder would submit an application for renewal and the renewal fee. This bill would set the time for renewal at no earlier than 120 days before the expiration of the license and not later than 30 days prior to the expiration. This bill would require that a license be renewed only if the applicant has completed 32 hours of continuing education, has not violated any rules or regulations of the commissioner, and has obtained the requisite certificate of insurance. A home inspector license would be valid for two years. The commission would be required to keep a roster, which would be made available to the public, of each licensed home inspector. This bill would set out a list of grounds upon which a home inspector may be fined up to $1,000 per violation. The commissioner would set out rules and regulations to specify what constitutes violations and the range of penalties for each violation. A citation issued under this bill would be in writing, describe the basis for issuance, contain a cease and desist order, and an assessment of a penalty of no less then $50.00 and not more then $1,000. The sanctions provided for in this bill would be in addition to all other remedies, civil and criminal, available to persons under present law. "

Are there standards in the Tennessee bill? The summary doesn't seem to state anything about standards.

It looks like current home inspectors who have completed 150 inspections are grandfathered in during the first 180 days in regards to not having to complete the training program. But isn't that current crop of "incompetent" home inspectors who have caused this legislation to come about also eligible for that two-year license during the first 180 days without completing training?

Hmmmmm. I'm a little perplexed. I think the grandfathering might need to be fine-tuned some, perhaps such that 10-years experience, or 1,000 fee-paid inspections, or appropriate education (construction engineering, civil engineering, wood engineering, building construction, architecture, etc.) would qualify one for grandfathering. I think the 150 inspections is too low for grandfathering.

I don't think we have a whole "crop" of incompetent home inspectors; just a few bad apples.

The real estate commission sanctions anywhere from 100 to 200 Tennessee real estate licensees each year out of the total of 20,000+. That's not a "crop" of bad real estate licensees, just a small percentage who break 1 or more rules and get dealt with.

This bill will establish some standards, rules, and regulations; AND a mechanism to apply fines and sanctions to those who violate them up to revoking their license and putting them out of business.

It may be easy in your eyes to get the license but persons calling themselves a home inspector in Tennessee now will have to know what they're doing to keep & renew that license and stay in business.

This bill is not intended to be an "instant fix" but it does establish a continuing education requirement plus an prerequisite educational requirement to get the license and renew it.

This is also just the beginning, the commission is free to fine tune their regulations and adjust them as they find the need.

Just think about it. Now we have nothing. Soon we'll have a commission to oversee this profession, educational requirements to make the profession better, a licensing mechanism to regulate it, and a way to further protect the public from the bad apples.

I see it as a no lose deal for the Tennessee home inspectors who want to do a good job and the homebuying public who depend on them.

Jim,
I tend to agree with you that it is generally not a whole crop but just a few inspectors that cause the majority of the issues that the regulations will help correct. What it will do is to make sure that the new inspectors entering the profession have some required min. training before entering the business. The existing inspectors that are grandfathered will have to do the CE or get out of the business. As you said it is a start! Russel the point of standards is not to weed out the competition but make sure all the players meet a min standard of training.

The few bad apples tend to ruin everything for everyone, don't they?

That current crop of bad apples, however, still gets grandfathered in without the training that they seem to need. Additionally, even the bad apples get to stick around for two years before having to renew their license.

Probably the insurance requirement will keep a lot of people out of the profession, depending on what they set as the minimum there.

Additionally, the minimum standard of training really doesn't do much. I think standardized inspection standards would do much more. Will standards be in place, similar to trade association Standard of Practice or what the TREC put in place?

Not necessarily; the commision could lift their license if an offense warranted.

Additionally they know they will be under scrutiny to do better now. Whether they do or not is their decision.

Do we know what offenses would warrant license revokation, or is that still to be determined?

I was over at the TREC home inspector complaint site that someone posted a link to quite a while back at inspectionnews.com, I think it was, and some of the things that the buyers claimed were missed by the home inspectors just absolutely horrified me. And the result of the complaint? Small fines and three to six months probation. But no indication as to what anyone had to do while on probation other than stick it out for six months. No review of reports for six months, nothing about not having any more complaints, etc. I thought it was standards (which are very good) basically without enforcement.

Some of the errors and omissions apparently cost the buyers a significant amount of money, but the fines and probation time just seemed wrong for the "crime" committed.

I hope Tenneessee does better with its enforcement.