As this is the preliminary notification of the regulatory review and comment process, I was confused at the lack of information in this regulatory filing until it was explained that the outline of the proposed discussion was listed in the Agency Background Document: https://townhall.virginia.gov/l/GetFile.cfm?File=106\5658\9147\AgencyStatement_DPOR_9147_v1.pdf

While the Background Document gives a limited range of topic areas as an outline, the Agenda from the May 2021 meeting (https://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=Meeting%5C106%5C31330%5CAgenda_DPOR_31330_v1.pdf) provides expansive details on some of the proposed changes which is much more helpful in providing preliminary comments here.

Comments on the Home Inspection Contract & Report:

I stated my disagreement in the the prior regulatory comment action regarding the inclusion of the client's current home address in the home inspection report. I reiterate my disagreement here again. Although it is proposed to change "address and telephone number" to "contact information", I find the inclusion of the anything more than the clients' name(s) an imposition on their Personally Identifiable Information (PII). As in many and maybe most cases, the home inspection report is transmitted to one or more third parties as part of a real estate transaction, closing, and settlement process. There is no need for the clients' PII to be in the Home Inspection Report. If it is, or will be required to be in the contract (for DPOR purposes of future investigation), that is a consideration, but the signed contract should then not be included in the home inspection report for the same (and other) reasons. I cannot think of any reason DPOR would require or need the clients' PII other than for a complaint which would, no doubt, come from the client at a future date. In the digitally open environment in which all of us involved in these transactions partake, protecting a client's PII is critical and the responsibility of each of us.

The proposed term "contact information" need defining - individual pieces of PII need to be specified if DPOR continues to demand that information on the client. As is the case in the Federal government, DPOR should explain their "need to know" this PII on the clients, who, in most cases, do not live at the property being inspected.

In the May 2021 draft language, it is proposed that the signed "fully executed copy" of the contract be provided to the client prior to or at the inspection. While many inspectors provide the contract to the client electronically (as do I), prior to the inspection (so they may review and potentially reject), many do not complete the contract, so a handwritten contract must be signed at the inspection. The proposed language would require the inspector to have a two-part (carbon copy style) contract at the inspection, have a digital app which can perform online filing of a form and digital signature capture (i.e. DocuSign, etc.) and online access at the inspection, or carry a scanner/printer with them to the inspection, thus allowing the client to walk away with a legal copy of the signed contract. A requirement that the clients receive a printed, scanned, or digital copy prior to or with the transmission of the report is a more functional requirement which should be considered for the variety of processes inspectors employ.

In more than a few cases, we do not know what will not/could not be inspected until the inspection is completed. So requiring a "fully executed copy of the contract" be provided to the client "before work begins" would require manual changes to a paper contract and a subsequent copy generated, or a modification or regeneration of a digitally executed contract. Understanding DPOR's need to have certification of what was excluded from an inspection and proof of the clients' knowledge and acceptance of such exclusion(s) through their signatures or initials, this requirement needs more discussion. A potential solution being an exclusion addendum for contracts signed digitally prior to the start of the inspection, or a copy of the executed paper contract being generated at the end of the inspection.

I hesitate on the proposal to move exclusions to the home inspection report, as the client(s) may not recall the discussion of such items not inspected if they are not discussed, added to the contract, and potentially initialed at the time of the inspection, and only show up in the report.

General Comments:

Being licensed in more than one state, and having reviewed other states' statutory requirements, I find the Virginia home inspection regulations to be more prescriptive than many other states. Being a member of nationally recognized home inspector organizations requires that such inspectors follow standards, maintain ethics, and fulfill certain educational requirements. I feel the item specific requirements of the Virginia home inspection regulations are not typical and go beyond Virginia's long standing reputation of having limited regulatory impact which is necessary to protect the safety and well being of the public.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.  Your consideration is appreciated.