Existing J-boxes not supported

[G0049]

then the EC on job gets paid to correct at an additional fee........

But what if the building owner doesn't want the EC on the job to do the additional work. What if he wants to put it out for bids? Does the original EC still have an open permit (which means he probably isn't going to get his final payment)? And if the owner disagrees with your decision, who has to argue it, the owner or the EC you gave the notice to?

 

[M. D.]

So I'm cited for work I did not do ?? stupid and I would not accept it.

If it is the owner of the structure , who is cited ,..then the inspector needs to contact him\her\it\them so they can make a decision as to how to they want to proceed . I should have nothing to do with the enforcement aspect ,..I'll advise I'll give a price but I will not serve the citation as it is not my responsibility,. but that of the enforcement official.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

god I can't wait to be an inspector (my ultimate goal before retiring)

I'm gonna walk on to the job site... demand that walls be torn down (that were put up 30 years ago) so I can see every wire in the building!!!

God forbid there be one violation or the EC is gonna have to fix it out of his pocket!!! Or else..... hey hey hey.....no Mother effin pass!!!

I call death to permits in this district!

 

[M. D.]

I have read a fair bit of the D.C. building code ,.. and I see nothing that supports this as the proper procedure ,..I sure wish Greg would enlighten me.

As an Inspector I would cite the existing issues and then it is between you and the GC to sort it out. Sorry "open up a can of worms" Could be more money in your pocket. Sorry Ken I did not mean to quote you.

Oh BTW, Iam a representative of AHJ. So I do enforce existing conditions. "Fix it or ticket" Terrible way or not but, where does it end? It will become someones problem sometime or another. Why snowball the issues? Fix it now.

 

[dcspector]

I have read a fair bit of the D.C. building code ,.. and I see nothing that supports this as the proper procedure ,..I sure wish Greg would enlighten me.

Yes please contact Don Masaero Building commisioner In The District and get of my butt. I represent the AHJ. What gives you the right to question that in the District.....I ask you once more do you work in DC? No probably not. Also, you do not have the latest DCMR so let it rest. the existing conditions go to Building owner through the Electrician on job what is so damn difficult for you to understand. End of discussion for me and I have enlightened you. Have a great evening:smile:

 

[dcspector]

god I can't wait to be an inspector (my ultimate goal before retiring)

I'm gonna walk on to the job site... demand that walls be torn down (that were put up 30 years ago) so I can see every wire in the building!!!

God forbid there be one violation or the EC is gonna have to fix it out of his pocket!!! Or else..... hey hey hey.....no Mother effin pass!!!

I call death to permits in this district!

That is rediculous and you are blowing this way out of proportion.

 

[peter d]

Also, you do not have the latest DCMR so let it rest. the existing conditions go to Building owner through the Electrician on job what is so damn difficult for you to understand.

The point has been that it's very difficult for us to understand why this burden has to fall on the electrical contractor who has nothing to do with existing violations. Let's say the EC passes the violation info along to the owner and the building owner says "No problem, I'll put that out to bid." So now the EC has to eat the time it takes to make the owner aware of the problem????

 

[blueheels2]

It happens to us all the time. If the inspector deems that we have exposed enough of the building and there are code violations he can require them to be brought up to code. Then the EC, GC, and owner get together and decide who is paying for what.

 

[iwire]

I represent the AHJ. What gives you the right to question that in the District.....I ask you once more do you work in DC? No probably not.

What a terrible attitude, 'How dare you question me'

Also, you do not have the latest DCMR so let it rest.

So show us or link us to the latest info.

the existing conditions go to Building owner through the Electrician on job what is so damn difficult for you to understand

.

More bad attitude, why is it difficult for you to understand that it is unfair?

End of discussion for me and I have enlightened you. Have a great evening:smile:

Not much of a discussion, more like you telling us 'this is what we do, deal with it and don't ask questions.'

 

[hurk27]

I don't understand. If a new rule creates an existing hazard, then wouldn't the rules you posted require the hazard be fixed?

I think your reading rule 3 wrong, it states if you install new wiring it has to meet the new codes, "Without having to bring up any violations or anything that does not meet the new codes, nore can it violate the new code, and without making these violations any worse, it only requires you to follow the code for the installation your doing but without creating any other violations,

an example of this is a range fed with se cable, it was once legal if fed from the main service, you come along and relocate the service and make the existing panel a sub-panel, now that range feed is illegal as it was never allowed to be fed from a sub-panel.

 

[hurk27]

I just realized there was many more pages to read before making my above post. Oh well

But after reading some of the post here, I too have had problems in the past with some of the requirements that have been posted.


Here is some of what I have learned in fighting some of this

Article 9 section 21 of the United States Constitution will block all requirements of upgrading anything that was code at the time of installation or manufacture. "No Post Facto Laws Shall Ever Be Written"

Inspector's can only cross this line if a change of occupancy was issued or if your state law has a code to require correction of a violation if it is imperative to life/safety, and in commercial, where violations can be seen that didn't meet code at the time it was done.

in residential its kind of a different ball game, as with the above article 9, section 21, you can add what is called the log cabin law which allows homeowners to do there own work, which would make this work legal which would in turn would be protected by the article 9 section 21 again. This would stop an inspector looking at any work other than what an EC did under a permit. and the homeowners work could not be cited as a violation.
I have never seen any requirement for a homeowner to have inspections when under the log cabin law. at least not in the few states I have looked this up.

So basically it is up to a homeowner if they want to live a dangerous life or not.
car racers do, sky divers do, and many more life styles that are dangerous, but it's there choice.

I'm not a lawyer but I have had to deal with being the in between guy all to often in cases like this and thanks to a very good law professor at VU who helped me with what laws to use to deal with this kind of stuff has gone a long ways with bringing both the inspectors and home owners to agreements they both can live with. around here it was getting way out of hand.

 

[M. D.]

Yes please contact Don Masaero Building commisioner In The District and get of my butt. I represent the AHJ. What gives you the right to question that in the District.....I ask you once more do you work in DC? No probably not. Also, you do not have the latest DCMR so let it rest. the existing conditions go to Building owner through the Electrician on job what is so damn difficult for you to understand. End of discussion for me and I have enlightened you. Have a great evening:smile:

Greg , you have made a few statements here that beg for them to be backed up.. this is hardly a new concept for this board,..

You say "Fix it or ticket" I'm asking by what right do you have to ticket me for something I did not do,.. I"m also asking by what right do you make me the delivery boy of your citation to owner if that is the case ,.. as I'm still confused as to who exactly gets the citation.???

One of the reasons I ask is because he can terminate me .. bar me from entering his property.. I do believe you and or your office has right of access by virtue of the rights and responsibilities granted under law

Not tough questions IMO

 

[M. D.]

It happens to us all the time. If the inspector deems that we have exposed enough of the building and there are code violations he can require them to be brought up to code. Then the EC, GC, and owner get together and decide who is paying for what.

I know one thing ,...I'm not paying for anything if my work complies. and I'll not be made responsible for the work of others who have gone before me.

 

[dcspector]

It happens to us all the time. If the inspector deems that we have exposed enough of the building and there are code violations he can require them to be brought up to code. Then the EC, GC, and owner get together and decide who is paying for what.

That was perfect. This is all I was trying to say. Thanks.

 

[iwire]

That was perfect. This is all I was trying to say. Thanks.

So your happy to pass the buck. Well at least you meeting the civil servant stereotype.

Glad I don't work there but I clearly understand your position now. You don't care about what is right only that you don't have to do anything.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

That is rediculous and you are blowing this way out of proportion.

Yeah I was being a little ridiculous to highlight this ridiculous self empowerment you claim to have. It may have been ridiculous but it is exactly the power you claim to have...

What's really ridiculous is telling the EC that your not passing the (potentially) perfect work he did because you see some violations of past work... How could this play out...

EC: "All done with work, need final"
INSP:"Your work is good but no pass until this old work is fixed"
EC:"Hey HO, INSP says this other work needs to be fixed"
HO:"Well I'm gonna get bids for that other work"
EC:"Well can I get paid for my work?"
HO:"Sure as soon as it passes inspection"
EC:"Crap"

 

[iwire]

EC:"Well can I get paid for my work?"
HO:"Sure as soon as it passes inspection"
EC:"Crap"

That is the problem I have as well, often our payments are directly linked to a final inspection. That being the case it is a type of extortion on the part of the EI to place the EC in this position.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Iam a representative of AHJ. So I do enforce existing conditions. "Fix it or ticket" Terrible way or not...Fix it now.

I cite the existing violations to the EC on job and pass what they installed,

I am getting a little confused now. If the work I did is passed. What stops me from leaving? You cite me on existing work....? How does that work? If I pulled a permit....got all the inspections completed for that work...I just don't see how you can pass the new work and cite existing conditions to the EC. Seems to me I could ignore whatever citing was done for existing work if my work on my permit is completed and passed.

What a concept... getting cited for being in the building when a totally unrelated violation is found by an inspector...kinda funny.

 

[M. D.]

....You are missing the point! I cite you for existing violation and you take it to Building owner. You pass what you installed and then you get paid to correct the existing.....Problem with that?

I am still not sure if I passed and can walk away , because may be I don't want to do it ,...or do not have the time to do it ,.. am I somehow tied to this citation of violation of which I had no part in creating ???


And this ,....

Originally Posted by blueheels2
...... he can require them to be brought up to code. Then the EC, GC, and owner get together and decide who is paying for what.

....the person who hires me will be paying.

Is this guy saying it is a 3- split of some sort :-?:-?

 

[SEO]

I think that all contractors and electrical inspectors run into problems on almost every remodel job comming across pre-existing violations. What I do as an inspector I will inspect what the contractor installs and approve or dissapprove. I will not approve adding to an existing violation. On existing violations I reference the code that was in effect when the job was installed and look for an inspection report. I do not hold the current permit holder responsible for repairing existing violations. I can inspect and approve his work but the the final C of O will not be issued until existing violations are corrected. We issue the owner a citation stating that existing violations shall be repaired and it is their responsibilty to hire a contractor. It does get interesting when we find that the job had been inspected and approved sometimes even over 40 years ago.