Existing J-boxes not supported

[Karl H]

I exclude "Existing Violations" in my contract. If there are minor violations
like an open box or an unsupported conduit and I'm shooting wires anyway
I'll correct the violation. If the violations are numerous, I simply do the work
and when I get my ceiling cover inspection, if the inspector chooses to
fail the existing condition,the GC sends the correction report to the owner
and "so far" the owner(s) have agreed to fix "unsafe" conditions. I have
yet to have a owner(s) or GC shop my price to correct an existing
violation(s) in order to get a final.

 

[dcspector]

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.

Whatever........:roll:back to you. I have no further comments regarding a post such as this. I work my ass off here in DC existing conditions have been ignored over the years and now has become mine, EC and property owners problem. How dare you say I don't have to do anything. I work 12 hours a day clarifing issues, work with EC's and Building Engineers. Now does that sound like a "civil servant stereotype" to you? No!

 

[peter d]

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

The problem here is you guys are trying to apply normal common sense and logic to a situation that is completely illogical. Hence things get really convoluted really fast. :roll:

 

[SEO]

The problem here is you guys are trying to apply normal common sense and logic to a situation that is completely illogical. Hence things get really convoluted really fast. :roll:

I don't think that the situation is completely illogical I think that some of the laws are written without common sense and logic. This is a problem that is faced everyday.

 

[dcspector]

The problem here is you guys are trying to apply normal common sense and logic to a situation that is completely illogical. Hence things get really convoluted really fast. :roll:

That is hilarious......what is common sense? Let us not forget I represent a Governing body........ Apparently I am a simple clone.....yas sir no sir....

 

[iwire]

I think that some of the laws are written without common sense and logic.

dcspector has yet to provide any link or even tell us what law backs up what he has told us.

The one section of law that has been posted says nothing about sticking it on the EC that is on the job.

 

[SEO]

dcspector has yet to provide any link or even tell us what law backs up what he has told us.

The one section of law that has been posted says nothing about sticking it on the EC that is on the job.

What I stated in post 80 is how the jurisdictions that I represent handle existing violations. Where I run into existing violations the most is in commercial and health care. Many times the work was never inspected . I'm not going to punish a contractor who in good faith pulls a permit and require him to repair violations that may or may not have been inspected. It's the owners building they are responsible. As a contractor it should be stated in his contract that pre-existing violations are excluded and would require a seperate contract to repair.

 

[dcspector]

dcspector has yet to provide any link or even tell us what law backs up what he has told us.

The one section of law that has been posted says nothing about sticking it on the EC that is on the job.

What does that matter to you. I represent the AHJ so let it rest. Right wrong or in dfferent. I do what I am told to do Link or no link. Don't like it then stay out of DC.....I am not trying to show my ass but you have forced me into that situation Mr. Moderator.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

What does that matter to you. I represent the AHJ so let it rest. Right wrong or in dfferent. I do what I am told to do Link or no link. Don't like it then stay out of DC.....I am not trying to show my ass but you have forced me into that situation Mr. Moderator.

It is not unreasonable to ask for some documentation of such a radical view point. If you are going to put the EC on the hook for something he was not involved with you need to have the law to back you up. So far you basically say "because I said so"...When confronted with that in turned into "because I was told to"....

It sounds like you are making up your own rules based on what is easiest to do...People natrually what you to justify it. You are angry because you can't provide any backing of your position and we are letting you off the hook without it.

Your serving you're own needs hiding behind this "law" that you can't produce.....

 

[M. D.]

What does that matter to you. I represent the AHJ so let it rest. Right wrong or in dfferent. I do what I am told to do Link or no link. Don't like it then stay out of DC.....I am not trying to show my ass but you have forced me into that situation Mr. Moderator.

It is a simple question Greg,.. perhaps you can ask your boss to give you the chapter and verse on monday and lets remember ,.. It was you who brought the whole D.C. existing violation thing up .. It just seems to,.. either be very poorly written law or it is being misinterpreted .

I have never been one to just do what I am told ,... if forced to,.. I almost always find out the whys and wherefores after the fact.

 

[M. D.]

Perhaps this is it

113.2.1 Service of Notice of Violation or Order. A notice of violation or order
shall be served on the owner, operator, occupant or other person responsible for
the condition or violation (the ?respondent?) by any one of the following
methods:

1. Personal service on the respondent or the respondent's agent; or

2. Delivering the notice or order to the last known home or business address,
as identified by the tax records address the business license address, or the
corporate registration address of the respondent or the respondent's agent
and leaving it with a person over the age of sixteen (16) years old residing
or employed therein; or

3. Mailing the notice or order, via first class mail postage prepaid, to the last
known home or business address, as identified by the tax records address,
the business license address or the corporate registration address, of the
respondent or respondent's agent; or

4. If the notice or order is returned as undeliverable by the Post Office
authorities, or if no address is known or can be ascertained by reasonable
diligence, by posting a copy of the notice or order in a conspicuous place
in or about the structure affected by such notice.

 

[iwire]

What does that matter to you. I represent the AHJ so let it rest. Right wrong or in dfferent. I do what I am told to do Link or no link. Don't like it then stay out of DC.....I am not trying to show my ass but you have forced me into that situation Mr. Moderator.

Greg, you know as well as I do that on this forum members expect black and white facts not just a persons recollection or interpretation of a code or law. I don't think any of us have asked you for to much.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I am not sure what this thread is now accomplishing. It seems to have become a situation between a few players.

I say before it becomes messier than it already has it should be closed.

There are much better things to discuss on this site.

JMHO

 

[romeo]

Existing J-boxes not supported

I think that is a terrible way to handle it, the existing conditions have nothing to do with the EC. It should be between the AHJ and the property owner.

In MA we have 'Rule 3 & 4' which IMO is the way it should always be handled.

I totally agree. I use those rules often in letters to property owner.

 

[iwire]

I totally agree. I use those rules often in letters to property owner.

Let me say a very sincere thank you for that.

I also want to state again that if an inspector asks me to take care of a few small and easily fixed items I would (and have) we are all on the same side. My only issue here is when the items needing attention are going to be costly fixes. :smile:

 

[mjf]

Poorly written post

Poorly written post

I don't think "dcinspector" has clarified what the situation is.

I believe he writes the citation NAMING THE OWNER, not naming us EC's (he just gives it to us).

I believe that our permited work passes. We get paid. End of that story.

He does ask us to be the bearer of bad news (and get beheaded) by delivering these citations to the owner. I believe I could refuse him and tell him to mail them to the owner himself (like I believe he should....it would be more professional).

this is my take on what he is (was) trying to convey to us. I could be totally wrong

 

[romeo]

Existing J-boxes not supported

Thanks ken....Perfect.:smile:

I agree but the EC should not be held responsible for violations he did create. The property owner should be made responsible to correct any hazardous conditions. I agree with the Ma.rules

 

[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 don't think anything he said is clear or makes much sense ... I am still not sure what my role in the citation would be ,.. if not that of delivery boy ???

Why would the Municipality want to involve me in the enforcement side of the code?? It makes no sense ..

And the attitude he has expressed in this thread ,..in my opinion is,.. well,... kind of lousy for a code official to have in response to a question directly related to the citation he said he writes.

 

[hurk27]

Perhaps this is it

actually 113 is for infractions and violations like doing work without permits

110.2.2 Inspections. Following the filing of a certificate of occupancy application, except for a change in ownership pursuant to Section 110.1.2, inspections shall be conducted to confirm compliance with the applicable Construction Codes and the Zoning Regulations. Notice of all existing violations of the applicable Construction Codes and Zoning Regulations shall be provided to the applicant within ten (10) working days after the inspection.
110.2.2.1 Service of Notice. The notice of existing violations shall be personally delivered to the applicant or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid. Where the notice is mailed, a certificate of mailing completed by the person responsible for mailing shall constitute proof of service.

Is for inspections, but kind of has the same language, as the "applicant" in this quote is the owner filling for occupancy.

So the bottom line is the inspector is supposed to deliver the "notice existing violation" to the "applicant"

 

[M. D.]

It's looking more and more like a misinterpretation of the rules and responsibilities pertaining to the AHJ/ inspection official ...