Code Violations ?
- Thread starter dronai
- Start date
- Status
I know, but how am I going to not piss off the inexperienced inspector ?
He also said I used wirenuts in the panel :lol: I used (3) I guess I could show him the article.
He also listed all multiwire breakers must have handle ties. I didn't install any, and so he must mean the existing in the main ?
mivey
Senior Member
Better yet, have him cite the section he thinks you violated.
EV607797
Member
- Location
- Fredericksburg, VA
Tape on wire nuts........ I got a good chuckle from that one.
As for the concentric knockout thing: What kind of voltage are we talking about here?
As for the concentric knockout thing: What kind of voltage are we talking about here?
mgookin
Senior Member
- Location
- Fort Myers, FL
If what he is asking for is not going to make anything unsafe and it's not prohibitively expensive, I'd suggest you do it because you need your work inspected and signed off. After he leaves you can do what you want with the work.
Then some time after it's signed off, call the building official for that jurisdiction and explain that you were compelled to rework the job for reasons you believe are not required by code and that absent citing an Article in each rejection item, there is no reason to believe this inspector is going to change. It costs you money and makes you look bad with your customer. Going back and reworking your job because an inspector dreams something out of thin air is not good business practice for you, your client, or the building department. Citing a code section (or in the case of the NEC an Article) is good practice in every building department when rejecting plans or inspections. If you read the administrative chapter of the code or adopting statute, it probably compels the inspector to cite a code section in a rejection.
I always told my inspectors and plans examiners that if you can't find a code section, it's not a violation. And as for oddball situations, only a supervisor can make those calls (one that comes to mind was a chemistry lab in a college; I wanted two exits even though code then only required one so I cited the "extenuating circumstances" provision of the code in effect at the time.
There are two types of building officials. Those who have used tools and those who have not. The ones who have not can be real as*******es, they'll call you a liar and think you're out to cheat the world. The ones who have want to work with you and your customer to meet the minimum requirements of code which is in everyone's interest.
Then some time after it's signed off, call the building official for that jurisdiction and explain that you were compelled to rework the job for reasons you believe are not required by code and that absent citing an Article in each rejection item, there is no reason to believe this inspector is going to change. It costs you money and makes you look bad with your customer. Going back and reworking your job because an inspector dreams something out of thin air is not good business practice for you, your client, or the building department. Citing a code section (or in the case of the NEC an Article) is good practice in every building department when rejecting plans or inspections. If you read the administrative chapter of the code or adopting statute, it probably compels the inspector to cite a code section in a rejection.
I always told my inspectors and plans examiners that if you can't find a code section, it's not a violation. And as for oddball situations, only a supervisor can make those calls (one that comes to mind was a chemistry lab in a college; I wanted two exits even though code then only required one so I cited the "extenuating circumstances" provision of the code in effect at the time.
There are two types of building officials. Those who have used tools and those who have not. The ones who have not can be real as*******es, they'll call you a liar and think you're out to cheat the world. The ones who have want to work with you and your customer to meet the minimum requirements of code which is in everyone's interest.
Last edited by a moderator:
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
People skills. Be nice but ask him why he thinks these are code violations.
The inspector is in a much worse position than you are because he could lose his job if there are to many complaints about him not knowing his job.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
Waste of my time, I would rather do what you suggested next right away:
I may first ask inspector to give me code sections that are in violation, and if he doesn't get it after that, then go up the chain of command. I am not wasting any time or resources on his incompetence. I feel kind of lucky that we don't have those kind of inspectors here to start with. The ones we have do make mistakes but at least it is within their rules that correction notices do have to be supported by code sections and explanations of what is non compliant.
He would be losing his job here if he doesn't learn to get it right.
240V
I hear you ! I was thinking of having the owner ask for a different inspector first. If I get the same guy, I am going to have to bring my code book, and meet with him.
- Status