Inspection question.

[romex jockey]

Where is the line in the sand drawn?

liability

~RJ~

 

[Dennis Alwon]

From there web site

I think most states have someone who can make a call on these issues.

 

[xptpcrewx]

Your reply is 100% B.S.

Palm Beach County, Florida - Code of Ordinances Chapter 7 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ARTICLE IV. - AMENDMENTS TO BUILDING CODES APPLICABLE IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS Sec. 7-52. - Amendments to Florida Building Code.

​

105.4 Conditions of the permit. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other federal, state, or local law, or any applicable ordinance, code, or regulation. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of any other federal, state, or local law, or any applicable ordinance, code, or regulation shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data, requiring corrections to work already performed, or revoking the permit. No deviations from the permit may be made without written authorization. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure that is in violation of this code or of any other federal, state or local law or any applicable, ordinance, code or regulation.​

​

105.4.1 Permit intent. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, construction or violations of this code.​

Palm Beach County, Florida - Code of Ordinances Chapter 7 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL Sec. 7-2. - Local construction regulation board.

​

101.4.10 Electrical. The provisions of Chapter 27 of the Florida Building Code, Building Volume, and Part VIII - Electrical, of the Florida Building Code Residential Volume, 7 th Edition (2020) shall apply to the installation of electrical systems, including alterations, repairs, replacement, equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances thereto.​

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Palm Beach County, Florida - Code of Ordinances Chapter 7 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ARTICLE IV. - AMENDMENTS TO BUILDING CODES APPLICABLE IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS Sec. 7-52. - Amendments to Florida Building Code.

​

105.4 Conditions of the permit. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other federal, state, or local law, or any applicable ordinance, code, or regulation. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of any other federal, state, or local law, or any applicable ordinance, code, or regulation shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data, requiring corrections to work already performed, or revoking the permit. No deviations from the permit may be made without written authorization. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure that is in violation of this code or of any other federal, state or local law or any applicable, ordinance, code or regulation.​

​

105.4.1 Permit intent. A permit issued shall be construed to be a license to proceed with the work and not as authority to violate, cancel, alter or set aside any of the provisions of the technical codes, nor shall issuance of a permit prevent the building official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans, construction or violations of this code.​

Palm Beach County, Florida - Code of Ordinances Chapter 7 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL Sec. 7-2. - Local construction regulation board.

​

101.4.10 Electrical. The provisions of Chapter 27 of the Florida Building Code, Building Volume, and Part VIII - Electrical, of the Florida Building Code Residential Volume, 7 th Edition (2020) shall apply to the installation of electrical systems, including alterations, repairs, replacement, equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances thereto.​

Imo, this does not apply to updating the electrical system but rather to correct violations. Not having a gfci in a kitchen was not a violation when the place was wired. That is different from open splices, cables with no jb or no covers, etc.

Otherwise if I worked in a house with K&T they could make me re-wire the entire house, add outlets to code etc. I would sue them before they could make me make those changes.

 

[p51]

Did you move the location of the panel by more than 6'?

No, panel in exact same spot. Also, they are not asking for just GFCI protection on existing outlets, but wanting me to add outlets in kitchen/bath as per 2017 code for kitchens.

 

[xptpcrewx]

I disagree. The permit covers the work you are permitted for and nothing else. In your case would I have to add smokes, run new circuits etc. Where would it stop. It stops at the work you did nothing more. Now there may be a local amendment that requires this but otherwise the inspector is incorrect.

As I understand it the poster did not do any work in the kitchens and bathrooms so how does changing the service make it not compliant?

You don't have to work on something directly to create a violation. Electrical systems are usually interdependent. The nature of contracting and work scope makes us want to think of these systems as separate, but its not always possible. Prior to modification, this was a 1950's system, now its not - its a mix between what was once allowed and what is required now. Anytime there is a grey area like this, I think it requires due diligence.

Imo, the contractor has a duty to understand the impact of their work. This certainly doesn't mean he has to replace the entire building to bring it to code, but we are talking about a couple of GFCI's... I draw the line where it is reasonable, ethical and I am not somehow liable.

The violation arises because its not a like-for-like replacement and the contractor could have employed GFCI breakers. Since the contractor doesn't necessarily have to use GFCI breakers (and said branch-circuits do not have GFCI protection), its a lack of oversight and possibly negligent from a liability standpoint. If this was somehow willful safety deficiency, and someone got hurt, I am 100% certain a county level permit wouldn't help protect anyone.

 

[xptpcrewx]

Disagree. With that logic every installation that has a portion replaced or repaired must have the entire installation brought up to current codes.
So if a main breaker is changed the entire installation must be brought up to codes? Where is the line in the sand drawn?

Not the entire installation but whatever is reasonably affected. For example, if a customer wants me to provide higher trip settings for a main breaker on an older installation, but I have neglected the ampacity of the service conductors, or any protection of downstream equipment currently implemented with the original design (simply because I have chosen to box myself in with my self-defined scope restricting work to the main breaker only), not only have I created violations, but I would be liable and incompetent.

 

[xptpcrewx]

No, panel in exact same spot. Also, they are not asking for just GFCI protection on existing outlets, but wanting me to add outlets in kitchen/bath as per 2017 code for kitchens.

This is unreasonable. Were you involved with any of this prior?

 

[xptpcrewx]

Imo, this does not apply to updating the electrical system but rather to correct violations.

It applies to permits in Palm Beach County. Thats what the OP has.

 

[p51]

Imo, this does not apply to updating the electrical system but rather to correct violations. Not having a gfci in a kitchen was not a violation when the place was wired. That is different from open splices, cables with no jb or no covers, etc.

Otherwise if I worked in a house with K&T they could make me re-wire the entire house, add outlets to code etc. I would sue them before they could make me make those changes.

I agree with you Dennis, would this mean every time you do any electric work on a existing building (Service change, etc.) you would be required to bring the whole unit up to existing electric codes. This is why many electricians and others choose not to pull permits ! As well as enriching the unlicensed people that small contractors are already up against. In Palm Beach County if a unlicensed person is caught working they are fined $250.00, but the building Dept. has no enforcement powers, so these fines are never collected.

 

[xptpcrewx]

are you suggesting some sort of contractual inclusion to meet the unexpected ?

~RJ~

Imo there should always be boilerplate in the contract about how to handle scope creep, incidental/coincident/unexpected work (especially anything outside of your control), change-orders, and owner vs contractor responsibilities. Sometimes we need to spell everything out for the owner so they can make an informed decision about the risk in proceeding with the proposed work.

 

[romex jockey]

Imo there should always be boilerplate in the contract about how to handle scope creep, incidental/coincident/unexpected work (especially anything outside of your control), change-orders, and owner vs contractor responsibilities. Sometimes we need to spell everything out for the owner so they can make an informed decision about the risk in proceeding with the proposed work.

I'll make this simple for you, if i did not contract it, i ain't eatin it

~RJ~

 

[xptpcrewx]

I'll make this simple for you, if i did not contract it, i ain't eatin it

~RJ~

if the contract was somehow deemed unenforceable or if you had liability, you would eat the cost/labor regardless.

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

See #2
It's a requirement of there code.
It should be the owners responsibility. Unfortunately the contractor that pulled the permit is in the middle. Bet it's a rental and the owner has been down this road before. Just a guess.

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

It should pass an inspection with a hold on power restore until it meet the requirements of the amended code. The owner of record should receive this violation to be corrected per there own requirements.
I say give them a Call Monday. All else fails fill an appeal.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It applies to permits in Palm Beach County. Thats what the OP has.

I get that but my entire point is the op didn't touch the area that the inspector is red tagging the job. I realize if I make a panel a subpanel then I am responsible for any violations created but that is not what the op stated.

 

[Little Bill]

Not the entire installation but whatever is reasonably affected. For example, if a customer wants me to provide higher trip settings for a main breaker on an older installation, but I have neglected the ampacity of the service conductors, or any protection of downstream equipment currently implemented with the original design (simply because I have chosen to box myself in with my self-defined scope restricting work to the main breaker only), not only have I created violations, but I would be liable and incompetent.

It's simple! If there were violations when the house was wired, that is what is meant by not allowing any violations. Things like GFCI and AFCI were not even a thought when the house was built/wired. If all you're doing is replacing the panel, adding things required on a new build today is not required just for a panel change.

 

[growler]

If all you're doing is replacing the panel, adding things required on a new build today is not required just for a panel change.

It's really hard to say what's required. All panel swaps are not the same. In many areas you can state the work is an upgrade or a repair. Doing any type of upgrade to the electrical system may trigger the requirement to add certain safety equipment such as smoke detectors and GFCI protected receptacles.

Since a phone call doesn't cost anything I would certainly call the inspection department and see if the head guy at least agrees with this inspector. But if they do have this as a local amendment it's not enough money to be worth a fight. Knowledge often cost a dollar or two and he will know before he bids the next panel change in that jurisdiction.

 

[Little Bill]

It's really hard to say what's required. All panel swaps are not the same. In many areas you can state the work is an upgrade or a repair. Doing any type of upgrade to the electrical system may trigger the requirement to add certain safety equipment such as smoke detectors and GFCI protected receptacles.

Since a phone call doesn't cost anything I would certainly call the inspection department and see if the head guy at least agrees with this inspector. But if they do have this as a local amendment it's not enough money to be worth a fight. Knowledge often cost a dollar or two and he will know before he bids the next panel change in that jurisdiction.

We do have to add smoke alarms on a panel change if they don't have them, or don't have enough. We are allowed battery operated ones for this. It is not an NEC thing, but from the State Fire Marshall's office as that's who regulates the States electrical requirements and also who the inspectors work under. I bet there is not a jurisdiction in the whole Country that requires what the OP stated they wanted added just for a panel change.

 

[Jon456]

Prior to modification, this was a 1950's system, now its not - its a mix between what was once allowed and what is required now.

How does replacing a 15A fuse with a 15A circuit breaker affect the rest of the existing electrical system in the home to the point where new receptacles must be installed in the kitchen and bathroom?

As for "eating it," was the OP supposed to enter the home and do a full system inspection prior to contracting for the panel upgrade and then tell the homeowner that he would also have to pay for major changes to the entire electrical installation in the home? For all we know, the OP may not have even stepped foot inside the house when bidding the panel job. And there would have been no reason for him to do so.

From reading the OP's post, it appears that he was not present at the time of the inspection. My question is, why did the homeowner bring the inspector inside the house to inspect the kitchen and bathrooms when the inspection was only supposed to be for the replaced panel? Which then makes me question, what did the homeowner present to the inspector as the scope of work? Perhaps the homeowner misrepresented the scope to the inspector in order to leverage the OP to do a bunch of interior upgrades without having to pay for the work.