A Fly in the Ointment: The "Grandfather Rule"

Status
Not open for further replies.
pfalcon said:
The "Grandfather rule" is NOT in the NEC but in the US Constitution:

"No bill of attainer or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Just inform the inspector that you are sworn to protect and uphold the US Constitution.:cool:
 
charlie b said:
...
In other words, if you see something that violates today’s NEC, and if you are asked if it must be repaired or replaced or whatever, do you first seek to discover the date of its installation, and check to see if the NEC in force at that time would have allowed it? If so, why? What is your basis in code for looking at installation dates and old code books?

To the OP:
Basis for Grandfather Clause: US Constitution Article 1 .. no ... ex post facto law shall be passed.

TEST 1: Legal: Could it have ever met code? If not - repair or replace.
TEST 2: Legal: Could it only have met code BEFORE the original construction? If so - repair or replace.

In short, I would only check to see if there was a flagrant abuse of the grandfather clause. This would typically be the use of practices banned before the original work. (1960's practices on a 1980 house for example). It is not worth the effort to figure out if those 1997 practices were done in 2003 or not when the house is 1985.

TEST 3: Professional: Are you going to touch the work? Repair or replace.
TEST 4: Legal: Does the local authority think you are going to touch the work? Repair or replace.

Test 4 may trip due to things such as "When 20% or more of the wiring ... then you are doing the whole structure".

TEST 5: Professional: Should it be repaired or replaced because of its current condition?

So to the OP in regard to the grandfather clause: I would typically seek the date of the major construction :: 1985 house with 1990 add-on. And then accept any practice on or after that date :: 1985 and on for the example house and 1990 onward for the add-on. I would NOT try to figure out if they did 1997 practices in 2003 for a 1990 add-on.

And in the end a professional opinion on the current condition of the wiring is worth far more than "you might get cited cause someone used old practices on new construction".

Edit: double negative screw up.
 
Is it ?grandfathering? or ?been there long time - nobody dead yet? when you see sub panels (past the service disconnect in the same building) bonding the grounded conductor at the sub panels?

I?ll bet most of us have seen this, how hard to you press for the correction, and what do you use to prove the hazards?
 
tryinghard said:
Is it ?grandfathering? or ?been there long time - nobody dead yet? when you see sub panels (past the service disconnect in the same building) bonding the grounded conductor at the sub panels?

I?ll bet most of us have seen this, how hard to you press for the correction, and what do you use to prove the hazards?

I put five tests (not all inclusive) in post #63. If any say recommend a repair then you should do so. Test 5 asks if a hazardous condition exists. If it does then you recommend the repair. The GC at that point is irrelevant. The GC and "nobody dead yet" are separate questions.
 
pfalcon said:
I put five tests (not all inclusive) in post #63. If any say recommend a repair then you should do so. Test 5 asks if a hazardous condition exists. If it does then you recommend the repair. The GC at that point is irrelevant. The GC and "nobody dead yet" are separate questions.
Previously I asked, ?when you see sub panels (past the service disconnect in the same building) bonding the grounded conductor at the sub panels (this has never been allowed in NEC), how hard do you press for the correction, and what do you use to prove the hazards??

I think we?re on the same page but I?m not sure how your tests work. In your TEST 5: ?Professional: Should it be repaired or replaced because of its current condition?? does this mean the same as post_53? If it does we?re on the same page :)
 
as a bit of Ot trivia, does anyone else know just where the phrase "the grandfather rule" came from? its an interesting and sad piece of american history.
 
pfalcon,

I like your list of 5 Tests.

The most flagrant problems, in my experience, fall under Test #1, i.e., "Could it have ever met code?" At this fundamental level, a large percentage of the "non-Code" installations include outright hazards and / or safety issues, in my opinion.

Returning to the OP
charlie b said:
. . . .if you see something that violates today?s NEC, and if you are asked if it must be repaired or replaced or whatever, do you first seek to discover the date of its installation, and check to see if the NEC in force at that time would have allowed it? If so, why? What is your basis in code for looking at installation dates and old code books?
My basis in Code is "local ordinance".

One city I work in disbanded it's Electrical Inspection Department, causing all inspections to be done by the State. This had the effect of rendering the city's "Minimum Maintenance Electrical Code" un-enforceable, as the State inspectors only enforce the NEC.

It is now 2+ years since the change. I'm learning that the local ordinance can be invoked by an awkward process of interdepartmental "hints" of where the violations are, letters to the property owner, and holding up of Certificate of Acceptance, Rental Licenses, etc.

But when it comes to a single family dwelling, where the owner / occupant is offered the opportunity to pull his / er own electrical permit, there is still no "Code" way to get at violations unless they are "unsafe" or "hazardous".
 
What do guys make of this , does it nullify local rules,.. it seems to

21.04 Effect of local By Laws and Ordinances

Unless otherwise noted in M.G.L. c. 143 ??3 through 60 inclusive, the State Board of Fire Prevention Regulation, including the Massachusetts Electrical Code, as incorporated into the state building code, supercedes any and all local by laws and ordinances relating to the installation, repair, and maintenance of electrical wiring and electrical fixtures used for light, heat, power, fire warning or security system purposes.
 
M. D. said:
What do guys make of this , does it nullify local rules,.. it seems to

21.04 Effect of local By Laws and Ordinances

Unless otherwise noted in M.G.L. c. 143 ??3 through 60 inclusive, the State Board of Fire Prevention Regulation, including the Massachusetts Electrical Code, as incorporated into the state building code, supercedes any and all local by laws and ordinances relating to the installation, repair, and maintenance of electrical wiring and electrical fixtures used for light, heat, power, fire warning or security system purposes.

Sounds inclusive to me and yes that nullifies local rules..atleast as I read it..
 
al hildenbrand said:
Bob,

Where does "grandfathering" come from?

Inquiring minds. . .

:smile:

Jim Crow is the right answer.

In the early 1900s, the state of GA enacted a constitutional amendment regarding who was eligible to vote. It seemed quite innocent on the face of it, but the way many of the provisions were actually enforced tended to eliminate black voters.

The grandfather clause referred to a clause in the amendment that exempted anyone who had ought in a war, or who had descended from a veteran of any war from the revolutionary war through the Spanish American was. Since most white males had a grandfather who had served in the civil war (there was no requirement that you fought on the winning side), the clause became known as the grandfather clause.

other states had similar laws, providing for instance, that one was exempt from the "normal" eligibility requirements if one was a descendant of someone eligible to vote before the civil war.
 
Inspector found Federal Pacific panel

Inspector found Federal Pacific panel

My home inspector earned every penny of his $300 fee when he told me to replace the Federal Pacific panel in my 1976 house. He told me that the FP panel must be replaced, and made sure that I planned to follow through. He gave me the web site for FP (www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/reliance), and when I visited that site, it scared me!
Why doesn't the AHJ require all FP panels to be replaced, since it looks like it poses an "imminent hazard" when the circuit breakers don't open from a short circuit? One house burned down in my neighborhood, due to an electrical fire. Maybe it had the FP panel and the circuit breaker didn't protect the house.
 
First of all Home inspectors really carry no legal authority to inspect electrical or at least not in this state..I can not get the link you posted to work..I also do not know of any where in the code that would allow an inspector to require that and be-able to site a code violation..Does anyone out there know of a code section for an inspector to require a panel removal just because it is federal pacific..
 
cschmid said:
I also do not know of any where in the code that would allow an inspector to require that and be-able to site a code violation

A home inspector can not force anything to happen.

What they can do is produce a report that is used as a barging point during negotiating the selling price of the home.

The seller still gets to make the decision on what they will and will not do in order to sell the home.
 
goofy256256 said:
He told me that the FP panel must be replaced. . . .
He was wrong. Nothing requires it to be replaced. The presence of a FP panel is not a violation of the code. It is generally considered a good idea to upgrade and FP or a Zinsco to more modern equipment. But "good ideas" are not the same as NEC requirements.
 
Good ideas...

Good ideas...

charlie b said:

He was wrong. Nothing requires it to be replaced. The presence of a FP panel is not a violation of the code. It is generally considered a good idea to upgrade and FP or a Zinsco to more modern equipment. But "good ideas" are not the same as NEC requirements.

Hi Charlie,

I believe 'Due diligence' may be used as a legal aspect of liability if the Home Inspector points out that there is a hazard condition that may be detrimental to life safety. This is always a scare tactic to put a mental picture in the seller's mind that they may be sued if they do not negotiate correction on the hazard and the house burns down causing fatalities.

I am not an attorney and don't know much about this tactic other than it works on most home inspections I have participated in. rbj

Edited: Needless to say the purchaser is cognizant of the flaws and has little to gain either in court or from above.
 
Last edited:
Bob I do understand the concept you pointed out..My point is that the Home inspector is not an electrical contractor so for him to look at the electrical is in violation of the law at least in this state..

Subd. 1b. Licenses; bond. All inspectors shall hold licenses as master or journeyman electricians under this chapter. All inspectors under contract with the department to provide electrical inspection services shall give bond in the amount of $1,000, conditioned upon the faithful performance of their duties.

Subd. 6. Contractor's license required. Except as otherwise provided by law, no individual other than an employee, partner, or officer of a licensed contractor, as defined by section 326B.31, subdivision 12, shall perform or offer perform electrical work with or without compensation unless the individual obtains a contractor's license. A contractor's license does not of itself qualify its holder to perform or supervise the electrical work authorized by holding any class of personal license.


326B.33 LICENSES.
Subdivision 1. Master electrician. Except as otherwise provided by law, no individual shall perform or supervise electrical work unless the individual is:
(a) licensed by the commissioner as a master electrician; and
(b)(i) the electrical work is for a licensed contractor and the individual is an employee, partner, or officer of, or is the licensed contractor, or
(ii) the electrical work is performed for the individual's employer on electrical wiring, apparatus, equipment, or facilities that are owned or leased by the employer and that are located within the limits of property operated, maintained, and either owned or leased by the employer.
(1) An applicant for a Class A master electrician license shall
(a) be a graduate of a four-year electrical course offered by an accredited college or university; or
(b) shall have had at least one year of experience, acceptable to the commissioner, as a licensed journeyman; or
(c) shall have had at least five years' experience, acceptable to the commissioner, in planning for, laying out, supervising and installing wiring, apparatus, or equipment for electrical light, heat and power.
(2) As of August 1, 1985, no new Class B master electrician licenses shall be issued. An individual who has a Class B master electrician license as of August 1, 1985, may retain and renew the license and exercise the privileges it grants, which include electrical work limited to single phase systems, not over 200 amperes in capacity, on farmsteads or single-family dwellings located in towns or municipalities with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants.

Here is the link to the complete laws
http://www.electricity.state.mn.us/Stat_rul/Mn_stat/LawsRulesFullPageWenforcementDecember2007.pdf

So my point is how can they make recommendations when they are doing illegal inspections..they inspect other systems are that they are not licensed to inspect..SO what gives them power to do what they do on my house I will file a laws suite against them as they have no business doing it..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top