Can an electrical inspector fail us for work that we didn't do that already passed inspection?

Your contract with your customer needs to clearly state what your scope of work is.

It also needs to state that it is possible that additional work might become necessary for various reasons that is not covered by the scope of the contract.

Every contract I have seen covers these kind of things either by making it the customers problem or making it the contractors problem.

In most cases, an inspector cannot refuse to pass an inspection of work done under a permit based on existing work that is unrelated. The correct way this is supposed to be handled is whatever violations are noted by the inspector are issued to the property owner, not the guy who did the new work. But I can understand why an inspector might chose to make it the contractors problem. And if contractors allow this, they deserve to be the ones put in this difficult spot.

There are probably some gray areas of course, but contractors let inspectors walk on them, and then complain about it instead of if standing up for themselves.
 
NEC Inspector said:
If we can also get rid of the jerk who installed it wrong to begin with, it's a deal. I agree with your sentiment, it is way too common for inspection departments to have incompetent inspectors and cause these problems.

It's only that way if the inspector and the contractor make it that way. 99% of the time, the inspector just needs to communicate properly and the EC has no issues with it. The rest is just paperwork - the inspector has to write the issue down somewhere, and the most convenient place is on the permit that is already open. Especially since the EC is normally going to be the one handling the issue. Unfortunately, inspectors who communicate properly much rarer than they should be.

I had one the other day when I found work that had been done without a permit last year while inspecting new work that was done by a licensed contractor under permit and inspection. I called the electrician and talked to him about it, told him that it wasn't necessarily his problem but it gives him the opportunity to have a bid ready and it's gonna be a major pain on everyone else if he doesn't. He was totally cool with it.

If he wasn't, now I would have to hunt down the owner, threaten court action, drag the situation out for many months and unnecessary $$$. Quite apart from the pain and suffering aspect, my time is paid for by the taxpayer, so those dollars are also unnecessarily wasted.
Click to expand...
I get it I like my inspector there cool- but there’s been a couple were I don’t back down. It’s my money not his
 
In this case the contractor's failure to do a new load calculation for the additional load is a violation. It is the contractors work that is adding the additional load and even on a 200 ampere service 60 amperes is 30% of the available current. That is here and now and it is there work. I wouldn't think I should be allowed to do that either. I didn't do load calculations for electric clothes driers but I did them for 50 and 60 ampere kitchen ranges and cook to and oven sets. Not doing one on a 150 ampere service would be pure negligence!

Now on the thread stealing issue of being held responsible for previous work unless the defect in the electrical system arises to "Clear and Present Danger" the inspector cannot go backwards in the buildings history. The template I used for contracts had the needed boiler plate with separate signature lines for the customer to directly accept the clause as an acknowledged part of the contract. Those were only invoked if I could not clear it up through negotiation and informal appeal. All of my work came from word of mouth. I never dumped on a client if I could avoid it.

What was legal then is legal now. I won 2 appeals on that by arguing that the inspectors actions were harming me as an innocent party. When one client refused to pay me I immediately filed a mechanics lien and got court permission to post the lien at the premises. He had allowed the realtor to put up her sign so I new he was planning to stiff me. When I posted the lien that says posted by order of the District court in and for... Removal or defacement punishable by... The bum paid up. He can bond around my lien so as to proceed with the sale but when the bonding company is ordered to pay by the court they did go after the bond purchaser. If they didn't everyone would use the bonding company as their patsy. I found the posting of the bond to be a very effective remedy for "I got you last" conduct. When I started going out on my own the State had a course I had to take that was really good at explaining my responsibility as a "Home Improvement Contractor." The community college offered 2 companion courses that I took and learned a lot from about getting paid and staying out of trouble with the State. When the State added chapter and verse requirements for all violations inspector overreach went down a lot.
 
WattsHerName said:
We installed an EV charger. Inspector failed it saying "Service load calculation required for additional load of 60 amp EV charger. Raceway required for open conductors to surge protector( see photos in documents)."

The surge protector was installed in 2019 & passed inspection.

Load is way under just by looking at it but ok, we'll send one to him. But is he allowed to fail our EV charger inspection for something we didn't do that already passed inspection?

My husband's the Master Electrician, I do the business stuff, so I'm not super familiar with all of this...
Click to expand...
As others have said its a local issue, however I can tell you that locally in MD you need a certificate of occupancy (CO) to legally have the right to occupy a building, or that portion of any existing building undergoing renovations and enjoy the 'right to privacy'.
Without that CO the legal rights of a property are diminished, and the county is allowed to use a process to enter and abate the hazards present and evict the occupants if any.
this matters because when you pull any permit for any existing building undergoing renovations that building looses its CO, its now 'under construction', even if its just electrical.
The part of the existing building undergoing renovations or any building or structure posted or otherwise determined to be 'unsafe by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) ' can be issued a stop work order and sealed off, they give notices with X amount of days, then issue civil penalties, they dont play games I know a few folks that had played games with the city stop work orders and the city sealed the building, later buldozed it then liens placed on the vacant property, then they lost the property to a sheriff sale.
 
roger said:
they weren't there looking at only construction personnel, they also were looking at the Hospital itself which was the primary reason they were there.
Click to expand...
If there wasn't construction company trailers and such nearby, you can bet that was a big reason they were there, they won't put on blinders and ignore anything not construction related they see while there though.
 
In MA the inspector can't (is not supposed to) flunk you for someone else's work. If he finds existing violations he is supposed to notify the building owner in writing.

In reality I am sure this come up often

The best approach is for the electrician to bring any violations to the owners attention and have them addressed before getting any work inspected
 
Many years ago we got hired to work on a old property out way in the sticks to remove a old rotten meter pole moving the service drop to the house. We built a new 200A service on the house. The inspector came out, green tagged passed the inspection but said to call his office. POCO moved the service, we got paid job done. I had forgot to call his office. When I saw him again he reminded me and said the service was fine but since there were no county records of the house and the owners would need to pull a permit for the entire house.
 
kwired said:
If there wasn't construction company trailers and such nearby, you can bet that was a big reason they were there, they won't put on blinders and ignore anything not construction related they see while there though.
Click to expand...
Not really, they will inspect factory's, hospitals, distribution facilities, etc..., with no construction at all going on. They also inspect all shifts of the day and weekends. The chief of police in an NC town told me they had been inspected once.
 
roger said:
Not really, they will inspect factory's, hospitals, distribution facilities, etc..., with no construction at all going on. They also inspect all shifts of the day and weekends. The chief of police in an NC town told me they had been inspected once.
Click to expand...
This strikes me as unusual. I'm not sure if it was a NJ case, but someone took the inspector (not sure which code) to court for trespassing. Work was going on that was not permitted. The court decided the inspector wasn't allowed to go on a property that didn't have a permit filed with the town. Kind of crazy, but that was one court's opinion.
 
gadfly56 said:
This strikes me as unusual. I'm not sure if it was a NJ case, but someone took the inspector (not sure which code) to court for trespassing. Work was going on that was not permitted. The court decided the inspector wasn't allowed to go on a property that didn't have a permit filed with the town. Kind of crazy, but that was one court's opinion.
Click to expand...
In NC they actually had to notify the facility and meet with the representatives of the facility before the actual inspection. In the parking lot case they had done that with the hospital and the construction projects were considered covered under the notification and pre inspection meeting.

There were exceptions to this as in any rules. I know of one situation where a OSHA inspector was driving by a site on his way home and saw someone standing on a pallet on a Lull about 20' up on the side of building, he stopped and immediately sited the company.
 
I once showed up to review a install for a new refrigeration system.

They reused an older (still relatively new) 480V 3W panel with no neutral ran. The customer had converted their lights to 277V and used this board and the EGC / equipment as their neutral. The contractor ignored it because it wasn't in scope. Their maintenance man did the work and there was no permit for the conversion. They ended up on the hook to fix it since they shouldn't have started work on that panel without addressing it first.

The city inspector thought it was a egregious misstep by the contractor and the business owner that they filed a nonconformance notice and a required follow up with in 10 business days or they were going to get their business license with the city and certificate of occupancy revoked.

Most of the time, when not in scope, they just mark it as a 90 day nonconformance or 1 year nonconformance that requires a follow up permit for the correction. 90% of the time it is corrections on nonpermitted work completed by someone who wasn't qualified to do it. Usually the business owner just uses the electrician that was present during the inspection to make the corrections.
 
roger said:
I know of one situation where a OSHA inspector was driving by a site on his way home and saw someone standing on a pallet on a Lull about 20' up on the side of building, he stopped and immediately sited the company.
Click to expand...
There's a fairly-well understood concept that if an officer can easily see something (like above), they don't need warrant, permit, or whatever to follow up on the violation.
 
In Camera vs San Francisco See vs Seattle the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS from the Phillips telegraphic press code) The Majority ruled that the need to conduct public safety inspections is sufficient probable cause for a warrant to issue but that a Warrant is still required.
roger said:
There were exceptions to this as in any rules. I know of one situation where a OSHA inspector was driving by a site on his way home and saw someone standing on a pallet on a Lull about 20' up on the side of building, he stopped and immediately sited the company.
Click to expand...
This is covered by the plain view doctrine that holds that an offense being carried out in plain view of an enforcement officer a warrant is not required for entry nor enforcement.
 
So you have a violation that at the time of original install was not compliant but you didn't do that install and it "supposedly passed an inspection". The work you are doing is in the vicinity but not directly related to the work you are doing. Should the current inspector be turning a blind eye to the presumably preexisting violation? If work was in obvious line of site and should be noticeable to the current electrician should he also be turning the blind eye to the known by him violation? I wouldn't think so to either case. How unsafe should a preexisting violation that was a violation at the presumed time of initial installation need to be before it should be corrected, or forced to be corrected?
 
Fred B said:
So you have a violation that at the time of original install was not compliant but you didn't do that install and it "supposedly passed an inspection". The work you are doing is in the vicinity but not directly related to the work you are doing. Should the current inspector be turning a blind eye to the presumably preexisting violation? If work was in obvious line of site and should be noticeable to the current electrician should he also be turning the blind eye to the known by him violation? I wouldn't think so to either case. How unsafe should a preexisting violation that was a violation at the presumed time of initial installation need to be before it should be corrected, or forced to be corrected?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but violations are definitely on a scale. I see some existing stuff that isn't right, but isn't so dangerous that it even needs mentioning. Then there are some things that you see that are bad enough to bring up. But regardless, you have no responsibility to fix anything that isn't associated with your work.
 
Elect117 said:
...or they were going to get their business license with the city and certificate of occupancy revoked.
Click to expand...
thats interesting I'd never know this legal stuff otherwise unless I went to law school, so a 'CO' is what legally makes some 2X4's nailed together a protected 'private residence' in the legal system, if thats revoked then its just back to pile of 2X4's.
 
tortuga said:
thats interesting I'd never know this legal stuff otherwise unless I went to law school, so a 'CO' is what legally makes some 2X4's nailed together a protected 'private residence' in the legal system, if thats revoked then its just back to pile of 2X4's.
Click to expand...
The mortgage would still be due.

This was a dry good storage business that was converting to cold storage. It is probably a lot less likely to occur for residential since they want to avoid homelessness. The business created their own nonconformance hazard. That is how they justified it.
 
roger said:
Not really, they will inspect factory's, hospitals, distribution facilities, etc..., with no construction at all going on. They also inspect all shifts of the day and weekends. The chief of police in an NC town told me they had been inspected once.
Click to expand...
I understand. I still believe that said inspector will have somewhat a gut instinct that the chance of finding violations from a contractor on site will be higher than with the hospital. There possibly many OSHA inspectors that aren't even aware of some of what might be violations in the patient categories although some of that may also be somewhat parallel with department of health officials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top