Client refuses permit - turn down work? Turn them in?

[grasfulls]

What a battle this is becoming. In California the state holds the contractor responsible for any lack of a permit, with fines, suspensions, and revocations as remedial action. How many times has a homeowner been told it is an extra $425 (or whatever) to get a permit, install one new switch (let's say $85) then wait for an inspector for a good portion of a morning or afternoon? Of course they do not want a permit.

A couple of building inspectors in San Mateo County would fry the contractor, even if the contractor showed the contractor had emphasized the legal requirement for a permit and that the client had stated "NO". I know a lot of legitimate contractors will do the work because they need it and the work will be right. Even San Francisco goes after the homeowner, sheesh. San Mateo County Solar Org has quite a posted slew of emails between them and the AHJs.

What do you think? What are your states like?

 

[Ponchik]

IMO you can only suggest the permit and the cost associated getting one. If the customer refuses to get permit you do your work up to code and be done with it.

Depending on the job, I always suggest and sometimes highly recommend the permit. But the ultimate decision is on the client.

 

[wolfman56]

What do you think? What are your states like?

In Washington state they hold the contractor responsible. It doesn't matter at all what the home owner wants its not up to him, if the contractor fails to get a permit the penalties are on the contractor. They can go after the building owner also but they never do, it's easier beat up the contractor.

In Oregon they go after both parties, why settle for one fine when you can get two.

However more and more it seems that the AHJs are trying to write up as many fines as possible at any one job site.

RW

 

[GoldDigger]

IMO you can only suggest the permit and the cost associated getting one. If the customer refuses to get permit you do your work up to code and be done with it.

Depending on the job, I always suggest and sometimes highly recommend the permit. But the ultimate decision is on the client.

Actually, the ultimate decision is yours, as to whether to do the job or walk away. It is your money and your license on the line if the AHJ has a record of playing hardball, so it really is a business decision for you regardless of how you feel about it personally.

 

[satcom]

Actually, the ultimate decision is yours, as to whether to do the job or walk away. It is your money and your license on the line if the AHJ has a record of playing hardball, so it really is a business decision for you regardless of how you feel about it personally.

It is not an option in most states, and you may want to inform them work done in areas that require permits and inspections and are not permitted or inspected can become a liability to the homeowner if there is a loss or claim and his insurance underwriter finds that no permits or inspections were secured,

 

[grasfulls]

Suggest Permit

Suggest Permit

IMO you can only suggest the permit and the cost associated getting one. If the customer refuses to get permit you do your work up to code and be done with it.

Depending on the job, I always suggest and sometimes highly recommend the permit. But the ultimate decision is on the client.

This is what we have done, even the wording in the contract to state we advised of the need and they opted not to have it pulled. The state does not care and two AHJs have stated they will facilitate going after the contractor. Sad.

 

[grasfulls]

Beat up the Contractor

Beat up the Contractor

In Washington state they hold the contractor responsible. It doesn't matter at all what the home owner wants its not up to him, if the contractor fails to get a permit the penalties are on the contractor. They can go after the building owner also but they never do, it's easier beat up the contractor.

In Oregon they go after both parties, why settle for one fine when you can get two.

However more and more it seems that the AHJs are trying to write up as many fines as possible at any one job site.

RW

So true. To bad that "beating up" a good contractor might put them out of business and few may step in to fill their place, whereas there are a slew of unscrupulous ones in the wings who promote no permit. The cities should push the homeowner, but they know it is tough to justify their fees. The city of San Diego Cal has a LOT of information helping to influence the homeowner, just do a search "construction without a permit san diego ca". It appears they at least realize the contractor has to work, it is the homeowner that needs to pay the extra fees involved. For a contractor with little work, just walking away is tough.

 

[grasfulls]

Liability with no permit

Liability with no permit

It is not an option in most states, and you may want to inform them work done in areas that require permits and inspections and are not permitted or inspected can become a liability to the homeowner if there is a loss or claim and his insurance underwriter finds that no permits or inspections were secured,

We do this too, then they look at the bottom line number for a small job. People are hurting and a few hundred extra dollars is tough. I wonder if cities could allow "registering" projects under a certain amount and then going around and inspecting a bunch in a row with just the homeowner there? How often is there a rough-in and a trim-out to add one switch or one plug? They just pretty much come and plug a tester in or glance at it. The true added cost is us hanging around waiting for an inspector PLUS the sometimes inordinate city fees.

 

[kwired]

Here the only required permits for dwellings is when there is a new service installed. New home = new service, all related work (which is all the electrical on a new building) is inspected.

Add a major addition requiring new or relocating service = new service, all related work is inspected.

Add a single branch circuit or extension and leave service as is = no new service and no inspection required.

I myself think it is ridiculous to expect permits for every little thing that is done. Sure there is HO's, handymen, and others that don't know what they are doing but even with the requirements in a metropolitan area there is still a pretty low percentage of work that is permitted and inspected. But the AHJ's still depend on the penalties and fees as part of their budget I would assume. Putting a stop to some of this is probably a smart thing, but that will drive up the fees of all the legitimate things they charge for to make up for lost revenue. But on the other hand they will spend less on enforcing these rules in the first place.



The other question is who is responsible for applying for the permit, the owner or the contractor. I think it is unfair to go after a contractor if it is the owner that is responsible for the permit. Here electrical permits are the installers responsibility. A homeowner can do his own wiring, but that means homeowner is responsible for the permit if one is needed. If a contractor does the work the contractor is responsible for the permit. All permits for new services are also sent to the serving utility. They will not connect a new service if they don't have a permit for it, meaning at some point someone has to file a permit or they will not be connected.

 

[grasfulls]

Unfair to target contractor

Unfair to target contractor

Here the only required permits for dwellings is when there is a new service installed. New home = new service, all related work (which is all the electrical on a new building) is inspected.

Add a major addition requiring new or relocating service = new service, all related work is inspected.

Add a single branch circuit or extension and leave service as is = no new service and no inspection required.

I myself think it is ridiculous to expect permits for every little thing that is done. Sure there is HO's, handymen, and others that don't know what they are doing but even with the requirements in a metropolitan area there is still a pretty low percentage of work that is permitted and inspected. But the AHJ's still depend on the penalties and fees as part of their budget I would assume. Putting a stop to some of this is probably a smart thing, but that will drive up the fees of all the legitimate things they charge for to make up for lost revenue. But on the other hand they will spend less on enforcing these rules in the first place.



The other question is who is responsible for applying for the permit, the owner or the contractor. I think it is unfair to go after a contractor if it is the owner that is responsible for the permit. Here electrical permits are the installers responsibility. A homeowner can do his own wiring, but that means homeowner is responsible for the permit if one is needed. If a contractor does the work the contractor is responsible for the permit. All permits for new services are also sent to the serving utility. They will not connect a new service if they don't have a permit for it, meaning at some point someone has to file a permit or they will not be connected.

All EXCELLENT points, sadly, they fall on deaf POLITICAL ears. It is my point too, it is unfair to target a contractor as well as to force a homeowner to pay unrealistic fees for a simple install. How on earth can that be rectified? You should read what the one San Bruno Calif official said, here is a partial quote:
"The San Bruno Building Division cooperates with all government agencies."
"The owner and contractor are both responsible for violating state law and can be prosecuted. They are both in collusion violating state law."

Thanks

 

[mgookin]

In Florida the inspector goes after the contractor and refers it to Code Enforcement if there's no compliance in a reasonable time. Code Enforcement then goes after the property owner and the contractor licensing board can go after the license holder (you).
It is the contractor's license on the line with the state for violation of requirement to have the permit.
I would suggest you turn down every job where someone wants you to jeopardize your license.
But a permit for one switch? Try calling the bldg dept and ask if they really want a permit for installing one switch.

 

[roger]

What do you think? What are your states like?

If the local rules required a permitt I would just include it in the price and not offer the customer an option, my license means a lot more to me than one job.

If the customer wanted you to cut corners on the actual work, would you?


Roger

 

[Ponchik]

If the local rules required a permitt I would just include it in the price and not offer the customer an option, my license means a lot more to me than one job.

If the customer wanted you to cut corners on the actual work, would you?


Roger

cutting corners may result in injury or property damage. The cost of the permit is not the issue, you also have to waste 2-4 hours waiting for the inspector.
I don't understand why the HO is not responsible for the fine.

 

[roger]

cutting corners may result in injury or property damage.

May, or may not, it may be something that is not a hazzrd but is still against code. .

The cost of the permit is not the issue, you also have to waste 2-4 hours waiting for the inspector.

And I would include that in my pricing.

I don't understand why the HO is not responsible for the fine.

Because the HO is not bound by the licensing board to obey the rules, the contractor is.

Also, it doesn't matter what the customer is wanting you to do that is not in compliance with applicable rules, it is you that is held accountable. The customer can either take the quote or rates or hire an unlicensed handy man.

With that said, if an EC wants to jeprodize his license all I can say is go for it but.

Roger

 

[PetrosA]

But a permit for one switch? Try calling the bldg dept and ask if they really want a permit for installing one switch.

Yeah, around here there are AHJs that require a permit to REPLACE a GFI receptacle. The homeowner will also have to bring their smoke detectors up to code at the same time. No wonder people try to do so much themselves.

 

[growler]

If the local rules required a permitt I would just include it in the price and not offer the customer an option, my license means a lot more to me than one job.

Roger I wish it were that simple but it's not. Doing residential service calls it's possible that 3 out of 4 jobs in one day would require a permit because of local requirements. You really can't turn down three out of four jobs.

What's going to happen is that when contractors are forced to pay for permits on these small jobs they are going to lose out on most of them and the jobs are going to be done by handymen with nothing to lose.

A short time ago many permits had a mimimum fee of 30-40 dollars and this could be justified but there are areas where a mimimum permit fee is $200+ and it's hard to add cost like this to the price on installing a new receptacle.

 

[kwired]

Roger I wish it were that simple but it's not. Doing residential service calls it's possible that 3 out of 4 jobs in one day would require a permit because of local requirements. You really can't turn down three out of four jobs.

What's going to happen is that when contractors are forced to pay for permits on these small jobs they are going to lose out on most of them and the jobs are going to be done by handymen with nothing to lose.

A short time ago many permits had a mimimum fee of 30-40 dollars and this could be justified but there are areas where a mimimum permit fee is $200+ and it's hard to add cost like this to the price on installing a new receptacle.

I understand what you are saying. It sounds like it is time for a group of electrical professionals, construction professionals, homeowners, or a combination of these groups to band together in an effort to get legislation for laws that make some sense. If nobody introduces any legislation for change, and/or if nobody backs up such legislation it will never happen. There is other legislation that has more public interest that gets higher priority if such legislation does come up, so the larger the group backing the legislation the more attention it will get.

 

[petersonra]

If a permit and/or inspection is "required" just add that to the cost of the job as a line item and be done with it. if the customer is unwilling to pay $500 for a permit to install a 25 cent outlet, he can decide to go elsewhere.

you might want to just mention this cost up front when you are talking to them before you even get to the quote stage so they can back out before you have any more time in it.

 

[wolfman56]

I get the impression that none of the posters here have heard of the minor label permit.
In Washington state the permits (a sticker) is $12.40 each. Two can be used at the same job address within a week, (same day).
These are to be used for those small jobs like extending a circuit to add a receptacle, etc.
Oregon has a similar permit.

The AHJ does an occasional random inspection to insure compliance. The nice thing is that scheduling the inspection with the home owner is all on them.

It really is a nice system I only wish that the scope would be increased a little.

RW

 

[GoldDigger]

The thread title mentioned "turn them in?" I don't think that was a serious suggestion, but I expect that in practice that could result in your not even being called to bid jobs in the future.
Now if there were a way to make trouble for the unlicensed handymen without annoying the owner, I could go for that.