Electrical Inspection Dilemma

[petersonra]

Bob, there was a double tapped meter with an outside GE panel and 4 breakers that was at least 30 yrs old and an inside FP with 8 breakers that was not origanal. No main. 1800 sq ft house built in the 30s. Cotton wraped 2 wire. Once I told the inspector he was all over it. Going to be a total rewire.

Oh, and insurance put the HO up in a hotel.

You did not mention any of this in your other post.

Personally, just me, if I had a contractor arbitrarily decide on his own to do this to me without my knowledge and approval while I was still occupying my house, said contractor would be out the door about as fast as he was able to get.

In any case, when did it become the job of the EC to enforce the building code. MYOB.

 

[Minuteman]

You did not mention any of this in your other post.

Personally, just me, if I had a contractor arbitrarily decide on his own to do this to me without my knowledge and approval while I was still occupying my house, said contractor would be out the door about as fast as he was able to get.

In any case, when did it become the job of the EC to enforce the building code. MYOB.

That's the problem with a monolithic forum thread.

MY BUSINESS was to get an electrical permit for a job that I was hired to do for a GC that had a contract to do repairs on fire damaged home. In the process of securing the permit the AHJ decided the couse of action, not me.

 

[dana1028]

A friend called me yesterday and one of our guys had gone by on a complaint. The home was bought as is and the complaint is from a neighbor saying that the rock pool slide is to close to the property line.

Don't know the particulars, but in CA 'as is' only applies to probate and bank [repo, etc-type] sales; if sold by a property owner this language has no standing in CA unless the owner fully discloses every single 'as is' condition. Full compensation is available through the original owner or either real estate agent if they were involved [typically it's a lot easier to just get the money from the listing broker rather than try to chase the seller]. (You can do a web search using "Real Property Transfer Disclosure" to find numerous sites with this information).

 

[dana1028]

Something is wrong here, if an EC fails an inspection why would a HO finish paying him, fixing violations of an ECs install would not cost the HO more money. I would imagine a HO would be screaming to get them fixed

Were these existing ones not part of the permit? An EC would not be responsible for those.

Ditto - that said, as an inspector I am constantly blown away by how many times a contractor says [in response to a correction notice for violations of the work he performed], "I'll have the charge them extra, that wasn't in my bid." !!:thumbsdown:

 

[Minuteman]

Ditto - that said, as an inspector I am constantly blown away by how many times a contractor says [in response to a correction notice for violations of the work he performed], "I'll have the charge them extra, that wasn't in my bid." !!:thumbsdown:

If "that" wasn't in the bid, then the EC is admitting that he didn't know or understand the code. Stands to reason that he bid it wrong on his own accord. Not the HO's problem.

 

[cowboyjwc]

As an inspector, do you fail an installation for 312.2 airspace? I constantly see vinyl siding wrapped around a meter base, and rock facing layed around bases also.

Nope, but then again we don't install panels here like you guys do. Most everything is flush or semi flush mounted and the surface mounted panels have a little button on the back that gives them the requied clearance.

 

[pfalcon]

... The home was bought as is and the complaint is from a neighbor saying that the rock pool slide is to close to the property line. ... Now it's my friends problem and he's the one that has to pay to have it resolved.

Don't know the particulars, but in CA 'as is' only applies to probate and bank [repo, etc-type] sales; ... Full compensation is available through the original owner or either real estate agent ...

In Indiana such a violation must be relatively recent to be actionable. Over two years old the judge will typically dismiss with prejudice. If a sale takes place the judge is likely to void the complaint on less time and/or grill the plaintiff on why the complaint was delayed. Sales rarely take place in secret so the judge wants to know why the plaintiff waited. It's technically fraud to perform actions that maliciously increase the damages against another party. Presuming that the sale was very recent and the construction was only slightly less so ... the defendant (buyer) has to add the seller as a co-defendant. The judge can then arbitrate settlement including abrogating the sale and return of all monies.

 

[cowboyjwc]

In Indiana such a violation must be relatively recent to be actionable. Over two years old the judge will typically dismiss with prejudice. If a sale takes place the judge is likely to void the complaint on less time and/or grill the plaintiff on why the complaint was delayed. Sales rarely take place in secret so the judge wants to know why the plaintiff waited. It's technically fraud to perform actions that maliciously increase the damages against another party. Presuming that the sale was very recent and the construction was only slightly less so ... the defendant (buyer) has to add the seller as a co-defendant. The judge can then arbitrate settlement including abrogating the sale and return of all monies.

I like this way of thinking. That's really all it is, my friend has lived there for years and now him and the neighbor are in a pissing contest, so let's go after the pocket book.

 

[petersonra]

If "that" wasn't in the bid, then the EC is admitting that he didn't know or understand the code. Stands to reason that he bid it wrong on his own accord. Not the HO's problem.

I might agree, but I might not. There are plenty of cases where it is all but impossible to know whether the work you are disturbing meets code ahead of time and it is entirely conceivable that under the doctrine of "you touched it, you own it", that work the EC had nothing to do with might require fixing. IMO, this is unfair to both the HO and the EC, but it is a common tactic by building inpsectors of all ilks.

 

[bthielen]

I don't understand why the homeowner in this situation doesn't let the contractor come back to fix his errors. For this reason, I could understand the responsibility falling back on the homeowner. As a homeowner I would be adamnat about having him complete the project if he wants to get the rest of his paycheck.

I believe in this area of Minnesota the local inspector has the authority to have the power disconnected until the homeowner arranges to have the work completed to code.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

In New Jersey electrical contractors are state licensed and it is in thier bylaws that thier work must be made code compliant without additional charge to the home owner. I have had cases where the home owner was angry at the contractor and did not want to let them in, then I threaten the home owner with weekly acrueing fines until repairs are made. so far this has always worked.

 

[kwired]

In New Jersey electrical contractors are state licensed and it is in thier bylaws that thier work must be made code compliant without additional charge to the home owner. I have had cases where the home owner was angry at the contractor and did not want to let them in, then I threaten the home owner with weekly acrueing fines until repairs are made. so far this has always worked.

So that means the home owner is receiving the fines, and the contractor is supposed to fix the installation right?

Around here the party filing the permit receives correction notices and fee statements and is responsible for correction and payment of fees. The person doing the work is also the one that is supposed to file permits or the employer in the case of contractors. If owner will not allow contractor back to make corrections permit is never closed - service can be subject to disconnection (don't really know how easy it is to get that done) but is usually enough to motivate owner to let the contractor finish the job. AHJ wants nothing to do with disputes as to whether or not owner is to pay contractor for any work related to corrections - that is what attorneys are for.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

We don't enforce the provisions requiring the electrical contractor to make the repairs without cost. That is done by his own proffesional board who can fine them up to $10,000 for thier first offense and $20,000 for subsequent offenses as well as revoke or suspend thier license. But we do fine the contractor if they are not willing to go back to make repairs. We have this authority for the life of the permit and ten years after a permit is closed if something is discovered that was missed.

 

[kwired]

We have this authority for the life of the permit and ten years after a permit is closed if something is discovered that was missed.

:thumbsdown: Ten years later you coming after a contractor that is out of business, retired, or even dead? What is purpose of using the term "closed" if it really isn't closed. What if 5 years later someone gets away with not filing a permit for something and changes original wiring, and 9 years later something is caught and now you go after the original installer who did nothing wrong? He may get out of it but was not fair to drag him into it in first place.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

It was decided in a court case with a developer and faulty roofs. The developer drug out the process and the court decided that the inspectors had a ten year limit after finals and co's to enforce provisions. It comes up most often just after final inspections with additional renovations like a tenant fit out for example, where someting is opened up and hiddden violations are discovered. The first contractors says tough luck you already approved the work. Then they are shown the court case and they make the repairs.

 

[gadfly56]

Someone else mentioned it and I will agree that while the HO may believe that the EC is responsible for the corrections, the correction notice goes to the address and not a person. It the EC were to walk away after doing his due diligance to try and get in, the if something were to happen the onice would be on the HO. We usually send out a letter telling you that we are about to expire the permit and then in 30 days we will send another one saying that it has been expired. Once the permit is expired you would have to pay for a new permit in order to get the work signed off at a later date.

A friend called me yesterday and one of our guys had gone by on a complaint. The home was bought as is and the complaint is from a neighbor saying that the rock pool slide is to close to the property line. Whether it is or isn't I don't know, what I do know is that all of the pool permits were expired because no final inspections were called and this issue could have been taken care of when the pool was being built by the previous owner. Now it's my friends problem and he's the one that has to pay to have it resolved.

In NJ, IIRC, you can't complete the title transfer without closing any outstanding permits.

 

[Sierrasparky]

In NJ, IIRC, you can't complete the title transfer without closing any outstanding permits.

iF you are correct it seems like another jurisdiction out of control. Making arbitrary rules. I think 10 years may be a bit too long!

 

[kwired]

It was decided in a court case with a developer and faulty roofs. The developer drug out the process and the court decided that the inspectors had a ten year limit after finals and co's to enforce provisions. It comes up most often just after final inspections with additional renovations like a tenant fit out for example, where someting is opened up and hiddden violations are discovered. The first contractors says tough luck you already approved the work. Then they are shown the court case and they make the repairs.

Not enough details to fully understand but is sounding like there was a known problem and this developer was not making much attempt to resolve it. If that is the case co's should never have been issued and action should have been taken to get the problems rectified instead of saying we will catch it later.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

co's should never have been issued but they were and the problems were discovered years later. The homeowners started suit when the developer refused to make repairs.

 

[kwired]

co's should never have been issued but they were and the problems were discovered years later. The homeowners started suit when the developer refused to make repairs.

Sounds like a dispute between owners and developer, why does it need to involve allowing AHJ 10 years to discover a problem? If AHJ made mistake he has 10 years to make up for it? Sad thing is AHJ may have been more negligent than the developer, yet AHJ is likely protected from being sued.

What happens when deficiencies that were not noticed by AHJ result in an accident involving injuries, death, major property damage? My guess is nothing is any different than if this 10 year period was not in place. AHJ is protected by law from lawsuits, and developer will be taken to court by the owner. Nothing was accomplished by this law except for complicating the laws and maybe giving a little extra case load to any attorneys, judges, etc. involved.

AHJ AFIK can still be taken to courts and have decisions challenged, the protection from lawsuits is just protection from liability. If they inspect a building and it burns because of something they overlooked, they are not liable to replace the building. If they want a change made and owner does not want to comply the owner can challenge to overturn the change. They may have a hard time getting their way but they are sure able to try.