Equipotential bonding for pools

[Tonyhuynh916]

Sounds like someone unlicensed to me

You are correct. He had a license but had it revoked. It was my fault for not checking. But now I’m trying to get out of this situation. Seems like I have to demo the concrete and go from there.

 

[LarryFine]

I suggest consulting the licensing board and a lawyer. Being unlicensed does not exonerate him.

 

[letgomywago]

I suggest consulting the licensing board and a lawyer. Being unlicensed does not exonerate him.

It does remove the normal non lawyer channels for each area

 

[petersonra]

You are correct. He had a license but had it revoked. It was my fault for not checking. But now I’m trying to get out of this situation. Seems like I have to demo the concrete and go from there.

Maybe they would allow some selective demolition to show that proper bonding was done in multiple areas.

In any case, it seems like this is a case for your lawyer to help you with. There may be an insurance policy to cover stuff like this. You just won't know unless you pay some money to your lawyer to point you in the right direction.

 

[Fred B]

Lack of bonding or inadequate bonding related to the Equipotential bonding of the pool is a very large safety concern and any inspector would be remiss if they were to allow such to be passed. OP has already given enough cause for the inspector to insist on removal of concrete for verification of proper bonding given the EC had a license revoked. No easy method of verification of perimeter bond that I know of, other bonding related to and interconnected with can be verified.

 

[petersonra]

This seems like one of those unfortunate cases where the only recourse is going to be thru the courts and that is going to require paying the lawyer some money to look into whether it is worth pursuing.

It might turn out that demoing the concrete is the least offensive option.

 

[kwired]

By the way can the state board make the guy that did the work pay you restitution.

My guess is no, they can make sure it gets corrected, but not necessarily force any individual to be the one that does it nor will they care how it gets paid for. This is where you talk to an attorney or possibly go the small claims court route if you are looking for something out of the original installer, and possibly do so before simply hiring someone else to fix it, because now you have a third party involved that you maybe don't really want to pay but they are expecting payment from you since you are the one that hired them.

 

[Buck Parrish]

I'm not sure California has a state license. But most state boards will bring you in front of a goverment judge. He or she will tell you not to do electrical work any more. If at some point you are caught again , they can go to jail for contempt of court.
Believe me their are guys in jail right now for doing electrical work with out a license. But the charge is contemp of court. I'm sure their are alot more in jail foe general contracting without a license.

 

[kwired]

This seems like one of those unfortunate cases where the only recourse is going to be thru the courts and that is going to require paying the lawyer some money to look into whether it is worth pursuing.

It might turn out that demoing the concrete is the least offensive option.

If you are awarded a cash value in the judgement the defendant's only obligation is that amount. You still would have to pay whoever you hire to fix things and then hope you don't have trouble collecting your judgement. Details of the project very well could turn into just doing what it takes to get it done right and eating some costs as looking like the better option. If you know where those four points are at and only demo those locations it may cost a lot less than litigation will end up costing. Plus you are giving trades people a job and not fattening some attorney's wallet

 

[Mystic Pools]

If you are awarded a cash value in the judgement the defendant's only obligation is that amount. You still would have to pay whoever you hire to fix things and then hope you don't have trouble collecting your judgement. Details of the project very well could turn into just doing what it takes to get it done right and eating some costs as looking like the better option. If you know where those four points are at and only demo those locations it may cost a lot less than litigation will end up costing. Plus you are giving trades people a job and not fattening some attorney's wallet

Exactly. At the end of the day, it'll be cheaper for the homeowner to pay someone to demo, verify and make any proper corrections needed, get the final electric approval and move on. Lawyers are always the winners in these cases. And it gets dragged out for months.

I would contact the state, county, whomever is in charge of enforcing licensing to hopefully prevent this from happening again to someone else.

 

[LarryFine]

I suggest keeping a diary that documents every dollar spent in correcting the omission, as well as every minute spent investigating it, including time spent here asking questions and reading answers.

If you do pursue it legally, the greater the losses you can demonstrate, the more you can ask for, and the more you're likely to ultimately end up being awarded. You should not have to eat this error.