Existing wiring responsibilities?

[safetyfirst]

Situation: I am a master electrician and work for myself. I pulled a permit (residential) to: add sub panel, install 5 circuits out of that sub panel completely to code. The home has existing wiring issues: exposed joints, open junction boxes, knob and tube wiring. The inspector failed my inspection due to these existing conditions in the house. Needless to say, I was pissed. The general contractor that hired me told me he would take care of the covers and did not want to have me replace the knob and tube. I spoke to the inspector and agreed to install junction boxes for the exposed joints, replace the covers for the junction boxes, and staple up wildly ran romex in the attic. I am in debate with him over the knob and tube, because I did not touch it, tap into it, or modify it in any way. He is trying to hold me responsible for replacing the knob and tube wiring to romex.

Question: Under what code enforcement/law/ordnance/etc... is this true? How can I be held responsible for replacing existing wiring to meet current code?

I have never heard of this and the inspector is threatening that I could have my license pulled for this. I told him I want to see the city ordnance on it and he said its federal housing standards and threatened to have my license pulled. By that logic, seems like if I went to install a GFCI in a bathroom, I become responsible for bringing the entire house up to the current code...? It makes no sense to me. In my experience, it is my duty to inform the homeowner of violations of existing wiring which could have met code at the time of their original installation, but since then code has changed. If they want to pay, then I do the work. Also, as long as you don't touch the existing wiring or modify it in any way, then it can remain in its original installation state. By the way, the city ordnance says nothing on this to support his position.

I just need some insight into this and some help if any because this particular inspector acts like he got me by the nuts and to an extent, its his discretion, but I think its wrong. I need help. Thanks.

 

[renosteinke]

The key to the question is the scope of the project.

The principle is that when the 'repair' or modification affects more than 50% of something, you are required to bring it all up to current code. OK, there's some quibbling over the percentage - I think the UBC said 65% - but the principle is there.

What the GC 'wants' isn't really relevant. He described to you the scope of the remodel, and it was up to you to quote and permit for what work you felt, in your professional judgement, was necessary. You're not just another pair of hired hands, and it's not for him to tell you your job.

I feel for you; a lot of this could have been avoided had the city made the proper notes on the prints. You may wind up subsidizing the job - call it tuition.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

Where is this occuring since state or local ordinances may apply.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I'm not so sure that he can hold up your permit, except if there is something to what Rick was asking.

Now, let's look at it from an inspectors POV, I don't know what you did, I wasn't there, I simply have to take your word for it. Now also as an inspector it is against the law for me to walk away from a code violation that I have seen. I run into this all the time, especially above t-bar ceilings. "But we just added a couple of lights", maybe you did and I might even be able to tell if everything else is in flex and you used MC cable, but again, you saw those code violations, why not bring it up to the owner and let him know that if you saw it, you know the inspector is going to see it too.

Every EC that has a gripe starts by telling me that they are paying my salary, and I usually answer by, no you're not, I'm sure you charged the owner for that permit, so they're paying my salary and that's who I'm ultimatly there to protect. I'm simply a second set of eyes. Don't leave it to me to find corrections that you already know about.

I will now step down from my soap box and let the lashings begin.

 

[iwire]

First things first

First things first

No one here can really answer your question. It really depends on your area. If you can say where you are you may get lucky and someone here will be from that area.

If you happen to be from Massachusetts this would apply ... which clearly puts the problem in the inspectors hands

 

[220/221]

I just need some insight into this and some help if any because this particular inspector acts like he got me by the nuts and to an extent, its his discretion, but I think its wrong. I need help. Thanks.

You need to have this discussion with his boss. In my area, the things you described in most cases would not affect a seperate job.

There is a point, with a major remodel that existing violations would be required. That point varies with geographical locations.

You should be happy that you get more work. I'm sure your contract specifies your original scope of work.....right?


This comes up several times a year for me with smoke detectors. If a room is added, the city wants us to upgrade/install smokies per current code. It's always an extra and sometimes a big one. Sometimes I let the HO's battle it out with the city. Sometimes they win.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Situation: I am a master electrician and work for myself. I pulled a permit (residential) to: add sub panel, install 5 circuits out of that sub panel completely to code. The home has existing wiring issues: exposed joints, open junction boxes, knob and tube wiring. The inspector failed my inspection due to these existing conditions in the house. Needless to say, I was pissed. The general contractor that hired me told me he would take care of the covers and did not want to have me replace the knob and tube. I spoke to the inspector and agreed to install junction boxes for the exposed joints, replace the covers for the junction boxes, and staple up wildly ran romex in the attic. I am in debate with him over the knob and tube, because I did not touch it, tap into it, or modify it in any way. He is trying to hold me responsible for replacing the knob and tube wiring to romex.

Question:
Under what code enforcement/law/ordnance/etc... is this true? How can I be held responsible for replacing existing wiring to meet current code?

I have never heard of this and the inspector is threatening that I could have my license pulled for this. I told him I want to see the city ordnance on it and he said its federal housing standards and threatened to have my license pulled. By that logic, seems like if I went to install a GFCI in a bathroom, I become responsible for bringing the entire house up to the current code...? It makes no sense to me. In my experience, it is my duty to inform the homeowner of violations of existing wiring which could have met code at the time of their original installation, but since then code has changed. If they want to pay, then I do the work. Also, as long as you don't touch the existing wiring or modify it in any way, then it can remain in its original installation state. By the way, the city ordnance says nothing on this to support his position.

I just need some insight into this and some help if any because this particular inspector acts like he got me by the nuts and to an extent, its his discretion, but I think its wrong. I need help. Thanks.

Let's keep this simple. You pulled a permit. You completed that work. '''Your work''' was either correct or it was not.

Can the inspector say that the 'whole' installation is unsafe? Yes. IF he had threated me like you say I would have a piece of his @$$. Ask you attorney about making threats.

 

[weressl]

Situation: I am a master electrician and work for myself. I pulled a permit (residential) to: add sub panel, install 5 circuits out of that sub panel completely to code. The home has existing wiring issues: exposed joints, open junction boxes, knob and tube wiring. The inspector failed my inspection due to these existing conditions in the house. Needless to say, I was pissed. The general contractor that hired me told me he would take care of the covers and did not want to have me replace the knob and tube. I spoke to the inspector and agreed to install junction boxes for the exposed joints, replace the covers for the junction boxes, and staple up wildly ran romex in the attic. I am in debate with him over the knob and tube, because I did not touch it, tap into it, or modify it in any way. He is trying to hold me responsible for replacing the knob and tube wiring to romex.

Question: Under what code enforcement/law/ordnance/etc... is this true? How can I be held responsible for replacing existing wiring to meet current code?

I have never heard of this and the inspector is threatening that I could have my license pulled for this. I told him I want to see the city ordnance on it and he said its federal housing standards and threatened to have my license pulled. By that logic, seems like if I went to install a GFCI in a bathroom, I become responsible for bringing the entire house up to the current code...? It makes no sense to me. In my experience, it is my duty to inform the homeowner of violations of existing wiring which could have met code at the time of their original installation, but since then code has changed. If they want to pay, then I do the work. Also, as long as you don't touch the existing wiring or modify it in any way, then it can remain in its original installation state. By the way, the city ordnance says nothing on this to support his position.

I just need some insight into this and some help if any because this particular inspector acts like he got me by the nuts and to an extent, its his discretion, but I think its wrong. I need help. Thanks.

It sounds to me that the Inspector changed his mind, since he agreed with you before the start of the job if I understand you correctly that " I spoke to the inspector and agreed to install junction boxes for the exposed joints, replace the covers for the junction boxes, and staple up wildly ran romex in the attic.". You also clarified with the GC what he wants you to do and what he will take care of. It sounds to me that you fulfilled your Contractual obligation. Unfortunately the question will come if any of this was documented and if not it will come to "he said and I said' of verbal contract clarifications in Court.

The Inspector clearly tries to intimidate you with his threats and one who is sure of being right won't do that.

 

[growler]

The home has existing wiring issues: exposed joints, open junction boxes, knob and tube wiring. The inspector failed my inspection due to these existing conditions in the house. Needless to say, I was pissed. The general contractor that hired me told me he would take care of the covers and did not want to have me replace the knob and tube.

I have to ask. Did the GC open a bunch of walls or do anything major? What was the scope of the building permit pulled by the GC?

If the inspector wants to write it up that the house needs to be rewired that's just fine with me, More Money.

 

[bluesmoke...oops]

If the inspector wants to write it up that the house needs to be rewired that's just fine with me, More Money.

I would be fine with that as well, as long as it was noted that the portion I did work on was correct (assuming he found nothing wrong specifically with it).

 

[SmithBuilt]

Now also as an inspector it is against the law for me to walk away from a code violation that I have seen.

If that was the case in my area we would never finish on some jobs. Which would be great for me. But after the customers figure out it will cost them lots more money to have inspections done they will hire Joe Blow down the street who will do work without an inspection.

"But we just added a couple of lights", maybe you did and I might even be able to tell if everything else is in flex and you used MC cable, but again, you saw those code violations, why not bring it up to the owner and let him know that if you saw it, you know the inspector is going to see it too.

Don't leave it to me to find corrections that you already know about.

I've pointed out 1000's, I'm sure we all have, of violations to owners. Trust me I would love to get more work. Get the same story every time, we can't afford to fix them. I do not have any clout to force them and I don't think our inspectors do either. Do you in your jurisdiction? What do you do if you're not allowed to walk away from a violation write up the owner?

 

[safetyfirst]

If that was the case in my area we would never finish on some jobs. Which would be great for me. But after the customers figure out it will cost them lots more money to have inspections done they will hire Joe Blow down the street who will do work without an inspection.



I've pointed out 1000's, I'm sure we all have, of violations to owners. Trust me I would love to get more work. Get the same story every time, we can't afford to fix them. I do not have any clout to force them and I don't think our inspectors do either. Do you in your jurisdiction? What do you do if you're not allowed to walk away from a violation write up the owner?

I agree.

 

[safetyfirst]

I have to ask. Did the GC open a bunch of walls or do anything major? What was the scope of the building permit pulled by the GC?

If the inspector wants to write it up that the house needs to be rewired that's just fine with me, More Money.

The GC did a partial room... he says less than 50% supporting the rule to not have to bring the entire room to code.

 

[safetyfirst]

Let's keep this simple. You pulled a permit. You completed that work. '''Your work''' was either correct or it was not.

Can the inspector say that the 'whole' installation is unsafe? Yes. IF he had threated me like you say I would have a piece of his @$$. Ask you attorney about making threats.

My point exactly. The work I did was correct. He failed the inspection that I called for my permit due to the existing wiring that had nothing to do with anything I did. When the GC called me and I went out to job, he told me what he needed done. There were no walls opened up or anything like that. Normally, I would only permit new construction or electrical service and get inspections. All other work, I wouldn't even bother getting a permit or anything. The permit was only gotten at the GC's request.

 

[safetyfirst]

Any extra work I do, I will charge the GC an additional charge on separate invoice. I completed the first agreed upon scope of work. I informed the GC of the existing issues and did not want to pay for it to be done. I figured fine with me. Then he asked for the inspection to be done, to which, I was like... ok, I told you there were problems now you just open the door for this prick of a homeowner who knows the inspector to get more out of you.

Bottom line, I guess I'm not going to get any more work, because when I hand my potential customers a proposal for $8000 to fix all code violations and bring them all up to the most current code, they won't want to pay that.

Ridiculous, where does this end. You get some self righteous inspector thinks he can do as he pleases and use of his position to influence electrical contractors to waste time and money.

 

[Buck Parrish]

I have had inspectors tell me what I done was fine but the home owner must do this or that.

I would tell the contractor or home owner that the inspector says this needs to be fixed and it will cost this much.
If they choke.

I would have the contractor and home owner talk to the inspector about the work he is requesting.

I work in as many as ten different jurisdictions. One county has three different jurisdictions and three sets of ordinances. In one county!. Thier is no way you should be financially responsible for the repairs.

But I can see the other side , too. If during the estimate . I saw boxes and open splices , no cover , etc.. I would have made that clear in the begining that has to be repaired before the inspector sees it.
So I'm kind of on both sides.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

I have never heard of this and the inspector is threatening that I could have my license pulled for this. I told him I want to see the city ordnance on it and he said its federal housing standards and threatened to have my license pulled.

I don't know what he said or how he said it, but if the laws in your state do not tie your license to compliance (which is highly doubtful), then his threats are possibly criminal if he is a government inspector. At a minimum, it is a civil violation. I would find some way to document all discussions from this point, and consider taking legal action.

Unless your city/county/state have some bizarre laws permitting his behavior, this guy needs to lose his job, at a minimum. I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure it is illegal to make threats of this nature. This has nothing to do with inspection, but about behavior of government officials.

 

[growler]

Normally, I would only permit new construction or electrical service and get inspections. All other work, I wouldn't even bother getting a permit or anything. The permit was only gotten at the GC's request.

Is this an "electrical only" permit or is there a building/remodeling permit by the General Contractor?

If there is a building permit then the electrician doesn't have a choice about permitting, he must be signed in as the contractor of record.

The idea of normally working without permits is not all that good. Sure you may not have trouble with inspectors but it can get you in trouble in the long run.

The situation is simple. If the owner and contractor don't want to pay for additional work then you collect for the work you have done and void your permit for this job and let them start looking for another electrician.

 

[iwire]

The situation is simple. If the owner and contractor don't want to pay for additional work then you collect for the work you have done and void your permit for this job and let them start looking for another electrician.

No .. the situation is simple in that the EI should sign off my work and let me collect my money, anything beyond my work is not my problem and is between the EI and the HO.

 

[macmikeman]

All my proposals deal with this up front. If I am told I have to perform any extra work the customer is bound by the contract to pay me for it, justified or not. That doesn't prevent me from fighting or questioning the "requirement" if I don't agree that it should fall on my shoulders, but it covers me if I don't win.