Existing wiring responsibilities?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
..and that sounds to be the case in what the OP described.

The only problem seems to be that he did some work in the problem areas, even though he identified to the EI the LIMITS of what he is going to do, so in the inspectable areas now contain parts that are in compliance and parts that aren't. Ex. he put the junctions into boxes in the K&T areas but left the K&T itself as it was. (Again, this is according to my best interpretation what the OP was trying to convey what the situation is.)
 

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
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.
They may not have a choice. I did one last year that started out as a kitchen remodel but when the inspector gets there he notices that the whole basement has been remodeled without any permits and does not meet code.

These people didn't want to spend the money either because they bought the house with a finished basement and then find out that it was all illegal work.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
IMO, it is not your responsibility to do any work other than what you were specifically contracted to do. Once you start doing additional work to satisfy a third party you are essentially accepting whatever additional responsibility he tried to lay on you.

If additional work is required for some reason, that is the owner's problem, not yours.

I don't see anyway that the inspection can be denied based on work completely unassociated with what you did, short of an applicable code requiring it. You are responsible for meeting all the applicable codes.
 
Last edited:

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Safetyfirst, I'm right there with you. I think all ECs have been there to one degree or another. I would talk to the inspector's boss, and discuss what actually has to be done. My primary goal would be to build rapport with the AHJ, and make it clear that you were trying to play by the rules and are now being thrust into an extremely uncomfortable position on account of it. Give the GC the latest version of the facts, and get out.

Please try to rein in the language on the site here, though.
 

gndrod

Senior Member
Location
Ca and Wa
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?

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.
Hi Safetyfirst,

Possibly the inspector after seeing the GC's installation work may have noticed exterior wall rework that will require updating the insulation. If there is open K&T in these areas, then replacing the wiring becomes [394.14] enforceable in some juridictions. Some times a new panel is installed on an interior wall and requires home runs through the attic where new insulation will be needed. Any exposed K&T is open season for code update that even includes the disconnected K&T to be removed. Circuit extensions that require AFCI protection upgrading at the panel are also a concern for exposed K&T that becomes prone to additional physical stress.

This is a tough call that should be addressed prior to the drawn contract. Any interior opened walls will also become part of the remod in most cases when extensions are coming from an attic rewire situation. Rare times in my remod experience leaving exposed K&T are permitted before the AHJ makes an exception.
 

jxofaltrds

Senior Member
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI
Then how could you know whether you "would have a piece of his @$$" or not?

When I asked you to explain, I kinda thought to myself that I wouldn't get an answer.
There is a thing called a certification. Something that the state can take away for that kind of behavior. Via my attorney.
 

M4gery

Senior Member
There is a thing called a certification. Something that the state can take away for that kind of behavior. Via my attorney.
But again, how?

We all know that in reality absolutely nothing would happen. It's easy to say that your lawyer will have his certification taken, but what is that based on?

The inspector threatened to have the contractor's license pulled if he did not do proper work, now you are threatening to have the inspectors certification pulled for threatening to have the license pulled. In the end, the only thing that would happen is the lawyer would make money.

I honestly thought you had a real method with precedence on how you "would have a piece of his @$$". But if you're only tactic is to call your lawyer, I'm afraid you are simply pissing in the wind.
 

jxofaltrds

Senior Member
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI
But again, how?

We all know that in reality absolutely nothing would happen. It's easy to say that your lawyer will have his certification taken, but what is that based on?

The inspector threatened to have the contractor's license pulled if he did not do proper work, now you are threatening to have the inspectors certification pulled for threatening to have the license pulled. In the end, the only thing that would happen is the lawyer would make money.

I honestly thought you had a real method with precedence on how you "would have a piece of his @$$". But if you're only tactic is to call your lawyer, I'm afraid you are simply pissing in the wind.
Ohio has de-certified individuals and Building Departments. Sorry if you are unable to do anything in your area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top