Home Inspector Part 2

[growler]

With regard to my statement "It's his responsibility, have him follow up on it", this is from the NACHI Standards of Conduct:

it seems to me that the Home Inspector has assumed quite a bit of responsibility by accepting the Code of Ethics and the Code of Standards that are expressed in the membership. :smile:

More important than what is covered in a home inspection is what is not covered by a home inspection. Few people read this section.

3.2. Exclusions.

1. The inspectors are not required to determine:
(H) The compliance with codes or regulations.

There is much not covered by a home inspection just as there is much not cover by a standard insurance policy. Most people only read what's covered and just assume the rest. They end up learning the hard way later on.

 

[wbalsam1]

More important than what is cover in a home inspection is what is not covered by a home inspection. Few people read this section.

3.2. Exclusions.

1. The inspectors are not required to determine:
(H) The compliance with codes or regulations.

There is much not covered by a home inspection just as there is much not cover by a standard insurance policy. Most people only read what's covered and just assume the rest. They end up learning the hard way later on.

I agree. The HI holds himself out and represents himself as knowledgeable and displays a license when necessary to attest to at least the competence required within the licensing criteria.

So with all this going on, coupled with the Code of Standards requiring a report of the material defects observed, it just seems to me that there actually is a certain degree or onerus of responsibility implied within the boundaries of the license and the contractual arrangement with his/her customer(s).

To whatever extent the "report" would be reliable, accurate or dependable, of course would vary by inspector, company and region. Similar in many ways to bona-fide electrical inspections from "genuine" inspectors from 3rd party agencies, or even inspectors that are AHJ's. :smile:

 

[growler]

To whatever extent the "report" would be reliable, accurate or dependable, of course would vary by inspector, company and region. Similar in many ways to bona-fide electrical inspections from "genuine" inspectors from 3rd party agencies, or even inspectors that are AHJ's. :smile:

People make the assumpion that an electrical inspection will catch all code violations and this is just to the case. The ADJ does not assume any responsibility or liability for catching all violations.

The responsibiliity to make sure work is done in a code compliant manor is up to the electrical contractor. Just because an inspector misses a violation doesn't make it legal. The EC is still responsible and can be held accountable.

Home inspectors mostly do comply with the standards of their profession but it's very important to understand what those standards are. Their contracts are designed to keep them out of litigation and not to take on added responsibility.

A home inspection is a great thing but this may not be all the leg work that a buyer needs to do before purchasing a property. I was involved in one not long ago where I suspect that the addition to the house was done illegally. A home inspection will not catch this but the buyer should have. The added square footage was not on the deed. I advise home buyers to get all paper work for additions and remodeling projects that have been done in the past few years to include permits and inspection information. I advise them that responsibility doesn't end when a home is sold unless they lose track of which company ( or homeowner ) actually did the work.

 

[wbalsam1]

..... The ADJ does not assume any responsibility or liability for catching all violations.

The Authority is just that, the Authority. With authority comes responsibility, obligation and duty. The governmental officials responsible for writing codes have charged the Authority with the responsibility to enforce the governmental codes based on non-governmental standards such as the NEC.

...The responsibiliity to make sure work is done in a code compliant manner is up to the electrical contractor.

To fulfill the terms of any contractual agreement, yes. But, the responsibility is borne by the AHJ.

...Just because an inspector misses a violation doesn't make it legal. The EC is still responsible and can be held accountable.

I agree.

 

[cowboyjwc]

The Authority is just that, the Authority. With authority comes responsibility, obligation and duty. The governmental officials responsible for writing codes have charged the Authority with the responsibility to enforce the governmental codes based on non-governmental standards such as the NEC.

Government officials do not write the code. The code is written by the NFPA, a private company, with input by inspectors, tradesmen and industry people. The code is adopted by government agencies, which is required by law.

We have an obligation to enforce the code, not to find every little thing that the contractor did wrong or missed.

 

[iwire]

Bob, it seems to me that the Home Inspector has assumed quite a bit of responsibility by accepting the Code of Ethics and the Code of Standards that are expressed in the membership. :smile:

Yes it sure says a lot, but it does not require that a 'code citation' be given.

Why should it?

 

[rickymcc]

I am told that the State electrical inspectors can add additional requirements to the code. Meaning they could not alter the NEC, but may have some local requirements as well. Has anyone else heard of this? I know on one of my inspections the inspector just wrote on a piece of paper what he failed it for , but did not give any code references.

Ricky McConnell
Electrician General Mills
Instuctor at Tennessee
Technology Center

 

[360Youth]

I am told that the State electrical inspectors can add additional requirements to the code. Meaning they could not alter the NEC, but may have some local requirements as well. Has anyone else heard of this? I know on one of my inspections the inspector just wrote on a piece of paper what he failed it for , but did not give any code references.

Ricky McConnell
Electrician General Mills
Instuctor at Tennessee
Technology Center

Individual inspectors cannot require anything beyond NEC or ammendments approved by local governing body. Inspectors are not AHJs, they are just agents. AHJ can supercede NEC in writing, and it does happen. Some places more than others.

Edit it to add: If it is enough of an issue, ask to see it in writing, under the guise of wanting to be fully clear of any local ammendments. I have had plenty of discussions with inspectors where one of the two of us learned something new. Sometimes it's you, sometimes it's him/her.

 

[wbalsam1]

Government officials do not write the code.

Are you aware that "the code" is not really a code, but a standard? Codes are bodies of law written by people appointed to do so by elected officials. Private enterprise certainly is consulted as a part of this process...think AFCI... This is how our powers are not usurped. The NEC is really a standard, not a code.

The code is written by the NFPA, a private company, with input by inspectors, tradesmen and industry people. The code is adopted by government agencies, which is required by law.

Think "standard".

We have an obligation to enforce the code, not to find every little thing that the contractor did wrong or missed.

As a private inspector, one has a contractual arrangement with their contractor to keep an eye on his work and file a report listing (typically) material defects and improper methods and eventually out come the cover stickers and final company certificates that attest substantial compliance with the NEC.

As a governmental inspector you have a legal charge, duty and obligation to conduct inspections pursuant to the legislation that enables the code that adopts standards such as the NEC. If the contractor missed standards provisions/requirements and your training is sufficient to enable you to determine that, and you chose not to make it known, that is called gross negligence. If you didn't know it and missed it, it's called simple negligence. Looking the other way for monetary reasons is called criminal negligence. :smile:

 

[wbalsam1]

Yes it sure says a lot, but it does not require that a 'code citation' be given.

Why should it?

A NACHI inspection has about the same function as a 3rd party electrical inspection...it's a private contractual arrangement. No requirement for citations. Usually just a report of defects noted.

Reports from both of these entities often find their way to the AHJ and mostly are welcomed as valuable data that become preconditions, in practice anyway, for the issuance of the legally required document attesting to standard compliance. :smile:

 

[iwire]

A NACHI inspection has about the same function as a 3rd party electrical inspection....

Not where I live, there is no such thing as a 3rd party electrical inspection.

Reports from both of these entities often find their way to the AHJ and mostly are welcomed as valuable data that become preconditions, in practice anyway, for the issuance of the legally required document attesting to standard compliance. :smile:

Again not where I am and I doubt many AHJs are using HI reports to determine compliance.

Where I am HIs are licensed by the state and are strictly a consumer protection / aid service, nothing at all to do with code compliance.

 

[wbalsam1]

Not where I live, there is no such thing as a 3rd party electrical inspection.

About 90-95% of electrical inspections in NY States' 880 towns, villages and cities are performed by private 3rd party inspectors. Municipal AHJ's then use the reports filed from these private inspectors as part of the preconditions for the issuance of certificates evidencing compliance with the NEC standard.

Again not where I am and I doubt many AHJs are using HI reports to determine compliance.

Where I am HIs are licensed by the state and are strictly a consumer protection / aid service, nothing at all to do with code compliance.

Pretty much the same here. Reports filed, when filed, become a part of the record. :smile:

 

[growler]

About 90-95% of electrical inspections in NY States' 880 towns, villages and cities are performed by private 3rd party inspectors. Municipal AHJ's then use the reports filed from these private inspectors as part of the preconditions for the issuance of certificates evidencing compliance with the NEC standard.

I see conflict of interest written all over such a system. I don't like it.

It seems it would be beneficial to hire the dumbest inspector in the state or the biggest crook. Just a thought.

 

[lpelectric]

I see conflict of interest written all over such a system. I don't like it.

It seems it would be beneficial to hire the dumbest inspector in the state or the biggest crook. Just a thought.

I've heard it called "The fox watching the henhouse" and lots of other names and you're absolutely right.

Building officials lack a thorough understanding of the electrical standard and rely on the local 3rd party private electrical inspector to conduct inspections and discover defects and report them to us.

The inherent problem with this is the "inspector shopping" that takes place before the inspection ever gets signed off on and the resultant lack of reliability and confidence in the reports tendered.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Are you aware that "the code" is not really a code, but a standard? Codes are bodies of law written by people appointed to do so by elected officials. Private enterprise certainly is consulted as a part of this process...think AFCI... This is how our powers are not usurped. The NEC is really a standard, not a code.

They may be written as a standard, but once they are adopted they become a code. ...The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code.

These building regulations or standards, have the same force of law, and take effect 180 days after their publication unless otherwise stipulated. The California Building Standards Code applies to occupancies in the State of California as annotated.

As a governmental inspector you have a legal charge, duty and obligation to conduct inspections pursuant to the legislation that enables the code that adopts standards such as the NEC. If the contractor missed standards provisions/requirements and your training is sufficient to enable you to determine that, and you chose not to make it known, that is called gross negligence. If you didn't know it and missed it, it's called simple negligence. Looking the other way for monetary reasons is called criminal negligence. :smile:

Actually you have your terms wrong.

NEGLIGENCE: A flexible term for the failure to use ordinary care under a particularly factual circumstance revealed by evidence in a lawsuit. A cause of action basedd on a deviation from an accepted standard.

MALFEASANCE: The commission of an unlawful act committed by a public official. Doing something which should not have been done at all.

MALICE: Hatred, ill will; actual ill feeling towards another person with intent to commit harm and without just cause

MISFEASANCE: The improper performance of some lawful act

NONFEASANCE: The failure to perform a positive duty which is imposed by law upon a public official.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: Rests on the theory that the duty of a public official is to the public at large and not to the individual. Generally, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

REASONABLE OR REASONABLE CARE: An imprecise term for the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. Also known as Ordinary Care.

REASONABLE MAN: A person exercising those qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgement whic society requires of its members for the protection of their own interests and the interests of others. A fictitious person who is never negligent, and whose conduct is always up to standards.

 

[lpelectric]

Actually you have your terms wrong.

NEGLIGENCE: A flexible term for the failure to use ordinary care under a particularly factual circumstance revealed by evidence in a lawsuit. A cause of action basedd on a deviation from an accepted standard.

Negligence breaks down into at least three catagories:

Simple: Missing a violation of the NEC that a trained person would reasonably observe within the normal pursuit of his duties

Gross: Intentionally permitting a violation of the NEC to stand even though the inspector knows the difference

Criminal: Allowing the violation to stand and receiving money as a condition of allowing the violation to stand

Each of these forms of negligence increases in degrees of severity and punishability. :smile:

 

[cowboyjwc]

Each of these forms of negligence increases in degrees of severity and punishability. :smile:

Correct.

Now it gets tricky. As a contractor you know that you have a code violation and you do everything you can during an inspection to streer me away from it. I never do see it and someone is injured or dies, who do you think is going to be held liabil? Well we both are of course. Which one of us do you think is going to end up paying damages or going to jail?

 

[growler]

Which one of us do you think is going to end up paying damages or going to jail?

Are there going to be any gloves presented as evidence?:-?

If so it will be the guy with the smallest hands. That's how much faith I have in our legal system.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Are there going to be any gloves presented as evidence?:-?

If so it will be the guy with the smallest hands. That's how much faith I have in our legal system.

Don't even bring that one up. That trial was held less than 100' from our offices. The bomb threats were the most fun.

And I do agree that the chances of anyone going to jail would be slim and none.

 

[lpelectric]

Correct.

Now it gets tricky. As a contractor you know that you have a code violation and you do everything you can during an inspection to streer me away from it. I never do see it and someone is injured or dies, who do you think is going to be held liabil? Well we both are of course. Which one of us do you think is going to end up paying damages or going to jail?

Based on this scenario, the inspector would be found guilty of simple negligence and the contractor would be found guilty of gross negligence. The settlement would be divided more toward the contractor's pocket due to the more severe classification of gross than simple. :smile: