Inspector-ordered extra work

Status
Not open for further replies.
andycook said:
Perhaps I should move this comment to a new thread, but the inspectors comment was: " if there aren't any exposed metal parts, what would be the purpose of the bonding grid"?
Click to expand...

I don't see that as relevant to whether we have to comply or not.


Perhaps he and I don't fully understand the intent of the grid. I'm very willing to learn.
Click to expand...

I don't know the reason either. so take the following only as my opinion.

I suspect it would help if the tub water was somehow energized above 'earth' potential and you are stepping in or out of the water directly to the paver's.

If the bonding grid can keep the paver's at close to the waters electrical potential there is less chance of a shock.

Keep in mind an Equipotential grounding grids job is not necessarily to keep everything at earths potential. It's job is to keep everything in reach of the occupants at the same potential as each other. At times this may have an elevated electrical potential to earth.
 
Bob:

If there is nothing metallic that is exposed on the portable spa, as I believe they're designed, what would you bond the grid to? The lug on the pump motor? The grounding conductor? What if the grid is a better source of ground then the main service grounding electrode? Could it induce a dangerous current to the spa?

Is this one of those areas of the code that isn't particularly well written or thought out? I agree that we need to follow the code, I just want to understand the purpose or intent.

I know, I know. Lots of questions.
 
Jeff remember the old adage ( started a few days ago ), "that in the inspection world, the day's not complete until you make someone cry".
This inspector was probably just getting the day off to a good start.
 
We are straying here. Getting back to the original inspector stuff, I am with electricianmanscott, It is onerous. Laying the responsibility of the pre existing defects on back of the handy nearby contractor seems to be regarded to be the path of least resistance. The plain old answer is to resist. Period.
 
I don't think an inspector can force an electrical contractor to repair pre-existing defects in the electrical system. They can write the homeowner up for a safety violation and demand that the problems be corrected by someone. If the homeowner refused to pay I would just let the inspector write it up as a safety violation. If the homeowner is willing to pay then I don't see a problem, more work, more money. Repairing the work of hacks is what keeps us in business, if a job is done right there are few problems.
 
Last edited:
macmikeman said:
We are straying here. Getting back to the original inspector stuff, I am with electricianmanscott, It is onerous. Laying the responsibility of the pre existing defects on back of the handy nearby contractor seems to be regarded to be the path of least resistance. The plain old answer is to resist. Period.
Click to expand...

You're right. My original post asked if I should start a new thread and I will.

Thanks
 
In the county where we work, we are required to have a "pre-Alteration" inspection by the county inspector before a permit is issued. The inspector makes a list of all the things that will need to be addressed (electrical or other) if the permit is issued. This means another inspection per job and I'm sure a lot of work does not get permitted because of this. But at least everyone is on the same page once we get started.
 
That strikes me as a fair system. It allows for the city to remove hazards, and at the same time allows the EC to cover himself in his bid, and the property owner, who is after all the benificiary of the system is the person who ends up paying for the work. Except if the local AHJ is overbearing, then it could lead to uneaded expense. This would be the perfect location to set up a Nexstar franchise.
 
foqnc said:
Since the original post is over 18 months ago, I'm curious how this was resolved Jeff?
Click to expand...
In this case, the HO was desperate to get the permit closed and asked me to just do what the inspector wanted, regardless of the cost. I went ahead and fixed what needed to be fixed and was paid for my trouble.

The inspector is no longer doing any electrical inspections as far as I know.

About six months after this incident, the city council decided the city didn't need to be an AHJ for electrical work anymore, so they repealed all ordinances regarding permits and inspections for electrical work. That meant that the state would then automatically become the AHJ for the city. Word on the street is that the city was having a lot of problems dealing with their electrical inspectors, so they solved the problem by getting rid of them.

We've been under state jurisdiction for a little over a year now, and I must say I'm much happier under the new system. The inspectors actually answer their phones and come out quickly to do inspections. They're also easy to deal with and haven't tried to tag me with responsibility for work I never touched.
 
macmikeman said:
We are straying here. Getting back to the original inspector stuff, I am with electricianmanscott, It is onerous. Laying the responsibility of the pre existing defects on back of the handy nearby contractor seems to be regarded to be the path of least resistance. The plain old answer is to resist. Period.
Click to expand...
That's what I would have done, as my lawyer advised me it was bogus to hang the work on me just because I was there. I certainly wasn't about to fix hack work for free.
 
OK lets see if we can explain this with out getting into a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo.

"You" are not responsible for the code violations that have nothing to do with your scope of work. I would only look at what you did and called an inspection for and sign off the permit for that.

On the other hand the owner is responsible for any code violations that are seen at the time of inspection.

Now, if an inspector can see a code violation without having to move things or make any extra effort to find it, then it is required that they write it up and make a note of it. If it were to ever be a problem and it was found out that they had seen it and ignored it, they can be held just a libel as the person who did the work. If they do not follow up and have the violations repaired and they cause a problem they can be found libel then as well

I have some case studies on this if anyone is interested.
 
Cowboy, I am curious how you can answer this question as the rules / laws etc. governing the inspection process are developed on a local basis.

Take my state for example there are rules in place that allow me to add to a non compliant installation as long as my work does not increase the magnitude of the violation.

Every area is different.
 
Iwire,

You may be right in that each state is different, but as a public official we are required by law to enforce the law, whatever that law may be.

One of the most common grounds for the removal of public employees is mis conduct in office. be it malveasance: The commission of an unlawful act committed by a public official. Doing something which should not have been done at all. Misfeasance: The improper performance of some lawful act. or nonfeasance: The failure to perform a positive duty which is imposed by law upon a public official.

Yes a public official can overstep their bounds, there are laws about "reasonable right of privacy" and such.

In this city, if you were to work on a commercial project, say a TI. If you took down all of the ceiling tiles to replace the light fixtrues, then you or somebody is going to fix all of the code violations that I can see above the ceiling. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a conduit with two bare ended wires just laying on the tbar and how many contractors will say "we didn't do that". Now you don't think for one minute that it is ok for me to say "well then just leave it", do you? And yes any contractor worth his weight in salt will fix it long before I get there.

Now the key to the above is "that I can see" I have no legal responsiblity for anything I cannot or do not see.
 
cowboyjwc said:
In this city, if you were to work on a commercial project, say a TI. If you took down all of the ceiling tiles to replace the light fixtrues, then you or somebody is going to fix all of the code violations that I can see above the ceiling.
Click to expand...
Are you also going to explain to the contractor's client that the contractor is not responsible for performing this work as part of the contracted work (i.e., free)? And that you will not use the client's final inspection and/or CO as leverage to push the client into blaming the contractor for such hold-ups, which could possibly result in a lawsuit between the contractor and the client to determine who should pay for this work?
 
cowboyjwc said:
In this city, if you were to work on a commercial project, say a TI. If you took down all of the ceiling tiles to replace the light fixtrues, then you or somebody is going to fix all of the code violations that I can see above the ceiling.
Click to expand...

I am not fixing any of it until someone says they will pay me. If it's dangerous I would disconnect it for free.

Here one of the rules is "Where an actual hazard exists the owner of the building will be notified in writing by the official enforcing the code"

Not giving you a hard time just pointing out what is done every day in your area may or may not be done anywhere else.
 
a few months ago I pulled a permit so the local power company could disconnect power to a few meter banks so they could be pulled off the wall and sided behind. This required an inspection by the AHJ. AHJ failed the permit because at original construction or some other point in the past AHUs were placed in the work area of some of the meter banks. AHJ wrote to me that if the AHUs were not moved they would revoke my license and take me to court for further action. Client had AHUs moved at there expense.
 
Isn't there something in the constitution against "Cruel and Unusual Punishment"?

As an open question to all inspectors on this board -

When will common sense ever come back to the local building departments? What sense does it make to screw the people who are trying to abide by the laws, get their jobs inspected, and pay the fees that pay your salaries?

Is the goal to create nothing but bandits who won't file permits, because they will get the shaft if they do, and just run around trying to catch them and fine them?

Sorry if I sound harsh, but when I hear the argument "Just doing my job" or "just doing what I'm told" it makes my stomach turn. Just because some weasly (sp?) buraucrat (sp?) decides that contractors are an easy target, doesn't make it right or just.

Stand up for what is good and right. Most contractors don't want to rock the boat because they are afraid it will come back and hurt them. Help the contractors, don't just blindly go along with the idiocy of townhall and hurt them.

Rant over, who wants the soapbox next?
 
emahler said:
What sense does it make to screw the people who are trying to abide by the laws, get their jobs inspected, and pay the fees that pay your salaries?
Click to expand...
When Kleins are outlawed, only outlaws will have Kleins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top