Inspector-ordered extra work

[macmikeman]

When Kleins are outlawed, only outlaws will have Kleins.

Larry that is really funny. Now which one of those blue question marks on the right side is the green smile? I want to add about three after Larry's quote

 

[George Stolz]

Mike, just type "colon capital D" (as in : D without the space between them). That's what I do.

 

[emahler]

well, call me an outlaw

But where is the common sense in this world.

There was a book written a few years ago, don't remember the author, but the title was "The Death of Common Sense" It was a good book.

 

[hillbilly]

I was told a while back (from a member of this forum) that he had looked thru the code and couldn't find the term "common sense", so it wasn't applicable.
IMO...You don't learn common sense. You're either born with it or you never have it.
steve

 

[macmikeman]

Thanks George. Now you've really gone and created a monster.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Yes Larry I will explain it to the client that the contractor is not responsible for the work and that technically it is the owner of ther property that is responsible for any code violations.

And Iwire, I would not expect you to fix it for free. I've never done anything for free that I could get paid for. As far as the notice of violation see what I wrote Larry. I have no doubt that we don't all do it the same. I live in the Los Angeles are and in a thirty mile radius we all do it different.

It's very easy to sit in court and justify a correction notice as long as you have a code section or ordinance to back it up. It's really hard to sit there and explain why you didn't do anything.

 

[emahler]

Cowboy,

Finding violations and notifying the homeowner is fine. Holding up a permit for other work until violations are corrected is just wrong. What if the HO doesn't want to pay for the extra work, or doesn't have the money too, but the inspector won't approve the permit until it's done? How is that right, just and fair to the contractor?

 

[cowboyjwc]

I never once said that I would hold up the permit and I never once said that I thought that the inspector was right if she had to dig to find the violations. I also never said that I would go out of my way to look for code violations. And I know I didn't say it was fair.

All I have said is, is that as an inspector we have a legal obligation to cite any violations that we see. Who fixes it or who pays for it is not our concern, getting it corrected is. Sounds cold, but just the facts.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

In defense of some of what Cowboy has said.
In the almost 3 years of inspecting, I have seen a side of our industry that a contractor will seldom see or experience. That is dealing with the building departments, engineers, lawyers, homeowners and a myriad of ECs. As a contractor/journeyman, I saw a very small portion of that side. Now I have to deal with it every day, all day. The responsibility of an inspector has a far tighter gripe on the inspector than I imagined and at times can be a large burden. There are many times that I feel very badly that the decision I make will cost someone money, embarassment and pain... but if I don't do it, then what is the sense of the inspection process? That is why equal enforcement and sometimes a callous approach works in everyones favor for the long run. Don't get me wrong, I try to work with all of the contractors, but there are times the less said the better, especially when a large amount of money is on the line... and believe that does happen.

The best advice I can give to any contractor or journeyman is to try and speak to the inspector before the job (even if you may be a little embarassed at not knowing the answer when you think you should). If the inspector will speak to you, both he and you will both learn a lot and benefit from a hassle free inspection process. I tell the contractors I ALWAYS prefer a call first, even if it means several trips to the job site to try and come up with a solution that works for all.

 

[emahler]

She said everything I did was fine, but I would have to correct the stuff she mentioned to get the permit closed.

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.

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?

Yes Larry I will explain it to the client that the contractor is not responsible for the work and that technically it is the owner of ther property that is responsible for any code violations.

And Iwire, I would not expect you to fix it for free. I've never done anything for free that I could get paid for. As far as the notice of violation see what I wrote Larry. I have no doubt that we don't all do it the same. I live in the Los Angeles are and in a thirty mile radius we all do it different.

It's very easy to sit in court and justify a correction notice as long as you have a code section or ordinance to back it up. It's really hard to sit there and explain why you didn't do anything.

Now cowboy, I understand what you said, but my question was related to Jeff's initial post. I am fully in agreement with an inspector writing citations, notices, etc, for problems that they see while on an inspection. Whether it be with the work they are inspecting or something in plain site.

I just disagree with hinging the contractors permit, and payment, on repairing faults that are unrelated to the permitted work and that the customer may not want to pay for.

See in NJ, the law states that I can't collect final payment until final inspection. Now, do to me like Jeff's inspector did to him, and my customer not only may not pay me for the extra work, but they don't have to pay me my final payment for the work I did. And unless they are planning to sell their house in the near future, they really don't care if that permit gets closed out or not.

So, I honestly was not questioning you personally, I just am questioning the system as a whole, and y'all are the closest thing to a mouthpiece for 'the man' that we have.

 

[jeff43222]

I also agree with the inspector writing citations for violations they see. In this case, the things she noted were in plain view. She didn't go snooping or anything. But like emahler said, what if the HO can't/won't pay for the fixes? Hanging the extra work on my permit is just not right.

When the inspector first called me and laid all this out, my attitude was "Fine, don't close the permit. My work passed inspection, and I've been paid." I'm not sure what the ramifications would have been, but I suspect nothing would have happened. My experience with the city is that when a permit expires, they just cancel it and forget it.

But the city stopped doing permits/inspections for electrical work a year ago, so now we have the state as the AHJ. They do things differently. I recently had a permit for a kitchen remodel approach the one-year expiration date, and I was having trouble getting a hold of the HO to schedule the final. I called the inspector and asked how to proceed, and he told me if the permit expired without a final, I'd have to pull a fresh one. Meanwhile, the inspector could order a disconnect. I was able to get the HO on the phone and get the kitchen inspected recently, so it all worked out. I'm glad it turned out the way it did, as the HO is a state senator, so I imagine there might have been complications.

 

[iwire]

It surprises me that anyone would think just because a certain EC was hired to do a certain job that EC now must become involved in any other violations the inspector sees.

Any violations that I did not create are simply not my problem. I may dress small issues up by choice if it will not be too costly.

If the inspector sees other violations sure write them up and pass them on to the building owner.

Holding up my completion to force a building owner to address other issues is IMO an abuse of power.

I am in no way saying an inspector should ignore violations only that they should use a fair and legal way to have those items fixed.

 

[growler]

Any violations that I did not create are simply not my problem. I may dress small issues up by choice if it will not be too costly.

I have been told by a couple inspection departments that if you spot a safety violation that you should report it to the inspector and have it written up. They will not require that you repair said violation ( conflict of interest, owner's responsibility) but that this will help cover you if anything goes wrong such as injury or death. I like to make sure a building doesn't burn before I get paid. I doubt if you could be forced to report violations because you could always say " I didn't see it". I would think that any real hazards should be reported.

 

[JohnE]

OK lets see if we can explain this with out getting into a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo.

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.

You're right. In MA, 527 CMR 12.00 Rule 4 states: "Where an actual hazard exists, the owner of the property shall be notified in writing by the authority enforcing this code."

 

[petersonra]

You're right. In MA, 527 CMR 12.00 Rule 4 states: "Where an actual hazard exists, the owner of the property shall be notified in writing by the authority enforcing this code."

But a mere code violation is not necessarily an actual hazard.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Emahler, I never take it personally. : )

And as Pierre said sometimes it is hard to write that notice and also sometime a phone call will go a long ways to solve a problem long before it becomes a problem.

I have a very good working relationship with the local contractors and contrary to what it may sound like in this post I hate to write correction notices because that just means I have to go back again, but there is a time to write one.

 

[JohnE]

But a mere code violation is not necessarily an actual hazard.

True, IMO. I meant to elaborate to include that thought, but had to run.

I bet there are some who might argue otherwise, though.