Inspector out of bounds?
- Thread starter electricmanscott
- Start date
- Status
physis
Senior Member
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
I, for one, would rather people appreciate the purpose of the permit process instead of get beat over the head with it.
[ March 21, 2005, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
To put it very plainly, no one has any business using the permit process as a weapon! To do so would only confirm the belief that a lot people have that the primary purpose of the process is revenue generation and nepetism rather than safety.
I, for one, would rather people appreciate the purpose of the permit process instead of get beat over the head with it.
[ March 21, 2005, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Occupation
- Massachusetts Master Electrician, one man show.
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
I have not called the inspector back yet but I'll be sure to let you guys know how it goes.
I have not called the inspector back yet but I'll be sure to let you guys know how it goes.
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Physis, I wholly agree with you. What I am saying is that my guys are taught to look out for those things and do them for the customer not because of permit issues but because of safety and good business sence and if someone is standing next to a panel and doesn't look at the grounding then they shouldn't be in there in the first place.
I don't mean to be harsh but if you are in business you have to do the things that won't cost you money.
Where ever this goes it should serve as a lesson that a little goes along way.
Physis, I wholly agree with you. What I am saying is that my guys are taught to look out for those things and do them for the customer not because of permit issues but because of safety and good business sence and if someone is standing next to a panel and doesn't look at the grounding then they shouldn't be in there in the first place.
I don't mean to be harsh but if you are in business you have to do the things that won't cost you money.
Where ever this goes it should serve as a lesson that a little goes along way.
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
physis: what makes you think it isn't money?
I could tell you some stories about a stint in a non local jurisdiction, but not online. Same with nepotism.
Bob" I don't disagree with what Mass. does. When i worked here there were basic add ons that no one fought, as they were common sense. How i see that increased risk, or code violation is if the new install is part of a continuous stream of construction that contains a violation or hazard; that is, if some element of the electrical construction (or other impacting construction) is connected to non-compliant work along its whole path.
Insurance companies are implying that if you work on a panel, and do not fix other obvious hazards in that panel, resultant problems can be passed on to you, as you were the last to work on it, not the one who created the problem.
From an inspection point of view, not passing a hazard (NEC code violations considered hazards, even if code compliant previously) is one way jurisdictions force repair. Saying that the new work cannot be passed until the other corrections are done is within their scope of authority and will become more common place. I do not think that most electrical contractors agree as they may see no way of bidding jobs correctly. I know of many electricians who refuse old work for this reason and the liability issue. However, contract clauses can take care of these problems.
Whether you agree or not, consider the rationale of a jurisdiction. If the electrical contractor who uncovers the work is not required to fix it (not assumed to be at contractor's expense), who is going to fix it. It won't get fixed. The contractor will have to get another electrician to do the hazard repair. This is no different than requiring the contractor/homeowner from having the electrical contractor fix the hazard.
This, in some way, is no different than an electrical contractor telling the contractor/homeowner to fix the framing or any other element before they can continue with the electrical work.
I think that there are jurisdictions that look at this differently, but i see it as becoming more normal for the repairs to be required.
Paul
physis: what makes you think it isn't money?
I could tell you some stories about a stint in a non local jurisdiction, but not online. Same with nepotism.
Bob" I don't disagree with what Mass. does. When i worked here there were basic add ons that no one fought, as they were common sense. How i see that increased risk, or code violation is if the new install is part of a continuous stream of construction that contains a violation or hazard; that is, if some element of the electrical construction (or other impacting construction) is connected to non-compliant work along its whole path.
Insurance companies are implying that if you work on a panel, and do not fix other obvious hazards in that panel, resultant problems can be passed on to you, as you were the last to work on it, not the one who created the problem.
From an inspection point of view, not passing a hazard (NEC code violations considered hazards, even if code compliant previously) is one way jurisdictions force repair. Saying that the new work cannot be passed until the other corrections are done is within their scope of authority and will become more common place. I do not think that most electrical contractors agree as they may see no way of bidding jobs correctly. I know of many electricians who refuse old work for this reason and the liability issue. However, contract clauses can take care of these problems.
Whether you agree or not, consider the rationale of a jurisdiction. If the electrical contractor who uncovers the work is not required to fix it (not assumed to be at contractor's expense), who is going to fix it. It won't get fixed. The contractor will have to get another electrician to do the hazard repair. This is no different than requiring the contractor/homeowner from having the electrical contractor fix the hazard.
This, in some way, is no different than an electrical contractor telling the contractor/homeowner to fix the framing or any other element before they can continue with the electrical work.
I think that there are jurisdictions that look at this differently, but i see it as becoming more normal for the repairs to be required.
Paul
allenwayne
Senior Member
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
I have posted a simular situation but this is in new construction.When a rough in is inspected we had to cut below grade the uffer steel.Slab guys would bend an off set in a 21 ft. piece of rebar and stub under the form boards.At the rough in the permit listed uffer/rough and was signed off.Then one day the chief AHJ found a J Weaver that was loose on a final.OH now dig it up and expose for a final.We now attach to a 20 ft piece of rebar and it is signed off on footer insp.But for almost 8 months we were digging up landscaping to expose the uffer that was already signed off at rough in
I have posted a simular situation but this is in new construction.When a rough in is inspected we had to cut below grade the uffer steel.Slab guys would bend an off set in a 21 ft. piece of rebar and stub under the form boards.At the rough in the permit listed uffer/rough and was signed off.Then one day the chief AHJ found a J Weaver that was loose on a final.OH now dig it up and expose for a final.We now attach to a 20 ft piece of rebar and it is signed off on footer insp.But for almost 8 months we were digging up landscaping to expose the uffer that was already signed off at rough in
stud696981
Senior Member
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Did you pull a permit to wire an entire house? No...then ask him why he is inspecting an entire house??? Advise him that he needs to take this up with the home owner if he wishes and he needs to sign off on your permit ASAP! Since you know you are right, if he wants to make waves, tell him like I have done before, "I'm not fixing it, do what you have to do and we can discuss this with a judge if you wish." Also advise him that your attorney will not hesitate to file a lawsuit against him and the city for slandering your name by failing your inspection!!! I have filed and settled two lawsuits for BS inspectors failing jobs that they had no authority or code backing, lets just say that I was well compensated for their stupidity!!!
Did you pull a permit to wire an entire house? No...then ask him why he is inspecting an entire house??? Advise him that he needs to take this up with the home owner if he wishes and he needs to sign off on your permit ASAP! Since you know you are right, if he wants to make waves, tell him like I have done before, "I'm not fixing it, do what you have to do and we can discuss this with a judge if you wish." Also advise him that your attorney will not hesitate to file a lawsuit against him and the city for slandering your name by failing your inspection!!! I have filed and settled two lawsuits for BS inspectors failing jobs that they had no authority or code backing, lets just say that I was well compensated for their stupidity!!!
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
actually, threatening a lawsuit is extortion, is a civil tort and you can be sued in the same manner as you sued the inspector. The jurisdiction obviously did not mount much of a defense as it is within their legal power to fail to final a job for actual hazards, illegal, non-conforming structures, work not up to local code amendments, and so many other items. The problem is confused by jurisdictions that are in conflict with themselves, where not everyone is on the same page. This produces lack of clarity about interps, support, testimony. Your permit is interconnected to the status of the rest of the house and is not a a project unto itself.
This lack of consistency throughout a jurisdiction is usually caused from the top down, but may be a problem of entrenched inspectors, civily protected, and unresolved differences within the department.
It might also be that it was just cheaper to roll over for them.
paul
actually, threatening a lawsuit is extortion, is a civil tort and you can be sued in the same manner as you sued the inspector. The jurisdiction obviously did not mount much of a defense as it is within their legal power to fail to final a job for actual hazards, illegal, non-conforming structures, work not up to local code amendments, and so many other items. The problem is confused by jurisdictions that are in conflict with themselves, where not everyone is on the same page. This produces lack of clarity about interps, support, testimony. Your permit is interconnected to the status of the rest of the house and is not a a project unto itself.
This lack of consistency throughout a jurisdiction is usually caused from the top down, but may be a problem of entrenched inspectors, civily protected, and unresolved differences within the department.
It might also be that it was just cheaper to roll over for them.
paul
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
The MA rules clearly state it is the inspectors responsibility to notify the owner.
If you read rule 4 you will see a reference to a MA general law that gives the inspector this enforcement authority. (M.G.L. c. 166, ?? 32 and 33)
Mass Code Rules
When you read M.G.L. c. 166, ?? 32 and 33 you find that the authority is granted to the authority enforcing the code to hire a contractor to remove the violations and back charge the owner.
Part of M.G.L. c. 166, ?? 32
It is much easer for the inspector to try to 'bully' the contractor on site into fixing things instead of following the rules laid out.
I really do not care how noble the motivation is, the inspectors expect me to follow the rules I expect the same from them.
All that said of course I have fixed minor items while I was doing other work but by my own choice not because I had to.
As far as what the homeowners insurance company wants that is between the homeowner and the insurance company.
Paul read the rules I posted, it is not within the inspector authority (In MA) to hold up my code compliant work because of other issues in the same room or building.
The MA rules clearly state it is the inspectors responsibility to notify the owner.
If you read rule 4 you will see a reference to a MA general law that gives the inspector this enforcement authority. (M.G.L. c. 166, ?? 32 and 33)
Mass Code Rules
This says nothing about holding up an inspection for other code compliant work.
When you read M.G.L. c. 166, ?? 32 and 33 you find that the authority is granted to the authority enforcing the code to hire a contractor to remove the violations and back charge the owner.
Part of M.G.L. c. 166, ?? 32
You see the rub, it says "at the expense of the city or town" it goes on to say that they can recover that money.
It is much easer for the inspector to try to 'bully' the contractor on site into fixing things instead of following the rules laid out.
I really do not care how noble the motivation is, the inspectors expect me to follow the rules I expect the same from them.
All that said of course I have fixed minor items while I was doing other work but by my own choice not because I had to.
As far as what the homeowners insurance company wants that is between the homeowner and the insurance company.
stud696981
Senior Member
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Apauling,
Threatening to sue is NOT extortion in this case. Depending on the threat and the context it is used in may be an issue, but not in this case. People threaten to sue everyday and nothing comes of it. Now if I said, "Either you pass this job or bad things will happen," then that would be extortion. The statement I originally made simply puts the inspector on notice that he better re-think his decision.
As far as "rolling over" for an inspector, I say no way because in my area you give them and inch and they will take a mile!!! When I'm right I fight inspectors tooth and nail......and WIN! After that they don't mess with anymore of my jobs.
Apauling,
Threatening to sue is NOT extortion in this case. Depending on the threat and the context it is used in may be an issue, but not in this case. People threaten to sue everyday and nothing comes of it. Now if I said, "Either you pass this job or bad things will happen," then that would be extortion. The statement I originally made simply puts the inspector on notice that he better re-think his decision.
As far as "rolling over" for an inspector, I say no way because in my area you give them and inch and they will take a mile!!! When I'm right I fight inspectors tooth and nail......and WIN! After that they don't mess with anymore of my jobs.
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Here's one for ya...installed the A/C disconnect outside for teh condensor. No problems on rough-in. Inspector said it was OK. HVAC guys installed condensor DIRECTLY in front of disconnect. Electric Inspector called me to move it. Code violation. I told him NO WAY. Call the HVAC guys. Here, I'll get them on the phone for a conference call! He said no he would call. I drove past the building for the first time in 8 years yesterday. You guessed it. It is still a code violation!!
If you are right stand your ground. If not compromise and work with the Inspector.
Here's one for ya...installed the A/C disconnect outside for teh condensor. No problems on rough-in. Inspector said it was OK. HVAC guys installed condensor DIRECTLY in front of disconnect. Electric Inspector called me to move it. Code violation. I told him NO WAY. Call the HVAC guys. Here, I'll get them on the phone for a conference call! He said no he would call. I drove past the building for the first time in 8 years yesterday. You guessed it. It is still a code violation!!
If you are right stand your ground. If not compromise and work with the Inspector.
allenwayne
Senior Member
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
There are some inspectors that just take it to the limit :roll: There have been so many instances where I or another was there and a simple kick plate that was in hand with a hammer and a ladder was to late :roll:
There are some inspectors that just take it to the limit :roll: There have been so many instances where I or another was there and a simple kick plate that was in hand with a hammer and a ladder was to late :roll:
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Occupation
- Massachusetts Master Electrician, one man show.
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
As has been pointed out, I am completely correct on this and the inspector has no authority whatsoever to even suggest that I do this repair. The law is clear.
How can I surrender my license to you willy? :roll: Just because I am at the panel does not mean the grounding electrode is. Usually it is buried beneath tons of crap the homeowner has piled up in the basement. I suppose you clean the basement as a service as well. :roll:
As has been pointed out, I am completely correct on this and the inspector has no authority whatsoever to even suggest that I do this repair. The law is clear.
shortcircuit2
Senior Member
- Location
- South of Bawstin
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Well...did ya call the inspector back yet electricmanscott?
The suspence is to much...shall we tune in tomorrow?
shortcircuit2
Well...did ya call the inspector back yet electricmanscott?
The suspence is to much...shall we tune in tomorrow?
shortcircuit2
jimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Lets us all line up and wait for him with klines in hand in a threatening way that he gets scared off and passes it.
Lets us all line up and wait for him with klines in hand in a threatening way that he gets scared off and passes it.
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Bob: I think it is you who is misreading me. Mass. has created the means for correcting the remediation of hazards. other jurisdictions have created other venues, some of which are to not final a job until certain tasks are performed. All I am saying is that a jurisdiction has the right to create these methods, and they may be different than Mass.. I am okay with what you do there.
I am not suggesting that mass. is under those other methodologies, or should be. I am suggesting that there needs to be a method of forcing the repair. You may think it is beyond the scope of a jurisdiction to do so, but it is not beyond their power, or legally rightful method of operation. It is done in all types of inspection and the GC is usually the one that sees it. Where work is done on a home the home owner is considered the GC for the job if there is no actual GC. And the job is for the occupancy, not the contractor. The contract with the GC or homeowner may be complete, but the requirements for a final may not be complete. There are requirements that do not fall under the NEC that come into play as there are other building codes that apply to even electrical construction. For example, a jurisdiction can impose stricter standards than exist in the NEC and they are enforceable, sd's, grounding, etc.. Physis knows of one in SF, red and black for ungrounded conductors in single phase. Don't think that they weren't sued. They were and won.
What I meant about rolling over is that the jurisdiction probably rolled over on the law suits, not the contractor on the inspection. Many areas do not lose lawsuits and aggressively defend their rights to control standards of construction beyond any specific code. That does not mean that some inspectors don't f...up, aren't FOS. But if a jurisdiction is in conflict with itself and is dealing with growing pains, there exists the probability that it will lack the coherence to prevail in court.
Merely because one is not sued, or charged criminally for threatening to sue, does not make the original threat (extortion) legal. You just got by with it. You may not believe this and it doesn't matter to me, go ahead, and eventually you will get bit. But for others listening, the language used is crucial, and saying that you will use all available legal means to support your position and achieve redress, is not extortion.
paul
Bob: I think it is you who is misreading me. Mass. has created the means for correcting the remediation of hazards. other jurisdictions have created other venues, some of which are to not final a job until certain tasks are performed. All I am saying is that a jurisdiction has the right to create these methods, and they may be different than Mass.. I am okay with what you do there.
I am not suggesting that mass. is under those other methodologies, or should be. I am suggesting that there needs to be a method of forcing the repair. You may think it is beyond the scope of a jurisdiction to do so, but it is not beyond their power, or legally rightful method of operation. It is done in all types of inspection and the GC is usually the one that sees it. Where work is done on a home the home owner is considered the GC for the job if there is no actual GC. And the job is for the occupancy, not the contractor. The contract with the GC or homeowner may be complete, but the requirements for a final may not be complete. There are requirements that do not fall under the NEC that come into play as there are other building codes that apply to even electrical construction. For example, a jurisdiction can impose stricter standards than exist in the NEC and they are enforceable, sd's, grounding, etc.. Physis knows of one in SF, red and black for ungrounded conductors in single phase. Don't think that they weren't sued. They were and won.
What I meant about rolling over is that the jurisdiction probably rolled over on the law suits, not the contractor on the inspection. Many areas do not lose lawsuits and aggressively defend their rights to control standards of construction beyond any specific code. That does not mean that some inspectors don't f...up, aren't FOS. But if a jurisdiction is in conflict with itself and is dealing with growing pains, there exists the probability that it will lack the coherence to prevail in court.
Merely because one is not sued, or charged criminally for threatening to sue, does not make the original threat (extortion) legal. You just got by with it. You may not believe this and it doesn't matter to me, go ahead, and eventually you will get bit. But for others listening, the language used is crucial, and saying that you will use all available legal means to support your position and achieve redress, is not extortion.
paul
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Scott,
The grounding electrode has to start from the panel. If I'm to gather from what your saying is that if the ground is hanging in mid air behind a bunch of trash and not connected any where it's fine as long as you get your line into the panel and it is secure and to code?
What kind of rational is that?
Because your work is up to code and the inspector is wrong even though you neglected to check the ground does that make you right?
If you answered yes to that I hope you sleep well at night.
Scott,
The grounding electrode has to start from the panel. If I'm to gather from what your saying is that if the ground is hanging in mid air behind a bunch of trash and not connected any where it's fine as long as you get your line into the panel and it is secure and to code?
What kind of rational is that?
Because your work is up to code and the inspector is wrong even though you neglected to check the ground does that make you right?
If you answered yes to that I hope you sleep well at night.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
Yes.
Re: Inspector out of bounds?
I assume that you all give estimates. When you have to run a line into a loadcenter don't you check the ground and if it's not correct tell the customer that it needs to be repaired or replaced for an estimated amount of $$$.
If your"re on a no power trouble call and you go to the panel don't you check the ground and tell the customer I've found your problem and by the way your ground needs to be replaced for $$$.
I do believe when you look in the code just about every section contains the word GROUNDING.
It is there for a reason. I believe in doing a through job for all our customers and our customers appreciate it and the inspectors respect it.
I assume that you all give estimates. When you have to run a line into a loadcenter don't you check the ground and if it's not correct tell the customer that it needs to be repaired or replaced for an estimated amount of $$$.
If your"re on a no power trouble call and you go to the panel don't you check the ground and tell the customer I've found your problem and by the way your ground needs to be replaced for $$$.
I do believe when you look in the code just about every section contains the word GROUNDING.
It is there for a reason. I believe in doing a through job for all our customers and our customers appreciate it and the inspectors respect it.
- Status