Inspectors: Will you red tag work I didn't do?

[RH1]

I've always wanted to do this, because I see a lot of code violations, is point them out to an inspector and get a list of corrections.

Let's say I do a service change, I pull a permit, the inspector comes out, inspects my work and approves it. While I'm talking to the inspector, I point out some existing code violations regarding the pool equipment wiring.

Would you write an order to correct? Are you duty bound to do so or are you just there to inspect what the permit calls for?

I usually mind my own business and don't worry about the sloppy installations I see, but I'm wondering if I can really do something about the non compliant work I see.

This would help me sell additional work, which is self serving, I admit.

Thanks

 

[jxofaltrds]

This is in Ohio and from the residential code:

"The occupancy of any structure currently existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, provided the alleged occupancy can be shown to have existed and there are no orders of the building official pending, no evidence of fraud or no serious safety or sanitation hazard."

http://publicecodes.citation.com/st...b4v06_1_sec002_par006.htm?bu=OH-P-2005-000004

So IMHO it would have to be a serious safety hazard and the BO would make that decision.

 

[RH1]

This is in Ohio and from the residential code:

"The occupancy of any structure currently existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, provided the alleged occupancy can be shown to have existed and there are no orders of the building official pending, no evidence of fraud or no serious safety or sanitation hazard."

http://publicecodes.citation.com/st...b4v06_1_sec002_par006.htm?bu=OH-P-2005-000004

So IMHO it would have to be a serious safety hazard and the BO would make that decision.

I know that prior code compliant installations, while no longer compliant with modern codes are OK. What I'm talking about is something really hacktastic, like an overhead feed to a detached garage using romex or a pool motor timeclock with a missing cover, etc...

 

[jxofaltrds]

I know that prior code compliant installations, while no longer compliant with modern codes are OK. What I'm talking about is something really hacktastic, like an overhead feed to a detached garage using romex or a pool motor timeclock with a missing cover, etc...

Are you talking workmanship or safety?

Again: "So IMHO it would have to be a serious safety hazard and the BO would make that decision."

EDIT: Back to your original question. No red tag for previous work. But read the line above.

 

[cpal]

In MA inspectors that are made aware of a violation or hazard are required to notify the property owner in writing. But usually that?s it. If a serious problem occurs the next alternativewould be the Fire Dept or board of health. On substantial projects I have had luck working with my building commissioner.

 

[hurk27]

This is about as close to illegal search as you can get without it being an actual violation of your rights, if a cop was to serve a warrant, lets say for stolen property, and while there looking for the stolen property he finds a bag of weed, can he bust you for it. there is case law that says no, he would have to leave and return with a court ordered search warrant for the weed. now can an inspector make you bring the violation that was not part of your permit up to code? I would say if he did, it would get beaten in court.

 

[1793]

...Would you write an order to correct? Are you duty bound to do so or are you just there to inspect what the permit calls for?

I usually mind my own business and don't worry about the sloppy installations I see, but I'm wondering if I can really do something about the non compliant work I see...

Around here the only thing the Inspector(s) look at is what I have them there for. If, however, they see something that poses "Imminent Danger" they can and do write it up.

 

[RH1]

if a cop was to serve a warrant, lets say for stolen property, and while there looking for the stolen property he finds a bag of weed, can he bust you for it.

Yes! The Plain View Docterine

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/bl...-doctrine-in-digital-evidence-cases/?cs=36114

"Generally, the plain view doctrine applies, for example, when officers execute a search warrant in an apartment for a certain type of weapon and walk in to find drug paraphernalia on the table. In that case, the latter may be used to support additional charges. Though drug paraphernalia wasn't included in the search warrant, the officers didn't have to do anything to find it. It was in plain view."

 

[macmikeman]

Man how many times inspectors have tried to have me fix existing work I didn't do at some house. They try to claim that I "should have known to put that into my bid" or some such nonsence. If it is a ten dollar fix usually I will just to keep him happy. I always put in contingency into my bid for just such bogus stuff. Once it gets pricey, I fight. My proposals always say I am not responsible for pre-existing defects or conditions of existing electrical wiring of the structure. As far as answer to RH-1's question, I have succesfully used that ploy many a time. Once pointed out to the inspector, most of the ones I am friendly with will point it out to homeowner and dramatize it a bit for me.... I like money.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

....I have succesfully used that ploy many a time. Once pointed out to the inspector, most of the ones I am friendly with will point it out to homeowner and dramatize it a bit for me.... I like money.

Do you share?

 

[macmikeman]

Do you share?

Nope- all on the ups and ups. And if there isn't any serious hazard, there isn't any pointing at anything either. But would you not point out a bunch of flying splices in romex runs under a house for instance when you are just adding a dryer outlet and you find all that nice wiring?

 

[cowboyjwc]

If the officer is in you house, leagely then he can hook you up for anything he finds. What he can't do is go running through your back yard chasing a suspect and look in your window and see pot on he table and then come back and arrest you for it. It's a right of privecy law.

And an inspector is bound by law to write up a code violation that he sees no matter what he's there to inspect. All corrections regardless of who did the work are on the property owner.

 

[AV ELECTRIC]

Where im at code enforcement is responsible for violations and there limited in what they can do. I think its your responsibility to point out vioalations or hazards to the customer and after that its the customer decision if he wants to do it.

 

[macmikeman]

Where im at code enforcement is responsible for violations and there limited in what they can do. I think its your responsibility to point out vioalations or hazards to the customer and after that its the customer decision if he wants to do it.

Where I am at it is completely the opposite. From all appearance it seems nobody ever has questioned wether there is any limits to the power held by city inspectors, and pretty much anything they say gets full support from the upper echelon of the city building dept. heads. So sometimes not only existing code violations are automatically added to the fool who takes a permit out, but also clear mistakes about nec codes on the inspectors part get full backing from the authority having jurisdiction. The only relief I have found on this problem is to make my contract with the property owner failsafe in the event that existing hazards and code violations are assigned to me to repair or replace. As far as getting tagged for imaginary code violations, well that is a struggle that I have not been able to overcome yet. Thankfully it is not all that common except for the one locality. From posts I read at this forum, this seems to be how some other areas of the country run things as well.

 

[Power Tech]

Where I am at it is completely the opposite. From all appearance it seems nobody ever has questioned wether there is any limits to the power held by city inspectors, and pretty much anything they say gets full support from the upper echelon of the city building dept. heads. So sometimes not only existing code violations are automatically added to the fool who takes a permit out, but also clear mistakes about nec codes on the inspectors part get full backing from the authority having jurisdiction. The only relief I have found on this problem is to make my contract with the property owner failsafe in the event that existing hazards and code violations are assigned to me to repair or replace. As far as getting tagged for imaginary code violations, well that is a struggle that I have not been able to overcome yet. Thankfully it is not all that common except for the one locality. From posts I read at this forum, this seems to be how some other areas of the country run things as well.

I have challenged many, many inspectors and won. Fortunately, since the Magna Carte, we have laws that are written down.

 

[Power Tech]

I have always been told by the BD they are to look at only what is permitted. Or people will not get permits if they think they will be nailed on other violations.

I was just called to a commercial shack that I wrote a warning about over 2 years ago. There is lamp cord stapled all over with lights bojacked in.

The fire Department wrote them up.

Any contractors should write up violations as they see them to protect themselves. And to perhaps get more work.

You are stepping over an imaginary line to ask the inspector to get you some work by siting violations.

 

[rich9112]

It really just depends...

It really just depends...

I'd agree with the previous posts. When inspecting I don't nit-pick existing work, but if I see anything that is a legitimate hazard it goes on the list. And yes, I get pretty much full backing on what I call but that isn't an excuse for a bad interpretation. I carry my NEC in my truck, so if somebody wants to discuss an issue we can 'take a look and see what the NEC has to say about it...' I have been corrected before. :roll: The EC's love it when they can actually discuss why they think something does or doesn't meet code.

I will usually talk to the home/proprty owner to clarify it is not part of the scope of the permit but we're happy to inspect it since we're already here. :grin: I have a soft spot in my heart for quality electricians and will go to bat for good ones if the owners try to claim it should have been included in their bid. That being said, it is not my job to ensure the EC makes $--if in doubt cover it in your contract specifically to be safe.

 

[RH1]

I once pulled a permit for a service change at my own house, I pulled it as owner builder, the inspector at the counter did not know I was an electrical contractor. He asked me if I would hire any employees to help with this job, if so I needed a worker's comp certificate. I said no employees, I would just do it my self this Saturday....

He then informed me that he was "A state certified law enforcement official" and that he would come to my house on Saturday to verify my story and if I was lying, he would arrest me on the spot.

Another counter person overheard this and I raised a stink and after a supervisor heard all the facts, the supervisor apologized to me and said that inspector had counter duty because of similar issues in the field.

I have been abused so many times by officious, over zealous inspectors I have lost count.

But it seems most of these guys have been weeded out, lately I've been getting really normal inspectors.

 

[LarryFine]

The only relief I have found on this problem is to make my contract with the property owner failsafe in the event that existing hazards and code violations are assigned to me to repair or replace.

How, please?

 

[LarryFine]

I'd agree with the previous posts. When inspecting I don't nit-pick existing work, but if I see anything that is a legitimate hazard it goes on the list. And yes, I get pretty much full backing on what I call but that isn't an excuse for a bad interpretation. I carry my NEC in my truck, so if somebody wants to discuss an issue we can 'take a look and see what the NEC has to say about it...' I have been corrected before. :roll: The EC's love it when they can actually discuss why they think something does or doesn't meet code.

That's great, but I think the question isn't whether you're correct, but whether the present contractor is forced to take on the additional work lest he doesn't get his inspection for his work, and that the onus is on the customer, not the present contractor.

I will usually talk to the home/proprty owner to clarify it is not part of the scope of the permit but we're happy to inspect it since we're already here. :grin: I have a soft spot in my heart for quality electricians and will go to bat for good ones if the owners try to claim it should have been included in their bid. That being said, it is not my job to ensure the EC makes $--if in doubt cover it in your contract specifically to be safe.

No, but let's hope your soft spot is soft enough that you do not leave the customer with the impression that the contractor is legally responsible in any with regard to the other work, and that, while it may have to be done, it won't hold up the present contractor's inspection.

Nor should it affect his getting paid.