People should pull permits-Help!

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jes25

Senior Member
Location
Midwest
Hello everyone,
I know it is popular opinion on the forum, and mine as well, that people should (or have thier contractors pull) pull electrical permits as required by law; whether they are doing the work themselves or using a contractor. This happens to be the topic of a persuasive paper I am writing in my compostion class. I must have references for my points of why people should utilize the permit process. Does anyone have any ideas or references to help?
 
growler

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
jes25 said:
pull electrical permits as required by law.. I must have references for my points of why people should utilize the permit process.
Click to expand...

You have already given the best reason for useing the permits process. It is in fact "required by law" in most areas.

Now, most people just assume that if they do an unpermitted project and get away with it that's the end of the story but not always. I have seen homeowners break down in tears when the find out those room additions that have been there for 10 years show up when they try to sell the property. These said additions were never permitted nor inspected and are not listed on the property deed and can't be sold as habitable living space. Not everyone gets caught but when they do it's a real bear when it comes to red tape.

This is what can happen if the work is done right and safe because it's still outside the law. The fact that it may be right and even safe doesn't mean a thing. There are countless horror stories of when the work is done wrong and unsafe.

I would start with the fact that permits are required by law. Even if a person is building for themselves they are still contracting and the homeowner is acting as his own general contractor with all the liability and responsibilities in his/her name.
 
R

RICK NAPIER

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
I have also heard of cases where the insurance company would not cover damage to work without permits or damaged caused by work without permits since it was a violation of the law and as such they do not need to cover it.
 
S

satcom

Senior Member
RICK NAPIER said:
I have also heard of cases where the insurance company would not cover damage to work without permits or damaged caused by work without permits since it was a violation of the law and as such they do not need to cover it.
Click to expand...

There are some insurance companies that you can loose coverage with if the work was not permitted and inspected when required by law.
 
charlie b

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer

  • IF you finish the job without yourself having suffered any injury,


  • AND IF when you turn it on, there are no sparks,


  • AND IF the thing you installed appears to work (i.e., the light goes on or the motor spins),


  • THEN it is still very wrong to conclude that the job was done safely!
There may still be a safety hazard, just waiting for an unfortunate person to touch the wrong thing under the wrong circumstances. It may take years before the problem makes itself known. You may have moved by then, and may never learn of the error that you made. Having the job permitted, and inspected, reduces the probability that there is a tragedy waiting for its moment to reveal itself.
 
S

satcom

Senior Member
BryanMD said:
Insurance liability is at the root of UL and NFPA as well as the other codes.
Funny how things come full circle, huh?
Click to expand...

Looking at the history of how the codes came about, is very intresting, the insurance underwriters, promoted the industry to create codes for safe installations. You can usually spot the guys that are not well trained or informed, they are the ones that think permits and inspections are an option.
 
LarryFine

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
RICK NAPIER said:
I have also heard of cases where the insurance company would not cover damage to work without permits or damaged caused by work without permits since it was a violation of the law and as such they do not need to cover it.
Click to expand...
Years ago, I owned a split-level house that had a rear den that had been built on what was a patio (which I hadn't known.) There was a fire (no, not electrical) that destroyed the room and damaged much of the house.

The insurance would replace the room, but not cover the cost of the footings and such that had never been done. So, we decided to put the money into adding a master suite above the 1-floor half of the house instead.
 
C

Cold Fusion

Senior Member
Location
way north
satcom said:
... You can usually spot the guys that are not well trained or informed, they are the ones that think permits and inspections are an option.
Click to expand...

Interesting phrase. Doesn't leave much room for discussion or inclusion of any pertinent statistical data.

So, just the act of not agreeing with you means that person is "not well trained or informed"?

cf
 
growler

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
satcom said:
You can usually spot the guys that are not well trained or informed, they are the ones that think permits and inspections are an option.
Click to expand...

Rewire said:
The problem is many inspectors are unqualified.
Click to expand...


This still would not negate the permit and inspection process. Sure there are unqualified inspectors but they are not really required to tell anyone how to perform a job and they are not required to catch every code violation.

The responsibility to make sure a job is safe and code compliant rest solely with the contractor who's name is on the permit.

It's nice if the inspector is competent enough to catch most violations but even when he doesn't there is someone to go to in case things go wrong in the future. The dork that was dumb enough to permit a job that he didn't know how to do and didn't care enough to seek out the correct information to do the job correctly, it's his butt that's in trouble.

There are major projects that were inspected and passed that later fail due to sub-standard building practices but passing the inspection doesn't do the contractor any good, he is still responsible.

PS. And it's required by law.
 
Last edited:
T

Tonybugs72

Member
Just to add something about Isaac. I had a chance to speak with his dad a year or so ago and was told the the electrician involved put the blame on the helper. He was fined minimally (the so-called electrician) and continued doing electrical work under a different business name. Tragic all the way around.
 
S

satcom

Senior Member
growler said:
This still would not negate the permit and inspection process. Sure there are unqualified inspectors but they are not really required to tell anyone how to perform a job and they are not required to catch every code violation.

The responsibility to make sure a job is safe and code compliant rest solely with the contractor who's name is on the permit.

It's nice if the inspector is competent enough to catch most violations but even when he doesn't there is someone to go to in case things go wrong in the future. The dork that was dumb enough to permit a job that he didn't know how to do and didn't care enough to seek out the correct information to do the job correctly, it's his butt that's in trouble.

There are major projects that were inspected and passed that later fail due to sub-standard building practices but passing the inspection doesn't do the contractor any good, he is still responsible.

PS. And it's required by law.
Click to expand...

You are so right, it is the responsibility of the party doing the work, and if they are well trained, and informed on the codes, and understand the liabilities involved, they would comply with the laws in the areas they work, not leave a homeowner with open liability and exposed to the possible loss of the largest investment of their life, their home.
 
Rewire

Rewire

Senior Member
Location
Lake of the Ozarks
satcom said:
You are so right, it is the responsibility of the party doing the work, and if they are well trained, and informed on the codes, and understand the liabilities involved, they would comply with the laws in the areas they work, not leave a homeowner with open liability and exposed to the possible loss of the largest investment of their life, their home.
Click to expand...

Its the libertarian in me but I think the homeowner should be responsible for doing a little homework on the people they hire.Most just pick up the phone and call till they get the one that will do it the cheapest. Permits , inspections and even licenses are all products of the Government and we all know how well they do things.If I don't want a hack working on my house then it should be up to me to do a little research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top