Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

[bphgravity]

I have an issue that has been bothering me. On final ispections I check to make sure closet lights are in compliance with 410.8. Generally, I will advise the contractor at the rough inspection if it appears the outlet is within the defined storage space. On the occasion the advisory is ignored or missed, or it is not noticed on the rough, the light ends up in violation.

Upon reinspection, a few contractors avoid moving the light by simply placing a blank cover over the outlet. At that point, there is nothing I can do fully aware that as soon as I sign off on the job, the light is going to go right back up in the same spot.

To me, this indicates poor character and makes me question the professionalism and ethics of the contractor. Instead of making it right for the customer, they only do what they must to pass inspection.

There is nothin in the Florida Building Code that mandates closet lighting, so techincally, contractors don't have to install them. But if they choose to, don't you think that blanking off the outlet should be unacceptable and we should be enforcing the light to be reinstalled in a compliant location?

 

[charlie b]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

It is. You should.

An outlet box has no earthly business being in that location, except to serve as the mounting point for a luminaire. If they want to permanently prevent use of a luminaire (e.g., by pulling back the wires, removing the box, and covering the hole with plaster), then I would accept the installation. Otherwise, make them move the box.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

How can you possibly issue a violation based on a potential future action?

If you don't like them doing this, get the code changed so no blanked off boxes are allowed in this space.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

But Bob, it's not a future use issue. There was a light at that location. That's when it failed. But instead of correcting it, they install a blank plate.

If someone were to install a blanked off outlet in the storage space within a closet on the first inspection, I would agree that I can't assume what it is there for. But this a situation where I know what is going to go there. I mean they don't blank off the switch.

It's a fine line.

[ September 29, 2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: bphgravity ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

I think this is where the "R" word comes into the acronym "AHJ."

No that wasn't a typo. The "R" stands for "Responsibility." You have one; it's to the future owner. Sure, we can (legally) rely on the notion that whenever the owner decides to attach a luminaire to that outlet box, it will be the responsibility of the electrician to get a new permit, and to make sure the location meets 410.8. But that is not what is really going to happen. I think you can sleep better if you know that a fire will not be started by a future bulb being too close to a hat box.

But let's not talk future, let's talk present. Here's what you say, "That thing is a 'luminaire' (even if it just looks like a covered box), and it is in the wrong location. Move it now, or I will not sign off the job."

You say that even if you had not earlier seen a luminaire, and even if there is no switch.

[ September 29, 2005, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]

 

[apauling]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

someone is going to have to come up with the code that says there can not be a box there, blanked off.. The current prohibitions are for lighting, not boxes.

there isn't anything you can do about it. drop it. we are not here to force our ideas on anyone. what are you going to do, use blackwater ops to storm the house, go after the contractor? change the code if you believe that prevention of future non-code compliant installations is our job.

This happens all the time with energy efficient lighting mandated in CA. pass final, change it out. I know of one county that inspects houses up for sale, that looks for unpermitted work, triple charges the fees, or more.

paul

 

[peter d]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Originally posted by apauling:
I know of one county that inspects houses up for sale, that looks for unpermitted work, triple charges the fees, or more.

Wow, I'm surprised, I would never expect The Socialist Nation of California to have something like that going on. :roll:

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Show me where a blanked up box in a closet is a violation and I'm with you. I generally have a hard time with inspections passing or failing based on what ifs. I have a harder time with a contractor that would do this knowing full well what they are up to. One solution I can see would be somehow catching the person that installs the light after the final without a permit and taking action against them that way. Otherwise I think you are out of luck.

 

[roger]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
I generally have a hard time with inspections passing or failing based on what ifs. I have a harder time with a contractor that would do this knowing full well what they are up to. One solution I can see would be somehow catching the person that installs the light after the final without a permit and taking action against them that way.

I agree with you Scott.

Bryan, I would make it very clear to the EC that if he is caught installing this fixture after the fact, that his blatant disrespect for you and the code will have him sitting in front of the licensing board explaining why he did it and why his license should not be suspended or revoked.

Then you might suggest that it would be best if the switch and fixture roughin was removed so that you wouldn't be suspicious of him in the future.

Roger

 

[apauling]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

I would love to be that contractor when the homeowner switches the blank for a light and you catch him, and then go after me. Multple liabilities for defamation of charachter, various forms of malfeasance depending on the state, possibly false arrest, loss of business, loss of future business, emotional distress, violation of due process, and on and on.

this isn't our job, either as electrical contractors, electricians, or inspectors.

paul

 

[roger]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Paul, how is the contractor going to get caught if someone else installs the fixture? :roll:

Now, on the otherhand if the EC doesn't get his final payment until it is hung, and he is stupid enough to do it, then we have a ball game.


Roger

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

The good part of being an inspector in the state of North Carolina is that it is real easy to get an administration search warrant and go back to look at the light. If this is done before closing on the house takes place then you have the electrical contractor by the ----s.

One of the tricks that is being done in my jurisdiction is to watch for the first signs of some one moving in and ask for permission to come in for a look around again the electrical contractor speaks with a real high pitch of alto.

Here is where I made a post to get the opinions for others due to the inspector stopping by while the family was moving in after the fixture was removed. There is now a florescent above the closet door.

Edited to add:
The electrician told me that he was not the one that reinstalled the fixture but he was the one that the inspector called about thre problem.


[ September 29, 2005, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Or how about this:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Step 1: Tell the contractor that you are failing the installation.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Step 2: He asks for a code citation.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Step 3: You tell him "410.8."</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Step 4: He replies that there is no luminaire.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Step 5: You retort, "I am the AHJ," and walk away.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Step 6: He opens a new thread on this Forum, complaining about your abuse of authority.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Step 7: The membership unanimously supports his position, uses uncomplimentary language in decrying your treatment of him, and tells him to complain to your boss.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let me know when it gets that far. I'll close that thread, and issue a "strike" against him. That ought to teach him a lesson!

 

[iwire]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Originally posted by jwelectric:
The good part of being an inspector in the state of North Carolina is that it is real easy to get an administration search warrant and go back to look at the light.

NO! that is not a good thing, this is America keep your Govt snooping eyes out of my home.

Bryan, I know your heart is in the right place and I agree it is unscrupulous of the contractors to do what you describe.

However in my mind the ends do not justify the means.

If I have a car with a 1000 HP super charged motor under the hood I expect the police to just watch me drive by, no tickets for what I may do, even though it is practically guaranteed I will break the law at some point.

Strangely I agree with Paul

there isn't anything you can do about it. drop it. we are not here to force our ideas on anyone. what are you going to do, use blackwater ops to storm the house, go after the contractor? change the code if you believe that prevention of future non-code compliant installations is our job.

[ September 29, 2005, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Can you be sure a fixtures is going back in ? What if the owner or builder says rather than paying to have holes patched to just blank it off.It's legal if blanked and your off the hook.One thing i think you could do is write a letter to the homeowner letting them know that installing a fixture where the blank is could cause a fire,and if there is a fixture in the xxx closet and they did not install it to please contact you.At that point you are not pointing a finger but the owner might.Someone will be taking the blame.If it turns out the electrician did it go after him.If it was the builder he is in more trouble than the EC.Best thing to do is have a meeting with this EC and let him know that this kind of BS won't be tolerated.So if you have the time then yes pursue this case.

 

[sandsnow]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Just had this problem in an 18 story condo tower. On a couple floors the sprinkler head is where the light outlet should have gone. On final the luminaire was too close.

The contractor is moving the box or changing to flourescent. The developer would not settle for a closet without a luminaire.

I like Jim's idea of letting the owner know what's up. I would do it in writing. Somebody paid for a luminaire there, and they should know if they put it back in it will be in violation.

Most developer's are pretty gun shy of construction litigation (out here).

If it's a homeowner, explain why that requirement is there.

 

[roger]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

I vote for Charlie b's last post.

Roger

 

[roger]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

Okay, the EC has been busted, now the inspector asks what it will be used for and the EC says it was a mistake and will be capped off, but the GC doesn't want a C.O. from the Sheetrock contractor so we are just installing blank plates on the switch and fixture box.

If I were the inspector I would look at the EC and say; well then it won't matter if I go get my wire cutters and cut the conductors off where they enter the box will it and I'm sure you wouldn't mind would you.

After he stammers around and agrees, I would do it.

Roger

[ September 29, 2005, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

You know what? There's thousands of 2-family detached homes in Queens, NY, built in the 20's-50's with a pull chain in every single closet... no matter what size the closet is, though I gurantee you they're all too small for a closet light. That's a bare-bulb keyless pull-chain. No reports of homes burning down due to closet lights.

Ideal? No. A tragedy waiting to happen? I don't think so. The benefits outweigh the risks. Try to excersize a little less acute jurisprudence and a little more horse sense. So a closet light is 2" too close to a shelf... big whoop.

 

[roger]

Re: Side-Stepping Corrections for Inspections

LawnGuyLandSparky, the same argument can be made about all the houses from those years with no GFCI protection in the bath rooms where there has been no electrocution to date.


Can you back up this statement?

No reports of homes burning down due to closet lights.

If you can, tell us why the modern day code requirement was ever added.

The truth is, that even one death or fire may be the reason for a code article or section to be added, and unless we do some serious digging, we may not know where the event took place.

Roger