Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

[iblittljn]

Scenario: A building or structure or renovation is designed and sealed or approved. Construction is under way.

An inspection is being conducted on some element of the work and the inspector says the installation or item or whatever is not adequate or correct or does not comply with "The Code" (ex the inspector always requires 12 ga Cu in this installation even though 14 is spec'd and OK by the Code)

But the element being inspected agrees with the constructor's/installer's interpretation of the applicable Code or the approved drawings.

What happens? What can be done?

Does one litigate, cave in, call Congress?

[ August 18, 2005, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: iblittljn ]

 

[petersonra]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

A spec or plan cannot override the minimum requirements of the code. If the spec says #14 and code says #12, the spec is wrong and the inspector is correct to point out the violation of the code.

 

[charlie]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

The first thing to do is to check with the local amendments. A lot of places require #12 to be the smallest conductor permitted to be used in a building. In some places that requirement extends to dwellings.

The problem with #14 is the conductor damage curves. #14 can have enough fault current to actually damage it under fault conditions. Most of the time, that level of fault current will not be achieved except close to a commercial or industrial service. Therefore, some places just say you can't use it at all.

 

[iblittljn]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Morning All. Help! My post is not about whether or not #12 is OK versus #14, its about the inspection process, disagreement with authorities disagreement and how to resolve any conflict. It's about what to do if there is a disagreement in interpretation of the Code (seems like there is a lot of that in this section!)

 

[charlie]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

The first thing to do is to check with the local amendments.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

The first thing is to find out just what the inspector is objecting to, and if possible what section of the code he believes is being violated. Take into account whatever local adustments have been made to the code, and it is usually not to hard to decide just who is right for most things. The code is usually pretty clear. there are a few places where it is not.

It's not unlike the resolution of any disagreement. It starts with collecting information.

it is also probably a good idea to ask a more experienced colleague about these type of things before going to battle the evil inspector.

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

It might help to get the best advise if more was known about what type of job,scope of work etc.
There are area`s that just will not allow # 14 to bee used.Maybe a little more info could get you more in put

 

[steve66]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

I try not to argue with the inspectors on small items. You should pick your battles. Save arguments for big dollar items, items that really screw up the schedule, or things that you feel will be unsafe.

If it comes down to something like the inspector thinks the code means "A", and you think the code means "B", the inspector has every right to make you install it his/her way.

If you are really convinced that the inspector is wrong, you can probably go to his boss. But unless the inspector is obviouslly requiring something unreasonable, you are probably out of luck.

Steve

 

[derf48]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

The most important thing to do is communicate!! Talk to the AHJ, listen to the AHJ. Make sure you are on the same planet. Be very specific, talk apples to apples. Find out what edition of the NEC that is being used, have it in hand, and what local ammendments have been enacted as law. Do your homework, make sure your design is correct. As an inspector, the easiest tool I had in discussions with engineers was a simple statement, Please show me in the code why you think you can do that. Most times, by forcing them to actually defend their position, they would find their mistakes. A few (very few) times they actually taught me something!

Remember the smaller goverment agency you are working with, the more politics that are involved!!! In simple terms, that means that the hardest ones to work with are the small towns or counties where a lot of times they are "protecting" someones interest. Also, the smaller jurisdictions often times do not have a qualified inspector, maybe a building inspector who is doing electrical inspections. Good luck, and please, use your patience.

Fred

 

[charlie b]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Many times a disagreement can be boiled down to the following:
Person 1: I contend that the grass is green.
Person 2: No. You are wrong. The sky is blue.

Take the time to make sure you are speaking about the same thing, and that you are using your terms in the same way.

 

[sceepe]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

The AHJ always has the final say. Just about every building code I know of, gives the AHJ the authority to "interprete" the code as they see fit. You can disagree but you better be very carefull. If he digs his heels in, you will loose every time.

 

[mvannevel]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Ian, let me begin with my oft repeated mantra: There needn't be and shouldn't be an adversarial relationship between inspectors and electricians (or engineers). After all, we are all supposed to be working toward the same goal which is a safe electrical installation. That's the whole purpose of the code, the "practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from electrical installations". If ALL of US would keep that in mind as we go about our jobs in the trade, this whole thing would be a lot easier.

It's already been mentioned, but communication is the key. If you disagree with an inspector, do so in a manner that you would appreciate if someone disagrees with you. Same goes for us inspectors. When we disapprove an installation, we should do so in a way that we would appreciate if it were our job. Does it happen this way in the real world? Not often enough. Human beings are human beings. Nobody likes to be corrected, even if they are wrong. Nobody likes to have their authority questioned even when they are over-stepping it.

When an inspector cites a violation on a job, he MUST to be able to back that up with a code reference. His desire to see something a certain way just because that's how he likes it isn't enough. Same with the electrician. If he disagrees with that inspector, he needs to be able to back up his argument with a code reference. Just because he's always done it that way, or because he didn't bid the job that way isn't enough. There are so many areas in the code that are open to interpretation we'll never all be able to be happy with the outcome of these discussions all the time. But if we will discuss them (or even debate them, if you will) rather than argue them with venom from both sides, we can make the whole process go smoother. Not all inspectors are arrogant egomaniacs and not all electricians are unqualified hacks. But you'll find a few of each.

Okay, I'll climb down off of my soapbox now...

 

[twilli3967]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Some municpalities have an appeals board

 

[jtester]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

In many jurisdictions, if a design professional seals a drawing or design, only he/she can change it. In New Mexico, for example, an inspector can be called a designer and must meet the qualifications including PE, if he personally demands changes to a project that requires a professional seal, unless he goes thru the professional. Inspectors aren't supposed to demand that a contractor change a sealed design, they are supposed to contact the designer.
That being said, often an inspector will approach a contractor with the demand. As a PE, I always ask the Contractor to refer the problem to me. Sometimes I'm wrong and can learn, and other times the inspector is wrong, and he can learn as well. If the drawings have been prepared by a design professional, I encourage you to refer the request to him or her.

Jtester

 

[eprice]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

As an inspector, I don't like arguing with contractors. However, I do like code discussions, and there is a differance. As has been mentioned, it is part of the inspectors job to be able to back up, with code references, any code violations that he writes. It is part of his job to discuss code issues with the contractors. The first step for you is to approach the inspector in a non-advesarial manner, asking him to discuss with you the code that he feels you have violated. Don't get things started off the wrong way by approaching him with the attitude that you know you are right and he is wrong and that he is a dummy. If he gets that feeling from you, it will be very hard for him to back down, even if in your discussion you are able to show that the code supports your position.

I have these kinds of discussions with contractors from time to time. If the discussion is kept respectful, friendly, and code centered, 99% of the time an agreement can be reached as to what the code actually requires, and both of us can come away with greater respect for the other's knowledg of the code and desire to do right. There have been times that I have been persuaded to change my way of looking at a particular code section, and that is ok. It isn't my job to be right all of the time, it's my job to make sure the code is followed.

If the inspector refuses to cite code, or refuses to engage in a respectful discussion of the code, then make an appeal. Appeal to his boss or an appeals board if there is one. If after a discussion, you still disagree with his position, make an appeal, but do it in a respectful maner. An appeal doesn't have to be a confrontational thing. If, after a respectful discussion, a consensus can not be reached between you and the inspector, make the appeal with the attitude that "well, we just can't seem to agree on this, lets let some other people take a look at it". There are times when I feel that the code requires me to make a contractor do something that I know he doesn't want to do. I don't enjoy those times. If an appeals board were to look at it and side with the contractor, I could actually give a sigh of relief, because then I would be off the hook, and would no longer have to force the contractor to do what it was that he didn't want to do.

 

[rbalex]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Jtester is describing what I call the ?European? model where an inspector?s responsibility is to ?inspect and inform? as opposed to the ?North American? model where inspectors ?inspect and enforce.?

The basic theory in the European model is that inspectors carry no liability of any kind for their observations; however those observations are documented and therefore those who do carry liability have virtually no legal defense if they don?t correct something that later results in damages.

In the North American model, legally mandated inspectors typically carry no liability either. This does not include criminal acts such as bribery, of course. Essentially though they are not liable for incompetence, ?simple? negligence and usually ?gross? negligence; whereas owners, operators, designers (engineers), contractors, etc., are liable for things directly (and often indirectly) associated with their work or property.

?Incompetence? basically means someone doesn?t know what they are doing. ?Simple? negligence means they overlooked something most competent people would have recognized. ?Gross? negligence means they DID recognize a problem and overlooked it (usually hard to prove). ?Criminal? negligence means they overlooked it for illegal reasons, such as a bribe.

Of course, this doesn't mean a routinely incompetent or negligent legally mandated inspector will keep their job, simply that no damages may be charged to them or their bureau.

 

[apauling]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

jtester: I think that it's a language problem. If the inspector said that the installation is failed because it doesn't meet mimimum code or leagally adopted requirements, it is not your right to hold to your design. You must prove that it is to code and local amendments, or seek AHJ acceptance as an alternative design. Your engineer status does not trump code.

However, if the inspector said to change the wiring in your design, he would then start assuming some liability, as he would then be designing. Under that scenario, failing the job after all the work has been done is the only CYA option. In some government work helpful inspectors have been taught by obstinate pe's to just wait and fail it. The middle ground is loaded with obstacles like that. It is the legal loophole that allows contractors to seek extras for under-designed projects, and why government projects run to so much more than actually bid.

So failing the the job after all the work has been done is the safest path, and helpful inspectors are often hung out to dry with the bad inspectors, and everyone wonders why the process is so contentious. And why some inspectors turned into distant and unapproachable public servants, when they weren't in the first place.

The original poster needs to provide more info to see if there actually is a code violation, or to see if anyone knows the local amendments, or whether ther are reasons for appeal. Building departments usually post their appeal process or it is part of the permit documents. And legal paths do exist for seeking relief from incompetent building departments.

paul

 

[charlie b]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

Originally posted by apauling:However, if the inspector said to change the wiring in your design, he would then start assuming some liability, as he would then be designing.

I don't see it that way. An inspector cannot command that a design be changed. What the inspector can do is to fail the installation, and inform the owner/installer/designer that unless XYZ is done, the installation will remain in a "fail" status. That puts the ball back into the court of the owner/installer/designer. It is up to him/her/them to change the design, and/or to change the installation. The inspector does not become involved in the design process.

 

[inspector 102]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

I would agree that it is not the inspectors place to change a design issue. I also agree that many times an inspector may appear to be agruing when in fact it is simply code discussion. On may occassions I have entered into a conversation with a contractor and actually argued against the way something has been done to determine how the contractor views the installation and code issues. At the end of the discussion, I make the contractor aware that he is correct and I was simply testing his knowledge of code issues. Normally the next time I meet with this contractor, he would have study more and challenged me on a code issue. It soon becomes a game to see who can come up with the stranges installation scenario and how to address it with code application.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Uncooperative AHJ or Inspectors

I feel the need to add my .02 here.

As a contractor, I am required to pay the local municipality for the privelege of basing my business here, and for certain services to be performed by the local building authority.

I pay in the form of business licenses, business-owned personal-property taxes, permit fees, and for repeat inspections if I'm inept, along with a portion of my business income taxes.

I firmly feel that, in exchange for these non-negotiable fees and taxes, I am entitled (I know - strong word) to certain levels of expertise in their performance of their duties.

For example, plan drawing submissions are required to have many specifics; among them is an accurate size scale. Why? To make sure that locations, distances and clearances, as presented in the plans, are in compliance with the code.

To me, that means that the inspector, who is paid by the same employer as the plan reviewer, and probably even works in the same building, ought to be on the same page, so to speak, as far as how the building is to be assembled.

I have no problem catching non-compliant issues myself, as that's part of my job. However, since I have approved plans in my hand that the isnpector says are wrong, I do not expect to be stuck in the middle.

Now it's time for the inspector to talk to planning to resolve the difference, and if the inspector is correct, then the design enginneer has some explaining to do. In any case, I should not have to foot the bill.

So, Little John, as long as you get paid for the time and materials required to make the adjustments necessary, I would look at this situation as a last-minute change-order. Just ascertain where the money comes from.


Eprice, well said!