What to do now

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mike n

Member
What is my recourse?Almost two years ago I began an electrical service change for a long time customer. In addition to the service change there was also a new kitchen to wire .My original plan was to come off the new service with a sub- panel to feed kitchen.In two days I roughed the kitchen and installed the sub panel.The sub was connected to the existing 60a service so I could give her temp power for the refridgerator.Well things sped up, and in three days time she had the job boarded and plastered(before I could pull permit) She has since run out of money,and my work remains undone.I never pulled permit because I didn't want to see her walls taken down, I also trimmed out the kitchen in good faith.I am not interested in money owed,but only liability.In retrospect I should of pulled a permit before I started. Any advice? Thanks
 
The permit should have been filed before you began any of the work. But at this point if the job was done to code I wouldn't worry either. What's worse, a job full of violations that has passed inspection or a code compliant one that wasn't inspected? Yes there are penalties for not filing for the job, but IMO from a liability standpoint, code compliance is more important than taking out a permit.
 
There were no permits what so ever,no contract,but up to code in every way.The only thing was the 100a panel (fed off the main lugs of the original panel, which is protected by a 60a main)which I was going to tie into the future new service.This job has been just a pain in the back side.
 
No permit
No contract
The only remaining paperwork that could establish a papertrail would be a cancelled check,CC statement or other type reciept.


Paperwork with your name on it does not neccessarily mean you were there doing any work. Estimates and sketches only establish you looked at the job.

No cancelled check/reciept, no papertrail.
No papertrail, no liability
 
Some things are better off left alone. FWIW, if an electrician explained the entire story to me, I'd most likely issue a permit and inspect what's visible now. Likewise, I'd issue the building permit to homeowner. I'd bet I'd be of the minority of inspectors who would, though.

As far as liability, I believe you shoulder the same liability whether permit was obtained or not. I've heard of insurance companies trying not to pay a claim if a permit was not obtained, but have no first hand knowledge of whether this is true.
 
j_erickson said:
Some things are better off left alone. FWIW, if an electrician explained the entire story to me, I'd most likely issue a permit and inspect what's visible now. Likewise, I'd issue the building permit to homeowner. I'd bet I'd be of the minority of inspectors who would, though.

As far as liability, I believe you shoulder the same liability whether permit was obtained or not. I've heard of insurance companies trying not to pay a claim if a permit was not obtained, but have no first hand knowledge of whether this is true.
Click to expand...


I agree on the liability issue. Just because you get a permit and an inspection you're not indemnified from any loss that may result from the job not being code compliant.
 
I agree on the liability issue to a point. A permit and inspection does not indemnifly the contractor. Liability isn't determined by the NEC or by the local inspector or even the Fire Marshal's office. For you to be liable for damages it will most often be determined by the court system and based on forensic evidence. Would you rather be in court with a passed inspection copy to present as evidence or just your word that the job was code compliant when you left it. There is a chance that others will tamper with your work once you have left the job ( they probably will not come forward and admit this). If you did anything wrong you are responsible and that's as it should be but my greatest fear is being held responsible for the work of others.

I try to keep my work as segregated and documented as well as possible to limmit liability. If you don't permit and document your work then it's your word against their's as to what was really done. I installed a sub panel a few months ago that did not have the proper clearance in the front ( only 33") but the inspecter gave permission. I have it documented and witnessed by the homeowner ( the inspector could have made them move a closet and he didn't ). Now if someone is ever hurt while working on this panel I hope that I can prove that the closet was built incorrectly after the panel was installed. Without permit and documentation it would be my word against theirs.

I really don't believe in the idea of no paper trail no liability. There may be those that saw the work being done. If you end up in court then you will look very un-professional. It could appear that you are trying to hide something. Remember that liability will probably be decided by a man in black robe and possibly twelve people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty ( if someone is seriously injured or killed ). The more you appear competent the better.
 
You might want to look into getting a lawyer. There is no easy way out. To keep making bad decisions or by lying is not going to help your situation. File an after the fact permit for the work that has been completed and see what kind of considerations you can get with the AHJ. The contractual (or lack there of) issue is between you and the HO; the building department will not get involved.
 
bphgravity said:
You might want to look into getting a lawyer. There is no easy way out. To keep making bad decisions or by lying is not going to help your situation. File an after the fact permit for the work that has been completed and see what kind of considerations you can get with the AHJ. The contractual (or lack there of) issue is between you and the HO; the building department will not get involved.
Click to expand...

I agree lying is a bad idea, as is any attempt to conceal what actually transpired.

As long as the work you did was done in a safe manner, your liability is limited. But it is not zero. Even if you are completely free of guilt you can still get sued over it. The permit, or even a passed inspection does not protect you from being sued or from being found liable for damages.

The permit situation is a separate issue. I don't know what the story is in your jurisdiction, or how they would see this. I doubt a lawyer is going to do you much good. This seems more like something you might want to run by a savvy EC in the area. Filing for a permit after the fact may make the building department upset with you for not filing in the first place, or they may not care, or even think you did well to eventually file. Is there some kind of statute of limitations on penalties for not filing for a permit?

By filing, you may open up a can of worms for the HO that may cause you more grief. Since you have at least some responsibility for this situation, being as you chose not to get a permit, you may have some liability to the HO to fix the situation at your cost.

This could turn out to be a "let sleeping dogs lie" situation.
 
Last edited:
mike n,

I agree with others that this is a sensitive issue. Whether one acts or doesn't is up to a few more facts.

I paid close attention to your description of the work, and I have a couple of things that weren't clear to me.

Was the service size upgrade from the existing 60 amps started? I think you are saying no.

Was the load to the service increased? In particular, is the calculated load beyond the capacity of the 60 amp service?
 
j_erickson said:
Some things are better off left alone. FWIW, if an electrician explained the entire story to me, I'd most likely issue a permit and inspect what's visible now. Likewise, I'd issue the building permit to homeowner. I'd bet I'd be of the minority of inspectors who would, though.

As far as liability, I believe you shoulder the same liability whether permit was obtained or not. I've heard of insurance companies trying not to pay a claim if a permit was not obtained, but have no first hand knowledge of whether this is true.
Click to expand...

This is true of at least one Company that sells a lot of HO policies. They inspect home before or shortly after policy is issued. If a claim is filed and they find any work done without proper permit it voids the policy. It is writter right into the policy.....you know if you get out your magnifying glass, it is right there just as plain as can be.
 
This seems to be a no-win situation for everyone. I agree that the BEST course of action would be to apply for the permit and inspection after-the-fact with apologies for not doing so earlier. The problem is that there were probably other permits/inspections required (building, plumbing, etc.) for which the other trades or the homeowner did not apply. This could really get messy. A heart-to-heart talk with a building official in your jurisdiction may be in order. Perhaps you could get some advice from them without revealing the name or location of the work and then proceed accordingly. These homeowners that want work done "under the table" don't understand the problems that they cause for honest people trying to make a living or the issues that can arise when something goes wrong.
 
I attend many "Board of Appeals" and contractor hearings both in my city and at the state BCAI meetings. Many cases sound an awful lot like this one and usually end with the contractor paying a fairly large fine and even possibly losing their license for awhile...

Don't mess around with your livelihood. Florida for one is very strict on these types of rules. There have been too many cases of scams on the elderly and dirty contractors coming in after hurricanes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top