Retaliatory Building Inspector? How to handle this situation.

[jakesktm]

Owner/Builder and Contractor [California]

Purchased a turn of the century home built in 1904. Pulled a permit to lift the home in place (the home was originally built as a balloon framed single story resting on 6' pier block with a brick stem wall foundation) and add a 2/1 unit (attached) underneath existing home (and all that it entails - new foundation, plumbing, electrical, mechanical to the ground). City was between building inspectors at the time and hired third party inspectors the whole time.

Company Z conducted the final inspection and the city issued a Certificate of Habilitability in 2019.

The house has been rented out since.

Fast forward to 2023.

I needed to replace the A/C units (window units) on the west facing bedrooms upstairs and pulled a permit to replace them with a 2-zone mini split. The front bedroom wall had no insulation I discovered so I began a partial demo to expose the wall so I could insulate. Company Z inspector drove by and red tagged the work saying I needed a demo permit. I didn't argue, apologized for my ignorance and went down the same day and paid the red tag fine and pulled a separate demo permit as he requested. His reasoning was that he wanted to see what was behind the wall. He also wanted the sheetrock tested for asbestos which came back negative.

I scheduled an inspection after removing the 100 sq feet of sheetrock, 10:00-11:00 am - The inspector no-showed. I called he didn't answer. I had to leave the job site.

I re-scheduled but could not be onsite the day he was available and left the unit accessible for the inspector. He showed up but said he couldn't get in. We rescheduled a third time. He no showed the third time with no phone call, nothing. I went down to the city building department and the clerk said the inspector wanted a $66 re-inspection fee.

At this point things went south. I told the building dept. manager the inspector no showed without notice so "no I'm not paying a re-inspection fee."

Inspector Z writes a scathing email calling me a liar and copies the email to all the city admin.

I respond to the email stating the above facts and asking for a new inspection date and request to meet with my contractor associate onsite.

The inspector shows up with a city police escort (I cannot make this up), and proceeds to tell my associate "he shouldn't have called me a liar" (for the record I never called him out as a liar, I just stated the problem).

He then proceeds to attack the 2019 Final Inspection (despite him being the inspector on the final) and wants me to open up walls, get engineering approvals, provide building plans, and that he will need to review the entire project again before I can proceed with the work. Zero inspection of the demo permit.

I have relayed my concerns to the city administration none of whom want to sit down and discuss. Instead I was offered to talk with the owner of Company Z.

What should I do at this point? Is it legal for the inspector to re-open an investigation into a project that has already been finaled and issued a certificate of habitability? What role does the city have to become involved?

 

[tmurray]

At this point, you should be seeking legal advice from a lawyer. Ask for code sections on all deficiencies the inspector is citing. Including administrative issues for pulling permits.

I would suggest that an inspector, specifically a third party inspector likely does not have the authority to unilaterally revoke a certificate.

As ridiculous as it sounds, sometimes all it takes is someone getting a lawyer to see some relief from rogue inspectors.

 

[north star]

H + H + H

** jakesktm **, ...I agree with ** tmurray ** !..........It's time to
"lawyer up" and request all documentation in writing.

H + H + H

 

[jar546]

What should I do at this point? Is it legal for the inspector to re-open an investigation into a project that has already been finaled and issued a certificate of habitability? What role does the city have to become involved?

Time for a lawyer and time to file a complaint with the building official or whoever is in charge of his department.

 

[ICE]

I am curious to know how this job panned out. Is it the same jurisdiction as the house that you own?

By the way, none of the pex is insulated.

 

[jakesktm]

I am curious to know how this job panned out. Is it the same jurisdiction as the house that you own?

By the way, none of the pex is insulated.

View attachment 10782

That got completely redone with fireblocking and all Pex inside an insulated chase.

 

[ICE]

The inspector that you are dealing with seems to be way off base. Your best bet is to enlist someone who knows the California code inside out and then go after the inspector. Lawyers are seldom versed in code and they are expensive.

Most likely, the inspector has a track record of bad behavior. Trying to revoke a final inspection is not that difficult if there are glaring code violations but I have never heard of an inspector doing that to his own approval. For what it's worth, I know inspectors that like to torture people for sport. It's not that hard to crush them.

 

[Mark K]

Agree with the need to get a lawyer.

You want to be professional but at the same time play hard ball.

Consider raising this issue at a City Council meeting they will likely not be able to respond but this should get the attention of the higher ups in the building department

 

[ICE]

Agree with the need to get a lawyer.

You want to be professional but at the same time play hard ball.

Consider raising this issue at a City Council meeting they will likely not be able to respond but this should get the attention of the higher ups in the building department

What??? … no engineer. How is a lawyer going to help without understanding the demands of the inspector? Winning or losing rises and falls on knowing the truth. That requires intimate knowledge of codes and the workings of a building department.

The people that manage the inspectors quite often lack any familiarity with codes. The city council, city manager, planning director are at the mercy of the inspector. The only way to beat the inspector is with the code. It might require a lawyer to get their attention but the lawyer knows even less than they do.

Get the inspector to put his demands in writing. Document every interaction that you have with the inspector, city, and contractor. Politely tell them to go pound sand. If they continue the assault, find a code professional with experience beating up a building department.

By the way, requiring a demolition permit for removing 100 sq.ft. of drywall is the first offense. The fine was the second.

 

[Joe.B]

What??? … no engineer. How is a lawyer going to help without understanding the demands of the inspector? Winning or losing rises and falls on knowing the truth. That requires intimate knowledge of codes and the workings of a building department.

A lawyer should know the legal system and how to properly employ an expert witness.

 

[jakesktm]

A lawyer should know the legal system and how to properly employ an expert witness.

... just the threat of this possibility is a motivational incentive during negotiations.

 

[ICE]

... just the threat of this possibility is a motivational incentive during negotiations.

There ya go. . Be sure to tell them that they are negotiating.

 

[jakesktm]

Does anyone know if there is a code section that allows the inpector to go outside the scope of work on a permit inspection?

 

[ICE]

Does anyone know if there is a code section that allows the inspector to go outside the scope of work on a permit inspection?

I do.
R105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.

 

[tmurray]

What??? … no engineer. How is a lawyer going to help without understanding the demands of the inspector? Winning or losing rises and falls on knowing the truth. That requires intimate knowledge of codes and the workings of a building department.

The people that manage the inspectors quite often lack any familiarity with codes. The city council, city manager, planning director are at the mercy of the inspector. The only way to beat the inspector is with the code. It might require a lawyer to get their attention but the lawyer knows even less than they do.

Get the inspector to put his demands in writing. Document every interaction that you have with the inspector, city, and contractor. Politely tell them to go pound sand. If they continue the assault, find a code professional with experience beating up a building department.

By the way, requiring a demolition permit for removing 100 sq.ft. of drywall is the first offense. The fine was the second.

The inspector is violating basic principles of procedural fairness in law. Any lawyer should be able to litigate that.

Fighting about the code is another option, but likely more challenging technically and time consuming. I'm not sure this strategy would work due to the negligent leadership at play.

Third option is going to the media. This has all the makings of an "egotistical government official abusing innocent members of the public" flavor that they love so much. However, relief using this strategy is questionable at best.

The inspector is a bully and the best way to deal with a bully is to not be an easy target. We don't have to prove him wrong (leadership doesn't care if he is wrong anyway, of they would have already stepped in), we just need to be an unattractive target for his abuses.

The real issue here is not the inspector. It is the derelict leadership in both the company and the city that allows attitudes like the one held by the inspector to run unchecked. Service to one's community is a privilege, using the position to inflate your ego is offensive.

 

[jakesktm]

Update: As of today I officially have an attorney. He isn't a building code expert, but he quickly understood the problem and has experience protecting citizens and small business from local government overreach. He sees this as a rogue inspector and a problem administration not able to deal with it.

I have not heard from the city or the inspection company. The last offer by the city was to talk with the company owner. The city clearly does not want to deal with it and has pushed me back to the inspector. I know the inspector and his boss and they are both bullies. I grew up being bullied so I can detect them a mile away. They are alpha man-children.

 

[ICE]

When I read the original post I got the idea that a hapless owner was being pushed around by an overbearing inspector. I even posted an offer to communicate by email to get a better understanding. Then I noticed the other posts by the OP. He is not an aggrieved owner but rather a savvy builder. I deleted my original post. I assumed that, like so many builders, code knowledge just isn't present.

Raising a 120 year old dwelling to place a second dwelling underneath it is not a simple project. And then this happened:

He then proceeds to attack the 2019 Final Inspection (despite him being the inspector on the final) and wants me to open up walls, get engineering approvals, provide building plans, and that he will need to review the entire project again before I can proceed with the work. Zero inspection of the demo permit.

There must be more to the story.....that's almost always the case. Now the OP has a lawyer. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that none of the players, not the inspector, his bosses, the OP or any of his associates and certainly not the lawyer, have sufficient code knowledge.

The issue for everybody is the retroactive violation notice. It's just not fair to come back years later and ask the OP to start over. Well it might not be fair but it may be warranted. The fact that it was delivered by a prick inspector should not negate the truth and so far, I don't know what the truth is.

 

[jakesktm]

When I read the original post I got the idea that a hapless owner was being pushed around by an overbearing inspector. I even posted an offer to communicate by email to get a better understanding. Then I noticed the other posts by the OP. He is not an aggrieved owner but rather a savvy builder. I deleted my original post. I assumed that, like so many builders, code knowledge just isn't present.

Raising a 120 year old dwelling to place a second dwelling underneath it is not a simple project. And then this happened:

There must be more to the story.....that's almost always the case. Now the OP has a lawyer. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that none of the players, not the inspector, his bosses, the OP or any of his associates and certainly not the lawyer, have sufficient code knowledge.

The issue for everybody is the retroactive violation notice. It's just not fair to come back years later and ask the OP to start over. Well it might not be fair but it may be warranted. The fact that it was delivered by a prick inspector should not negate the truth and so far, I don't know what the truth is.

there really isn't anymore to it. The inspector got his feeling hurt when I went above him to get the re-inspection fee waived after he no-showed.....twice. In response he nuked the entire situation into what it is now. I've had the Cerificate of Occupancy for over 3 years on this building and the place rented out. I went to the city and pulled the permit and the inspector drove by and immediately started getting involved. His fatal mistake was bringing a police officer into my tenent's home abesnt notice, exigent cause or administrative warrant. My subcontractor and the police officer are witnesses. Let's see how this pans out for the inspector.

 

[ICE]

His fatal mistake was bringing a police officer into my tenent's home abesnt notice, exigent cause or administrative warrant. My subcontractor and the police officer are witnesses. Let's see how this pans out for the inspector.

Obviously the entire conflict has nothing to do with codes...well except that the inspectors cudgel is the codes. It is odd that a police officer would enter an apartment without permission. If the officer is present for the protection of the inspector, perhaps the inspector's right to enter includes the police officer. Whatever the case may be, an illegal entry by a police officer Shirley will absolve you of any violation delivered to the property by a building inspector. Knowing that, there is no need for an explanation of the supposed code issue.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

It is for this precise reason that I require our staff to provide Code references for any deficiency/repair reports.

 

[Mark K]

Most things can be sorted out if everybody follows the rules. This is the reason for involving a lawyer. The lawyer doesn't need to have intimate knowledge of the building code. Raising the issue with the city council can be effective in motivating the building department.

Building inspectors need to understand they are not god. This problem is aggravated by the fact that in many cases it is easier to accommodate an improper demand than to fight it. This behavior denies the building inspector, and sometimes plan checker, of the feedback that they are not omnipotent.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Building inspectors need to understand they are not god. This problem is aggravated by the fact that in many cases it is easier to accommodate an improper demand than to fight it. This behavior denies the building inspector, and sometimes plan checker, of the feedback that they are not omnipotent.

Had a situation in our area about 13 years ago, where an over-zealous inspector went full-bore on a gent who used unstamped lumber and didn't provide the client all the paths to compliance.

They made a documentary about it, and then a movie. All buddy had to do was get an engineer to say "yep, them trusses is good" and OK the lumber.

Inspector tried to bulldoze the house.

 

[ICE]

in many cases it is easier to accommodate an improper demand than to fight it

It’s a regular epidemic.

 

[tmurray]

Had a situation in our area about 13 years ago, where an over-zealous inspector went full-bore on a gent who used unstamped lumber and didn't provide the client all the paths to compliance.

They made a documentary about it, and then a movie. All buddy had to do was get an engineer to say "yep, them trusses is good" and OK the lumber.

Inspector tried to bulldoze the house.

Buddy did have an engineer approve it. The inspector had that approval and rejected it. Inspector claimed that the engineer was not qualified to do the evaluation. There was no third-party peer review of the engineer's work, nor was a formal complaint put forward to the provincial engineering society, both of which you would expect to find when rejecting work by an engineer. The whole thing stank to high heaven and most in the industry at the time can't figure out how the inspector kept his job.

Movie is called "Still Mine" for those interested.