jakesktm
Registered User
Doesn't this only apply to commercial buildings?
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Retaliatory Building Inspector? How to handle this situation.
- Thread starter jakesktm
- Start date
Joe.B
Registered User
After looking closer 301A is specific to OSHPD.
I should have been looking in 301. Basically existing elements that were in compliance with the codes at the time are permitted to remain, as long as their safe. This is probably what I should have quoted:
302.3 Existing Materials
Materials already in use in a building in compliance with requirements or approvals in effect at the time of their erection or installation shall be permitted to remain in use unless determined by the code official to be unsafe.
jakesktm
Registered User
My project was a 2/1 addition underneath an existing (1904) balloon framed house. I lifted the existing house and platform framed the addition below. Then I lowered the existing house back down onto the ceiling joists of the new framed addition. I never touched anything above the floor joists of the original house. The inspector is saying the original house has to be brought to code :/
ICE
Oh Well
To what extent? Electrical, plumbing, HVAC, structural? It went from a ground floor to the second story of a two story building. It went from a SFR to a duplex. What updates and modifications took place over the last 119 years?
The sticking point is the fact that the project was approved and is now being scrutinized. It is for that reason that I presumed there is confusion all around.
As an aside….raising a 1904 dwelling to squeeze in another….who does that???
I had a project where the owner removed the roof structure on a ‘50s ranch style 1200 sq.ft house and built a two story over it. When I went through the front door I immediately found another front door. He needed a place for the family to live for the two years it took to build the new house. He then had to take the old house out through the new front door.…..That was another “who does that?” I might have posted pictures at the forum…if not, it was before 2011.
Last edited:
jakesktm
Registered User
He wants all walls insulated and fireblocked, and wants to inspect all walls for electrical and plumbing. Basically he wants everything upstairs opened up to inspection.
It is very common in residential downtown high density areas to lift a house to build under it. San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Portland, and coastal areas it is common to lift turn of the century homes and build under. There are many homes that require earthquake retrofit and foundation repair or replacement and the house gets lifted in place. If it wasn't common, I wouldn't have found a lift contractor so quickly and modestly priced.
ICE
Oh Well
What is the nexus between the previous certificate of occupancy and the current attention? Is there a code that mandates insulation when a previously unconditioned space is being outfitted with HVAC? Can we have a Venn diagram?
I read this thread again and there is no reason provided for scope of correction given. Apparently there isn’t even a building permit. Of course I don’t know the permitting procedure and it may not require a building permit yet a 10’x10’ bit of removed drywall required a demolition permit.
Last edited:
ICE
Oh Well
This is an issue that should have been addressed during the plan check process. It is unfair for the inspector to subject the project for a second plan check during construction. Such problems cost the owner more than what he was expecting to spend.
Remember the building department is not responsible for its mistakes. Also it doesn't seen that inspectors are always subjected to oversight from the plan checkers or the building officials so there may be inconsistencies in what the inspectors focus on and what the plan checkers focus on. They should complement each other instead of both attempting to plan check the project.
When the inspector identifies something that the plan checker supposedly missed good practice would be for the problem to be reported to the plan checker and or the building official.
A design professional should have been aware of the need to bring a building into compliance with the current code when a new story is added.
Sometimes a meeting with the building official can resolve some of the differences between what the plan checker required and what the inspector required.
ICE
Oh Well
It should never be “what a plan checker or inspector require”. It should always be what the Code requires. As an inspector, I make no apology for catching a code violation during an inspection that should have been caught during plan check.
ICE
Oh Well
You just can’t bring yourself to congratulate the inspector. I always went to the plan-checker and I never went to the BO.
I went to the plan-checker for an answer because perhaps I was wrong.
ICE
Oh Well
Unfair for whom exactly? The contractor, the owner, the plan-checker? Since when does “fairness” trump code.
ICE
Oh Well
If a mistake was made, it was made by the designer, architect, engineer or contractor. The building department didn’t design it or build it. Why would a building department be responsible for the mistakes made by others. You want to crap on a building department that didn’t catch your mistake. Or what’s worse, caught the mistake in a way that upsets you. That takes balls.
If the whole process is defeating you, perhaps you should make fewer mistakes.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
This is a procedural fairness thing. If the plans explicitly show something being constructed a certain way and the plans are approved, it is thought reasonable (at least in Canadian law) that the constructor proceed with the construction detailed on the plans in good faith on the assumption that it is acceptable. Courts in Canada don't differentiate between who made the mistake (plan review, building official, or inspector). If one person told the constructor one thing, then someone else from the same organization makes him change it (even if the first person is wrong and the second person is right), it is a violation of procedural fairness and the jurisdiction may be on the hook for the costs of the change.
There is of course an almost unending list of exceptions based on circumstances, some of which may only be visible from the field. There were times when I approved a plan review and then when in the field detected some other issue that was not captured in the plans and had them change the construction. That is not a violation of procedural fairness.
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
Huh? Best as I can tell, this is not universal to the Excited States (home of thee free and the exceptionally litigous.)
It is *certainly* untrue in Canadian law.
To assume that the building inspector is always right does not make sense.
To assume that the code is always clear and can only be interpreted one way is a odds with reality.
When a plan checker identifies a issue the design professional can discuss the problem with the plan checker and if necessary make changes. But when the inspector raises an issue this possibility often does not exist.
Because it is often faster and cheaper to accommodate the inspector than to appeal the interpretation, inspectors are denied the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.
If the plan checker is interpreting the code one way while the inspector interprets it another way the building department has problems. The owner of the project should not suffer because of these problems.
A building department, where the plan checkers perform a minimal plan check with the assumption that the inspectors will catch any problems, is not doing its job.. I sometimes have the impression that the inspectors are not subject to supervision by the building department.
To assume that the code is always clear and can only be interpreted one way is a odds with reality.
When a plan checker identifies a issue the design professional can discuss the problem with the plan checker and if necessary make changes. But when the inspector raises an issue this possibility often does not exist.
Because it is often faster and cheaper to accommodate the inspector than to appeal the interpretation, inspectors are denied the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.
If the plan checker is interpreting the code one way while the inspector interprets it another way the building department has problems. The owner of the project should not suffer because of these problems.
A building department, where the plan checkers perform a minimal plan check with the assumption that the inspectors will catch any problems, is not doing its job.. I sometimes have the impression that the inspectors are not subject to supervision by the building department.
ICE
Oh Well
It's not supposed to be a situation with winners and losers. There are obvious cases where starting over is not an option and there are many more with no alternative. If one has as a starting point that the builder is responsible for the outcome, there shouldn't be much of an argument. On the other hand, an assumed partnership between the builder and the AHJ gives rise to finger pointing. The odd man out here is the owner. Where is the protection for the owner if the AHJ turns a blind eye to a violation simply because it's not fair.
ICE
Oh Well
That is ridiculous anywhere but in your world. It doesn't happen. If it were a thing, just how often would it happen. I did the math and on the conservative side my failure rate is .001%. The majority of my mistakes were caught be me, a few were caught here at the forum and a small number were challenged by the contractor.
I am not unique. My experience is replicated universally.
And just for you ... I have caught hundreds of mistakes made by engineers. Some so bizarre that it was difficult to keep a straight face. And not once was I tempted to let it go because that would be faster and cheaper.
By the way, the use of the word "cheap" is a tell. The word cheap when used to describe ones work product demeans the end result. Try "less expensive" instead. That not only sounds professional but it conveys an interest in the other person's well being.
Last edited:
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
I have personally witnessed this. It's one of the reasons our shop requires code/standard references for any documentation requiring alteration of a building or a plan: that way, we have to look back to the Code, juuuuuuust to be sure.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
And his is where the system falls down on itself. If the AHJ is responsible for procedural fairness, but has statutory immunity, what incentive is there to correct the work? None. There is actually an incentive to leave the work as is.
The argument that the builder is responsible for outcomes, and the expanded; the owner hires the builder who is responsible for outcomes, therefore the owner is responsible for outcomes, have been tried in our courts and failed. The justice system asks, why does the building inspection regime exist if not to provide some level of security for owners?
ICE
Oh Well
The primary goal of every government agency is self preservation. Protecting individual property owners has never been a goal. Protecting society at large has been the stated goal. The justice system need only examine itself to see the idiocy of assigning poorly trained government eployees the task of protecting the owners during perhaps the most monumental transaction of their lives.
A building department is allowed to perform cursory inspections. I have heard the term "spot check" coming from management. If an individual desires personal attention to security/quality/competence then they must find that on their own.
Inspector Gadget
Registered User
I think this is a key difference between the U.S. systems, and the Canadian ones, from what I can gather.
In our legal system, the regulatory framework that requires inspections creates a legal obligation by the AHJ to conduct inspections. This duty of care leads into the requirement to conduct those inspections with a degree of engagement and competence.
jakesktm
Registered User
The building department, in this case a small one-man operation at the time of building plan submission, approved the engineered plan set to build a 2/1 addition. They issued a permit for add-on. Nowehere in the plan set was any work above the ceiling of the add-on. The house was lifted in place, and the upstairs lowered back onto the addition. The floor joists of the upstairs now became the ceiling joists and were tied into the platform framing.
The inspector named in the OP of this thread personally conducted the final inpection of the downstairs addition. He never went above the first floor, inpected everything inside and out from ground level, and signed off on the final.
Ressurecting a plan check and final inspection as a means of retaliation simply because I refused to pay a $67 re-inspection fee after he no-showed for a 10x10 demo permit is beyond procedural unfairness IMO. Don't forget, he showed up to the "re-inspection" with an armed police officer and proceeded to go through my tenenats entire apartment, not once making a notice of correction for the 10x10 wall he needed to inspect.
I think there is a serious problem with the city, the plan check process, the over-reliance on inspectors, and a general lack of understanding procedural fairness in the building department. They don't even have the legally mandated appeal board they are supposed to have.
We (My attorney and I) have not heard boo from the city since June 5th.
The inspector named in the OP of this thread personally conducted the final inpection of the downstairs addition. He never went above the first floor, inpected everything inside and out from ground level, and signed off on the final.
Ressurecting a plan check and final inspection as a means of retaliation simply because I refused to pay a $67 re-inspection fee after he no-showed for a 10x10 demo permit is beyond procedural unfairness IMO. Don't forget, he showed up to the "re-inspection" with an armed police officer and proceeded to go through my tenenats entire apartment, not once making a notice of correction for the 10x10 wall he needed to inspect.
I think there is a serious problem with the city, the plan check process, the over-reliance on inspectors, and a general lack of understanding procedural fairness in the building department. They don't even have the legally mandated appeal board they are supposed to have.
We (My attorney and I) have not heard boo from the city since June 5th.
ICE
Oh Well
Well duh! Pay the fee.
ICE
Oh Well
Were there no seismic issues to deal with? The inspector seems to be a trusting sort and you made the mistake of insulting him….in his own mind anyway.