• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Inspection fines

CBOGUY

CBOGUY

REGISTERED
Joined
Apr 7, 2017
Messages
34
Location
Atlanta
Officials/Inspectors,

How do you address fines as it relates to demolishing homes without a permit?

Do you double fine them for the building permit or do you double fine them for the demo permit?

Generally- How have you address these issues within your jurisdiction?

Thanks
 
Demo only. Any fees or fines would be limited to the permit that should have been pulled.

If demo occurs and new work begins, then both.
 
We wouldn't either. We'd tell you you messed up, make you get the permit you should have gotten in the first place, and roll on.

I don't know if that's the "right" way or not, but it's how my bosses want it done...
 
It depends... If is someone who knows they should have gotten a permit then we double the fees for the permit they didn't get. If someone appears to legitimately not know they were supposed to get a permit we don't double the fees.
 
I operate like tmurray, if I know that they know they should have, double the demo permit fee. If it was a genuine mistake by a rookie, then I will let it slide.
 
The important thing to remember is that our job is not enforcement. Our job is always compliance. Sometimes we need to do enforcement to get compliance, but I have found, and I feel most on here would agree, that working with contractors gains compliance easier and faster than simply being an enforcement body. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to achieve compliance in the most cost effective way. The formula is likely a little different from one place to the next, but I would be surprised if it was drastically different.
 
Just a little more to add, if your entity chooses to "Double the permit fee" it should be backed by an ordinance unless the code you adopted has a section that allows it. Other than that, a summons to court with what ever violation they have committed is usually the enforcement path. But I think most people know there's a permit for demolition the issue maybe their perspective of what demolition means? Is pulling off paneling demo work requiring a permit?

Example: A house flipper working after hours might need a demo permit, might not?
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Just a little more to add, if your entity chooses to "Double the permit fee" it should be backed by an ordinance unless the code you adopted has a section that allows it. Other than that, a summons to court with what ever violation they have committed is usually the enforcement path. But I think most people know there's a permit for demolition the issue maybe their perspective of what demolition means? Is pulling off paneling demo work requiring a permit?

Example: A house flipper working after hours might need a demo permit, might not?
Click to expand...

Yes, my right to levy the double fee is amended into the IBC, IFC and IRC, surprisingly it is already in most of the other codes.
 
JCraver said:
We wouldn't either. We'd tell you you messed up, make you get the permit you should have gotten in the first place, and roll on.

I don't know if that's the "right" way or not, but it's how my bosses want it done...
Click to expand...

This is our policy with demos. Mostly glad to get them done by owners than us having to do them as our budget is limited for this. Doubling is what we do for other permits. By the way our demo permits are only $5, we want them to get rid of the old dilapidated structures.
 
Last edited:
We also may need to be careful about calling the doubled fees a "fine". Here, I cannot fine someone without also providing them with a court date.
 
tmurray said:
The important thing to remember is that our job is not enforcement. Our job is always compliance. Sometimes we need to do enforcement to get compliance, but I have found, and I feel most on here would agree, that working with contractors gains compliance easier and faster than simply being an enforcement body. Ultimately, it is our responsibility to achieve compliance in the most cost effective way. The formula is likely a little different from one place to the next, but I would be surprised if it was drastically different.
Click to expand...
Yes "but" as contractors they are suppose to "know" that a permit is required and not to begin work without one (in a perfect world).
If it "exists" then it must be permitted to remove it, failure to do so can lead to all sorts of issues.
 
ADAguy said:
Yes "but" as contractors they are suppose to "know" that a permit is required and not to begin work without one (in a perfect world).
If it "exists" then it must be permitted to remove it, failure to do so can lead to all sorts of issues.
Click to expand...
If it is a contractor. What if it is someone throwing an old shed in the back of their truck to run to the dump on a Saturday? They didn't even think to look to see if they needed a permit. Even if they did, most people can't interpret legal documents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top