• 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

Credentials to review and inspect questioned?

rktect 1

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,109
Location
Illinois
I recently had an email come to me and ask if a permit would be required for a plug and play stair lift for a single family home. I asked him a few questions like will new electrical be required or if this was a group home etc etc. Along with getting the answers back I was questioned as to what qualifies us to even review this or inspect it. Depending on my answer he wrote that these were questions he would bring up at the "right time". :eek: I was asked to let him know asap as the ladys hip and knees are preventing her from sleeping in her bedroom.

I love this job. :confused:;)

And yes, I did explain to him our qualifications which IMHO are substantial. Asked him to contact me if he detailed information on our qualifications for his education
 
"Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!

Aske them if they have a business license?:D
 
Its a SF, ADA doesn't apply. If it is a plugin it is an accessory item. Is this a group home or just a homeowner asking?
 
Before I answer questions I ask for the address. There’s no point in having a discussion if the property is not within our jurisdiction.

When asked what qualifies you to review or inspect you might remind him that you didn’t volunteer.....
 
Last edited:
Is this the building code forum or the electrical inspectors/ electricians forum. I think it's the TBCF.
 
Depending on my answer he wrote that these were questions he would bring up at the "right time". :eek:
That sounds like he was urging you to give him the answers he wanted. I'd like to know what, if anything, comes of that. I've had some similar situations. They leaned more toward what gave us the right to require permits and inspect "small" jobs instead of credentials. I have explained that in addition to the code, our city has strict ordinances regarding what has to be permitted and inspected, and its part of the price of living in a nice area.

Here's a fact sheet that might save someone a long email or phone call: International Code Council Fact Sheet
 
Yes . Somewhere in the United states of America we lost common sense. Now ruled by codes that are forced upon us. Many of which are not given a reason why. Yes we need to live by rules. But they need to be explained why. Simple. I learn something everyday of my life. Don’t claim to know everything. I’m so willing to learn any reason why. But so hard for these people ;that take their authority , and think they,don’t need to tell us what to do , with out a reason.
 
Well I reckon that if it's in the code that's reason enough.
I ran into this mentality for the first time the other day. He told me "I have a right to be satisfied knowing why this is required". I told him as the authority having jurisdiction, I am the one who must be satisfied, not the other way around.

Of course, this was after multiple attempts to explain the code requirements to him, so I was a little less diplomatic than I usually am.

Alternatively, we could send these people to the code authors to have their questions answered.
 
Some people just want to know the why and I do my best to accommodate them. Others frame it as a challenge as if they will not do it if I can't explain the why. Sometimes I just don't have the time and then there's the folks that don't have the ability to understand.
 
The applicant/Owner has a right to understand the basis for what the jurisdiction requires. This means that the inspector, or reviewer must as a minimum be able to point to a specific code provision. This may still require that the Owner consult with an architect or engineer but it allows the Owner and his or her consultants to make decisions. If we do not recognize this right then we have abandoned the rule of law and are being ruled by autocrats.

In general there is nothing to require that individuals in the building department have any credentials. California has made a step to address this by recognizing that certain individuals in building departments need to be licensed as an engineer or architect.

There is a fundamental problem with the current system that allows an individual with little or no qualifications to enforce regulations when he or she has no understanding of the regulations. True there are some individuals who may have some qualifications but in general that is not required.
 
When asked I do my best to explain but I know I don't have all the answers(not that arrogant). Sometimes I have to educate myself so I can educate them. Still, sometime I don't find the answers to why it's code.o_O
 
The applicant/Owner has a right to understand the basis for what the jurisdiction requires. This means that the inspector, or reviewer must as a minimum be able to point to a specific code provision. This may still require that the Owner consult with an architect or engineer but it allows the Owner and his or her consultants to make decisions. If we do not recognize this right then we have abandoned the rule of law and are being ruled by autocrats.
We are not arguing if a code section should not be provided, but if the contractor is entitled to an explanation as to why the code requires an item from the inspector. I'm not against explanations. Much of the time, these explanations help contractors and owners meet the code requirements in creative ways that work for them. The challenge I get is when someone doesn't want to do what the code says and creates this false standard of care where unless I can explain why it is a code requirement to their satisfaction, it shouldn't be required and they will not comply. As Steveray said,

I don't have the time nor the crayons to explain it to you Sir....
 
I don't mind explaining the origin of a code if I know it. But the contractor that request the section and the reason for a cited code is in the same boat, he should be accountable and know his trade.
 
I don't mind explaining the origin of a code if I know it. But the contractor that request the section and the reason for a cited code is in the same boat, he should be accountable and know his trade.
I usually ask them to pull out their code book and I will show them the code section....I think twice someone had a book. When they don't I tell them I win then...
 
There is a fundamental problem with the current system that allows an individual with little or no qualifications to enforce regulations when he or she has no understanding of the regulations. True there are some individuals who may have some qualifications but in general that is not required.
While I chafe at your frequent characterizations of inspectors as buffoons, that is because the members of this forum are anything but. That said, I concur with the label for the general population of inspectors. In fact it's much worse than you might have imagined. I have many examples of ineptitude, dishonesty, malfeasance and downright bullying.

Does that matter? The average contractor/trades-person knows less about code than the average lousy inspector. Half of all construction is not inspected. In some locales all construction is not permitted or inspected. What are the results of this? Are houses bursting into flames? Are people suffocating in their sleep? Well no. So what does that mean for the worth of what we do? Are we more than a fly in the ointment? I'm not so sure.

There is an intentional dumbing down in the ranks of inspectors. The less an inspector does, the smoother is the existence for managers. Observe the path that California prepared for the solar industry. We used to perform a racking inspection as well as a final inspection. I would find ample reason for that inspection. The legislature dictated that we are now allowed just one inspection and of course that's a final inspection. Soon we will not be allowed to perform a plan check. The end of the road will be self certification by the contractors.

It is rooftop, electrical and brought to us by flimflam artists. Other segments of the construction industry are paying attention

It was not like this twenty-five years ago.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind explaining the origin of a code if I know it. But the contractor that request the section and the reason for a cited code is in the same boat, he should be accountable and know his trade.
Yes and own a copy of the code.
 
If they want to know the origin, I point them to the ICC site, and tell them if they do some digging, they can find the rationale and code changes there. My job is to administer the current adopted codes. Happy to quote section and verse.

I have also used steverays approach, fun to see the hem and haw about why they don't have one there. :rolleyes:
 
Last week, I told the concrete floor crew other day that they needed to remove the excess mud off the rebar and they asked why? I did not know the code and had trouble finding it in the field, so should I've kept my pie hole shut? Was I bullying?

Let's poll! ..put on your red dress... and let's poll!

Do you say the following:
1) Because I said so?
2) Because it's code?
3) Because I'm gonna tell your mother?
4) Cuz the Architect or Engineer wants it that way? *Not indicated on the plans to remove the mud from the rebar.
5) IBC 104, gives me the right too! (Please read this section prior to polling)

I vote #5.
 
Top