• 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.

An average day

I am curious about the level of responsibility required of inspectors. Who is responsible for design & construction to code requirements? Is it the designer/engineer/contractor or the AHJ?
When something is not noticed in an early stage of inspection, that doesn't give a builder "a pass" on that item.
However, I suspect that an AHJ is also not in the business of full blown project management with quality control.
It seems that good contractors should appreciate the extra set of eyes provided by well-meaning and supportive inspectors who are interested in projects moving forward without nitpicking or searching out imperfection. For inspectors, I would hope that they are verifying conformance to approved plans with deferrence to plan reviewers when conflicts arise between proposed and actual construction.
 
watchdog said:
I am curious about the level of responsibility required of inspectors. Who is responsible for design & construction to code requirements? Is it the designer/engineer/contractor or the AHJ?
When something is not noticed in an early stage of inspection, that doesn't give a builder "a pass" on that item.
However, I suspect that an AHJ is also not in the business of full blown project management with quality control.
It seems that good contractors should appreciate the extra set of eyes provided by well-meaning and supportive inspectors who are interested in projects moving forward without nitpicking or searching out imperfection. For inspectors, I would hope that they are verifying conformance to approved plans with deferrence to plan reviewers when conflicts arise between proposed and actual construction.
Click to expand...


I think this may be jurisdiction dependent? For example - I'm the only one in my office. If I miss something on an inspection, and I see it the next time I'm there, I explain that I missed it and then make them / ask them to fix it. 90% of the contractors I deal with are regulars, and we know each other, so this has not yet been a problem. In an AHJ like ICE's and some of these other guys, where there are numerous inspectors and numerous contractors and they don't all know one another, I can see this as being a little more difficult to navigate. If I'm a contractor and have had 2, 3, 4 different inspectors on the job and all has went well, and then Number 5 shows up and starts nitpicking, I can understand how that can be a little hard to swallow.

In the end though, the code wins. If Number 5 can cite a code section for what he's writing up, there's not really any very good argument to be made for the contractor not to fix it.
 
watchdog said:
I am curious about the level of responsibility required of inspectors. Who is responsible for design & construction to code requirements? Is it the designer/engineer/contractor or the AHJ?
When something is not noticed in an early stage of inspection, that doesn't give a builder "a pass" on that item.
However, I suspect that an AHJ is also not in the business of full blown project management with quality control.
It seems that good contractors should appreciate the extra set of eyes provided by well-meaning and supportive inspectors who are interested in projects moving forward without nitpicking or searching out imperfection. For inspectors, I would hope that they are verifying conformance to approved plans with deferrence to plan reviewers when conflicts arise between proposed and actual construction.
Click to expand...
Ultimately code compliance is up to the designer, engineer, contractor and owner.

Here in Canada, the AHJ is required to have a reasonable inspection scheme to inspect critical components of the building and to detect obvious defects of construction at these stages. The AHJ is not required to detect defects between the inspections or to detect every minor violation, only those that can have a significant impact on life safety, thus the AHJ does not become the "insurer" of the work. Neither is every defect detected required to be corrected. The official must take into account the gravity of harm, likelihood of the harm and the cost to remedy the deficiency.

Two quick points:
1. It is completely expected that during construction even the most diligent contractor will violate the code, it is for this reason that building officials exist.
2. Building officials are not expected to be code enforcement robots and must use their discretion in enforcement of the code.

Both of those things were said (I'm paraphrasing) in decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada.
 
watchdog said:
I am curious about the level of responsibility required of inspectors. Who is responsible for design & construction to code requirements? Is it the designer/engineer/contractor or the AHJ?
When something is not noticed in an early stage of inspection, that doesn't give a builder "a pass" on that item.
However, I suspect that an AHJ is also not in the business of full blown project management with quality control.
It seems that good contractors should appreciate the extra set of eyes provided by well-meaning and supportive inspectors who are interested in projects moving forward without nitpicking or searching out imperfection. For inspectors, I would hope that they are verifying conformance to approved plans with deferrence to plan reviewers when conflicts arise between proposed and actual construction.
Click to expand...

Inspectors are responsible for assuring that construction meets code. The design and construction are done by the designer/engineer/contractor. What with them doing it I reckon they are responsible for code compliance as they go along. The AHJ will, hopefully, catch deviations from code as they go along.

"When something is not noticed in an early stage of inspection, that doesn't give a builder "a pass" on that item.
However, I suspect that an AHJ is also not in the business of full blown project management with quality control."

I don't see how those two sentences relate to each other. Obviously a mistake is a mistake whether it is found on Monday or Friday. Some mistakes need to be rectified no matter when they are found. Other mistakes may be trifling compared to the difficulty or expense created by a late call.

Some projects do require "full blown project management". It is naïve to think that inspectors sit back and observe in all cases. The last office that I worked in was had poor to middle income residents. The people and contractors are less sophisticated by a wide margin. There were more HO builders than there were contractors. Home Depot crews were the norm. If they don't know a damned thing about it, who do you suppose taught them. It's that or let them build crap.

Quality control is not my bag. If the windows are out of square the owner needs to squawk. There's a thread here about variation in a floor surface. I don't test the floors with a bowling ball....well not since the accident anyway.

"It seems that good contractors should appreciate the extra set of eyes provided by well-meaning and supportive inspectors who are interested in projects moving forward without nitpicking or searching out imperfection"

One in a hundred contractors tell me that they appreciate my diligence. The other 99 don't even try to feed me that BS. You mention nitpicking. I went back to the electrical job that I mentioned earlier and took a critical look at the corrections that I wrote. There's no nitpicking. The least of the corrections was "Staple the cable 4.5 ft on center in the attic and within 12" etc. Searching out imperfections is what I do.

Here's a picture:
35378246730_a6ee256312_b.jpg

And by the way, I could have gotten nitpicking with it. I like #11....as it was, the door would not close because of the stucco.


"For inspectors, I would hope that they are verifying conformance to approved plans with deferrence to plan reviewers when conflicts arise between proposed and actual construction"

So you are a plan checker hey. That's okay...When conflicts arise between the construction and the approved plans, I almost always ask that the two match.
 
Last edited:
tmurray said:
Two quick points:
1. It is completely expected that during construction even the most diligent contractor will violate the code, it is for this reason that building officials exist.
2. Building officials are not expected to be code enforcement robots and must use their discretion in enforcement of the code.
Click to expand...

I go to jail here if I use my discretion and something happens and someone can prove it....
 
well the code is now thicker than before - more things to look for and more to be aware of as we walk thru on inspection. A wire is stapled to the stud but it is 15" away from the box - does it still work yes. If it is not stapled at all does it work? Well yes.
When to be lenient and when to not. When it is unsafe hit them with the write up - if real unsafe shut it down.

As an inspector I am probably less strict than ICE some due to my clients and I have worked together for a long time.

Ice sees those low slope roofs with improper shingles and he hits them with a no go then his boss pushes it away.

Like JCraver I too work with "regulars". I've been here long enough to have seen good construction and seen bad construction. The other day a house had one anchor bolt without the nut screwed down - I did not write it down but went to the site supervisor and told him he had to start the whole house over - he looked at me with great surprise and as soon as I told him he told his laborer where the wrench was and sent him there directly. The site supervisor and I have know each other 15 years. Many years ago another contractor who was a very hard working man got me as his inspector because I was filling in for a private inspector and at that house every bolt did not have a nut and washer - I saw it and really laughed. This was late about 7:00 in the evening and that guy was still working on a house next door. I walked over and said I could not pass his house - his response was "that's my fault" and he asked if I could stay long enough to pass the inspection and he dragged a tired body up to the site and finished it on the spot. I happily gave him the go ahead. I have way more of those stories than the struggles that ICE has.

I have had builders that absolutely did not like me. I have had some clients who ask to talk to my boss. For me those both have been rare.

I don't know what advice to give you ICE except to tell you your photos have been valuable.
 
A commercial building here in town built in the 1970's had some water damage at windows and the owner wanted my opinion of what could be done. Upon inspection I discovered that there was no anchor bolts in the entire building. To think of how many earthquakes this has gone through. I told him he might want to invest in a structural engineer but also told him I did not think I could force him to remedy it. Similarly, I have a motel in my areas that was supposed to be sprinklered (missed at the original plan review [actually at the state level at that time]) when it was built but have no ordinance that can force it to be installed.
Both to me represent serious potential for "why was this not code compliant".
 
The inspector can't be responsible. Who knows what they do in the walls after the inspector leaves and the drywall goes up. The inspector would have to be in every room and every job 24 hours 7 days a week.
 
ICE said:
Inspectors are responsible for assuring that construction meets code. The design and construction are done by the designer/engineer/contractor. What with them doing it I reckon they are responsible for code compliance as they go along. The AHJ will, hopefully, catch deviations from code as they go along.

"When something is not noticed in an early stage of inspection, that doesn't give a builder "a pass" on that item.
However, I suspect that an AHJ is also not in the business of full blown project management with quality control."

I don't see how those two sentences relate to each other. Obviously a mistake is a mistake whether it is found on Monday or Friday. Some mistakes need to be rectified no matter when they are found. Other mistakes may be trifling compared to the difficulty or expense created by a late call.

Some projects do require "full blown project management". It is naïve to think that inspectors sit back and observe in all cases. The last office that I worked in was had poor to middle income residents. The people and contractors are less sophisticated by a wide margin. There were more HO builders than there were contractors. Home Depot crews were the norm. If they don't know a damned thing about it, who do you suppose taught them. It's that or let them build crap.

Quality control is not my bag. If the windows are out of square the owner needs to squawk. There's a thread here about variation in a floor surface. I don't test the floors with a bowling ball....well not since the accident anyway.

"It seems that good contractors should appreciate the extra set of eyes provided by well-meaning and supportive inspectors who are interested in projects moving forward without nitpicking or searching out imperfection"

One in a hundred contractors tell me that they appreciate my diligence. The other 99 don't even try to feed me that BS. You mention nitpicking. I went back to the electrical job that I mentioned earlier and took a critical look at the corrections that I wrote. There's no nitpicking. The least of the corrections was "Staple the cable 4.5 ft on center in the attic and within 12" etc. Searching out imperfections is what I do.

Here's a picture:


And by the way, I could have gotten nitpicking with it. I like #11....as it was, the door would not close because of the stucco.


"For inspectors, I would hope that they are verifying conformance to approved plans with deferrence to plan reviewers when conflicts arise between proposed and actual construction"

So you are a plan checker hey. That's okay...When conflicts arise between the construction and the approved plans, I almost always ask that the two match.
Click to expand...

Actually, my experience is in construction defect cases & forensic investigation. I find it interesting and helpful to get insight into the process that occurs during design & construction.
 
watchdog said:
I am curious about the level of responsibility required of inspectors. Who is responsible for design & construction to code requirements? Is it the designer/engineer/contractor or the AHJ?
When something is not noticed in an early stage of inspection, that doesn't give a builder "a pass" on that item.
However, I suspect that an AHJ is also not in the business of full blown project management with quality control.
It seems that good contractors should appreciate the extra set of eyes provided by well-meaning and supportive inspectors who are interested in projects moving forward without nitpicking or searching out imperfection. For inspectors, I would hope that they are verifying conformance to approved plans with deferrence to plan reviewers when conflicts arise between proposed and actual construction.
Click to expand...


Welcome
I know a few after action inspectors such as yourself.

I believe everyone up and down the line is responsible for making sure a building meets minimum code.


""" For inspectors, I would hope that they are verifying conformance to approved plans with deferrence to plan reviewers when conflicts arise between proposed and actual construction""


I disagree here, if the inspector is calling something out, hopefully they know a code section to back it up, yes some time a conference with other workers is needed or a few minutes researching also.
 
watchdog said:
Actually, my experience is in construction defect cases & forensic investigation. I find it interesting and helpful to get insight into the process that occurs during design & construction.
Click to expand...

I have stories.
While I was still in college a woman showed up looking for help from the people that taught the inspection program. She had gotten involved with a city redevelopment program and contractors pretty much ruined her home. The instructors asked me to look into it. In the end, the city bought the property and paid another her $50k for the grief. I got a nice chunk too. That was 20 years ago. I had to use a movie camera and Snapper to make a good looking 60 page report. On top of that, I didn't know what I didn't know. I even represented her with the city's risk management team. I enjoyed doing it.
 
Last edited:
conarb said:
So why didn't she sue the city?
Click to expand...
The woman approached the city looking for help with a busted furnace. The Redevelopment Agency loaned her $42,000 for work that the city controlled. The city picked the contractor. The city controlled the purse. The city inspected the work. I found a similar case where Wells Fargo did the same and was judged to be the contractor. Wells lost and so did the city. The ridiculous mess that the contractor created is what tripped up the city....that and my penchant for writing corrections. I also found a bunch of irregularities in the way they went about it. Big government gives little government money to blow but it comes with rules on how it is blown. They didn't follow the rules. I'm pretty sure that they gave up rather than have a bad day in court. They wrote off the $42,000 and bought the house at fair market as if the work had been done correctly. The extra $50K was a jolt.

I lived near there. In the beginning I was described as a "building inspector wannabe" by the building official. It must have hurt his feelinfgs to done in by a wannabe inspector.

One of the lawyers that I asked to take the case offered to put me through law school if I would agree to work for him for a minimum of five years after becoming a lawyer. I had just completed a year of school and gotten all of the certs....the lawyer was a sleaze....but you knew that.....so here I am.

I enjoyed working for the woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
35045467004_2d8ec908ab_b.jpg

The plans are rather vague but it is clear that there will not be any support from the floor for the cantilevered portion of the landing. There is not room for anything but a car hood.

35884937985_a0c740071c_b.jpg

Note the HD that is screwed to a 4"x post.


35884938255_0822968d7b_b.jpg

The post with the HD attached has been severed to let in the beam.


35884939105_e121868286.jpg

The structural observation report stated that no deficiencies were found. The plate washers on the anchor bolts are too small.

Perhaps the engineer was upset at the mess that he had to wade through to observe the construction.
 
Last edited:
Could be cabled from above if engineered, but I bet that's not on the plans. How does that get through review?

Plate washers on the anchor bolts too small? Look's like the anchor bolts are not set deep enough or over sized.

I think the anti-gravity paint, was recalled last month.... steveray, could you check that?;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top