• 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

Holding the Inspectors and Building Department Accountable?

jar546

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,046
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
This just went into effect in Florida July 1st, 2021. Here is an excerpt from HB 667


(7)(a) A local enforcement agency must refund 10 percent of the permit and inspection fees to a permit holder if:

1. The inspector or building code administrator determines that the work, which requires the permit, fails an inspection;

and

2. The inspector or building code administrator fails to provide, within 5 business days after the inspection, the permit holder or his or her agent with a reason, based on compliance with the Florida Building Code, Florida Fire Prevention Code, or local ordinance, for why the work failed the inspection.

(b) If any permit and inspection fees are refunded under paragraph (a), the surcharges provided in s. 553.721 or s. 468.631 must be recalculated based on the amount of the permit and inspection fees after the refund.
 
I note that it does not appear that the official has to provide the actual section number, just the reason. In that situation, I would agree with Keystone, it is very onerous on the builder.

It would be interesting to see if the courts find a plain English reason for why the inspection fails as sufficient to meet the intent of the law, or if a section number is also required.
 
It does not state you have to provide a code section. It states you have to provide a "reason". It could be in the specs which are part of the construction drawings. Or it could be with the batch ticket for the concrete or any number of referenced referenced standards that are in the code
 
jar546 said:
a reason, based on compliance with the Florida Building Code, Florida Fire Prevention Code, or local ordinance, for why the work failed the inspection.
Click to expand...
Close enough...Devil would be in the details as to whether or not your code/ statutes requires compliance with the con docs.....
 
What happens when a corretion is overruled? The phrase "with a reason, based on compliance with" could result in a problem for inspectors that are incompetant.
 
Doesn't the inspection report that's left at the site call out the failed inspection item? That meets the 5 day rule.
 
tmurray said:
I note that it does not appear that the official has to provide the actual section number, just the reason. In that situation, I would agree with Keystone, it is very onerous on the builder.

It would be interesting to see if the courts find a plain English reason for why the inspection fails as sufficient to meet the intent of the law, or if a section number is also required.
Click to expand...
I noticed and interpret it the same way. Why but not a code section. So "Failure to maintain 1/4" per foot pitch" is suffice without citing the code section.
 
jar546 said:
Incompetent :)
Click to expand...
The TheCommish wrote that.

When the regulation says "based on" there is a clear intent to require evidence of the basis of the correction. IE a code section.

It doesn't say that the recipient must request the reason either. So you might as well build in the refunds at the start. Does this apply for every time the work fails inspection?

The legislators haven't a clue.
 
Last edited:
jar546 said:
I noticed and interpret it the same way. Why but not a code section. So "Failure to maintain 1/4" per foot pitch" is suffice without citing the code section.
Click to expand...
I think the turn around time for inspection results without a code section should be provided relatively quickly. We provide them within 24 hours of the inspection (typically same day). We let the contractor know if they are on site, but always send them an email as well, which helps to make sure they have everything done on the list before we get a call back.

If the requirement is intended to also provide a section number, my worry is that this will bog down staff to the point where additional staff needs to be brought on. I have an issue with increasing quantity of work without necessarily the quality, but that is just the Lean Six Sigma training in me.
 
In Oregon we are required to cite the code section or ordinance for each correction we write.

918-098-1900
Corrective Notices — Cite-it Write-it Requirement

In addition to any other requirements set forth in statute and rule, all building officials, inspectors and plans examiners certified under Division 098, OAR 918-225-0540, 918-281-0020, 918-695-0400, and ORS 460.055 must include an exact reference to the applicable specialty code section, Oregon administrative rule, or statute, when issuing corrective notices at construction sites or to buildings or related appurtenances during a plan review while administering or enforcing a building inspection program. The building official, inspector, or plans examiner must include a plain statement of facts upon which the citation for correction action is based.
 
ORinspector said:
In Oregon we are required to cite the code section or ordinance for each correction we write.

918-098-1900
Corrective Notices — Cite-it Write-it Requirement

In addition to any other requirements set forth in statute and rule, all building officials, inspectors and plans examiners certified under Division 098, OAR 918-225-0540, 918-281-0020, 918-695-0400, and ORS 460.055 must include an exact reference to the applicable specialty code section, Oregon administrative rule, or statute, when issuing corrective notices at construction sites or to buildings or related appurtenances during a plan review while administering or enforcing a building inspection program. The building official, inspector, or plans examiner must include a plain statement of facts upon which the citation for correction action is based.
Click to expand...
wow
 
I could do without the last sentence in the Oregon rule.....But it is on the right track.....If I have to give them the code section, I shouldn't have to give a "plain statement of facts" as well...Whatever that is...
 
I cite the code section. I find it cuts way down on arguments and "why's". It forces them to look it up and figure out a path to compliance on their own, and leaves little room for argument. I recently asked for an accessible service counter on a plan that had a 2'1" wide counter section for a parallel approach, citing the section for providing accessible service counters, giving them options; widen it to 36" , or make it a forward approach at 30". Otherwise I would have either limited their options or had to write a bunch of "ifs" and "ors". It takes a little more time sometimes to look up the citation, but the savings in resubmittals and hassles makes up for it. I encourage everyone to use this method whenever possible, but most do not. To each his/her/its own.

I still get some arguments, but usually not on the merit of the citation, more on the "we can't", or "we don't want to" basis, with an admission that they don't meet the code as written. When they take the time to read the code they usually figure out what they did wrong and form a plan to achieve compliance. When they don't take the time, my first question is -why not? For me personally, I have found the level of irritation in the arguments is lowered when they come into it with an understanding that I am not making something up, because it is "right there in black and white", and when they enter the conversation with an admission that they don't meet the code. The dialogue is just better.

Finally, I think it makes me a better building official. Often, when I look up the citation and re-read it for myself, I am challenging my own assumptions, and find that what I thought was "right there in black and white" really isn't, and I avoid a mistake. I try very hard to administer only what the code explicitly requires, looking up the sections myself over and over helps me with that.

I fully admit I have more time do this than a field inspector, but even back when I did that I usually cited a code, but if I couldn't due to time constraints, made darn sure I could if asked to. I also strongly believe that doing this on the PE side helps the field inspector, especially in the case of a red-line on an accepted plan.
 
This was probably driven by some lobbyist on behalf of a contractors association, cuz you mean ol’ inspectors are just making up most of the rejections.

They need to be careful what they ask for … if I was an inspector, my inspection tickets would consist of nothing but IBC paragraph numbers … let them figure out the details.
 
How long before an inspection takes place on a Wednesday, national holiday on a Thursday and inspector decided to take off that Friday for the extra long weekend. The inspector returns Monday and has a full plate, no time to cite a “reason” but gets to it on a Tuesday. That exceeds 5 days, the verbiage states 5 days not business days.

Add this to the many comments above, all ya Fl inspectors get ready to have several amendments along the way. If ya have the opportunity to be proactive I’d suggest doing so and addressing the entity.
 
e hilton said:
if I was an inspector, my inspection tickets would consist of nothing but IBC paragraph numbers … let them figure out the details.
Click to expand...
I would do that with design professional's when I did plan review. A lot of correction requirements are not "code" the contractor is not following the plans or specs and that is all the reason that is needed.
 
We are loosing track of the fundamentals.

We are a country of laws. If a government representative imposes a requirement that is not based on a properly adopted law, the government representative is acting illegally. If the government representative is not able to justify the requirement based on the adopted laws then the assumption should be that the requirement is not valid.

Yes to the rule of law. No to autocrats.
 
e hilton said:
This was probably driven by some lobbyist on behalf of a contractors association, cuz you mean ol’ inspectors are just making up most of the rejections.

They need to be careful what they ask for … if I was an inspector, my inspection tickets would consist of nothing but IBC paragraph numbers … let them figure out the details.
Click to expand...
When there are "issues" with a contractor, I explain nothing and just cite code sections. In the end it just ends up causing a bunch of phone calls that take more time but they get it at the end of the day. Yes, be careful what you wish for.
 
Keystone said:
How long before an inspection takes place on a Wednesday, national holiday on a Thursday and inspector decided to take off that Friday for the extra long weekend. The inspector returns Monday and has a full plate, no time to cite a “reason” but gets to it on a Tuesday. That exceeds 5 days, the verbiage states 5 days not business days.

Add this to the many comments above, all ya Fl inspectors get ready to have several amendments along the way. If ya have the opportunity to be proactive I’d suggest doing so and addressing the entity.
Click to expand...
Everyone that works in my department uses an app that is part of our permitting software. Inspections are resulted in real time at the jobsite and can include photos so there is no excuse to not result before you leave for the day. It is not fair to the contractors to have to wait until after a weekend to be told why you failed an inspection.
I do realize that there are very, very rare circumstances where you have to take the time to research and that is where the 5 days comes in.
 
Our basic software has the general code section imbedded in the report already
 

Attachments

  • 89477915-0AC9-4546-8A0B-6999259C0FA4.jpeg
    89477915-0AC9-4546-8A0B-6999259C0FA4.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 8
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top