• 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?

Another item for spec writers to address but many projects do not have specs and what of contractors responsibility to know and have a copy of the code on site?
 
While we would wish that the Contractor knew the code there is no code requirement that there be a copy of the code on the construction site.

As far as the building department is concerned it is the Owner's not the contractor's responsibility to comply with the code . The building department can stop the job or refuse to issue certificate of occupancy but if any formal legal action is taken it would be against the property and the owner of the property.

Any obligation the contractor has to comply with the building code is a contractual obligation between the owner and the contractor.

In California as far as the Contractor's licensing board is concerned the contractor is only responsible for code compliance if there is no architect or engineer. When here is a licensed architect or engineer is involved their position is that the contractor only need comply with the construction documents. But this only is relevant with respect to complaints with the licensing board against the contractor.
 
Interesting Mark. I suspect you enforce IBC accesibility requirements but not the federal ones, correct? It seems the feds have gone after the designers and builders, as well as the owners I presume.
 
I am an engineer who designs buildings not a regulator.

The building department can only enforce those laws that they have the authority to enforce. Unless the feds have delegated enforcement of federal ADA to building departments the department is limited to enforcing the accessibility requirements in the building code. What gives building department authority to enforce Federal regulations?
 
What gives building department authority to enforce Federal regulations?
I found this:
IBC2012 Chapter 11, User notes: First paragraph, last sentence:
The provisions in the I-codes are intended to meet or exceed the requirements in the federal accessibility requirement found in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.

I try my best to enforce this chapter but I don't have the authority to work for the feds!
 
I am an engineer who designs buildings not a regulator.

The building department can only enforce those laws that they have the authority to enforce. Unless the feds have delegated enforcement of federal ADA to building departments the department is limited to enforcing the accessibility requirements in the building code. What gives building department authority to enforce Federal regulations?
Some jurisdictions - or at least one I lived in - specifically directed their building codes department to inspect for and enforce ADA. I don't claim there was wisdom in the village boards voting on this, just saying.
 
The IBC cannot give states and local jurisdictions the authority to enforce federal laws. I am not aware that the user notes are part of the adopted law. Further what the notes say is that it is the intent of the IBC to provide provisions that are compatible with the federal law.

My understanding is that the DOJ has taken a position that if the adopted building code complies with certain standards and the project complies with the building code that they will not prosecute the owner for violations of the ADA laws. Think of this as providing a safe harbor. What the building official can do is enforce the building code laws which parallel the Federal laws.
 
The IBC cannot give states and local jurisdictions the authority to enforce federal laws. I am not aware that the user notes are part of the adopted law. Further what the notes say is that it is the intent of the IBC to provide provisions that are compatible with the federal law.

My understanding is that the DOJ has taken a position that if the adopted building code complies with certain standards and the project complies with the building code that they will not prosecute the owner for violations of the ADA laws. Think of this as providing a safe harbor. What the building official can do is enforce the building code laws which parallel the Federal laws.

I wholeheartedly agree with both paragraphs
 
To steveray,

If the code section is clear and plainly understood, you can probably state what it say. The idea is in stating your interpretation of that code that you are clear, concise, about what is required and why it is required. Some codes are linked to other codes so you could clearly communicate that requirement as the code sections are used together. It's part of the "customer service" of informing the non-professionals like the clients/property owners who don't know squat and they freak out as usual. Design professionals (licensed and non-licensed) would be able to figure out what you are requiring but some codes are grounded in the latitude of interpretation and you need convey what your position/interpretation in a reasonably clear manner versus writing a response in a lawyer like fashion which can be dreadful to even follow let alone understand.
 
Yes, we too have been advised that pass and fail can hurt feelings. Can't say not approved, approved either. Not exclusive either, many AHJ's have adopted the warm and fuzzy.

Personally, I call it for what it is. "F" worrrying if their emotions are hurt or they have a buttache over it. They are adults and therefore should be able to manage and control their "feelings" as that's part of becoming adults. They either meet or do not meet the requirements. No sense in 'sugarcoating' it. Too much is being done to not 'offend' that its ridiculous. There is a balancing act though. There's a difference between being forthright and candid with being outright rude but "customer is always right" doesn't apply here. They are required to meet and comply with the laws. If they don't want to, they can appeal and challenge the law with a lawyer or maybe seek their representative in city, county or state, so as to petition that the law, rule, or ordinance maybe amended/repealed.

If someone isn't getting their permits, they are going to b-tch, moan, groan, cry, whine, etc. about it. If a design doesn't meet the code requirements because the point is the design meets the code requirements BEFORE permits are issued. It may take making corrections to the plans. This is why the plans are reviewed. It's a service and it will usually costs less to make changes in CAD than it will in construction materials. Therefore, in the long rune, it will usually be less expensive. I can't say it will always be but that would be incredibly rare and unusual.

However, sometimes saying the words.... meet or complies OR doesn't comply or meet is more clearer. However, when giving the bad news, it's good service to provide suggestions but plan reviewers, building officials, etc. may be limited in what they can do because they are not designers or in that capacity and would be restricted from offering such in the course of performing their duties.
 
Those of you that provide a code section for each correction do so for various reasons. It might be that the AHJ requires that...maybe it's the State you live in....or perhaps you do it as a personal choice. Well whatever the case may be for you, it would be a waste of my time...and a considerable waste at that.

There's at least fifteen million people in southern California and half of them are contractors. Of the 7.5 million contractors there's a dozen code books. They can't understand those code books. What became of inspectors that could be trusted? If I have to tell you that one receptacle in a bedroom isn't enough, do I really have to back that decision up with a code section? Tell ya what, take me to court and I'll come up with a code section. Otherwise, learn what you should already know before you take money from people as you masquerade as a contractor.

The personal choice of many of my fellow conscripts is to avoid writing corrections....maybe they are lazy....perhaps they don't know a correction when they see it. Well whatever the case may be for them, it would drive their numbers even lower if they were required to provide a code section.

As I read this I realize that there are inspectors that write complete total bullshit corrections....I mean it's some of the damnedest stuff you can imagine. Mark K has been dealing with such inspectors for an entire career. I'll give you an example; the inspection was for a final of an ADU. That inspector did all of the inspections from start to finish. A correction was written to replace a kitchen window because it was not tempered. The correction stated that the window must be tempered because it was over a kitchen sink. And that's not all, a bathroom window must be replaced because it is in a bathroom....over a toilet.

At the rough plumbing inspection a correction was written to remove the plumbing for a laundry room sink. There was no written explanation for that. The contractor said that the reason was that a sink would encourage the owner to create a second kitchen.

Now I suppose that a code section would have made a difference here but the evil would find another way out. Holding my feet to the fire isn't going to fix that.

And by the way TheCommish, it was just a lighthearted tease.

The reason there is the "write it cite it" is that law enforcement (which the building departments are a form of) are required to be transparent about what you are charged with. If a police officer is writing you a traffic ticket, they are required to state what the traffic violation is. Likewise, the building department is required to cite what the violation is.

This was because some building officials made stuff up or was applying requirements in other states or their own personal preferences and making it out as if it was required and mandating it when there wasn't a law or rule, or regulation that has jurisdiction to support such. It is about accountability of public officials so they aren't abusing their privileged status regardless if their intent may or may not increase health, safety, and welfare standards of the built environment. That is why.

However, I think there is a good middle ground of good sense. I can see where some of this gets out of hand and ridiculous as much as too little is likewise ridiculous.
 
Top