Holding the Inspectors and Building Department Accountable?

[Sifu]

Interesting CDA, do you have a canned drop down list to choose from? Otherwise how does it work? What is the software?

 

[Sifu]

Funny how "progress" can be usurped. Back in the days of written corrections, a two or three part form left on site, nobody had to wait...until the contractors complained about having to go to the job site to get the ticket. They wanted the ability to see the inspection without going to the site...RED FLAG? They got their wish, but now could end up waiting even longer. Using the technology to your advantage is a big help, but not using it correctly can create even bigger road-blocks. Sometimes I want to be "ransomed" back a few years.

 

[SCBO1]

Does this override or replace the building code appeal process that is adopted, section IBC 113 Board of Appeals?

 

[ICE]

As an example the correction on a PEX repipe reads: “Establish a grounding electrode system for the premises wiring per the CEC.” If asked for a reason why, the obvious answer is that there is a need for one and that there is not one. How many CEC sections are relevant for a grounding electrode system?

How about a bedroom addition with a window that does not meet egress requirements? The correction reads: “Provide an egress window per the CRC.”

It seems to me that the reason for a failure is the correction as it is written. It’s rare that I just say “NO”….although it has happened….followed up with ”NOT YET”

One in a thousand has a code book and that code book is fifteen years old. So what’s the point?

 

[e hilton]

One in a thousand has a code book and that code book is fifteen years old. So what’s the point?

Well theres part of the payback … more will be forced to become familiar with the book.

 

[cda]

Ers, it has a list of questions for different inspections,, on the fire side

Interesting CDA, do you have a canned drop down list to choose from? Otherwise how does it work? What is the software?

ERS. It has a checklist of questions, that you make up and code section included

Fire and EMS Records and Reporting | Emergency Reporting

Our fire and EMS software provide the tools needed to get the job done on the go and in the station, including NFIRS, NFPA, and NEMSIS 3 reporting.

emergencyreporting.com

 

[ICE]

Our basic software has the general code section imbedded in the report already

Because I am working from home, I send an email with the result of the inspection. I have been told to not use the word fail, failed, failure. Instead I say, " the address was inspected with the following result:" and then I list the corrections. Win, lose, or draw everybody get a trophy.

 

[TheCommish]

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.

That would be ICE not I, I know I have spelling issues

 

[Sifu]

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.

 

[tmurray]

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.

The premise appears to be that by adding in a requirement to cite code language or code sections, inspectors and plan reviewers will be forced to only enforce the code. This premise does not stand up to any scrutiny at all once you understand that by not restricting their review or inspections to the adopted code, they are already breaking the law.

So if they are already breaking the law by not enforcing the adopted code, which I certainly agree with you is an egregious infringement on the rights of the private individual, why would they care about breaking a law that is simply administrative in nature?

The reality is that these people already justify what they are doing and will do similar mental gymnastics to justify not complying with this law too.

 

[Darren Emery]

Interesting discussion. Two comments to add:

Our inspection software allows for the inspector to add violation types on the fly, and then we add code sections to the violation library later. The next time that violation type is used, the code reference is included in the email notification. The one drawback to this system: we're going to have to review the entire library of code section changes every time we adopt a new code cycle.

We tried to stay away from "failed" as well. "Further Action Required" is what we landed on.

 

[SCBO1]

We have "Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory" like you had on your kindergarten report card.. I mean kindergarten progress report. I mean pre-school progress report.

I always had "Improvement needed" on my report cards.

I recently had to go to the free health clinic with writers cramp after listing eighty seven code related inspection items, some of my questions were "What kind of of light fixture are you using within 3-ft of the tub?" Would that be a "Doesn't look right!" or "Get back to me later" on my inspection report?

How bout "Nonperformance" or "Code negligence". Can I use those?

Marry Chri... "I mean Happy Holidays!"

 

[Mark K]

tmurray

While certain individuals will try to justify illegal actions it is still important to recognize the principle that any comment during plan check and violation during construction must be supported by a code reference. Preferably this principle should clearly be stated in the building code or the enabling legislation.

This will allow he owner and the design professionals to push back against improper requirements. For example if when a plan checker did not provide a code reference the designer were to send a letter/email to the building official stating that the comment was improper and cannot be responded to, the building official would either correct the plan checker or support the plan checker. Since the plan checker does not want his boss correcting himself most plan checkers will provide a code reference. This may also help the building official to understand that he has a problem employee which could allow him to correct the problem at its source.

If the building official refuses to correct the behavior of the plan checker then the design professionals will understand that the problem is with the building official. In these situations it should be easier for appeals boards and potentially the courts to slap the wrist of the building department.

Will this solve all problems? No it will not but it will reduce the problems and allow the design professionals and owners to push back when the building department employees have over stepped their authority.

Let us assume the designers have notified the building department that they could not respond to the comment because no code provision was referenced and then the building department would not issue a permit. In such a situation it should be relatively easy for the owner to request the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the department to issue the permit.

If everybody recognizes that code references need to be provided then it will be harder for bad actors to continue their practices.

Sure some individuals will still promote contorted code interpretations to justify their actions but then it makes it easier for the design professionals to push back. While we cannot solve all problems this will be a positive step forward.

 

[cda]

Instead of code violation

Participation Deficiency

Or

Correction Notice Issued

 

[tmurray]

tmurray

While certain individuals will try to justify illegal actions it is still important to recognize the principle that any comment during plan check and violation during construction must be supported by a code reference. Preferably this principle should clearly be stated in the building code or the enabling legislation.

This will allow he owner and the design professionals to push back against improper requirements. For example if when a plan checker did not provide a code reference the designer were to send a letter/email to the building official stating that the comment was improper and cannot be responded to, the building official would either correct the plan checker or support the plan checker. Since the plan checker does not want his boss correcting himself most plan checkers will provide a code reference. This may also help the building official to understand that he has a problem employee which could allow him to correct the problem at its source.

If the building official refuses to correct the behavior of the plan checker then the design professionals will understand that the problem is with the building official. In these situations it should be easier for appeals boards and potentially the courts to slap the wrist of the building department.

Will this solve all problems? No it will not but it will reduce the problems and allow the design professionals and owners to push back when the building department employees have over stepped their authority.

Let us assume the designers have notified the building department that they could not respond to the comment because no code provision was referenced and then the building department would not issue a permit. In such a situation it should be relatively easy for the owner to request the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the department to issue the permit.

If everybody recognizes that code references need to be provided then it will be harder for bad actors to continue their practices.

Sure some individuals will still promote contorted code interpretations to justify their actions but then it makes it easier for the design professionals to push back. While we cannot solve all problems this will be a positive step forward.

We are not arguing the principle though.

All I am saying is that placing a requirement on the building official to provide a code section does absolutely nothing.

It does nothing from an employment standpoint because they are already not doing their job. the contractor/owner/RDP just needs to tell someone up the chain of command who will do something.

It does not help from a legal standpoint because they are already not following the law. Well, ok, you can slap them with a separate charge for not citing a code.

The real issue here is that we have additional workload, the costs of which will either be bourn on the applicant and/or the tax payers, with no actual increase in quality of work. We know it isn't really going to improve anything because the contractor/owner/RDP can already complain about not getting code references, but we've already discussed in another thread why they don't. They are not complaining now, why are they going to complain later?

Whether refusing to provide code references are a violation of administrative law or not, it is already a violation of basic procedural fairness. I'm not sure if that is enforceable for you folks, but a municipality was found guilty and liable for the damages of a plaintiff here in Canada a number of years ago.

 

[Sifu]

I am a plans examiner. I examine plans to try and determine, within reason, that a proposed design will be in conformance to the code when it is constructed. I report my observations for code related issues. I don't consider the observations I make as code violations, since they are (supposed to be) in front of me before they are constructed. I restrict my comments to verifiable codes, and citing the code sections ensures I stay true to it. I view my purpose as pretty simple and definable with a few points of service:

-I try to identify a condition that will not pass field inspection once constructed, thereby saving time and money for applicants
-I try to identify a condition that requires further attention to specific codes so that once constructed it will be compliant
-I try to provide code related information to inspectors and constructors that if overlooked, will lead to a non-compliant condition once constructed

I don't pass or fail a review. I make comments, some of which require an answer from the applicant to help me determine if any of the aforementioned points of service need to be provided, or resubmittal because as a result of the comment a re-design is required, some of which don't, and are just alerts to the end users. (Some AHJ's want minimal redlines, some don't care, some DP's love them, some don't. That level of service is a moving target.)

The following is an example of an event from yesterday.

I had made a previous plan review comment to provide an accessible service counter in accordance with ANSI 117.1 904.3 because an accessible counter was not identified and I couldn't find an elevation that indicated they were aware of the requirement. The section I cited leaves them with two options, they can pick whichever they want. A response came back with a 30" wide, 36" tall counter, without knee/toe space, (a parallel approach). I could return another marked plan and provide them with another more specific comment for a parallel approach. I could also pick up the phone, call the DP and explain the concern. I chose the latter, and asked if I could simply red-line the plan to either provide a 36" counter for parallel approach, or provide a forward approach. This way I could move the plan forward without further delay. I explained that my job was to try to avoid a situation where the field inspector would go in and "fail" the condition and cause delays and expenditures a few months from now, by addressing it with minimal delay and no expenditures today.

I provided the nature of the condition that needed addressed, and the code section to guide them to the options. They didn't pay close enough attention, so I took further steps. (in this case they didn't want a red-line, but revised the drawing and I had it within a few hours, and still turned the plan over the same day). The DP was very happy with the end result.

I view my position as a service, and in many cases it is optional depending on the nature of the work and the rules of the AHJ. The value in a plans examination is to identify issues before they cost money, and hopefully in a more comprehensive manner than a field inspection since more time is afforded and a more holistic approach can be used. My methods save time and money for the applicants, and time and confusion for the inspectors. I humbly submit that I am a helpful part of the process, not a hinderance, although that belief is probably not shared by all.

So, a very long winded narrative on why I use code citations. My goal is to advance plans to issuance as quickly and efficiently as possible with savings for end users. Code citations serve to ensure I am not over-stepping, expedite responses by avoiding confusion, and explain my concerns and offer pathways to answers. Not everyone has the time, motivation and support to do it the same way, but I think if they did, they might find some value in it, and I think the end users would to.

 

[ICE]

In the beginning any residential project that was under six hundred square feet was not plan checked for other than a site plan. In other words, unless they were building an entire house there was no plan check and it didn't matter how large it was. At that time I was a one man operation in a contract city. The meant that I issued the permit and did the inspections. I would staple Type V sheets to the plans and off they would go.

A bureaucratic creep took over. We have reached an absurd condition where nobody can function on their own. A patio cover needs an engineer and every nit-picking deficiency demands a code section. Where are we headed with this? I envision the day that engineers are wearing coveralls with smashed thumbs.

 

[ICE]

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 given 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.

 

[Sifu]

Otherwise, learn what you should already know before you take money from people as you masquerade as a contractor.

Ice, agree 100%, and in some cases I would add design professional to that. However, that mentality wouldn't fly here and now. I have worked in places it would fly (or used to, not sure now) and it was a whole different, and largely better environment. As a contractor that is the exact mentality that existed with the inspectors I had on my jobs. It made me a better contractor too. I wish that way of thinking still existed, in any extent, but in my AHJ it would be suicide. Right or wrong, many of us are now babysitters. I simply use a method that covers my arse to the greatest extent possible, while still getting the message across. You are correct, it can be a huge waste of time, and I wouldn't do it if it didn't have value, but for me it does. Don't mistake my opinions for an admonition or instruction on how you do your job, I would never presume to do that, In fact, I like your methods better, I just can't pull them off anymore.

 

[tmurray]

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.

That inspector thinks they are doing the world a favor. They write the correction to remove the plumbing for a laundry room sink and the code section/citation they use would be that it has to be to approved plans, they need a fire separation between dwelling units, etc. There is no limit to code sections they could misinterpret to get to their intended objective of removing that rough plumbing.

We can all agree that there are inspectors who have no business doing inspections. They have no respect for the fact that they are an extension of the collective will of the public, not someone who has been granted absolute authority to require whatever they want because they play the "what-if" game or "well, I know best".

 

[Mark K]

Requiring the plan checker and inspector to reference specific code provisions serves several purposes. First it allows the designer to understand what the inspector sees as the problem and thus what the designer must do to get the comment resolved. The need to provide code reference reminds the plan checker and inspector that they can only require what is in the building code. But just as important once it is recognized that the building department must reference code provisions it makes it easier for the designer to push back against the plan checker or inspector who abuses his or her authority.

The need to reference a code section should also cause the plan checker or inspector to think more clearly what they believe the problem is.

Yes there will be cases where creative code sections will be referenced but this will put the designer on notice that games are being played. We can only hope that the building department will become aware of these instances and will work with the plan checker or inspector to change their behavior.

The appropriate response to a comment not supported by a code reference should be that since no code section is referenced the comment is ignored. This should either result in the plan checker of inspector providing the appropriate code reference, thus allowing the designer to understand what must be done, or result in the comment being abandoned.

 

[ICE]

Section numbers you say? How about actual inspectors to write those section numbers? Wouldn't that be a more impactful start? You really don't expect to have one without the other do you? The trouble with that is there would be actual inspecting going on. Actual inspecting has a negative effect on the customer service score. Right away you know that's not happening. And who has the big issue with the status quo? Is it someone we know?

 

[classicT]

Ya know Mark, all you ever do is rail on Code Officials. I get that some code officials act beyond their authority, but you know what? I know of far more design professionals who are incompetent, who should not be allowed to design a shed yet alone a habitable multistory office building.

But just as important once it is recognized that the building department must reference code provisions it makes it easier for the designer to push back against the plan checker or inspector who abuses his or her authority.

So you know what, maybe we should require that the designer provide a code reference for every aspect of their design. After all, why should they not be held to the same standard?

 

[steveray]

Ya know Mark, all you ever do is rail on Code Officials. I get that some code officials act beyond their authority, but you know what? I know of far more design professionals who are incompetent, who should not be allowed to design a shed yet alone a habitable multistory office building.

Really....I think I am about even with the number/ % of sucky designers and sucky inspectors.....And it is getting worse all the way round...