Incompetent building inspector costs family it’s new home

[e hilton]

The building department is empowered to enforce the adopted building code

Apparently in this case they failed their mission. If the article is correct, they missed critical code violations. Not cosmetic … code, that rendered the house unsafe.

Our legal system assumes that these disputes will be resolved in the civil courts.

Not when the city stands behind immunity. And not when the other party goes insolvent.

The building department has no ability to reimburse the owner for any losses or to force the contractor to do anything.

Yes they do. They are a part of a city/county/state agency, which does have funds. No different from a city settling a wrongful death lawsuit.

Contractors are motivated to resolve inspectors comments because of their contractual obligations not because of a power by the building department to force them.

Many builders thumb their noses at clients, telling them if you don’t like it … go away.

 

[ICE]

The title of this thread is a misnomer:

Incompetent building inspector costs family it’s new home​

The inspector didn't build anything. The contractor is solely responsible for the mess. People that rely on the inspector are fooling themselves. Nobody should entrust their life savings to a stranger that works for the government. I am amazed at the miplaced trust that people have in inspectors. I suppose that's because I am one.

 

[tmurray]

I think it's important to point out that we do not appear to be dealing with a situation where the building inspector identified deficiencies and that were not corrected. If that were the case, the agency would be quick to point this out.

If it is not the intention that the public be able to rely on the inspector to inspect a building to ensure the construction complies in a substantial way to the code, why do we have inspectors?

What purpose do they serve if not the public interest? Is it unreasonable that the public rely on them to do the job that they are paid to do?

 

[ICE]

What purpose do they serve if not the public interest? Is it unreasonable that the public rely on them to do the job that they are paid to do?

I will not argue that the inspector should be trusted to do the job. But what actually happens is all to often anything but what should happen. I have said it before and I will say it again, the occupation of building inspector has been handed to people with little to no ability to complete the task.

The case brought forth in this thread is an example of the common denominator. Inspectors that are doing a competant job are the exception...not the rule. You are preaching to the choir. This guy trusted a building department and suffered the loss of his life savings. See it for what it is...not for what it should be.

There was a time when a building inspector was somebody to respect. Around fifteen years ago a downward spiral took hold. I had to take an exam every three years to maintain certs. The initial exam was half closed book. Now you fake some CEUs and pay a fee and the initial exam is all open book. I used to show up to a job site that was swept clean and all the work stopped. Now there's trash everywhere and I have to search for a rep. and listen to saws and nail guns. I was addressed as Inspector and Sir...now Hey You is the best that I can expect and cussed out is not uncommon.

I know why....and so do many of you. Respect is earned. The lack of respect is too. ... I would not aspire to be an inspector today.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The initial exam was half closed book

Only given 4 times a year and if you failed two times in a row you had to wait 6 months before taking it a third time under the SBCCI.

 

[tmurray]

I wonder if it is also not a loss of personal purpose as well. When you no longer feel "responsible" to do a good job, why do more work to do one?

 

[Mark K]

Apparently in this case they failed their mission. If the article is correct, they missed critical code violations. Not cosmetic … code, that rendered the house unsafe.

Not when the city stands behind immunity. And not when the other party goes insolvent.

Yes they do. They are a part of a city/county/state agency, which does have funds. No different from a city settling a wrongful death lawsuit.

Many builders thumb their noses at clients, telling them if you don’t like it … go away.

Sovereign immunity will not go away.
Even if the city did not claim immunity the issue would be resolved in the civil courts.
Disputes between Owners and clients are resolved in the civil courts.

It would be interesting if a City were to try to force a contractor to do something such as requiring the contractor to reimburse the owner for losses that were the result of the contractor's actions. Contractors play hard ball.

Building departments are not able to adjudicate complex legal issues nor are they able to provide due process.

It would be nice if building department personnel would be personally liable for their mistakes. But this is not likely to happen.

 

[Plumb-bob]

In Canada we can be held personally liable if gross negligence is proven.

 

[Msradell]

In Canada we can be held personally liable if gross negligence is proven.

Exactly the way it should be! Most homeowners have very of the construction trades and thus they expect the going inspector to be the knowledgeable person looking out for their interests.

 

[ICE]

In Canada we can be held personally liable if gross negligence is proven.

Yet there is no requirement for professional certifications. By what metric is gross negligence measured? We grade on a curve here in the USA so the negligence wouldn’t be gross unless the inspector never went there.

 

[ICE]

Exactly the way it should be! Most homeowners have very of the construction trades and thus they expect the going inspector to be the knowledgeable person looking out for their interests.

That is the expectation and they want it done on the cheap. The AHJ is just another bureaucracy that has it’s own interests as the main focus. Their paycheck trumps your project.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I wonder if it is also not a loss of personal purpose as well. When you no longer feel "responsible" to do a good job, why do more work to do one?

When I started my career, I was on my own a a subcontractor for a small community. I worked my ass off to obtain the entry-level credentials. As I became more involved in the industry, it was apparent that a number of shops were operated in an exceedingly slipshod manner. I came from two backgrounds where there was exceptional oversight and accountability, and what I saw was shocking, to say the least.

Yet there is no requirement for professional certifications. By what metric is gross negligence measured? We grade on a curve here in the USA so the negligence wouldn’t be gross unless the inspector never went there.

That's changing. Part of the issue is that provinces set the legislation. In Ontario, each AHJ has to have a "Chief Building Official" who has certain powers (and responsibilities) under law.


One of the arguments I've heard for NOT having certified inspectors is that "Our village of 2,000 can't afford that big-name bloke, so we're going to hire the mayor's cousin, who did some construction work in Alberta, for cheaper" ... and that's well and fine until the mayor's cousin approves the conversion of a house to a duplex without fire separations and protected egress facilities and someone dies. After the lawsuits are done, and the insurance company contests payment because the village didn't do what it ought to have done to mitigate liability ....

That hasn't happened in our province. Yet. But lordee, I've seen with my own eyes the makings of something nasty.

The common-law system is going to change workflow long before the statutory laws do.

There used to be an attitude of "if they don't call, don't go to the site." There still is in some jurisdictions, I think, but that will have to change, if only because of this case:

2021 ONSC 533 (CanLII) | Breen v. The Corporation of the Township of Lake of Bays | CanLII

Access all information related to judgment Breen v. The Corporation of the Township of Lake of Bays, 2021 ONSC 533 (CanLII) on CanLII.

www.canlii.org

Summary: AHJ issued permit without plans review, didn't conduct a framing inspection, defects were found by the person who later purchased the property, town held liable.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Prior to 2002 our jurisdiction did not do a plan review on one-two family dwellings. Then the simplicity of home design and construction changed and plan reviews where needed/required as field corrections became extremely expensive.

 

[Mark K]

My sense is that the majority of those on this forum are in the United States where the laws are different.

 

[Plumb-bob]

Yet there is no requirement for professional certifications. By what metric is gross negligence measured? We grade on a curve here in the USA so the negligence wouldn’t be gross unless the inspector never went there.

I cannot speak for all provinces, but there is a requirement for professional certification in BC. I have achieved level 3, which is the highest level, by sitting 8, 4hr exams and possessing the minimum of 4 years on-the-job experience. After 6 years I will be able to apply for national certification.

My critique of our system is the book learning is very strong, and prepares you very well for plan review. But there is no field training, and applying what you have leaned in the class to the real world is difficult. I at least have a long and varied construction background, I cannot imagine taking on this job without construction experience.

My understanding is negligence is making a mistake, gross negligence is knowingly or intentionally making a mistake. One of my main thresholds for decision making is thinking "what would a judge say?" This has kept me out of trouble so far.

 

[steveray]

the occupation of building inspector has been charged to people with little to no support to complete the task.

Fixed it....Not that I completely disagree with your initial statement, but in a lot of cases it's a properly funded department that is lacking....Shirley you must have seen that...

 

[tmurray]

I cannot speak for all provinces, but there is a requirement for professional certification in BC. I have achieved level 3, which is the highest level, by sitting 8, 4hr exams and possessing the minimum of 4 years on-the-job experience. After 6 years I will be able to apply for national certification.

My critique of our system is the book learning is very strong, and prepares you very well for plan review. But there is no field training, and applying what you have leaned in the class to the real world is difficult. I at least have a long and varied construction background, I cannot imagine taking on this job without construction experience.

My understanding is negligence is making a mistake, gross negligence is knowingly or intentionally making a mistake. One of my main thresholds for decision making is thinking "what would a judge say?" This has kept me out of trouble so far.

I can actually comment on what provinces do and do not have certification requirements.

Do have requirements: BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, PEI, & Nova Scotia
Do not have requirements: Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nunavut, Norhtwest Territories, Yukon

Most are similar to BC.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

My understanding is negligence is making a mistake, gross negligence is knowingly or intentionally making a mistake. One of my main thresholds for decision making is thinking "what would a judge say?" This has kept me out of trouble so far.

BROTHER FROM ANOTHER MOTHER! (Or Sister from another Mister, as the case may be.)

I am known for saying, frequently, "What am I saying to the Judge?"

My critique of our system is the book learning is very strong, and prepares you very well for plan review. But there is no field training, and applying what you have leaned in the class to the real world is difficult. I at least have a long and varied construction background, I cannot imagine taking on this job without construction experience.

Absolutely! I had construction experience years ago, but oddly, what's helped me is 23 years of officiating contact sports at a fairly high level. It's given me the capacity to navigate stressful situations, but moreover, to not notice what doesn't need to be noticed. It's hard to explain, but when you see thousands of football plays, the mind screens out the normal.... I stopped "looking" for penalties, and started *noticing* what wasn't right. That served quite well in coming to this industry. I can look at a house under construction and the "notice what isn't right" habits have ported right over...

I cannot speak for all provinces, but there is a requirement for professional certification in BC. I have achieved level 3, which is the highest level, by sitting 8, 4hr exams and possessing the minimum of 4 years on-the-job experience. After 6 years I will be able to apply for national certification.

In NB, Level 3 national certification is only granted after 5 years of working on Level 3 buildings, unless you're overseen by a certified mentor, in which case it's two years. That's the path I've opted for.

 

[ICE]

Many license requirements for contractors include a minimum number of documented years of employment in the particular discipline. Oddly enough there is no such requirement for an inspector. The one person that is deemed worthy of passing judgement can be a complete novice.

When I was in college there were people that knew the code inside out but couldn't find a purlin in the building. They passed the exams and went on to a career in the inspection industry. Former nurses, UPS drivers, beauticians, warehouse workers sat through a year of instruction.

Now I can't say that my thirty years in construction from basements in Colorado to shopping centers in Sacramento, with swimming pools and log houses in between, made a huge difference but I would like to think so. At least those novices had the benefit of a college education. What I've seen lately is a cruel hoax.

Engineers should take the place of inspectors. There should be a mandatory internship of three years during which they shall work as an inspector for a minimum wage. Prior to starting the internship they should be required to obtain ICC certification(s). The crew of inspectors should be tasked with only one trade...no more combination inspectors. To those that scoff at this I point out that we have virtually no qualified inspectors in Southern California and the ones that do exist are retiring.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Over time with the proper training almost anyone can become a good inspector. The problem I have encountered is you hire someone with an extensive construction background, and they will rely on their individual experience to determine if something "isn't right". They quit looking at plans and/or details and just okay what they see. I have hired two former LEO's (15/20 years as LEO's) with no construction experience, and they by far brought with them more people, communication (written or verbal) and observation skills than I could have ever taught them.

Trade schools have declined significantly in the last 40 years. Today's "contractors" are so specialized that they don't usually have a well-rounded knowledge of construction. I agree that having multi disciplined inspectors on anything larger than a one- or two-family dwelling is not the best that an AHJ can do.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Engineers should take the place of inspectors. There should be a mandatory internship of three years during which they shall work as an inspector for a minimum wage. Prior to starting the internship they should be required to obtain ICC certification(s). The crew of inspectors should be tasked with only one trade...no more combination inspectors. To those that scoff at this I point out that we have virtually no qualified inspectors in Southern California and the ones that do exist are retiring.

We have enough trouble finding people to be inspectors. This would make it worst and they would not be paid enough.

 

[ICE]

We have enough trouble finding people to be inspectors. This would make it worst and they would not be paid enough.

It might cut down on the number of engineers but there would be a steady stream of inspectors. As to the pay…interns work cheap. Perhaps consideration on the student debt could be an incentive.

The trouble finding inspectors is that there are so few of them and even fewer are capable.

The idea is a nonstarter… ridiculous fits … the truth of the current conditions opens the door to outlandish solutions.