Is a "final" inspection final?

[MRRPM]

Hi all,

I'm a building owner, had a contractor add an addition to my building, he contracted everything turn key, but electrical, (we have our own electrician).

The building is a commercial building, 60,000 sq/ft, lights only, no equipment yet. Our electrician installed all lighting, and called for a final inspection, the inspector came out, inspected, left a "final" inspection approval. All is good, until we find out that since our electrician didn't call for a rough in, that our "final" is not "final" any more. All that's needed is a rough inspection, but the top few rows of lights are over 40ft in the air, we turned our man lift in (rented), since we had a "final", and Co wants us to open up all junction boxes for them to inspect. Question is, is a "final" electrical inspection actually "final"?

My point of view, is that we should have never had a "final" without a rough in. The Co's excuse is that the inspector didn't have cell service to check for a rough in, on his laptop. My view is that no cell service is no excuse to approve, then disapprove a "final" inspection. No cell service, no final.

 

[fatboy]

Well, it is not a good situation, but if the inspector approved it based on certain information, assuming there has been a rough, and subsequently finds out that in fact there had not been a rough inspection, he is within his rights to ask for the rough in.

I would, but I would have also checked for the rough prior to leaving out for the day. JMHO

Looks like you have been registered with us for a while, glad you posted. Sorry my answer probably isn't what you hoped for.

 

[mjesse]

I agree with FB above.

Who's to blame for not scheduling the rough? If you hired and electrician to handle it, and he didn't....well, he can pay to get the lift back on-site.

If it was your responsibility (ultimately, it's yours regardless) to schedule the inspection, consider it a learning experience, suck it up and get it done.

 

[MRRPM]

Well, it is not a good situation, but if the inspector approved it based on certain information, assuming there has been a rough, and subsequently finds out that in fact there had not been a rough inspection, he is within his rights to ask for the rough in. I would, but I would have also checked for the rough prior to leaving out for the day. JMHO

Looks like you have been registered with us for a while, glad you posted. Sorry my answer probably isn't what you hoped for.

Yes, it's not good. I don't mind having them go back, but honestly I think they are covering up for their employee screw up. The main problem is I'm gonna have to rent another lift for them to come back & reinspect.

The real question is: Is a "final" inspection actually "final"? If I get a "final" on my building, with a CO, can they come back on me, like they are doing on this electrical "final"? If so, can I be thrown out? Will my power be turned off, and employees sent home?

 

[Frank]

It depends on jurisdiction's statues of limitations--in Virginia there is 2 years after CO (final inspections can count for CO for certain renovations etc.) or first occupancy whichever is later for missed violations to be prosecutable, after that there can be a letter stating the violations exist, but prosecution is unlikely.

If no CO or no permit--the clock never starts and violations can be made to be corrected decades later (one case was a garage that had the permit application rejected due to sewer easement conflicts and they built it anyway without permits in the late 1970s-- in 2005 the violation was discovered and eventually they had to take down half the garage--several owners later)

New information can make a final inspection and even a CO go poof.

From Virginia Construction Code

115.2.1 Notice not to be issued under certain circumstances. When violations are discovered more than two years after the certificate of occupancy is issued or the date of initial occupancy, whichever occurred later, or more than two years after the approved final inspection for an alteration or renovation, a notice of violation shall only be issued upon advice from the legal counsel of the locality that action may be taken to compel correction of the violation. When compliance can no longer be compelled by prosecution under Section 36-106 of the Code of Virginia, the building official, when requested by the building owner, shall document in writing the existence of the violation noting the edition of the USBC the violation is under.

 

[cda]

O

Yes, it's not good. I don't mind having them go back, but honestly I think they are covering up for their employee screw up. The main problem is I'm gonna have to rent another lift for them to come back & reinspect. The real question is: Is a "final" inspection actually "final"? If I get a "final" on my building, with a CO, can they come back on me, like they are doing on this electrical "final"? If so, can I be thrown out? Will my power be turned off, and employees sent home?

Once the c of o is issued unless there is something real bad, that should be it,

In defense of the inspector, the city may have more than one inspector, and he assumed since the building was up, that another inspector did the rough in.

Sounds like there is enough FAULT to make everyone happy

 

[mjesse]

The real question is: Is a "final" inspection actually "final"? If I get a "final" on my building, with a CO, can they come back on me, like they are doing on this electrical "final"?

The real, real question is: if a rough is required, why didn't you schedule one?

If you didn't schedule or forgot to schedule the inspection, and you erroneously told the AHJ you were ready for a final, how is it "their employee's screw up"? You shouldn't have moved forward without an approved rough.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Since nothing had a cover, there was no reason for the inspector to note "OK to cover". It is usually a line item on the inspection card. He could have done, say, plumbing rough, but since rough electrical was never called, it got passed over. I personally would lay most the blame on you and your electrician, and assume a portion for myself for lack of oversight, like maybe 25% of the equipment rental.

But if you look at it objectively, you took responsibility through your guy to complete that task. Part of the fun of being your own manager.

I would feel ok as the contractor to kick a hundred bucks your way.

Brent.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The real question is: Is a "final" inspection actually "final"?

Short answer: Never

[A] 110.5 Inspection requests.

It shall be the duty of the holder of the building permit or their duly authorized agent to notify the building official when work is ready for inspection. It shall be the duty of the permit holder to provide access to and means for inspections of such work that are required by this code.

If I get a "final" on my building, with a CO, can they come back on me, like they are doing on this electrical "final"? If so, can I be thrown out?

Short answers:Yes and Yes however they will probably have to go through the courts and get an order

[A] 110.6 Approval required.

Work shall not be done beyond the point indicated in each successive inspection without first obtaining the approval of the building official. The building official, upon notification, shall make the requested inspections and shall either indicate the portion of the construction that is satisfactory as completed, or notify the permit holder or his or her agent wherein the same fails to comply with this code. Any portions that do not comply shall be corrected and such portion shall not be covered or concealed until authorized by the building official.

Will my power be turned off

Yes it could happen.

[A] 111.4 Revocation.

The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

Since it is "your" electrician you where ultimately responsible for making sure all inspections where complete. This seems a little harsh in my opinion to require a lift be brought in to look in all the junction boxes if all they are running are lights. I am not sure what the think they may find. Have your electrician talk it over with the county and maybe you can work something out

 

[MtnArch]

Not to throw gas on a fire (just asking for my own knowledge), but isn't there a record kept current at the city/county for the inspectors of what has or hasn't been signed off? Obviously if there are corrections that gets thrown in the file for the re-inspection - but wouldn't there be a note added (or, in this case, NOT added) to indicate what's been signed off?

 

[MRRPM]

Well, as far as what they're gonna inspect, all they can inspect is under the covers, in junction boxes, and one 400 amp service, since that's all there is.

I understand that it is my responsibility to call for a rough in inspection, but, according to what they told me, this is a common problem, like in houses where they cover elec, hvac, plbg, etc with sheetrock. One supervisor went on to explain to me that they were working on software that wouldn't allow a final, without a rough. Surely they have discussed the inspectors having a look, to make sure the rough has been done, as opposed to just inspecting whatever is called in? Maybe not? If I was a supervisor over a group of inspectors, I would be bringing this up daily, to keep guys outta my ear, when things get mixed up. I have employees, and know how people are, I also know how gov't employees are, and they will NEVER admit fault, and will cover for one another, until the end.

One other thing, we have a very business friendly board of Co Commisioners, and if they were to turn off my power, b/c of a missed rough, that would be political suicide, on the part of the Co. employee. There is no need in disconnecting my power, to an existing bldg, when this new addition is all that is in question, my existing is fine.

There has been mention of violations, are missed inspections a violation? How can they be, if the bldg has no CO? It's no different than flat land sitting there. No CO, no violation.

Also, if a Co. employee was to violate law, and turn my power off illegally, I would assume they are out from under the Gov't's umbrella of protection, same as OSHA is, correct? I would think a Co. employee would think twice, before shutting down a business illegally, no? Maybe not, as they have no problem moving forward with final inspections, when roughins have not been done. Are Co. employees trained to know that they are liable, when doing things that are illegal? I would think the Co. would train them that, but who knows.

 

[cda]

Well, as far as what they're gonna inspect, all they can inspect is under the covers, in junction boxes, and one 400 amp service, since that's all there is. I understand that it is my responsibility to call for a rough in inspection, but, according to what they told me, this is a common problem, like in houses where they cover elec, hvac, plbg, etc with sheetrock. One supervisor went on to explain to me that they were working on software that wouldn't allow a final, without a rough. Surely they have discussed the inspectors having a look, to make sure the rough has been done, as opposed to just inspecting whatever is called in? Maybe not? If I was a supervisor over a group of inspectors, I would be bringing this up daily, to keep guys outta my ear, when things get mixed up. I have employees, and know how people are, I also know how gov't employees are, and they will NEVER admit fault, and will cover for one another, until the end.

One other thing, we have a very business friendly board of Co Commisioners, and if they were to turn off my power, b/c of a missed rough, that would be political suicide, on the part of the Co. employee. There is no need in disconnecting my power, to an existing bldg, when this new addition is all that is in question, my existing is fine.

There has been mention of violations, are missed inspections a violation? How can they be, if the bldg has no CO? It's no different than flat land sitting there. No CO, no violation.

Also, if a Co. employee was to violate law, and turn my power off illegally, I would assume they are out from under the Gov't's umbrella of protection, same as OSHA is, correct? I would think a Co. employee would think twice, before shutting down a business illegally, no? Maybe not, as they have no problem moving forward with final inspections, when roughins have not been done. Are Co. employees trained to know that they are liable, when doing things that are illegal? I would think the Co. would train them that, but who knows.

More than likely power will not be shut off

It can be done legally

An inspector should be able to admit he is wrong

In your situation

It sounds like blame can be spread out

Get the inspection done and move on

 

[JBI]

MRRPM, Deep breaths... in through the nose, out through the mouth. It is highly unlikely anyone will try to have the power turned off. As pretty much everyone has said, there is a limited amount of 'blame' to be placed on the Inspectors' shoulders. The majority of the fault lies with you and your Electrician. Before you go off half-cocked and say something you may come to regret, like threatening a County Employee with political pressure, why not just chalk this up to the learning experience it is and see how the inspection goes. The one day rental for the lift is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. (by the way, have your Electrician there just in case...)

 

[north star]

= & = & =

"I also know how gov't employees are, and they will NEVER admit fault,and will cover for one another, until the end."

Really !......Sounds like you only have one thing on your mind.....I too agreewith the other Forum members & advisors.........IMO, it sounds as though

you need a large helping of Humble Pie.......The good people on here are

trying to help you and advise you in the best way in which to proceed.

Also, ...this Forum is not the best place to sling mud at government

employees.



= & = & =

 

[MASSDRIVER]

= & = & =Really !......Sounds like you only have one thing on your mind.....I too agree

with the other Forum members & advisors.........IMO, it sounds as though

you need a large helping of Humble Pie.......The good people on here are

trying to help you and advise you in the best way in which to proceed.

Also, ...this Forum is not the best place to sling mud at government

employees.



= & = & =

Well, technically, it's a great place to do it.

Brent

 

[cda]

Well, technically, it's a great place to do it. Brent

Surprised that putting contractors on the slow response list has not come up

 

[cda]

Well, technically, it's a great place to do it. Brent

Surprised that putting contractors on the slow response list has not come up

 

[conarb]

In the areas I have been building inspectors are no-longer allowed on ladders, lifts, or roofs, everything is inspected from the ground. If the city does require a lift to inspect those boxes I'd require both certificates of liability insurance and Workers Compensation certificates from the city naming you as additionally insured with a hold harmless and indemnification agreement. Talk to your insurance agent about what I just said using the same language, rather than go through all the legalities the city may just go away and leave you alone.

 

[MRRPM]

= & = & =Really !......Sounds like you only have one thing on your mind.....I too agree

with the other Forum members & advisors.........IMO, it sounds as though

you need a large helping of Humble Pie.......The good people on here are

trying to help you and advise you in the best way in which to proceed.

Also, ...this Forum is not the best place to sling mud at government

employees.



= & = & =

So you disagree? You would out a colleague doing wrong, or making mistakes?

If so, you're a ray of hope in the darkness of gov't employees that are so common these days.

The way I see gov't employees, is either you are part of the problem, or part of the solution, which are you?

 

[MRRPM]

In the areas I have been building inspectors are no-longer allowed on ladders, lifts, or roofs, everything is inspected from the ground. If the city does require a lift to inspect those boxes I'd require both certificates of liability insurance and Workers Compensation certificates from the city naming you as additionally insured with a hold harmless and indemnification agreement. Talk to your insurance agent about what I just said using the same language, rather than go through all the legalities the city may just go away and leave you alone.

Great idea, never thought about that angle. I will call for an inspection, & see if they will provide ins certs, same as my contractor must do to work for me. Really don't know how they inspect junction boxes 40ft in the air, in the first place, or in arrears anyway. They really are making a mountain out of a molehill, they just need to do the inspection, and check the box, as they should have done in the first place.

This whole project has been an experience in gov't incompetence. I will make a short list.

When we applied for a permit, the Co. said we needed an erosion control plan from the state, we paid an engineer $3000. to draw up an erosion control plan, submitted it to the state, got it approved by the state, no problem. The state came out, by chance before we even started putting in the erosion control, said we didn't need ANY erosion control at all! Signed a paper saying so. So now we have a worthless erosion control plan, that was a waste of $3000. The Co. has no business saying that we need to comply with any regulations, that it does not oversee, as they are not qualified to do so.

Second thing, we paid for a permit, don't remember what it costed, but as normal, a % of est construction cost. When the contractor tried to call in for a footer inspection, they told him that they require a third party to inspect commercial footers. (This is one time they have admitted their incompetence) They aren't smart enough to inspect them! Ok, they know not how to inspect commercial footers, (even though they are drawn on the plan, they approved) and have no problem admitting it, I can see that, but to charge us full price for a permit, then require me to pay again for the work they were paid to do, is not right. They don't know that the excuse for the cost of a permit is in part, to cover the cost of inspections, which, in this case, they do not do. Add to the frustration of dealing with these clowns, they are able to approve the plan, as drawn, with footers, on paper, and approve a permit, but they can't inspect what is drawn on the plan, after built? How can they say that the drawing looks good, but on the other hand, can't say if the actual work, as performed is good or not?

The more I think about this, makes me wonder why we as a society even need code inspectors? In my case, I hired an engineer to design the building, from top to bottom, it was approved for construction, by all gov't parties. Then, I had to pay for my own inspection, on the footers. Why do I, or we, even need gov't paid inspectors? I can hire my own. Co is not liable if they miss anything during inspection, engineers & outside inspectors are.

 

[cda]

Great idea, never thought about that angle. I will call for an inspection, & see if they will provide ins certs, same as my contractor must do to work for me. Really don't know how they inspect junction boxes 40ft in the air, in the first place, or in arrears anyway. They really are making a mountain out of a molehill, they just need to do the inspection, and check the box, as they should have done in the first place. This whole project has been an experience in gov't incompetence. I will make a short list.

When we applied for a permit, the Co. said we needed an erosion control plan from the state, we paid an engineer $3000. to draw up an erosion control plan, submitted it to the state, got it approved by the state, no problem. The state came out, by chance before we even started putting in the erosion control, said we didn't need ANY erosion control at all! Signed a paper saying so. So now we have a worthless erosion control plan, that was a waste of $3000. The Co. has no business saying that we need to comply with any regulations, that it does not oversee, as they are not qualified to do so.

Second thing, we paid for a permit, don't remember what it costed, but as normal, a % of est construction cost. When the contractor tried to call in for a footer inspection, they told him that they require a third party to inspect commercial footers. (This is one time they have admitted their incompetence) They aren't smart enough to inspect them! Ok, they know not how to inspect commercial footers, (even though they are drawn on the plan, they approved) and have no problem admitting it, I can see that, but to charge us full price for a permit, then require me to pay again for the work they were paid to do, is not right. They don't know that the excuse for the cost of a permit is in part, to cover the cost of inspections, which, in this case, they do not do. Add to the frustration of dealing with these clowns, they are able to approve the plan, as drawn, with footers, on paper, and approve a permit, but they can't inspect what is drawn on the plan, after built? How can they say that the drawing looks good, but on the other hand, can't say if the actual work, as performed is good or not?

The more I think about this, makes me wonder why we as a society even need code inspectors? In my case, I hired an engineer to design the building, from top to bottom, it was approved for construction, by all gov't parties. Then, I had to pay for my own inspection, on the footers. Why do I, or we, even need gov't paid inspectors? I can hire my own. Co is not liable if they miss anything during inspection, engineers & outside inspectors are.

Ok

Well guess you will never build again

Do you want the list of problems with

Owners

Or

Contractors

First???

Have a nice day, please sign the pages of violations here _____________________

 

[mjesse]

So you disagree? You would out a colleague doing wrong, or making mistakes? If so, you're a ray of hope in the darkness of gov't employees that are so common these days.

The way I see gov't employees, is either you are part of the problem, or part of the solution, which are you?

I have, and will continue, to admit when I make a mistake. The lesson here is.....so should you.

When your only argument here is "The inspector made a mistake...I WIN, I WIN!" you're on weak ground.

Speaking to the point of how could it be missed? It's likely your inspector has multiple inspections each day, and many active permits. Your little job is probably an insignificant number on his list. Without a system to "HALT" any inspections without prior approval (we are looking to implement similar software later this year) there is no real way to track every single missed inspection.

My colleagues and I have tried to help you, but you're not listening. Where is it the problem lies??

 

[Inspector 102]

As a municipal inspector, I have admitted mistakes on more occasions than I care to admit. I have contractors that find it a game to challenge me on site with "situations". This is how we both learn from each other. If a rough inspection was missed, than it is the best interest of all parties involved to back up and get the required inspection. If the inspector is not qualified, then it is simply a power move to prove they can do it. I personally would look at as much as possible at ground level and if there is one box 40 feet in the air, if the rest were okay, I would note on the report "no access, approved based on inspected work" and move on. I have never try to cover for anyone or throw anyone else under the bus in 26 years as an inspector. Luckily the contractors know me personally and mutual respect is the normal here.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Your foundation design may have required a special inspector by design or code and may not be because the AHJ inspectors where not qualified.

Your project in my jurisdiction would not require a lift be brought in and we take a couple of box covers off to look at the amount of wire in the box and the connections. We can confirm the type and size of wire used from breaker panel. A note on the inspection report or the CO could indicate as stated above "no access, approved based on inspected work" and the AHJ moves on.

Perhaps you should calmly talk to someone up the ladder above the inspector. Is you electrician an employee or a licensed electrician you hired? How is his work and reputation known to the AHJ inspectors? We all develop different working relationships with different contractors. Some we know we can't trust and have to watch like a hawk and others we know are honorable and will always strive to do the work to code or better. How is your electricians work relationship with the AHJ?