Is a "final" inspection final?

[MRRPM]

OkWell 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 _____________________

Oh yes, I will build again. Co. employees only have a job, they will most likely only last a few years, and be gone. I built my first building in 2000, totally different crowd to work with then, as it will be the next time I build. Speaking of my first build, I acted as contractor myself, hired & paid all subs, with no problems. We were working in my building one day, an inspector came up, said he was gonna give us a final inspection, I said have at it. He inspected the building, passed it, and went on his way. Thing is, this was three years after we finished the building!

You are the inspector, it is your job to know the rules, not mine, so the public, (contractors & Owners) aren't supposed to know these rules, we pay you to know all this. These rules & regulations are for the state, or other gov't emtity, not me, I do not require all this red tape to get my building done. These requirements are for the gov't's needs, so I am just helping the Co employee get what the gov't wants from the Co. it's nothing to me if I have a final or not. It's amazing how many do not understand that, they seem to think that the rules are for me or something, they are not. Why would I need a CO? I have no need for such paperwork, I can walk into my own property, without asking anyone, as can my employees.

 

[MRRPM]

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.

As have I. Their excuse is that the inspector had no cell service to log into the Co.'s system to check for a rough, which is an outright lie, we are in site of the Co.'s cellular carrier, which is the same as mine. I have no problem working with anyone, but when I am lied to, I have a problem with that individual, or organization that individual belongs to. The main problem here, is we are dealing with a lying gov't that takes our money, then lies to us, when they make mistakes.

The proper response from the Co. should have been: We inspected the electrical, and did your final, but you didn't call us for a rough, we need to schedule you a rough asap, so you can move on with this project. I had an inspector that overlooked that fact, and we need to get this going, as we all know that the rough was done, or the final wouldn't have passed, and all that needs to be done is a rough inspection to get you going.

How hard is that?

 

[fatboy]

You need a CO because the adopted code, which makes it law, requires you obtain it. And, if you want to get in a pi$$ing match with the AHJ, they can write you a summons, and you can explain it to the judge. I have, contractor thought he could skip acquiring a couple CO's for houses that had passed finals, but he didn't want to pay his deferred development fees, to the tune of about $55K. Well guess what, he paid, both ways.

I imagine your insurance carrier might have a different opinion on whether you need a CO.

And your assumption that there will be different staff? I have been in my jurisdiction in different positions for 19 years, least amount of time for any of my inspectors, 8 years.

 

[Frank]

Another thought--

Would you prefer that with the uncertainty of if a rough electrical inspection was done due to not being able to check--

1. The inspector rejected the final for no confirmation of an approved rough and comes back another day?

Or

2. He did the final and when found out later the rough was missing came back and asked for it?

In the long run it saves owners, contractors, and the inspectors time and money to go with option 2.

 

[Frank]

The proper response from the Co. should have been: We inspected the electrical, and did your final, but you didn't call us for a rough, we need to schedule you a rough asap, so you can move on with this project. I had an inspector that overlooked that fact, and we need to get this going, as we all know that the rough was done, or the final wouldn't have passed, and all that needs to be done is a rough inspection to get you going.

How hard is that?

From your original post that looks like that is what the county did.

 

[MRRPM]

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??

The inspector made a mistake, then his superiors lied about him not having cell service, to cover up for him, this is where the problem lies.

Never said anything about winning anything, didn't know we were in some type of competition. Are you saying I am supposed to compete with my local gov't?

His superiors are coming to inspect this time, we will see if they lie to my face this time. I do not have a lot of patience for a liar, does anyone here?

 

[mtlogcabin]

I do not have a lot of patience for a liar, does anyone here?

I don't

 

[MRRPM]

You need a CO because the adopted code, which makes it law, requires you obtain it. And, if you want to get in a pi$$ing match with the AHJ, they can write you a summons, and you can explain it to the judge. I have, contractor thought he could skip acquiring a couple CO's for houses that had passed finals, but he didn't want to pay his deferred development fees, to the tune of about $55K. Well guess what, he paid, both ways.I imagine your insurance carrier might have a different opinion on whether you need a CO.

And your assumption that there will be different staff? I have been in my jurisdiction in different positions for 19 years, least amount of time for any of my inspectors, 8 years.

I have never been asked about a CO, in my life for anything, and am fully insured.

There will be a different staff, I have seen guys come in here, attempt to apply for a job here, take our pre-employment 8th grade math test, fail that, and get a job at the county. There will be more, always have been, their high turnover rate, most likely has something to do with their incompetence. Really, I wish they had longer lasting employees, that way, I could develop a working relationship with them, but alas, they're gone every time I call there.

As far as them summoning me, all the judge would do is ask me to get a final, and tell the Co. to come out & get me finished up, as they should have in the first place. I can't issue myself a CO, so it will be on the Co. to do that. going to court would be a waste of time for all parties. There are no fees or anything like you're mentioning here, I have done paid what is required, when I bought the permit.

 

[MRRPM]

Another thought--Would you prefer that with the uncertainty of if a rough electrical inspection was done due to not being able to check--

1. The inspector rejected the final for no confirmation of an approved rough and comes back another day?

Or

2. He did the final and when found out later the rough was missing came back and asked for it?

In the long run it saves owners, contractors, and the inspectors time and money to go with option 2.

The final shouldn't have even been scheduled, if there was not a rough done. Am I wrong, or does the gov't always do thing backwards?

Number two, is what he did, number one is what he should have done, if he was on his game, that way, we wouldn't be here today.

 

[steveray]

"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."

Have you seen ICE's pictures?.....I wish we weren't needed almost every day..And then I go to work and realize how much we are needed (competent inspectors that is)...

 

[MRRPM]

"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."Have you seen ICE's pictures?.....I wish we weren't needed almost every day..And then I go to work and realize how much we are needed (competent inspectors that is)...

I don't know ICE, so no, I haven't seen his pics.

That's the thing, gov't always messes up things, they never help. Private inspectors must get it right, they have their reputation on the line, if they do bad work, they don't work. If the Co. does bad work, who cares? They have no competition, the Co. is the only game in town. The problem is incompetence, the Co. will hire anyone, since they can't go out of business, private inspection companies don't have that option. This is most likely what is happening; Counties are requiring inspections that are over their head, be done by outside inspectors, so outside inspectors have more work, and hire the good employees away from the Co.. Then, the Co. is left with bottom of the line employees, and high turnover.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Ice post a lot of photos of things he finds wrong

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/contractor-talk/6666-average-day-39.html

 

[mjesse]

I don't know ICE, so no, I haven't seen his pics. That's the thing, gov't always messes up things, they never help. Private inspectors must get it right, they have their reputation on the line, if they do bad work, they don't work. If the Co. does bad work, who cares? They have no competition, the Co. is the only game in town. The problem is incompetence, the Co. will hire anyone, since they can't go out of business, private inspection companies don't have that option. This is most likely what is happening; Counties are requiring inspections that are over their head, be done by outside inspectors, so outside inspectors have more work, and hire the good employees away from the Co.. Then, the Co. is left with bottom of the line employees, and high turnover.

Is this JAR posting under a pseudonym??!

 

[conarb]

I don't know ICE, so no, I haven't seen his pics. That's the thing, gov't always messes up things, they never help. Private inspectors must get it right, they have their reputation on the line, if they do bad work, they don't work. If the Co. does bad work, who cares? They have no competition, the Co. is the only game in town. The problem is incompetence, the Co. will hire anyone, since they can't go out of business, private inspection companies don't have that option. This is most likely what is happening; Counties are requiring inspections that are over their head, be done by outside inspectors, so outside inspectors have more work, and hire the good employees away from the Co.. Then, the Co. is left with bottom of the line employees, and high turnover.

The biggest gripe I get is from homeowners on the subject of special inspections, the way Chapter 17 is written I interpret it to say that the owner, not the contractor, has to pay for special inspections, in my cost breakdown I include it but back it our as paid by owner, if I don't do that they always argue that it should be my responsibility as a builder and they are ill prepared for the costs. In one recent instance, a single family home with 125 pages of plans and $100,000 budget for special inspections, the owner asked: "Why all these multiple layers of inspection?" I explained that city inspectors can't stand around all day while piers are being drilled and watch while all the welding is being done, plus city inspectors do not have welding certifications, the structural engineer was standing there, he is from Poland and stated that in Europe all inspectors have welding certifications, here we don't even require college degrees for inspectors.

What you are witnessing is the two levels of welfare in this country, the first level we flat out give people money, the next level is government employment where the recipients are people who do something for a few years then we give them a retirement for the rest of their lives. We are all in business to make money, government is the most lucrative business on the planet, what you are paying is a tax and we just have to accept it as such. Actually building inspection is veering away from it's original mandates into the enforcement of social engineering, it appears that the vast majority of these threads today are about accessibility for the disabled, a thread appears about a deck collapse and 5 people are killed and they take no responsibility.

People here justify their existence by pointing to ICE's threads, he inspects in a lower socioeconomic area where people are doing a lot of dumb things like installing solar panels, which are today's equivalent of aluminum siding.

 

[David Henderson]

You state that you would like to see the county have inspectors that stay longer, so you could build a working relationship with them, I have a hard time believing that. Sounds to me like you feel that you or your employee's are to blame what so ever. Perhaps you went the county office with the same attitude you have here, which is pi$$ poor. not a good way to start out.

 

[conarb]

Q

Dave:

I'm curious, does Albany allow you to go on roofs, ladders, or to walk roofs? In the last few years both Contra Costa and Santa Clara County inspectors have told me that they are not allowed for insurance reasons, they actually inspected roof nailing from standing on the subfloor looking up for shiners! I had the electrician leave his longest ladder and told the inspector I'd get it to test smokes over 20' up, he said don't bother he can't get on ladders.

 

[mtlogcabin]

We climb scaffolds, ladders and mountains to do inspections. We will walk the roof, 4/12 with no second thoughts, steeper then that and we harness up. HR is okay with all of it as long as we provide the safety equipment and training to use it.

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.

Good luck with that approach

 

[BSSTG]

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.

Actually I kind of agree with you with limitations. Some property and building owners due their due diligence and require type notch code compliant construction. However, more often than not, contractors and building owners will cut any number of corners to save a buck and keep the inspector at bay.

Then there are some like the guy that told me one day "You tellin me I gotta do what with my motha fudgin house?!" I said "you sure do if you want gas service. You see sir, it's my pals with the FD that gotta risk their lives to drag your charred arse out of that building cause you screwed up"

So it's really more of a life safety issue from my perspective. In addition, I've been a master electrician for very long time and I'm always flabbergasted at the stupidity of electricians on pretty regular basis. When they mess up they can fry somebody. Not cool.

BSSTG

 

[conarb]

We climb scaffolds, ladders and mountains to do inspections. We will walk the roof, 4/12 with no second thoughts, steeper then that and we harness up. HR is okay with all of it as long as we provide the safety equipment and training to use it.

Mountain Man:

Remember a few years ago somebody took a cell phone picture of an inspector on a 4:12 and turned him into CalOSHA up around Santa Rosa inspecting solar panels? If some AHJs are allowing it and others aren't I bet Risk Management get's better insurance rates if they don't allow it.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I remember that and I am glad I do not live or work in CA. We belong to a self insured municipality group within the state so it may be different for us then others

I heard the call many years ago

 

[conarb]

I remember that and I am glad I do not live or work in CA. We belong to a self insured municipality group within the state so it may be different for us then othersI heard the call many years ago

Well what you better watch out for is on September 25th and 26th the United Nations is convening in New York with it's first Biodiversity Panel, the IPCC was just the first to get the funds for the New World Order, from the maps I've seen most of Montana is going to be declared Wildlands off limits for human habitation, we've already got a code section in place called the Wildlands-Urban Interface Code, it's just being used for fire purposes now but will govern the interface of our Urban cores and the new Wildlands, we will be creating migration paths from the Arctic to the equator and we can't allow any humans there. Welcome to urban living and all it's beautiful diversity.

 

[tmurray]

So, the problem, as I understand it, is that you now need to rent a lift because neither you, nor your electrician, called for a mandatory inspection and, that had the inspector stated this prior to completing the final inspection, the lift would have still been on site?

In response to your question. A final inspection will generally assess the finished areas of the trade (building, plumbing, electrical, etc.) and may or may not be reliant on other inspections. Naturally you would want a rough in before the final inspection, because this is how the construction would progress, but if the same items are not being assessed, one is not reliant on the other. For instance: if I am building a house, but don't complete a framing inspection, does that mean that someone cannot inspect most of the life safety elements, including egress windows, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, handrails, etc.?

Even if an inspection is missed, in my opinion, the remaining inspections should be completed and means of satisfying the outstanding inspection should be undertaken by the person (or company) named in the permit.

We do not have special inspections where I am so I can't comment on that. All plan review and inspections are completed "in house".

 

[David Henderson]

conarb,

I do go on roofs, climb ladders, and check for shiners.

 

[conarb]

conarb,I do go on roofs, climb ladders, and check for shiners.

Dave:

Thanks for that, it's interesting that some jurisdictions here still allow it while others don't, got to be insurance related.