• 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

New Construction in Pennsylvania - Inspected and Signed Off

Keystone said:
State law requires a book onsite.
That would eliminate an ever burning desire to staple a code book to a plan review comment letter or an inspection correction list.
Click to expand...
Our policy is to provide a Code reference if we require corrections/alterations/changes. In Canada, the Code is free for download. Not our job to introduce Code to contractor.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
I'm reading this and thinking that there is incredible strength in the socialist Canadian system where AHJs are directly government (or something quite similar - I work for what is akin to a government-like third-party non-profit, empowered by the province) rather than private everything.
Click to expand...
I have worked many years for both governmental and private contractor to the governmental agency. There is tremendous strength in the integrity of the company/AHJ, and in the integrity and ability of the individuals. Government and private alike can lack or possess integrity, it isn't exclusive to one or the other. And, even if the agency lacks those good qualities, the individual can still posses them and do their best.
 
jar546 said:
This is where I am confused. Under PA 403, all approved plans are suppose to be on the jobsite for the inspector to review. The plans should clearly show the scope of work. I also don't understand why it matters what other inspectors were there if you are being sent out for a specific inspection. I thought we inspected to the applicable codes based on the scope of work in the documents on the jobsite. If there are no documents to review, the inspection is failed.

I am not trying to pick on you but the common theme from your posts is why you don't have to inspect everything because you work for a third-party agency and you are essentially prohibited from doing so based on the perception you will lose your job if you require housewrap on a new SFR with vinyl siding. At what point is there some accountability. This is a serious issue.
Click to expand...
This is what I meant when driving though the township that I do inspections in I don't know what has permits or not when there is several inspection companies. Where my company is the only inspection company in a township I usually know if any construction I drive by has a permit or not.

In PA unless there is a local ordinance no permit is required for siding.
 
jar546 said:
I also don't understand why it matters what other inspectors were there if you are being sent out for a specific inspection.
Click to expand...
What? Are you new at this? I'm calling bullshlt?

I worked in a city for the last three days with one more to go. Today I wrote 39 corrections. I left the office with 14 stops. Two cancelled but one was after I did the inspection. It was a final for a detached ADU, (1200 sq.ft.). The main house has a two meter panel. The main panel and the sub-panel at the ADU garnered 15 corrections. I only opened one side of the main panel because I was standing in a water puddle. I just had to see the service entrance conductor.
IMG_4696.JPG
The rusted hulk on the right is probably the panel for the main house.


The service is fed by 1/0 AWG

IMG_4697.JPG
Where were the city inspectors before I show up for a final inspection?

I had a swimming pool and spa for pre-plaster. The pool can't be plastered until the property passes a fence and gate inspection. The reason for that is, the pool is filled with water on the same day that it's plastered. The owner showed up while I was there. These gates lead directly to the pool. He spent a load on the big gate. The powder coat alone was $1500.00.

Nobody, not the contractor or the inspectors mentioned the issue with his gates until I get there for a final inspection.

It has been so bad that I am considering not returning to that city.

IMG_4728.JPG
 
ICE said:
What? Are you new at this? I'm calling bullshlt?
Click to expand...
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing or do you not have an idea what the conversation is about? It is like you are in left field.

Let's forget all about Pennsylvania. In FL alone I worked for a third-party agency in 20+ different municipalities doing inspections on jobs that may have had 90% of the inspections done by the city inspector or other third-party inspector. Again, what the hell does it matter who was there before me if I am scheduled for a specific inspection such as a new electrical service? It either meets the code or it does not. Even when I am doing a follow-up inspection to someone else's previously failed inspection, it does not matter. Either the job passes or fails and I wrote up the deficiencies no matter how many or how little of them. Seriously, what are you actually arguing about?

I don't give a crap about stepping on another inspector's toes if they missed something and I didn't. I may give them a courtesy call, but that's it. Passed is passed and failed is failed.
 
jar546 said:
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing
Click to expand...
Who me??? Have you ever seen me do that?
jar546 said:
what the hell does it matter who was there before me
Click to expand...
There's inspectors that I and others refuse to follow behind. You assert that the code doesn't change from one inspector to another.... but in fact it does. It ranges from strict adherence to zero.

I get that we are talking about different aspects... each has merit. Mine more than yours.
 
Nice gate. Too bad they need to replace it.
Wish we had a law which required the swimming pool barrier before they filled it. Seems like most of the time they don't fence it until we tell them their permit is expiring 3 years later.
 
jar546 said:
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing or do you not have an idea what the conversation is about? It is like you are in left field.

Let's forget all about Pennsylvania. In FL alone I worked for a third-party agency in 20+ different municipalities doing inspections on jobs that may have had 90% of the inspections done by the city inspector or other third-party inspector. Again, what the hell does it matter who was there before me if I am scheduled for a specific inspection such as a new electrical service? It either meets the code or it does not. Even when I am doing a follow-up inspection to someone else's previously failed inspection, it does not matter. Either the job passes or fails and I wrote up the deficiencies no matter how many or how little of them. Seriously, what are you actually arguing about?

I don't give a crap about stepping on another inspector's toes if they missed something and I didn't. I may give them a courtesy call, but that's it. Passed is passed and failed is failed.
Click to expand...
Canada has an added dimension to this where there is no statutory immunity. If you do not identify an obvious code violation, you are presumed negligent in court. This means despite something being signed off by another inspector, I have to identify it or I could be found negligent.

Issuing a notice for correction on something that was previously approved adds another dimension still, due to procedural fairness, that contractor might be eligible for compensation from the agency that missed the violation in the first place (not a bad thing as pain helps with memory of failure). Basically, the contractor would still have to pay the costs to do it right, but the approving agency would be liable to compensate for any construction/materials destroyed in correcting the issue that would not have been destroyed had the deficiency been detected at the correct time.
 
tmurray said:
If you do not identify an obvious code violation, you are presumed negligent in court. This means despite something being signed off by another inspector, I have to identify it or I could be found negligent.
Click to expand...
Here here. That fixes a lot of problem inspectors in the US create because of their misplaced perception.
 
tmurray said:
Canada has an added dimension to this where there is no statutory immunity. If you do not identify an obvious code violation, you are presumed negligent in court. This means despite something being signed off by another inspector, I have to identify it or I could be found negligent.

Issuing a notice for correction on something that was previously approved adds another dimension still, due to procedural fairness, that contractor might be eligible for compensation from the agency that missed the violation in the first place (not a bad thing as pain helps with memory of failure). Basically, the contractor would still have to pay the costs to do it right, but the approving agency would be liable to compensate for any construction/materials destroyed in correcting the issue that would not have been destroyed had the deficiency been detected at the correct time.
Click to expand...

I check engineered joists and joists in unfinished basements if I am doing a final. Maybe one of my guys (or me) missed something. More likely, some bonehead plumber or electrician has drilled a gawdawful hole where a gawdawful hole isn't supposed to be. Found a few instances of that on builds where I *know* that came after I signed off on a framing inspection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top