tmurray
SAWHORSE
The problem I see often when it comes to those in the enforcement community is that they taint their decision making process in favor of their desired outcome. We asked this question at a conference recently: "There is extreme settlement of a garage. The permit was issued and all inspections were completed approximately 3 years ago. You receive a call from the owner about the settlement, what do you do?". People overwhelmingly said that since the building permit is closed, they would not stop by to do an inspection. When asked why, they stated they do not have the authority to enter the property. While this is true that they cannot simply walk onto the property without the owner's permission, in this case the owner was inviting them onto the property. This time they claimed that if they entered onto the property that they would be increasing their liability.
You see they didn't want to deal with the property owner who might have a legitimate concern. They looked for any reason why they do not need to do what they don't want to. You can usually see this in the reasoning. When someone does not provide a good reason why they do something, they are not giving the true reason. In this case, even the liability reason is flawed. As long as they explained the limits of what they would be able to inspect, the inspection would actually mitigate rather than exacerbate liability.
I feel this might be their approach as well. They get a concern forwarded to them by their staff and it doesn't quite fit the policy, so they ignore it. Fast forward a couple years and the problem kills someone, have fun explaining why you are not liable when a member of your own staff informed you there might be an issue. We investigate every complaint. Every. Single. One. Even the ones I know are going to be BS. Once in a while I am surprised when they turn into legitimate concerns.
You see they didn't want to deal with the property owner who might have a legitimate concern. They looked for any reason why they do not need to do what they don't want to. You can usually see this in the reasoning. When someone does not provide a good reason why they do something, they are not giving the true reason. In this case, even the liability reason is flawed. As long as they explained the limits of what they would be able to inspect, the inspection would actually mitigate rather than exacerbate liability.
I feel this might be their approach as well. They get a concern forwarded to them by their staff and it doesn't quite fit the policy, so they ignore it. Fast forward a couple years and the problem kills someone, have fun explaining why you are not liable when a member of your own staff informed you there might be an issue. We investigate every complaint. Every. Single. One. Even the ones I know are going to be BS. Once in a while I am surprised when they turn into legitimate concerns.