• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Retaliatory Building Inspector? How to handle this situation.

Mark K said:
Most things can be sorted out if everybody follows the rules. This is the reason for involving a lawyer. The lawyer doesn't need to have intimate knowledge of the building code. Raising the issue with the city council can be effective in motivating the building department.

Building inspectors need to understand they are not god. This problem is aggravated by the fact that in many cases it is easier to accommodate an improper demand than to fight it. This behavior denies the building inspector, and sometimes plan checker, of the feedback that they are not omnipotent.
Click to expand...
And they aren't all knowing wither. I learned first hand ✋ how to raise a balloon framed, 1904 home and build a complete, modern, to-code-house underneath. It is definitely not modern framing production and required ingenuity to splice the too and bottom together.

What is happening now is an argument that:

"because I attached a unit below the existing house, everything above the belly line (the old as-built) house has to be brought to code."

And this is what the inspectors can't wrap their head around because it wasn't taught in their inspector school and chances are they never had the pleasure of experiencing such a project. I have to extrapolate for them (after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued) how it meets code:/

Maybe they are interested in learning? Maybe they are interested in proving a point.

At issue now is I have tenants and leases in place and it would be financially impossible to do what they are asking.
 
California Existing Building Code
301A.3 Alteration, Addition or Change of Occupancy
The alteration, addition or change of occupancy of all existing buildings or structures shall comply with one of the methods or categories listed in Section 301A.3.1, 301A.3.2 or 301A.3.3 . Section 304A.3.2 applies to all methods or categories. Sections 301A.3.1 through 301A.3.3 shall not be applied in combination with each other, except when permitted by the enforcement agency.
Exception: Subject to the approval of the enforcement agency, alterations complying with the laws in existence at the time the building or the affected portion of the building was built shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code. New structural members added as part of the alteration shall comply with the California Building Code.
 
Joe.B said:
California Existing Building Code
301A.3 Alteration, Addition or Change of Occupancy
The alteration, addition or change of occupancy of all existing buildings or structures shall comply with one of the methods or categories listed in Section 301A.3.1, 301A.3.2 or 301A.3.3 . Section 304A.3.2 applies to all methods or categories. Sections 301A.3.1 through 301A.3.3 shall not be applied in combination with each other, except when permitted by the enforcement agency.
Exception: Subject to the approval of the enforcement agency, alterations complying with the laws in existence at the time the building or the affected portion of the building was built shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code. New structural members added as part of the alteration shall comply with the California Building Code.
Click to expand...
 
classicT said:
IMBD has links to a couple viewing options. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2073086/
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I watched the movie and I am trying to find the documentary...well of course the movie might be the only documentary...

The inspector's name is Wayne Mercer. The actors that played the building department must have been sucking on lemons to prepare.

I wonder if Canadian inspectors are required to obtain ICC certifications?

The court apparently agreed with the building department however, the judge was not willing to jail Mr. Morrison. Craig and Irene Morrison were allowed to live out their lives in the house. Craig and Irene passed away within months of each other in 2013. I wonder what became of the house?
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
I wonder if Canadian inspectors required to obtain ICC certifications?
Click to expand...
Nope. There is currently no nationally recognized certification system in Canada. In that vacuum, each province's professional association of building officials have created their own. Eventually there came the creation of a national group of aligned provincial organizations that created a relative standardization in training and certification. This provided some mobility of certified building officials between provinces, but primarily only among member provinces. If a building official finds themself in a province or territory that does not have a professional association, they must travel to one that does to receive it. In rare instances, non-member provinces have created their own, which are not recognized by other provinces, restricting mobility of their building officials.
 
ICE said:
I wonder if Canadian inspectors are required to obtain ICC certifications?
Click to expand...
Sort of. Depends on jurisdiction. It's required in some provinces, but this is one of the challenges faced in the province tmurray and I reside: there is no requirement for a municipal government to hire a qualified/certified building inspector. Some municipalities have this requirement as a means to mitigate liability, and the regional bodies by principle do the same.

Efforts are underway to introduce minimum standards, and oddly enough, the two of us - in vastly different roles - are working to achieve this.

I can't go into great detail but I can say that I have been involved in providing AHJ services for a jurisdiction where doing so has brought the first trained building inspector into that role.

It's been .... a bit of a mess.

FYI, I tried to find the court case in the national online database and couldn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
ICE said:
Do you know how to find the documentary?
Click to expand...

tmurray said:
Nope. There is currently no nationally recognized certification system in Canada. In that vacuum, each province's professional association of building officials have created their own. Eventually there came the creation of a national group of aligned provincial organizations that created a relative standardization in training and certification. This provided some mobility of certified building officials between provinces, but primarily only among member provinces. If a building official finds themself in a province or territory that does not have a professional association, they must travel to one that does to receive it. In rare instances, non-member provinces have created their own, which are not recognized by other provinces, restricting mobility of their building officials.
Click to expand...
Pretty soon y'all are going to be building out of concrete up there.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Sort of. Depends on jurisdiction. It's required in some provinces, but this is one of the challenges faced in the province tmurray and I reside: there is no requirement for a municipal government to hire a qualified/certified building inspector. Some municipalities have this requirement as a means to mitigate liability, and the regional bodies by principle do the same.

Efforts are underway to introduce minimum standards, and oddly enough, the two of us - in vastly different roles - are working to achieve this.

I can't go into great detail but I can say that I have been involved in providing AHJ services for a jurisdiction where doing so has brought the first trained building inspector into that role.

It's been .... a bit of a mess.

FYI, I tried to find the court case in the national online database and couldn't.
Click to expand...
The judge kicked it back at the preliminary phase of trial with something along the lines of "there must be some better solution you can work out." Luckily, the judge had common sense lacking by every other government official who handled that file.

The solution was that the man and woman were allowed to live in it until their death (all they wanted anyway) and the building was to be demolished.

One would question how the building official can consider it safe for these two people and not anyone else...but perhaps public safety was not the thing at risk at this stage, as we have already been looking at in this thread.
 
I'm sure this question has been asked a million time but here goes again: If a municpality has sovereign immunity and cannot be held liable for inspection code violations, then why do they even bother with enforcing the building code to the Nth degree?
 
jakesktm said:
Pretty soon y'all are going to be building out of concrete up there.
Click to expand...

Early in my career, I worked on some info to outline codes/practices in other areas that were useful for dealing with climate change.
I wish Canadian codes would go California and limit cladding materials in wildfire interface zones. At the very least, get rid of vinyl siding - stuff is like painting barbeque lighter fluid on the outside of your most valuable investment.

I'm in a forested area. I built out of rock, for what it's worth.


tmurray said:
The judge kicked it back at the preliminary phase of trial with something along the lines of "there must be some better solution you can work out." Luckily, the judge had common sense lacking by every other government official who handled that file.

The solution was that the man and woman were allowed to live in it until their death (all they wanted anyway) and the building was to be demolished.

One would question how the building official can consider it safe for these two people and not anyone else...but perhaps public safety was not the thing at risk at this stage, as we have already been looking at in this thread.
Click to expand...

I had almost the identical case: buddy went and built his home using milled lumber. I issued an OTC to either a) have a suitably qualified engineer OK the construction, b) have the rough-cut lumber graded by a qualified grader or c) remove the construction.

Engineer OK'ed it. I accepted the engineer's approval.

No court, no medial crapstorm. Problem solved.
 
jakesktm said:
I'm sure this question has been asked a million time but here goes again: If a municpality has sovereign immunity and cannot be held liable for inspection code violations, then why do they even bother with enforcing the building code to the Nth degree?
Click to expand...
In Canada, that doesn't apply. Concept called "duty of care" prevails. In fact, an Ontario case recently set a new precedent that stated, in effect, that the AHJ has a responsibility to conduct inspections, even if the client doesn't call as required. From there the laws hinge on "standard of care," which usually comes down to "reasonable and prudent" - that is, what could be expected of a suitably skilled official. We're not expected to catch everything, but we are expected to catch the important things.
 
jakesktm said:
sovereign immunity
Click to expand...
Sovereign immunity is an infrequent topic of discussion. I for one, do not consider sovereign immunity in decisions on enforcement. Nor do I suspect that of my counterparts.

Sovereign immunity is the "stupid" defense. To legitimately claim sovereign immunity there can be no foreknowledge. If there is no foreknowledge the implication is stupidity. To break the shield of sovereign immunity, malice aforethought must be proved. If there is foreknowledge and it was done anyway, there are few motives that can be ascribed to the action. One motive is malice and the only other is whimsical evil.

It seems to me that wrapping a building department in sovereign immunity is much like a paper raincoat. Sounds great until you use it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Inspector Gadget said:
Early in my career, I worked on some info to outline codes/practices in other areas that were useful for dealing with climate change.
I wish Canadian codes would go California and limit cladding materials in wildfire interface zones. At the very least, get rid of vinyl siding - stuff is like painting barbeque lighter fluid on the outside of your most valuable investment.

I'm in a forested area. I built out of rock, for what it's worth.




I had almost the identical case: buddy went and built his home using milled lumber. I issued an OTC to either a) have a suitably qualified engineer OK the construction, b) have the rough-cut lumber graded by a qualified grader or c) remove the construction.

Engineer OK'ed it. I accepted the engineer's approval.

No court, no medial crapstorm. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
The role of the building department is to enforce properly adopted building codes.

If all that one needs is an Engineer's OK then why do we need building departments?
 
Mark K said:
The role of the building department is to enforce properly adopted building codes.

If all that one needs is an Engineer's OK then why do we need building departments?
Click to expand...
9.4.1.1.(1)(c) permits the structural design of a building to conform to either Part 9 or Part 4. Part 9 requires graded lumber and can be completed prescriptively. Part 4 must be done by an engineer but would not need to use graded lumber.

Basically, components of the building or the whole building can be engineered. This is how we can use engineered components like LVL beams, floor and roof trusses, etc.
 
tmurray said:
9.4.1.1.(1)(c) permits the structural design of a building to conform to either Part 9 or Part 4. Part 9 requires graded lumber and can be completed prescriptively. Part 4 must be done by an engineer but would not need to use graded lumber.

Basically, components of the building or the whole building can be engineered. This is how we can use engineered components like LVL beams, floor and roof trusses, etc.
Click to expand...
I am unclear which standard is being referenced?

The IBC has prescriptive provisions which typically do not require the involvement of a professional engineer. What requires a professional engineer is a matter of state law and not something defined by the building code. The entity adopting the building code does not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering, at least in California.

Something that does not comply with the prescriptive provisions can be found acceptable if an engineer can show compliance with chapter 16 and 23 of the IBC. It is this evidence of compliance with the IBC that the building department can use to verify code compliance. If the building department looks only at the engineers recommendation and does not look at the evidence provided by the engineer the building department is not doing its job. This assumes that the building department either has an engineer on staff or on contract to evaluate what was submitted.

It is typically a very rare engineer that is familiar with the detail provisions of the grading rules
 
On one of my first large projects as a newly minted architect, our structural engineer specified #2 studs for an apartment building. I came out and looked at the first floor framing - - it was marked "Std. & Better". I gave them the choice of either tearing it all down, or getting the lumber re-inspected and re-stamped as #2 or better (and tearing out the individual studs and plates that did not meet #2).
They tore it all out and rebuilt it. They made me feel like the bad guy for pointing out their mistake.

I came back to inspect again, and found that once again there was "Std. & Better" mixed in the lumber. This time they knew to blame the framer.

Third time was the charm.
 
Mark K said:
I am unclear which standard is being referenced?

The IBC has prescriptive provisions which typically do not require the involvement of a professional engineer. What requires a professional engineer is a matter of state law and not something defined by the building code. The entity adopting the building code does not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering, at least in California.

Something that does not comply with the prescriptive provisions can be found acceptable if an engineer can show compliance with chapter 16 and 23 of the IBC. It is this evidence of compliance with the IBC that the building department can use to verify code compliance. If the building department looks only at the engineers recommendation and does not look at the evidence provided by the engineer the building department is not doing its job. This assumes that the building department either has an engineer on staff or on contract to evaluate what was submitted.

It is typically a very rare engineer that is familiar with the detail provisions of the grading rules
Click to expand...
The post you quoted was Canadian, so the standard was the National Building Code of Canada. There are a number of engineers in our province who are quite adept at reviewing lumber.
 
Mark K said:
The role of the building department is to enforce properly adopted building codes.

If all that one needs is an Engineer's OK then why do we need building departments?
Click to expand...
I wish this myth would go off and die like the Toronto Maple Leafs playoff chances.

Engineers can only take responsibility for things within their sphere of influence, nothing more.

I have a plan in front of me that has a ceiling/deck assembly that was submitted with non-conforming design. I told the owner/contractor that they needed to either submit a code-compliant plan or obtain an Alternative Solution from a qualified engineer.

The client contacted an engineer, who quite rapidly realized they weren't qualified. Application is in limbo.
One of the key elements for an engineered design is that the engineer is accepting liability for what they have designed. Designing something outside professional scope and competence can land an engineer in hot water, fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top