jar546
CBO
Pennsylvania’s Uniform Construction Code (UCC) was meant to protect the public by ensuring that every municipality enforces minimum construction standards. The state certifies third-party agencies to act on behalf of municipalities that lack in-house staff. In theory, this arrangement protects society as a whole. In practice, it has become fertile ground for weak enforcement and political manipulation.
These agencies sign contracts to enforce the minimum standards, but too many take the lazy, bare minimum path. They cave to political pressure, look the other way when influential property owners complain, and fail to educate or guide municipalities when serious issues surface. Floodplain enforcement under FEMA rules is a prime example. Agencies often ignore the requirement or fail to push municipalities to comply. That silence puts both lives and federal flood insurance eligibility at risk.
The only consistent oversight from Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry is for accessibility. Third-party agencies know they will be audited for accessibility in each municipality every three years, and that knowledge keeps them on point for those requirements. They rarely miss a detail because they know the audit is coming. At the same time, they know there will be no audit for anything else, and that lack of accountability shows. Fire protection, structural safety, floodplain enforcement, and even basic plan review often receive far less attention because there is no real consequence for cutting corners. Inspectors who work for these agencies often adopt the same attitude as their employers. Instead of pushing to enforce minimum codes, they look for excuses to avoid enforcement or to explain why something cannot be enforced. The culture of avoidance is learned and reinforced because it keeps complaints down and contracts secure.
I have been pressured to let people go and to turn a blind eye to interior remodeling of a commercial building. When I refused, it ended poorly for my company when our contract was not renewed. When you try to treat everyone fairly and equally and enforce minimum standards, it is a recipe for failure in Pennsylvania.
One incident stands out. A contractor applied for a permit to build an addition and planned a cathedral ceiling. His plans showed only collar ties and no rafter ties to control rafter thrust, and he did not plan to install a ridge beam. The drawings were not prepared by an architect, but that is allowed. I rejected the plans and included a detailed explanation of the code provisions and the structural risk. He never called me back. Instead, a township commissioner called to literally yell at me for holding the project up. When I explained that the omission of rafter ties and a ridge beam was a major structural defect, he brushed it off and said he had known the contractor for twenty-five years and nothing he had built had ever fallen down. That exchange said everything about the environment we were working in. The code was clear, the structural deficiency was obvious, and yet political relationships were treated as more important than public safety.
Pennsylvania also lacks a statewide licensing program for contractors. Only a minimal number of cities have a competency-based licensing program. The state’s contractor registration requirement is not a license and is not tied to competency. As a result, more than 95 percent of municipalities have no form of licensing requirement for contractors. When almost anyone can claim to be a contractor, strong building code administration, thorough plan review, and reliable inspections become the only way to guarantee that minimum standards are met. Without that structure, the public is left unprotected, and corners are cut long before an inspector arrives.
I lived this when I ran a successful third-party agency. We worked hard to gain compliance, explaining the code and bringing people along rather than hammering them with penalties. But pressure came from every direction. Incompetent contractors who knew someone on the municipal council would complain. Elected officials, many with little management experience, routinely tried to “fix” the problem for their friends, even when the complainant was dead wrong.
The lesson was stark. The agencies that learned to appease these politicians, that quietly skipped enforcement when it was politically convenient, were the ones that kept the contracts. Not because they secretly did their job well, but because they quietly did not. The more lax they were, the fewer complaints and the lower the risk of being replaced. Competent agencies were often ousted for being too strict.
Statutory immunity, which protects inspectors and agencies from personal liability when acting in good faith, was meant to safeguard the public interest. But when it shields willful inaction, it becomes a tool for complacency. Society pays the price: codes meant to protect everyone are enforced only when convenient.
Pennsylvania’s system needs scrutiny. Oversight of third-party agencies must be real and measurable. Contracts should require proof of consistent enforcement, and municipalities should be held accountable for looking the other way. Without structural change, statutory immunity simply protects the very failures it was meant to prevent.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article reflect personal experiences and observations. They are not intended to describe or accuse every third-party code enforcement agency in Pennsylvania or any specific individual or company. Any similarities to particular persons or entities are purely coincidental. This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
These agencies sign contracts to enforce the minimum standards, but too many take the lazy, bare minimum path. They cave to political pressure, look the other way when influential property owners complain, and fail to educate or guide municipalities when serious issues surface. Floodplain enforcement under FEMA rules is a prime example. Agencies often ignore the requirement or fail to push municipalities to comply. That silence puts both lives and federal flood insurance eligibility at risk.
The only consistent oversight from Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry is for accessibility. Third-party agencies know they will be audited for accessibility in each municipality every three years, and that knowledge keeps them on point for those requirements. They rarely miss a detail because they know the audit is coming. At the same time, they know there will be no audit for anything else, and that lack of accountability shows. Fire protection, structural safety, floodplain enforcement, and even basic plan review often receive far less attention because there is no real consequence for cutting corners. Inspectors who work for these agencies often adopt the same attitude as their employers. Instead of pushing to enforce minimum codes, they look for excuses to avoid enforcement or to explain why something cannot be enforced. The culture of avoidance is learned and reinforced because it keeps complaints down and contracts secure.
I have been pressured to let people go and to turn a blind eye to interior remodeling of a commercial building. When I refused, it ended poorly for my company when our contract was not renewed. When you try to treat everyone fairly and equally and enforce minimum standards, it is a recipe for failure in Pennsylvania.
One incident stands out. A contractor applied for a permit to build an addition and planned a cathedral ceiling. His plans showed only collar ties and no rafter ties to control rafter thrust, and he did not plan to install a ridge beam. The drawings were not prepared by an architect, but that is allowed. I rejected the plans and included a detailed explanation of the code provisions and the structural risk. He never called me back. Instead, a township commissioner called to literally yell at me for holding the project up. When I explained that the omission of rafter ties and a ridge beam was a major structural defect, he brushed it off and said he had known the contractor for twenty-five years and nothing he had built had ever fallen down. That exchange said everything about the environment we were working in. The code was clear, the structural deficiency was obvious, and yet political relationships were treated as more important than public safety.
Pennsylvania also lacks a statewide licensing program for contractors. Only a minimal number of cities have a competency-based licensing program. The state’s contractor registration requirement is not a license and is not tied to competency. As a result, more than 95 percent of municipalities have no form of licensing requirement for contractors. When almost anyone can claim to be a contractor, strong building code administration, thorough plan review, and reliable inspections become the only way to guarantee that minimum standards are met. Without that structure, the public is left unprotected, and corners are cut long before an inspector arrives.
I lived this when I ran a successful third-party agency. We worked hard to gain compliance, explaining the code and bringing people along rather than hammering them with penalties. But pressure came from every direction. Incompetent contractors who knew someone on the municipal council would complain. Elected officials, many with little management experience, routinely tried to “fix” the problem for their friends, even when the complainant was dead wrong.
The lesson was stark. The agencies that learned to appease these politicians, that quietly skipped enforcement when it was politically convenient, were the ones that kept the contracts. Not because they secretly did their job well, but because they quietly did not. The more lax they were, the fewer complaints and the lower the risk of being replaced. Competent agencies were often ousted for being too strict.
Statutory immunity, which protects inspectors and agencies from personal liability when acting in good faith, was meant to safeguard the public interest. But when it shields willful inaction, it becomes a tool for complacency. Society pays the price: codes meant to protect everyone are enforced only when convenient.
Pennsylvania’s system needs scrutiny. Oversight of third-party agencies must be real and measurable. Contracts should require proof of consistent enforcement, and municipalities should be held accountable for looking the other way. Without structural change, statutory immunity simply protects the very failures it was meant to prevent.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article reflect personal experiences and observations. They are not intended to describe or accuse every third-party code enforcement agency in Pennsylvania or any specific individual or company. Any similarities to particular persons or entities are purely coincidental. This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.