• 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

Verbiage stamped on approved/reviewed drawings

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
10,971
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
What kid of disclaimer do you use on the plans you stamp as a reviewer/code official letting the contractor know the field inspector may require additional work if required by code?

Show us your stamp or verbiage.
 
"Whatever I missed, the field inspector will correct"
"No attorneys please"


Or the other one

""" Comply with IBC""""
 


REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE
It shall be the duty of the permit holder or their agent to notify the building official that such work is ready for inspection and obtain approval prior to such portion being covered or concealed. Person requesting the inspection shall provide access and means for the inspection of the work.
Permit No.:______________ Date:__________
 
We do not mention that the inspector might have corrections for the work or the plans. They're usually not all that surprised.
 
Last edited:
[A] 107.3.1 Approval of construction documents.
When the building official issues a permit, the construction documents shall be approved, in writing or by stamp, as “Reviewed for Code Compliance.
That is all that is required so that is all that we put on the drawing
 
Massachusetts amended chapter 1 same as 2015 IRC

105.4 Validity of Permit. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to
be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of 780 CMR or
of any other law or ordinance. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel
the provisions of 780 CMR or other laws or ordinances shall not be valid. The issuance
of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the building
official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other
data. The building official is also authorized to prevent occupancy or use of a structure
where in violation of 780 CMR or of any other laws or ordinances.

no stamp applied
 
I like the simple stamp for "reviewed for code compliance", but the disclaimers are more and more becoming a part of the process. I know it's silly today but I expect the applicants to know things like the fact that the inspector can still make a call. If I had my way (I don't) I would keep them to a minimum.
 
We don't need one. The law basically says we can't issue a C. O. unless it complies with code

And this:

(f) Issuance of a permit does not bar prosecution or other legal action for violations of the act, the Uniform Construction Code or a construction ordinance. A building code official may suspend or revoke a permit issued under the Uniform Construction Code when the permit holder does not make the required changes directed by the building code official under subsection (c), when the permit is issued in error, on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information or in violation of any act, regulation, ordinance or the Uniform Construction Code.
 
We have never had a stamp like this. Not sure if it helps us or not. We have had a few issues come up over the years but most are easily handled out in the field.
 
So...devils advocate here...if you all have statutory immunity there, why is there any concern about a disclaimer? I would assume this is to prevent claims related to reasonable expectation, but that only exists if the government body is subject to liability.

We just have a general statement in our building by-law that states that compliance with the code is at the cost of the owner.
 
tmurray, I think stamping stuff in red ink, might give some a state of euphoria!
 
It is probably more CYA with your higher ups or arguments than prosecution....We can't catch everything in the short time we have with plans so it is on the designer and contractor to do their part.


So...devils advocate here...if you all have statutory immunity there, why is there any concern about a disclaimer? I would assume this is to prevent claims related to reasonable expectation, but that only exists if the government body is subject to liability.

We just have a general statement in our building by-law that states that compliance with the code is at the cost of the owner.
 
What sort of liability do you believe you have?

Why repeat what is already stated in the statutes?
 
Top