• 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.

Verbiage stamped on approved/reviewed drawings

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,802
Location
Not where I really want to be
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.
 
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.


tmurray said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
What sort of liability do you believe you have?

Why repeat what is already stated in the statutes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top