• 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

What would you do?

So... if the vanity sinks wing handle is missing, IPC 102.3 kicks in.

"Never fear SUPER BO appears and saves the day!"

When's lunch?

pc1
 
jar546 said:
I am glad that I started this thread. I knew that this is what it would turn into.When you mix government employees with ZERO incentive to get off of their ***** and the only concern with each day is what to have for lunch, and only obligation is to make sure they make it to their publicly funded pension, you have a recipe for L A Z I N E S S. Basically people spend more time and effort figuring out how to not do their job rather than just do it. Why? Because there is no incentive, because they are lazy, because it does not affect them, because they would rather be the good guy, because, because, because. All that this would cause would be more work and God forbid someone has to actually work for a living. These are the guys that I would never hire, these are the guys that have a zero chance of ever being self employed, these are the guys that have no sense of urgency other than when they have to go to the bathroom.

I think that this industry is loaded with lazy, useless, self-serving government employees that can't think outside of a box and have no desire to do so anyway. How is that for an opinion? I wonder how many people are ****ed off by this post?
Click to expand...
It seems odd that you would host a forum for such a bunch of losers.
 
jar546 said:
So part of the reason for excessive litigation is the lack of enforcement by code officials who refuse to perform their job as outlined in the administration sections of the applicable codes?
Click to expand...
I pick my fights carefully. That is one I'm not taking on, not in the environment I work in.

BS
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you are a municipal employee that has decent protection from lawsuits, it is easier to "fail to act" than it is to "act" because it lessens your chance of litigation? Would you simply just let the magistrate make the decision if they are cited by you? You would rather not risk losing a case than actually trying and letting the system do its job?
 
I can't believe I read the whole thing...

Even worse, I can't believe some of what I read.

First and foremost is the issue of jurisdiction. It varies according to location. For many, like most NYS Code Officials, the authority to enforce includes both new construction and existing facility maintenance. For those whose job is limited to new construction then the OP is not within the scope of authority. Simple.

Second is the question of 'ADA' compliance. Few (very few) municipal Code Officials are charge with enforcement of the ADA. However most are charged with enforcing the accessibility provisions of the Codes.

Third the proper codes in the instant case are the Property Maintenance Code and to a lesser extent, the Fire Code. Generally, one cannot alter building such that it becomes less code compliant. To do so is a violation of the Code. The EBC/Chapter 34 would apply once a permit is applied for.

Fourth there is a duty to inspect in response to a bona fide complaint, that is a complaint that is within the authority and jurisdiction of the Department, that alleges a violation of the Code.

Yes, it is a violation. Yes the municipality has a duty t inspect and gain compliance, preferably voluntary compliance. Lacking that, appropriate enforcement actions to compel compliance are warranted.

Written complaints establish a paper trail that will likely force the jurisdiction to act. JMHO
 
JBI said:
I can't believe I read the whole thing... Even worse, I can't believe some of what I read.

First and foremost is the issue of jurisdiction. It varies according to location. For many, like most NYS Code Officials, the authority to enforce includes both new construction and existing facility maintenance. For those whose job is limited to new construction then the OP is not within the scope of authority. Simple.

Second is the question of 'ADA' compliance. Few (very few) municipal Code Officials are charge with enforcement of the ADA. However most are charged with enforcing the accessibility provisions of the Codes.

Third the proper codes in the instant case are the Property Maintenance Code and to a lesser extent, the Fire Code. Generally, one cannot alter building such that it becomes less code compliant. To do so is a violation of the Code. The EBC/Chapter 34 would apply once a permit is applied for.

Fourth there is a duty to inspect in response to a bona fide complaint, that is a complaint that is within the authority and jurisdiction of the Department, that alleges a violation of the Code.

Yes, it is a violation. Yes the municipality has a duty t inspect and gain compliance, preferably voluntary compliance. Lacking that, appropriate enforcement actions to compel compliance are warranted.

Written complaints establish a paper trail that will likely force the jurisdiction to act. JMHO
Click to expand...
The voice of reason. Thank you JBI
 
2902.3 Required public toilet facilities. Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization.
 
steveray said:
2902.3 Required public toilet facilities. Customers, patrons and visitors shall be provided with public toilet facilities in structures and tenant spaces intended for public utilization.
Click to expand...
And when you read further

[P] 2902.3.5 Door locking.

Where a toilet room is provided for the use of multiple occupants, the egress door for the room shall not be lockable from the inside of the room. This section does not apply to family or assisted-use toilet rooms.

Unless it is more than a single user toilet room the lock is not the code violation. Refusing to provide use of the accessible toilet room to a person who needs it is a definite civil rights violation. Both restrooms where marked unisex and unless there was an extremely long wait or somebody had an "emergency" that could not wait and the management refused to allow access to the locked toilet room then there may be a violation for failure to provide the minimum required fixtures under Table 2902.1.

The OP did not state there was a complaint of refusal to allow a customer to use the locked toilet room. The only way a code official could even act is if he had complaint or knowledge the management refused a customer use of the room. Sending letters and citing code sections with no proof or complaint the management refused use of the room simply because the sign says employees only is not a good way to run an enforcement department of any kind.

That would be similar to a police officer giving me a speeding ticket because my speedometer says my old truck can do 90 MPH. He has no proof that I have ever driven that fast
 
Kind of my point.

The only thing you can do is inform him of statute. There is virtually no way to prove the violation. Even if there were a complaint it was locked, he could just claim occupancy. If you recieved a dozen complaints, he could say it was occupied every time. I guess you could be weird about it and post guard to watch the place, or task an Obamadrone to it, but now your getting a little obsessive.

Brent.
 
At a gas staition that I did all the inspections and C.O.ed stooped to gas up a week after it opened and tryed to use the restroom. It was locked. I asked for the attenent for a key. He said no rest room. I insisted that there was one. He opened it up and it was full of boxes.

I can't do anything about it.
 
Rick18071 said:
At a gas staition that I did all the inspections and C.O.ed stooped to gas up a week after it opened and tryed to use the restroom. It was locked. I asked for the attenent for a key. He said no rest room. I insisted that there was one. He opened it up and it was full of boxes.I can't do anything about it.
Click to expand...
Yes you can since you have personal knowledge the restroom was not available for public use when requested. Maybe it was just a case of lack of storage for the excess product that was anticipated being need for the initial opening. Check again in a couple of weeks and follow the code path if they are not willing to comply with your verbal request/notification
 
1. investigate the complaint and explain the code and its requirements - that 2 restrooms are required, including the accessible one - if that doesn't work...

2. cite them under our building and access code, and probably the plumbing code - if that doesn't work...

3. threaten their common vics license - if it's still locked...

4. go to court to get compliance

disclaimer - i have only looked at page 1 of the thread

disclaimer - i've only read the looked at page 1
 
MASSDRIVER said:
Unless I missed something, referencing only that article, the code official has no real authority to do anything as it relates to federal law. But he may advise.

Brent
Click to expand...
I suspect you are right Brent, except for us here in the Communist State of California that now has it's own disability code. I've challenged a couple of these guys in other states before and have never received a clear answer as to their authority.
 
Mr Softy said:
1. investigate the complaint and explain the code and its requirements - that 2 restrooms are required, including the accessible one - if that doesn't work...2. cite them under our building and access code, and probably the plumbing code - if that doesn't work...

3. threaten their common vics license - if it's still locked...

4. go to court to get compliance
Click to expand...
The right answer
 
UPDATE / MORE INFO:

The reality of this situation is this. Every Wednesday I have a meeting in a city that I have no jurisdiction. Every Wednesday I stop in this place for a protein smoothie for breakfast, probably 44-48 weeks per year. I noticed this problem but kept quiet. Then:

One day I spoke to one of the employees and told her to tell her boss (as the nobody that I am) that 2 bathrooms were required for the occupant load and if he was going to feel the need to eliminate one of them for the employees, he should not be locking out the only ADA bathroom there.

Three weeks later (today) I stopped in and the boss was there and nothing has changed. No one else was there so I told him that he is setting himself up for litigation by locking out the ADA. I reminded him that 2 bathrooms were required and that was bad enough but he was locking out the ADA making things even worse. I explained to him the code requirements and about growing litigation on the ADA end and was very nice to him. He had no response. My suspicion is that next week, nothing will be changed.

If nothing is changed next week, then, after my meeting I will be going across the street to the City to file a written complaint and see what their position is. I plan on being proactive with this and want to see how the system will handle this.

We will see.
 
jar546 said:
I explained to him the code requirements and about growing litigation on the ADA end and was very nice to him. He had no response.
Click to expand...
That's the kind of response we received majority of the time. I'm usually met with stares that could put fear in the eyes of Hellboy.

A visit from IRC prompts direct compliance without getting the courts involved. The owner or representatives call our office for confirmation and advice on alternatives. Vandalism is often the reason.

Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good for you Jar!

Just remember your taking about $30,000 dollars from a potential victims lawsuit. "There's gold in them hills in California."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top