Why Contractors Avoid Pulling Building Permits: Uncovering the Truth

Why Contractors Avoid Pulling Building Permits: Uncovering the Truth​

Introduction​

In the complex world of construction and home improvement, the decision to pull a building permit is often clouded by misconceptions, misinformation, and sometimes deliberate avoidance. As a seasoned Building Official with extensive experience in the field, I've witnessed firsthand the myriad reasons contractors avoid this crucial step, and the consequences that follow. This article delves into the often-overlooked aspects of why contractors skip permits and the psychological interplay between contractors and homeowners, drawing on both personal experiences and comprehensive research.

The Reality of Permitting: A Closer Look​

The Misconception of Time Delays​

A common argument presented by contractors against pulling permits is the alleged time delay. Many homeowners are led to believe that obtaining a permit can take months, causing unnecessary project delays. In reality, this is often a gross exaggeration. Depending on the jurisdiction and project scope, permits can be issued relatively quickly, sometimes even on the same day for simpler projects like roofing or water heater replacements.

The Fear of Exposure and Technical Incompetence​

At the heart of permit avoidance, especially among less scrupulous contractors, is the fear of exposure. Contractors who doubt their ability to meet the technical standards set by building codes may opt to bypass the permit process. This evasion is particularly concerning, as even competent contractors sometimes fail inspections, raising questions about the quality of work done without any oversight.

Misleading Homeowners: A Game of Trust​

The contractor-homeowner relationship is often underpinned by trust, sometimes misplaced. Contractors, adept at salesmanship, can build a strong rapport with homeowners, persuading them that permits are unnecessary. This tactic not only endangers the structural integrity of the project but also places homeowners in a precarious legal position. When contractors blame the building department for their failures or project delays, they deflect responsibility, further complicating the issue.

My Experience as a Building Official​

One striking example from my career involved a contractor who, despite obtaining a permit for a new house, chose to ignore the approved plans, leading to a failed inspection. The contractor's attempt to charge the homeowner an additional $8,000 and blame the building department highlights the deceitful practices in the industry. Such scenarios underscore the importance of permits and inspections in maintaining building integrity and safety.

The Legal and Financial Repercussions of Permit Evasion​

The consequences of not pulling permits extend beyond immediate project concerns. Homeowners face significant financial and legal repercussions, ranging from fines to increased costs when selling their homes. Unpermitted renovations can lower a home's market value and complicate real estate transactions, potentially leading to costly retroactive permitting processes and even legal disputes.

Safety and Compliance: The Core of Permitting​

At its core, the permit process is about ensuring safety and compliance with local codes and regulations. This oversight is crucial for the integrity of HVAC systems, plumbing, and electrical installations. By adhering to these standards, homeowners safeguard not only their investment but also their personal safety, reducing the risk of accidents and ensuring quality workmanship.

Navigating the Permit Process: Advice for Homeowners​

For homeowners embarking on construction or renovation projects, understanding the permitting process is key. Consulting with legal or construction experts can provide clarity and help navigate the complex landscape of building codes and regulations. Homeowners should be vigilant, questioning contractors' claims about permit requirements, and ensuring due diligence is performed before work begins.

Conclusion​

The decision to pull a building permit is not just a bureaucratic formality; it's a critical step in safeguarding the safety, legality, and financial viability of any construction project. As we've explored, contractors may avoid pulling permits for various reasons, but the risks and consequences of such avoidance are too significant to ignore. Homeowners must be informed and proactive, ensuring that their projects comply with local standards and regulations. As a Building Official, I've seen the pitfalls of permit evasion and the importance of upholding these standards for the safety and integrity of our homes and communities.

References in addition to direct experience:

1. "Who Is Responsible for Pulling Permits? Get the Facts Here" - REthority.
2. "Consequences of Renovating Without a Permit" - RenoFi.
3. "Importance of Pulling Home Improvement Permits" - Bellows Plumbing, Heating, Cooling, Electrical Repair & Install.
4. "Understanding the Importance of Building Permits" - John Caravella Esq., LIConstructionLaw.com.
5. "Key Reasons to Always Pull a Permit for Home Projects" - Bellows Plumbing, Heating, Cooling, Electrical Repair & Install.

 

[steveray]

The belief that building permits are required only as a way to increase tax assessments is so wide-spread around this area that it's probably fair to say it's almost universal.

The place was populated by wealthy people and too much money can lead to a strange happening.

#connecticut

 

[steveray]

ICE....looks like you are missing the receptacle on your Juliette balcony....210.52E3

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I would like to suggest that you share with your New Guy, that while you are stepping over the line by "Telling the contractor How they are doing the job ( we are usually reviewing the finished product) you can often help by ASKING QUESTIONS
Give them something to think about for the next time, Most Inspectors want to Help, especially the new contractors, but how you do it and not step Over the Line is the challenge,

Nope. Not until all field inspectors wear body cams. I say, "I asked him if he had considered doing it this other way." The contractor says, "He told me to tear it out and do it another way."

He said / she said is not a good defense in court. If it meets code, pass it and shut up.

 

[Plumb-bob]

I have been in the role for 5 years and have seen the bureaucratic requirements increase substantially over this time. Requirements for architects, engineers, energy advisors to energy model and complete blower door testing, registered builders, zero carbon appliances, etc.

On some projects all of the above makes perfect sense. On others, none at all.

If it were all free it would not be too bad, but it all costs time and money.

I can see how owners and builders get jaded and exhausted with it all.

 

[ICE]

ICE....looks like you are missing the receptacle on your Juliette balcony....210.52E3

View attachment 12728

If it were up to m.... oh, oh, I almost broke my promise.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Nope. Not until all field inspectors wear body cams. I say, "I asked him if he had considered doing it this other way." The contractor says, "He told me to tear it out and do it another way."

He said / she said is not a good defense in court. If it meets code, pass it and shut up.

Dang! My boss is hacking my computer. I made the above post on Thursday morning. Late in the day on Thursday the boos, our office administrator and I were chatting about contractors and owners who seem to like to pick fights or invent insults, and the boss said, "I think we should all wear police body cams."

 

[Mark K]

We are breaking in a rookie plumbing inspector at work and this is something I have to keep reminding him of. As a code inspector, he's not allowed to delve into how he would have done it, or how it might be done better, faster, or cheaper. He is there to determine whether or not it meets code -- period.

governmental immunity applies when performing a governmental function. Imposing a requirement not in the adopted codes creates potential liability for the inspector and the jurisdiction

 

[bill1952]

We are breaking in a rookie plumbing inspector at work and this is something I have to keep reminding him of. As a code inspector, he's not allowed to delve into how he would have done it, or how it might be done better, faster, or cheaper. He is there to determine whether or not it meets code -- period.

This attitude will make it the perfect job for AI and robots, and make Mark K happy.

Personally, I enjoy the discussions with building department personnel.

 

[Mark K]

This attitude will make it the perfect job for AI and robots, and make Mark K happy.

Personally, I enjoy the discussions with building department personnel.

From the design professionals perspective it is important that the building department complies with the law since the design professional then knows what he has to do to get a building permit and certificate of occupancy.

 

[ICE]

the design professional then knows what he has to do to get a building permit

If the building department is lawless and throws a roadblock just because they can... why would anyone tolerate that? It has been my experience that people complain bitterly about anything and everything. Be they right or wrong the battle ensues. So now you come along with the same old diatribe about the building department acting outside the law.

No doubt it has happened. Apparently it has happened to you. Well let's hear it. Provide examples of the out of control building departments that have caused you grief.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I knew an electrical inspector who refused to allow Romex in his city. Everyone had to use MC cable, even for single family residences.

He knew the NEC didn't support him. All contractors doing work in that city knew that if they challenged him on that, he would allow Romex on that job -- and then he'd beat them over the head with every single nit-picky violation he could dredge up, to the point there would be no way they could possibly make money on the job. They all decided it was cheaper to use MC and just build it into their price.

 

[Mark K]

I knew an electrical inspector who refused to allow Romex in his city. Everyone had to use MC cable, even for single family residences.

He knew the NEC didn't support him. All contractors doing work in that city knew that if they challenged him on that, he would allow Romex on that job -- and then he'd beat them over the head with every single nit-picky violation he could dredge up, to the point there would be no way they could possibly make money on the job. They all decided it was cheaper to use MC and just build it into their price.

The inspector should have been prosecuted for extortion.

The reason that such behavior is not fought more is because it is cheaper to appease the inspector both in terms of the money to appeal the ruling and because of the delays. Owners want to have the project completed and will likely not appreciate the resulting delays if the design professional appeals the inspectors ruling.

ultimately such inspectors exist because the inspector's supervisor will not take action.

 

[ICE]

such inspectors exist because the inspector's supervisor will not take action.

Try to find a competent, certified building inspector to hire. Go ahead, I'll wait here.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

ultimately such inspectors exist because the inspector's supervisor will not take action.

I wonder how many supervisors actually understand what inspectors do?

 

[Mark K]

Try to find a competent, certified building inspector to hire. Go ahead, I'll wait here.

There is no question about the need for inspectors to be qualified but what is the basis for requiring inspectors to be certified by ICC? Is this the only way to determine if an inspector is qualified?

When building departments require ICC certification does this not create a monopoly for ICC?

 

[bill1952]

There is no question about the need for inspectors to be qualified but what is the basis for requiring inspectors to be certified by ICC? Is this the only way to determine if an inspector is qualified?

When building departments require ICC certification does this not create a monopoly for ICC?

Is that any different than adopting an I-code? Is it a monopoly when you can change it at any time? I don't know, of course what else is there for certification?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

There is no question about the need for inspectors to be qualified but what is the basis for requiring inspectors to be certified by ICC? Is this the only way to determine if an inspector is qualified?

When building departments require ICC certification does this not create a monopoly for ICC?

How is that different from doctors all being part of a medical association, and accredited/licenced to be allowed to practice?

 

[Mark K]

How is that different from doctors all being part of a medical association, and accredited/licenced to be allowed to practice?

You need to differentiate between being a member of an association and being allowed to practice. You can be a member of a medical association but that does not authorize you to practice. In order to practice you must be given that permission by the state.

There is the "state action doctrine" which recognizes that if the state legislature, not local jurisdiction, has clearly articulated a desire to displace competition such actions are not subject to antitrust liability. Thus since the state legislature has not decided to require ICC certifications such requirements are subject to antitrust law.

A key concept is that there are legal limitations on building officials.

 

[Mark K]

Is that any different than adopting an I-code? Is it a monopoly when you can change it at any time? I don't know, of course what else is there for certification?

The authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt or modify a building code is dependent on what authority the Legislature has given them.

In California the state has adopted the California Building Code (CBC) which is based on the IBC while limiting the ability of local jurisdictions to adopt local modifications to the CBC When local modifications have been adopted they must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission. Thus local jurisdictions are limited in what they can adopt/modify.

Could it be that some jurisdiction have overstepped their authority?

 

[Inspector Gadget]

You need to differentiate between being a member of an association and being allowed to practice. You can be a member of a medical association but that does not authorize you to practice. In order to practice you must be given that permission by the state.

I'm not seeing how the above disagrees with what I've laid out.

You have [insert profession] qualified/certified by an independent organization that is entrusted to train/licence/discipline its members ...

You can use any one of a number of professions in that slot, and the result is common practice.
Accountants, chiropractors, nurses, architects ..... all self-regulate. Other agencies (universities/colleges) may provide the training... but the credentialling is done by the professional body.

I'd be quite fascinated to see an argument suggesting those professions are violating anti-trust/monopoly laws.

 

[Edison mark]

You have point out the right thing, its all about educating your client. nothing else.

 

[bill1952]

The authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt or modify a building code is dependent on what authority the Legislature has given them.

In California the state has adopted the California Building Code (CBC) which is based on the IBC while limiting the ability of local jurisdictions to adopt local modifications to the CBC When local modifications have been adopted they must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission. Thus local jurisdictions are limited in what they can adopt/modify.

Could it be that some jurisdiction have overstepped their authority?

The certifications available from ICC seem to have no other equal or even something comparable. I'm also not sure requiring certification as a condition of employment is illegal or the same as enforcing laws that don't exist, but it does demonstrate a certain commitment.

Just went through the code and restraint of trade issue in NFPA 80. A section required "factory trained" techs, and it was determined that it "restrained trade". But that's a law. Not sure requirements listed for employment are laws, especially if the certification is required within a certain time from employment and supported by the employer (paid time, etc.)

Not the building departments fault that there is not enough profit in offering certification for there to be any options. Maybe the employment requirement should just require "ICC certification or equal", like a lot of specifications do. (Well, except maybe those for NAVFAC.)

 

[ICE]

Is this the only way to determine if an inspector is qualified?

There's usually an interview.
Well that is not always true when the inspector works for a third party company. In that case the inspector is not required to be qualified. Come to think of it, there's places where the only required qualification is a license to operate a motor vehicle.

Now you might think that's a stupid answer... so look at the question.

 

[Yikes]

The inspector should have been prosecuted for extortion.

The reason that such behavior is not fought more is because it is cheaper to appease the inspector both in terms of the money to appeal the ruling and because of the delays. Owners want to have the project completed and will likely not appreciate the resulting delays if the design professional appeals the inspectors ruling.

ultimately such inspectors exist because the inspector's supervisor will not take action.

I agree that construction superintendents take this approach with building inspectors, and even a "have you considered...?" comment from the inspector gets interpreted as an order to change something, even though the inspector did not intend it that way.

As the Architect, I tell the the contractor that it is their job to play "good cop" with the inspector, and my job to play "bad cop". If the inspector asks for something that exceeds code, the contractor will report it to me, then I will contact the inspector and ask them for a code citation; I will sometimes say that the lender requires a written code citation in order to approve a change order. Most of the time the inspector will back down, and the superintendent has been spared the ire of the inspector.