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.

 

[ICE]

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.

When I read comments like this my first reaction is, how often does that happen? I would wonder why the contractor didn’t talk to me. I’ve never had an architect challenge a correction and I’m not immune to being full of shlt.

 

[steveray]

I will sometimes say that the lender requires a written code citation in order to approve a change order.

I like that....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

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.

This may be true where you are, but both my state and 3rd party company require us to be qualified and re certified every 3 years.

 

[mtlogcabin]

This is what Montana requires
24.301.206 STAFF QUALIFICATION

24.301.206 : STAFF QUALIFICATION - Administrative Rules of the State of Montana

rules.mt.gov

 

[Yikes]

When I read comments like this my first reaction is, how often does that happen? I would wonder why the contractor didn’t talk to me. I’ve never had an architect challenge a correction and I’m not immune to being full of shlt.

It's not too uncommon. It tends to happen more often on existing buildings (alterations and rehab projects), where the inspector may not have a full understanding of how existing construction to remain may be allowed to comply with code at time of original construction, vs. being compelled to upgrade to meet new construction requirements. EERO size for replacement windows is a common code misunderstanding.

I'm also not immune to enjoying challenging an inspector if I suspect they already know they are full of sh*t. You know what they say about pigs wrestling in the mud. There was one memorable time when the inspector and I were both into it for about 5 minutes about how much undercut is allowed on a fire rated door, and the superintendent broke the tension: "you two need to get a room". We all had a good laugh.

 

[steveray]

It's not too uncommon. It tends to happen more often on existing buildings (alterations and rehab projects), where the inspector may not have a full understanding of how existing construction to remain may be allowed to comply with code at time of original construction, vs. being compelled to upgrade to meet new construction requirements. EERO size for replacement windows is a common code misunderstanding.

I'm also not immune to enjoying challenging an inspector if I suspect they already know they are full of sh*t. You know what they say about pigs wrestling in the mud. There was one memorable time when the inspector and I were both into it for about 5 minutes about how much undercut is allowed on a fire rated door, and the superintendent broke the tension: "you two need to get a room". We all had a good laugh.

7.2.3.3.4

Clearance under doors, in the closed position, shall not exceed 3⁄8 in. (10 mm) above raised noncombustible sills and not more than 3⁄4 in. (20 mm) above the floor where there is no raised noncombustible sill.

 

[ICE]

EERO size for replacement windows is a common code misunderstanding.

That is a consequence of lax training. It is also a goofy bit of code.

R310.2.5 Replacement windows.
Replacement windows installed in buildings meeting the scope of this code shall be exempt from the maximum sill height requirements of Section R310.2.2 and the requirements of Section R310.2.1, provided that the replacement window meets the following conditions:
1. The replacement window is the manufacturer's largest standard size window that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening. The replacement window is of the same operating style as the existing window or a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the existing window.
2. The replacement window is not part of a change of occupancy.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

7.2.3.3.4

Clearance under doors, in the closed position, shall not exceed 3⁄8 in. (10 mm) above raised noncombustible sills and not more than 3⁄4 in. (20 mm) above the floor where there is no raised noncombustible sill.

Whattabout NFPA 80? I wrote someone up earlier this year for violating 4.8.4.1 - 26cm clearance, only allowed 19.

 

[Yikes]

That is a consequence of lax training. It is also a goofy bit of code.

Right… like I said, the problem arises more often than you’d think.

 

[ICE]

Right… like I said, the problem arises more often than you’d think.

Not to disparage your profession, but why would anyone hire an architect for replacement windows?

 

[Joe.B]

The certifications available from ICC seem to have no other equal or even something comparable.

Yes for some, such as IRC, IBC, IEBC, etc... but for states that adopt the Uniform Plumbing/Mechanical Codes IAPMO offers inspector certifications. They also offer certifications for installers. I haven't looked for it, but apparently there are several places you can get the NEC certifications, either for installer or inspector. ACIA (AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION) offers a variety of certifications. NFPA offers some certifications too...

 

[ICE]

IAEI Magazine

Articles promoting safe electrical installations, electrical safety and the electrical industry.

iaeimagazine.org

IAEI used to offer a certification. The organization gave me a certification by virtue of obtaining an ICBO Electrical Inspector certification. I didn’t maintain it because of the cost to renew. The link above is to the IAEI magazine. I used to attend chapter meetings here in SoCal. That would be an hour of training and a lunch…. On company time.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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.

Exactly correct. He got away with it because there was no effective supervision (the building official was a political hack who knew nothing about the building code -- he had a deputy BO who ran the department), and because affected parties found it easier/faster/cheaper to go along rather than fight it and suffer the ensuing delays.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

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?

Some states have their own certification criteria, run their own qualification courses, and administer their own certification exams. The downside to this is that people certified in/by that state can't find work anywhere else, and people with ICC certification can't work in that state without taking and passing the state's own class and exam.

When NEBCA (New England Building Code Association) was alive and well, we learned of a peculiar circumstance affecting Cuttyhunk Island in Massachusetts. Cuttyhunk is big enough to have a few houses on it, a tiny village, a Coast Guard station, and not much else. I don't know about today, but back then Massachusetts certified their own inspectors and ran their own in-service training classes. Massachusetts required each inspector to accrue 'X' hours of training annually to maintain their certification.

One fine day the powers tat be realized that the building inspector on Cuttyhunk Island had basically NO training credits. So they sent him a notice that they were going to de-certify him. His response was, "Go ahead. I don't earn a living doing this job, I do it because nobody else will. If you de-certify me I'll have more time to catch lobsters." To get to a class -- on the mainland -- meant he would have to arise at oh-dark-thirty, take a ferry to the mainland, then get in a car and drive to the venue for the class, then drive beck to the ferry dock, ride the ferry back to the island, and go home. What would involve a few hours for most people was an all-day excursion for him.

They finally worked out a deal whereby he took a couple of classes a year (maybe on-line -- don't remember), in exchange for which the state kept him certified as a residential inspector. Since there was basically nothing on the island except single family houses (the Coast Guard station, obviously, was exempt from state and local oversight), that satisfied everyone.

 

[ICE]

Exactly correct. He got away with it because there was no effective supervision (the building official was a political hack who knew nothing about the building code -- he had a deputy BO who ran the department), and because affected parties found it easier/faster/cheaper to go along rather than fight it and suffer the ensuing delays.

That’s a lot like the paleontologist that creates a dinosaur after finding a toe bone. If you’re gonna make up a BO, put some flesh on him/her/they.

 

[Mark K]

If a state legislature were to have created their own "certification" system they have effectively licensed the inspectors and would thus not be subject to anti-trust laws.

In California professional engineering encompasses "...supervision of construction for the purpose of securing compliance with specifications and design for any such work". Thus I read this to mean that a registered engineer is assumed qualified to perform special inspections and not needing certifications by another entity. There may be reasons why a professional engineer will not want to perform inspection services but that is the engineer's decision.

Since performing inspections is an engineering activity thus the jurisdiction's inspectors should either be licensed as a professional engineer or working under the supervision of a registered engineer or architect.

 

[tmurray]

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.

It doesn't, it just isn't something he is familiar with. The US generally keeps their trade regulation at the state level in contrast with Canada who typically delegate this to the professional associations.

For everyone else:
Canada delegates this for a few reasons: the first is that it de-politicizes the regulation practice. The second is that there likely is no one better to regulate a group of professionals than themselves. The third is that government professionals can be quite out of touch with the issues facing private industry, particularly issues facing smaller firms. Finally, associations are much more agile and can react much faster to issues developing in their area of work than the government can.

The question inevitably comes up as to how we can have faith in these professionals self-regulating. That's easy: if they do a bad job the government will take it over and they lose a lot of their power and decision-making ability, so they have a lot to lose by poorly self-regulating.

 

[ICE]

Thus I read this to mean that a registered engineer is assumed qualified to perform special inspections and not needing certifications by another entity.

What categories are you proficient in? You have come up with some balderdash in the past ... you have outdone yourself with this one.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The question inevitably comes up as to how we can have faith in these professionals self-regulating. That's easy: if they do a bad job the government will take it over and they lose a lot of their power and decision-making ability, so they have a lot to lose by poorly self-regulating.

^^^ this.

 

[mtlogcabin]

"That's easy: if they do a bad job the government will take it over."

I think we might be back at the beginning where government does not hire competent inspectors.

 

[Mark K]

What categories are you proficient in? You have come up with some balderdash in the past ... you have outdone yourself with this one.

The insult has been noted.

We start with the fact that design professionals are sensitive to only practicing in the area of their competence.

Let us start with a simple one as a licensed civil engineer we are licensed to design structural systems which include concrete structures. Thus it follows that we know enough to inspect concrete members including reinforcing steel. We can provide other examples.

As I recall one element of the ICC certification has to do with the ability to read construction documents. These construction documents are prepared by prepared by reregistered engineers. Thus it is assumed that engineers can read construction documents.

 

[ICE]

it follows that we know enough to inspect concrete members including reinforcing steel

Well if you need the work you’ll need the ICC SI certification. In unincorporated La County you will need to get through a rigorous interview by a panel of Senior Building Engineering Inspectors. That is not easy to do and there’s a bushel basket of reference books to bring to the interview.

Be aware that unlike Structural Observation reports you can’t state that the work is “in substantial compliance”. Special inspectors must get it all the way to in compliance.

Greed is a powerful foible. Were there any merit to your claim, engineers would be all over it. As an aside I will tell you that I think that every engineer should be required to obtain ICC certification for their particular discipline and then be enrolled in a two year internship as an inspector. That would raise the bar for inspectors and prepare the engineers.

 

[Mark K]

Well if you need the work you’ll need the ICC SI certification. In unincorporated La County you will need to get through a rigorous interview by a panel of Senior Building Engineering Inspectors. That is not easy to do and there’s a bushel basket of reference books to bring to the interview.

Be aware that unlike Structural Observation reports you can’t state that the work is “in substantial compliance”. Special inspectors must get it all the way to in compliance.

Greed is a powerful foible. Were there any merit to your claim, engineers would be all over it. As an aside I will tell you that I think that every engineer should be required to obtain ICC certification for their particular discipline and then be enrolled in a two year internship as an inspector. That would raise the bar for inspectors and prepare the engineers.

When a jurisdiction requires a certification to perform an engineering activity they are regulating engineering which they do not have the authority to do. Thus it is suggested that LA County is acting illegally. Remember that state law governs over the preferences of local jurisdictions.

 

[ICE]

When a jurisdiction requires a certification to perform an engineering activity they are regulating engineering which they do not have the authority to do. Thus it is suggested that LA County is acting illegally. Remember that state law governs over the preferences of local jurisdictions.

Oh my, I could have used that knowledge to get out of driving to HQ and interviewing special inspectors. I disliked being the arbiter of whether the SI could earn a living in LACo. Of course when you say engineering "activity" you just might be deluded into thinking that engineers shaped reality.

You know, this got me to wondering if the common folks are on board with this. Take Sylvia for example. Sylvia works at the donut shop and I bet that Sylvia hands over a few hundred cups of coffee a week.

Pouring a cup of coffee involves several engineering principles, although they may not be as complex as those in traditional engineering fields. Here are some relevant principles:

1. Fluid Dynamics: The flow of liquid (coffee) is governed by principles of fluid dynamics. Factors like viscosity, turbulence, and flow rate can affect how the coffee pours from the container into the cup. The shape and size of the spout of the coffee pot or kettle can also influence the flow.
2. Thermodynamics: Heat transfer is a crucial aspect when making and pouring coffee. The water temperature affects the extraction of flavors from coffee grounds during brewing. Additionally, the insulation of the coffee pot or cup helps to retain the heat, keeping the coffee at an optimal temperature.
3. Material Science: The choice of materials for the coffee pot, cup, and even the coffee filter involves considerations of thermal conductivity, durability, and chemical interactions. For example, materials like stainless steel or glass are commonly used due to their thermal properties and resistance to corrosion.
4. Ergonomics: The design of the coffee pot handle and spout is essential for comfortable pouring. Engineers consider ergonomics to ensure a user-friendly experience, minimizing the risk of spills or discomfort during use.
5. Heat Transfer: The process of brewing coffee involves heat transfer from hot water to coffee grounds. The design of the coffee maker and the brewing time can influence the efficiency of heat transfer, affecting the extraction of flavors from the coffee grounds.
6. Control Systems: Some advanced coffee makers involve automated processes, such as regulating water temperature, brew time, and even grind size. Control systems engineering principles are applied to create precise and consistent brewing conditions for a desired cup of coffee.
7. Materials Processing: The production of coffee involves various stages, from growing and harvesting coffee beans to roasting and grinding. Engineering principles in materials processing are applied to ensure the quality and consistency of the final coffee product.

While these engineering principles may not be explicitly mentioned when pouring a cup of coffee, they are inherent in the design and production processes of the equipment used and in the understanding of the physical and chemical processes involved in making a good cup of coffee. Imagine what's involved in producing a doughnut. Chocolate French are my favorite. I said are as in plural.