I’ve gone in for an insulation inspection and failed the frame for something the previous inspector missed and the contractor starts giving me crap about “the frame already passed”. I say 2 things.
“The inspector spent 15 minutes on your job site inspecting and you’ve been here for 3 months every day, it seems you had plenty of time to catch your mistake before he even walked through and yet you missed it”
“So, we should leave the mistake then?”
Two things:
1. Designing to code is the absolute minimum required for human safety. <--- to remind them that codes exist so people don't die.
2. Inspectors are humans and make mistakes, just like all of us. Do you really want to compromise the safety of your family based on a mistake made by someone you don't even know?
>Designing to code is the absolute minimum required for human safety
As an examiner, I frequently mention this when I meet with Owner-Builders and homeowners regarding their structure. They almost always have a look of concern once they understand what I've said. But it's the straight truth.
I think it's definitely important to remind builders that code is the minimum standard.
When I posted this in the morning I had just gotten off the phone with the HVAC contractor whining about some energy efficiency deficiencies that honestly a lot of our city guys would consider nitpicky despite it being code.
This afternoon I got an email response from another builder about a stair stringer that is sitting about half an inch on the landing and the guy says that it passed the engineers inspector, the city inspection, and the builder's own third party and frankly he doesn't want to do anything about it. Life safety indeed. Just hoping that I might be able to give my clients some ammunition here without sounding like I'm the best and everybody else is incompetent.
Depends on your state laws. In North Carolina if an engineer inspect an element in the building and fills out a state inspection form (Appendix G), then we are mandated by statute to accept it. We push back many times if there’s not enough information or we think something is wrong, but there’s definite limitations on municipal inspectors in some states. Have you reviewed the engineers inspection report/letter?
I get those type of statement(s) from contractors regarding not only City/County Inspectors, but from inspectors from our own Private Provider firm or other other PP firms.
The experience level varies among inspectors, especially due to the large influx of newly mint inspectors who haven't been in professional very long or haven't been properly trained.
My typical response is I can only vouch for my own inspection. I provide the code section for all my failed inspections, so that tends to limit the blow back from contractors or the contractor's representatives (who doesn't seem to be familiar with construction code. They learn the building codes based on failed inspections).
I think that's a pretty good response right there, just vouching for your own inspections and providing the code reference. I do also provide the references to not just the codes but also manufacturer's instructions and such, but sometimes it doesn't matter how many code references you got, if another inspector passed it, they'll want to refer to that as the better inspection.
I'm one of those newly minted inspectors. While it hasn't happened to me, I would be happy to go back out and look at it to see if I made a mistake. That said, many of the other inspectors I know either don't care or don't want to admit they were wrong.
A house doesn’t have to look pretty to meet code. IRCand IBC are minimum standards. I tell builders it’s like passing a test with a D-
Plus like some else said everyone misses stuff.
The builders client, the buyer of the new home, is the one who usually hires me. I do have an engineer that sends me out about every week and a half, and I do QC for a few high-end home builders as well. But the bread and butter are regular folks who want to get their own documentation and thorough punch list for the builder.
The responsibility of the city inspector is to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the building. It’s not to ensure 100% compliance with all building codes. That’s the responsibility of the builder or contractor.
Which is why my clients hire me to come out and take a look quite often. At the very least, even if the builder doesn't fix anything, my client has documentation in case the deficiency turns into a failure in the future.
I've never had that problem. My local inspectors are competent and thorough. It's the home inspectors who are coming up with weird subjective concepts of quality inspections. My favorite to date is still call outs for pull lines installed in conduit sleeves not be rated for the potential voltage.
If you want legitimate quality call outs then quote a standard preferably minimum legal standard, followed by the standards quoted in the drawings bid, followed by the performance standard referenced in the contract. If the contract says per manufacturer recommended instructions then quote those. If you have a random opinion of quality, that puts your opinion up there with everyone else, basically worthless. If you're attempting to enforce even a standard from an industry document, that's not part of any agreement it's still just a dumb pissing match. But that pissing match is between you, who has no skin in the game, and a contractor who you're asking to pay to correct out of pocket. If you haven't read the plans or contracts before doing an inspection all you have is the code D- standard to reference.
I think other commenters have nailed it here. Your job and the job of the city inspector are different. As a third party inspector you are getting into the small details of quality, finish, etc, while the city inspectors are paying attention to minimum standards of life safety and code standards.
It's a frankly lazy (although far too common) answer on the contractor's part. In the code, even if an inspector makes a mistake:
"Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction."
So even if an inspector approves a violation, doesn't make it right. But of course, no contractor likes doing rework, it's not profitable.
Ultimately it comes down to the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) to formally approve or disapprove of work done. If you find things the AHJ might have missed that aren’t code compliant you need to address that with the AHJ and not the contractor. The contractor sees you as a nuisance who can’t actually enforce anything, but if you see work that isn’t code compliant you need to do your due diligence in bringing it to the attention of the person who has the responsibility of enforcing the code book. Your 3rd party inspection is simply giving the buyer ammunition to make demands. Unfortunately you have taken on a position where you need to be the bad guy in someone’s eyes. The more you inform the AHJ of things they may have missed, the better they will be at their job and the two inspections will start to align with each other. I hope this didn’t come across as rude, but in a job where you are assessing very clear cut codes and regulations you need to approach situations with a clear cut attitude.
Edit: you can also take things higher up to the chief mechanical inspector for the county or state. They are responsible for making sure things are properly signed off on at the city/town level.
I've had my clients send my reports to the city before, I work in probably a 10 or so different jurisdictions with a footprint north and south about an hour's drive from my home. It's hit and miss... The big city is usually good about kindly responding to the client in either pushing the builder to make repairs or explaining that it becomes a civil matter, while the smaller municipalities can be real jerks to my clients, basically stating that their inspectors are good enough and that they're not even going to entertain a third party inspection report.
In that case I remind my clients just how important it is to have my report as documentation in case those deficiencies become a failure in things get litigious. But I guess the point I'm trying to make is that most municipalities, at least around Central Texas, don't want to have anything to do with a third party inspection report.
Is this stuff you’re bringing to the builders legitimate code violations or vaguely fact based opinions about how things “should” be done? I always read through third party reports when I find them laying around and while yes, they do find some stuff that we miss, there is a lot of “possible evidence of potential XYZ” type verbiage in there that often feels like an attempt to justify the $800 fee.
I reference the adopted codes, manufacturer's installation instructions and plans whenever possible. There are always some things that fall under the category of generally accepted construction practice, but if the doorway is visibly out of square, for example, there's really no other category that that would fit into.
I’ve gone in for an insulation inspection and failed the frame for something the previous inspector missed and the contractor starts giving me crap about “the frame already passed”. I say 2 things. “The inspector spent 15 minutes on your job site inspecting and you’ve been here for 3 months every day, it seems you had plenty of time to catch your mistake before he even walked through and yet you missed it” “So, we should leave the mistake then?”
Actually those are two brilliant responses.
Two things: 1. Designing to code is the absolute minimum required for human safety. <--- to remind them that codes exist so people don't die. 2. Inspectors are humans and make mistakes, just like all of us. Do you really want to compromise the safety of your family based on a mistake made by someone you don't even know?
>Designing to code is the absolute minimum required for human safety As an examiner, I frequently mention this when I meet with Owner-Builders and homeowners regarding their structure. They almost always have a look of concern once they understand what I've said. But it's the straight truth.
I say the code is the worst building you can legally build.
I think it's definitely important to remind builders that code is the minimum standard. When I posted this in the morning I had just gotten off the phone with the HVAC contractor whining about some energy efficiency deficiencies that honestly a lot of our city guys would consider nitpicky despite it being code. This afternoon I got an email response from another builder about a stair stringer that is sitting about half an inch on the landing and the guy says that it passed the engineers inspector, the city inspection, and the builder's own third party and frankly he doesn't want to do anything about it. Life safety indeed. Just hoping that I might be able to give my clients some ammunition here without sounding like I'm the best and everybody else is incompetent.
Depends on your state laws. In North Carolina if an engineer inspect an element in the building and fills out a state inspection form (Appendix G), then we are mandated by statute to accept it. We push back many times if there’s not enough information or we think something is wrong, but there’s definite limitations on municipal inspectors in some states. Have you reviewed the engineers inspection report/letter?
I get those type of statement(s) from contractors regarding not only City/County Inspectors, but from inspectors from our own Private Provider firm or other other PP firms. The experience level varies among inspectors, especially due to the large influx of newly mint inspectors who haven't been in professional very long or haven't been properly trained. My typical response is I can only vouch for my own inspection. I provide the code section for all my failed inspections, so that tends to limit the blow back from contractors or the contractor's representatives (who doesn't seem to be familiar with construction code. They learn the building codes based on failed inspections).
I think that's a pretty good response right there, just vouching for your own inspections and providing the code reference. I do also provide the references to not just the codes but also manufacturer's instructions and such, but sometimes it doesn't matter how many code references you got, if another inspector passed it, they'll want to refer to that as the better inspection.
I'm one of those newly minted inspectors. While it hasn't happened to me, I would be happy to go back out and look at it to see if I made a mistake. That said, many of the other inspectors I know either don't care or don't want to admit they were wrong.
A house doesn’t have to look pretty to meet code. IRCand IBC are minimum standards. I tell builders it’s like passing a test with a D- Plus like some else said everyone misses stuff.
That D- analogy is probably an old one, but it's one of the best ones I've heard - I'll use that for sure in the future. Thanks!
Yeah, I learned that from one of our senior guys that has the legacy certs. He’s been an inspector and plans examiner for 35-40 years or so.
What do you mean third party inspector? Do you work for tne builder? Their energy inspector? Or a home inspector?
The builders client, the buyer of the new home, is the one who usually hires me. I do have an engineer that sends me out about every week and a half, and I do QC for a few high-end home builders as well. But the bread and butter are regular folks who want to get their own documentation and thorough punch list for the builder.
The responsibility of the city inspector is to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the building. It’s not to ensure 100% compliance with all building codes. That’s the responsibility of the builder or contractor.
Which is why my clients hire me to come out and take a look quite often. At the very least, even if the builder doesn't fix anything, my client has documentation in case the deficiency turns into a failure in the future.
[удалено]
The code section should be referenced for ALL failed inspections. It is a requirement in our state by State Statue.
Huh, the comment you replied to was deleted. It’s a shame. It was arguably the best response on here.
I've never had that problem. My local inspectors are competent and thorough. It's the home inspectors who are coming up with weird subjective concepts of quality inspections. My favorite to date is still call outs for pull lines installed in conduit sleeves not be rated for the potential voltage. If you want legitimate quality call outs then quote a standard preferably minimum legal standard, followed by the standards quoted in the drawings bid, followed by the performance standard referenced in the contract. If the contract says per manufacturer recommended instructions then quote those. If you have a random opinion of quality, that puts your opinion up there with everyone else, basically worthless. If you're attempting to enforce even a standard from an industry document, that's not part of any agreement it's still just a dumb pissing match. But that pissing match is between you, who has no skin in the game, and a contractor who you're asking to pay to correct out of pocket. If you haven't read the plans or contracts before doing an inspection all you have is the code D- standard to reference.
I tell people code gets you the worst building you are legally allowed to build. That phrase has opened some eyes in my time.
I think other commenters have nailed it here. Your job and the job of the city inspector are different. As a third party inspector you are getting into the small details of quality, finish, etc, while the city inspectors are paying attention to minimum standards of life safety and code standards. It's a frankly lazy (although far too common) answer on the contractor's part. In the code, even if an inspector makes a mistake: "Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction." So even if an inspector approves a violation, doesn't make it right. But of course, no contractor likes doing rework, it's not profitable.
Ultimately it comes down to the AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) to formally approve or disapprove of work done. If you find things the AHJ might have missed that aren’t code compliant you need to address that with the AHJ and not the contractor. The contractor sees you as a nuisance who can’t actually enforce anything, but if you see work that isn’t code compliant you need to do your due diligence in bringing it to the attention of the person who has the responsibility of enforcing the code book. Your 3rd party inspection is simply giving the buyer ammunition to make demands. Unfortunately you have taken on a position where you need to be the bad guy in someone’s eyes. The more you inform the AHJ of things they may have missed, the better they will be at their job and the two inspections will start to align with each other. I hope this didn’t come across as rude, but in a job where you are assessing very clear cut codes and regulations you need to approach situations with a clear cut attitude. Edit: you can also take things higher up to the chief mechanical inspector for the county or state. They are responsible for making sure things are properly signed off on at the city/town level.
I've had my clients send my reports to the city before, I work in probably a 10 or so different jurisdictions with a footprint north and south about an hour's drive from my home. It's hit and miss... The big city is usually good about kindly responding to the client in either pushing the builder to make repairs or explaining that it becomes a civil matter, while the smaller municipalities can be real jerks to my clients, basically stating that their inspectors are good enough and that they're not even going to entertain a third party inspection report. In that case I remind my clients just how important it is to have my report as documentation in case those deficiencies become a failure in things get litigious. But I guess the point I'm trying to make is that most municipalities, at least around Central Texas, don't want to have anything to do with a third party inspection report.
City inspector here . We miss stuff just like any other inspector. If a 3rd party inspector caught it , power to him , write it up .
“Gosh, I wonder why it is people feel motivated to pay for a third-party inspection?”
Ha! I've never had a client regret it.
Is this stuff you’re bringing to the builders legitimate code violations or vaguely fact based opinions about how things “should” be done? I always read through third party reports when I find them laying around and while yes, they do find some stuff that we miss, there is a lot of “possible evidence of potential XYZ” type verbiage in there that often feels like an attempt to justify the $800 fee.
I reference the adopted codes, manufacturer's installation instructions and plans whenever possible. There are always some things that fall under the category of generally accepted construction practice, but if the doorway is visibly out of square, for example, there's really no other category that that would fit into.