# Homeowner Fired Contractor..Homeowner Wants to Secure Permit Can They????



## Mule

I haven't run across this specific situation before so I'm asking the guru's on here!

A pool contractor secures a permit, going through the inspection process the homeowner decides to fire the contractor. We are in the middle of the permit.

We performed the deck steel ground a couple of weeks ago. The pool contractor calls and requests that we do not perform any more inspections. We go by to check the status of the pool. Up and running, finished and being used.

We put a "Stop Work Order" on the pool until we determine what is going on. The homeowner comes in to secure a pool permit. I informed the homeowner that we have a pool permit issued to the pool contractor and until the pool contractor releases the permit we (the city) cannot issue another permit on the pool.

They have finished the electrical, set all of the equipment and occupied the pool without the benefit of a final inspection. It is my opinion that the original permit holder has to release the permit before we can issue a permit to finish the work.

What do you guys think?

This same homeowner has more or less said *^*^&(#   you to the city. They constructed two six foot retaining walls without engineered plans and inspections when we told them that permits and inspections were required. The same homeowner had a fence contractor construct a fence around the pool without securing a permit.

Got a call yesterday PM, I was out of the office, the permit tech stated that he (the homeowner) could do anything he wanted to on his property that he wanted to and if we didn't issue the pool permit that we would be spending a lot of money in attorney fees.

I'm not worried about that...I'm wondering what you guys think about issuing another permit when an existing permit is still in affect.


----------



## north star

** * **

Mule,

IMO, the originally issued permit is still valid until such time that the permit holder

removes themselves from it. Any Cetificates of Completion for the project goes to

the permit holder ONLY! In our AHJ, a swimming pool is considered to be an

accessory structure ( see Section R110.1, Exception # 2 ).

The pool contractor obtained the valid permit. Everything o.k. so far ( R105.1 )

Pool contractor called for reinforcement inspection, ...everything still o.k. A 

"p_ssing match" develops between pool contractor and homeowner. Everything

still o.k. [ as far as you're concerned ]. Pool now finished and being used!

Now, it's NOT o.k. anymore! ( see Section R109.3, R109.4, R1091.6 & R113.1 ).

Once the Stop Work Order has been issued, it must be resolved to the statutes

established by your AHJ. If the pool contractor calls for an inspection on the

work finished and you inspect it & approve it, now a Certificate of Completion

can be given to the pool contractor.

Are there any [ exisiting, adopted provisions ] in place to assess fees / penalties

on a violator of your adopted codes & ordinances ( see Section R113.4 )?

All that said Mule, if the homeowner has connections to the "powers-that-be",

then you probably ought to seek guidance from your AHJ legal counsel. My

guess is that the 'Mr. Sunshine homeowner ' ain't wanting to pay the pool

contractor, in which case , ...that is a civil matter between them and NOT your

AHJ. Try not to be dragged in to the middle of this *&%$@* match!  

As far as a fence around the pool is concerned, no [ separate ] permit is

required ( see Section R105.2, Exception # 2 ), however, if the fencing

was part of the original permit Scope of Work, then inspections would be

required on it.

** * **


----------



## mtlogcabin

1. A written letter from the homeowner that he discharged the pool contractor with a specific date of discharge

2. A letter from the pool contractor stating the date he was discharged and a specific description of the work left to be completed.

3. Revoke (R 105.6) that permit with a note why and attache copies of the 2 letters

4. Issue another permit to the homeowner for the remaining work. Include a specific description based on what the pool contractor stated and the homeowner signing for the permit will be

    acknowledging what he is responsible to finish.

5. Cite the fence contractor and charge him a double permit fee. He knew he needed a permit.

The work has been completed do not side with one party or the other stay as nuetral as possible. Your first priority is code compliance for the pool and related equipment.

The pool contractor does not have to "release" the permit you may suspend or revoke it and issue a new permit to a new responsible party


----------



## north star

** * ** 

BTW, that Certificate of Completion is evidence that the contractor did

what they were supposed to do, according to your AHJ laws, & adopted

codes,  and the issed Stop Work Order is evidence that [ someone ]  did

not do what they were supposed to.

Evidence, evidence, evidence...    As always, make sure that you keep

exact & legible records, and back up copies, ...ya know, for that CYA

Factor!   



** * **


----------



## TimNY

We issue permits to the owner, so when contractors are fired there is no permit problem.  Owner must furnish new contractors name, license and certificate of workers' compensation.

I think one of the larger issues is who the contractor that finished the project was, and did he have workers' compensation.  I have never issued a pool permit with the homeowner as the contractor (permit holder, yes-- contractor, no).

I would have no problem revoking an permit and issuing a new one, provided the documentation is submitted.


----------



## Mule

Thanks for the responses.

north star...we've amended our code to require permits on fences over 30" tall.

The reason I stated that the original pool contractor needs to release the permit is because work was performed without his knowledge. Don’t the pool contractor and the electrician of record have responsibilities of the work performed and who knows what was performed or hidden after the pool contractor left?

Someone performed work on someone else’s permit.

Wouldn't the original pool contractor and electrical contractor have a liability on the work they performed even if the homeowner states he will be responsible?

If something went wrong, who would be responsible? Worst case scenario say if something goes wrong with the electrical, electrocutes a person. The electrician states my work was inspected and all was correct. Homeowner has gone in there and "changed" something to make it unsafe.

I know it's a debate in court but that is why I think the original pool contractor and electrician should "release" their permit with the homeowner acknowledging that they will not hold the pool contractor and electrical contractor responsible and the homeowner accepts all responsibility of the work performed prior to him, the homeowner taking over.

Someone finished the work......electrical and pool equipment. Do you think another electrician would want to be responsible for work that he did not perform?

I may be thinking too deep on this......


----------



## mark handler

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 1. A written letter from the homeowner that he discharged the pool contractor with a specific date of discharge2. A letter from the pool contractor stating the date he was discharged and a specific description of the work left to be completed.
> 
> 3. Revoke (R 105.6) that permit with a note why and attache copies of the 2 letters
> 
> 4. Issue another permit to the homeowner for the remaining work. Include a specific description based on what the pool contractor stated and the homeowner signing for the permit will be
> 
> acknowledging what he is responsible to finish.
> 
> 5. Cite the fence contractor and charge him a double permit fee. He knew he needed a permit.
> 
> The work has been completed do not side with one party or the other stay as nuetral as possible. Your first priority is code compliance for the pool and related equipment.
> 
> The pool contractor does not have to "release" the permit you may suspend or revoke it and issue a new permit to a new responsible party


*Good solution*


----------



## Mule

And what if the contractor will not submit the letter?

Go ahead and issue the permit to the homeowner?


----------



## mark handler

Yes

Note it in the file.

Don't get in the middle of a lawsuit

If the owner can, by your state law, pull a permit, let them pull a new permit, with adequate plans and calculations


----------



## FredK

Too many issues:

Never had that happen on a pool.

As for letters either one is acceptable here.  A contractor fired/quiting is nothing new as is the homeowner wanting to finish the work without the contractor.  Here the owner is the owner of the permit no matter who picks up the permit.

Here the owner has some recourse with the State Builders Board and many take that option.

Once a letter is submitted we ask that the owner call for an inspection so we can verify at what stage they are in.

Fences:  Any interior fence can be installed without a permit.  A pool fence needs a final inspection.   Retaining wall need engineering and inspections.


----------



## cboboggs

Here, the homeowner is the permit holder and we do not have contractor licensing so there would be no permit problem with the homeowner submitting a letter saying he dismissed the contractor. But that does not relieve the homeowner from having to be code compliant. But I like mtlogcabins solution better. I just can't do that here.


----------



## Yankee

When I have a contractor change for whatever reason (the contractor choice or the property owner's choice) I have the contractor itemize what he was responsible for and same with owner if possible and then mtlogcabin's plan sounds good


----------



## MarkRandall

I like the jurisdiction here that are stating the permit is issued to the owner. The dispute is none of the jurisdiction's business. A home owner shouldn't be be held hostage by the contractor who pulled the permit regardless of who's at fault in the dispute. If it's lack of payment or other issues, the contractor has rights to file liens against the property, but should have no right to prevent the owner from getting the project finished.


----------



## Mule

Sometimes I think to deep into things. Sometimes that's good...sometimes that's bad!

Game plan here...mtlogcabin suggestion basically.

I don't believe the pool contractor will submit a letter of what work was performed. I found out the homeowner owes the contractor quite a bit of money.

Require the homeowner to submit a letter of when the contract was terminated and what he (the homeowner) is responsible for.

Revoke the original pool and electrical permit.

Require a new pool permit with specifics on what is required to finish the pool.

Require a new electrical permit.

Perform all inspections required to finalize the pool.


----------



## mark handler

Mule

Who owns the plans?


----------



## pyrguy

> 1. A written letter from the homeowner that he discharged the pool contractor with a specific date of discharge2. A letter from the pool contractor stating the date he was discharged  and a specific description of the work left to be completed.
> 
> 3. Revoke (R 105.6) that permit with a note why and attache copies of the 2 letters
> 
> 4. Issue another permit to the homeowner for the remaining work. Include  a specific description based on what the pool contractor stated and the  homeowner signing for the permit will be
> 
> acknowledging what he is responsible to finish.
> 
> 5. Cite the fence contractor and charge him a double permit fee. He knew he needed a permit.
> 
> The work has been completed do not side with one party or the other stay  as nuetral as possible. Your first priority is code compliance for the  pool and related equipment.
> 
> The pool contractor does not have to "release" the permit you may  suspend or revoke it and issue a new permit to a new responsible party


almost what we did in a former AHJ.

We added a letter from the new contractors accepting responsibility for ALL work for that trade. In other words the electrician (or other contractor) took on all responsibility for the completed pool including the work done by the previous contractor, homeowner, or guy down the street. He should be checking out the existing work anyway to assure he can fix any issues with the existing work.


----------



## Mule

Mark,

The staff and I were just talking about that. The pool company owns the plans. They drew up the plans, submitted all of the drawings, received the approval from the power company for the location.

The staff and I determined that the homeowner would be required to submit a site plan (that they drew up) and the approval from the power company on the location of the pool. We determined that this is all that is needed because the pool is already in the ground.

Thanks for all of the comments. It has helped me with my decision on what to do.


----------



## Min&Max

I would not revoke the original permit. It would appear that the majority of the work was completed under the original permit. I would note on the original that the contractor was terminated and include the date that you were informed of the change. It is to the original contractors benefit to give an accurate accounting of the work he performed in case there are problems in the future. Require the homeowner to be responsible for the work he completed. I would not issue additional permits. It serves no real purpose and collecting the additional fees are not worth the potential misery. Be happy with the paper work you have and move on.


----------



## Mark K

There are several issues here.  First is that if work was not done per the permit and was not inspected then you deal with it as you would normally.

Second as said by others the permit is issued to the Owner.  The Owner can fire the contractor when he wishes.  The original contractor has no right to hold up future work.  The building official has no right to require signoff by the original contractor.

There is no need for a new permit.

From the building department’s point of view the owner is responsible for compliance.  The contractors responsibility is a civil matter between the contractor and the owner.

The pool companies ownership of the plans is a civil issue and does not impact the validity of the permit

If the jurisdiction requires evidence of workman compensation insurance by the contractor they can require this information be provided by any replacement contractors.  If the homeowner hires some workmen directly he should also have to provide evidence of workman compensation insurance.

Whether the homeowner can act as his own contractor is defined by state contractor licensing laws.  If we are talking about work on his own single family residence I believe that most states will allow the homeowner to act as his own contractor.  He must still pass all inspections.


----------



## peach

In most cases where a homeowner wants to pull the permit, they need to display competence to do so.

I'd send them a notice of illegal use. Send it certified.. take it to court.

You don't need to get involved in who paid who.. and how much they paid.. they are using the pool illegally.

Let them say "screw you" to the municipality in front of a judge.


----------



## Mark K

Peach

What is the legal basis for refusing to issue a permit to a homeowner working on his own house unless he displays competence?  If there is a legal basis   what criteria would you use to evaluate whether he was competent?

The inspected work needs to be in compliance but that is after the permit has been issued.  If you are ready to issue the permit you have already rendered an opinion that the design complies with the code.


----------



## incognito

Only push the issue if you know you will win. Just because you are in front of a judge doesn't mean he isn't sympathetic to the citizen. The last thing you want is to lose or even have the judge rule in your favor with a token fine. If you don't win decisively, you lose.


----------



## Mule

Well I spoke with the homeowner. I guess a few days to think about it changed his mind. He will bring in the necessary paper work and secure the proper permits.

I required;

A site plan showing the location of the pool and distances from all property lines and structures.

A release from the power company on the location of the pool.

A letter specifying the date he terminated his contract with the pool contractor and what was left to do on the pool so I will know what the homeowner will be responsible for.

A gas test on the line going to the spa performed by a master plumber.

On the reatining wall. Plans and specifications from an engineer and a letter from that engineer stating that the wall was constructed according to the plans.

The fence permit was secured a few days ago.

Everything is working out. IF the homeowner follows through with what he said.


----------



## Yankee

It may depend on your State's language. From my perspective here, the owner of the property is ultimatly resposable for meeting all codes, as the owner pays the contractor as an agent to preform the work. If there is a beef between them, it is a civil matter. I feel for those owners who don't stay on top of their contracted help but at least I try and let them know that in the end, it is their baby.


----------



## Mark K

The building official is not in a position to require a letter from the engineer that the retaining wall was constructed in acordance with the plans.  The building official can require inspection reports, test data, calculations, and engineering reports as necessary to help determine if the retaining wall is acceptable.

The fact that other building officials have required similar letters, and maybe some engineers were stupid enough to write one, doesn't change the fact.  In most cases what they probably get is something that says based on information provided by others and his inspection of the completed wall it is the engineer's opinion that the wall was likely built in general conformance with the plans.  As far as the building official is concerned this is CYA and does't relieve the building official from the responsibility to make a decision whether or not to accept the completed wall.

Unless the engineer was there continually during construction of the wall, very unlikely, he cannot make such a statement and even then it will likely be highly qualified.  Making such a statement would mean that his errors and omissions insurance would not cover any problems and would subject himself to strict liability as opposed to professional liability theories of liability.


----------



## Mule

Mark K, Isn't a letter and a report the same thing?

And when we get a letter/report it does not state: is the engineer's opinion that the wall was likely built in general conformance with the plans.

We require the letter/report to specifically state that the wall was built in conformance with the plans.


----------



## Mark K

The problem is when you require that the engineer state that the work was done in conformance with the plans.  If the engineer was not there when the work was done he is not able to state that work was done properly because many of the details are no longer visible.  The steel could be the wrong size and in the wrong location.  The grout could have been batched improperly.

By stating that the work conforms he could be considered to be making a guarantee of this and thus be strictly liable if there were problems.  Engineers express professional opinions and make recommendations based on the data.  If there is subsaquently a problem after the engineer has rendered an opinion he is liable only if he it can be shown that he did not exercise sufficient care in how he did his work and came to the conclusions.

When the engineer makes a guarantee his errors an ommissions insurance will not cover any claim.  This may mean that there is no money availible to the owner if there is a problem or that the engineer will loose his house if the claim is large enough.  The engineer has no legal obligation to make a guarantee and given the risk it seems stupid for him to do so.  The building official has no authority to require a guarantee of the owner let alone his engineer.

If you have been geting letters without qualification you are either dealing with ignorant engineers or individuals who will sign anything to make the building official go away.  You may have a piece of paper in the file but it would not make me feel good.

A letter can be a report but generally a report is something more.

If an engineer were to issue a report he would report on what sort of investigation he did to confirm that the existing construction conformed to the plans.  This might include field observation of the completed wall, measurments taken, results of non destructive tests to determine reinforcing size and location, test results of cores from the wall to determine the strength of the masonry and grout.  Pictures taken during construction could be used to identify concerns of the lack of concern.  The report would then analyse the data, draw conclusions, discuss the implications of the conclusions and possibly make recommendations as appropriate.

The building official would then, possibly with the input from his engineer, review the conclsions and decide whether to accept the conclusions and recommendations.  I woud assume that the building official would access suficient fees to pay the cost of the review of the report.  If the owner find this too expensive and time consuming he has the option of demolishing the existing wall and following proper procedures when he rebuilds it.

I would recommend that the building official exercise judgement when evaluating defects.  The existing construction might violate some code provision but but essentially meet the intent of the code.

A report can be very simple or very complex depending upon the level of concern.  In the case of a low retaining wall the engineer could possibly show by calculations that the wall is still safe even if the reinforcement was not  properly placed or the grout was poor.  This may mean that testing of the existing construction is not necessary.  Hopefully everybody would only do the minimum amount of work to decide how to resolve the problem.

If the report identifies problems it might propose a fix to resolve the problems.  This would then result in the submission to the building official of supplemental drawings showing the fix.


----------



## BSSTG

We require written letters from the property owner to fire the contractor. Then the property owner can secure his permit only if he has a homestead exemption. Otherwise, he must register as a contractor. In that case the elect and plumbing would require permits from contractors also. Only if the homeowner has a homestead exemption can he do all the work here and in most parts of Tx. Maybe different other places?

BS


----------



## D a v e W

We do not care here, permits is to the property (owner). When the final inspection is requested we will respond and preform our inspection. Hence lien rights for the contractor. Happens every now and then here.

I would have thought the fencing would have been on the origianl design documents and scope of work based on swimming pool requirements. And all permits isssued at the same time.

When did the fall out happen, after everything was inspected for release of palster and fill? This could not have happened without correct fencing in place anyway. Just curious....

I do not believe the permit can be revoke either as it was not issued in any error.

If anything I would letter the property owner that the pool has not been approved for usage at this time.

Generally this is the advise from our council regarding these type of issues, permit then expires and it is forwarded to code enforcement section for action.


----------



## peach

some places will not issue a pool permit for an in ground pool to a homeowner... (like a couple of places I've worked).


----------



## Mule

D a v e W said:
			
		

> I would have thought the fencing would have been on the origianl design documents and scope of work based on swimming pool requirements. And all permits isssued at the same time.


In our area the fence permit and the pool permit are separate permits. They may or may not be issued at the same time. The fence is required to be "to code" prior to filling the pool with water. Along with door alarms or other approved means to provide protection to the area of the pool.



			
				D a v e W said:
			
		

> When did the fall out happen, after everything was inspected for release of palster and fill? This could not have happened without correct fencing in place anyway. Just curious....


Yes, after all inspections and prior to the placement of the plaster. The reason we don't require the fencing to be in place at this point is because of the machinery being used always removes the fence anyway.



			
				D a v e W said:
			
		

> I do not believe the permit can be revoke either as it was not issued in any error.


We actually didn't revoke the permit. We closed the permit from the point where the homeowner took over.



			
				D a v e W said:
			
		

> If anything I would letter the property owner that the pool has not been approved for usage at this time.


We did. However stopping them from using the pool is a enforcement nightmare.



			
				D a v e W said:
			
		

> Generally this is the advise from our council regarding these type of issues, permit then expires and it is forwarded to code enforcement section for action.


Unfortunately we are the code enforcement section....small town..lot's of hats.


----------



## brudgers

Any non-compliant construction is the responsibility of the person who pulled the permit...in the case of the pool, that would be the contractor.

From the Building department's standpoint, any enforcement for the pool should be against the contractor.  All the he said-she said doesn't matter.

The contractor can't shirk his legal responsibility to get inspections just by walking off the job and it's not the building department's purview to reassign responsibility when the homeowner acts like a jerk.


----------



## Mark K

Non-compliant construction is the responsibility of the Owner.  When the contractor pulls the permit he does so acting as an agent of the Owner.  Reference Section 105.1 of the IBC

It is not the building department's responsibility to assign responsibility.  The building department enforces the code.

This does not mean that the Contractor doesn't have a contractural responsibility to fix the non-compliance.  It simply means that the it is up to the Owner and the Contractor to work that out between themselves.  There may be situations where the Contractor has no obligation to fix the problem unless he is paid more.


----------



## brudgers

That's a BS interpretation of 105.1.

When the authorized agent secures the permit, the authorized agent is responsible...that's what a contractor's license means.

In this case, the work was completed without the benefit of inspections and the contractor was responsible for scheduling required inspections so long as the permit remained active.

This should be held against the contractor and their license.

However, the AHJ is letting the contractor off scott free.

Contractual responsibilities are not relevant to the building department because determining contractual obligations is best left to attorneys and the courts.

The AHJ can only look at the relevant facts:

1. There is an active permit issued to the contractor

2. The work was completed and occupied without the benefit of required inspections.

If the contractor did not abandon the permit, that's just too damn bad for him.


----------



## Mark K

It just so happens that the BS interpretation is the correct one.

When an agent takes an action on behalf of the owner the owner is obligated as if he personally took that action and is responsible in this case for code compliance.  The fact that the owner may have legal recourse against his agent is a matter for the courts.

It is not the AHJ’s role to hold the Contractor responsible.  Thus you should not be concerned about the AHJ letting the contractor off scott free.

Suggest you consult with the attorney representing your jurisdiction.  You may get a less polite response from the Contractor’s attorney if you tried to force the Contractor to take responsibility.


----------



## TJacobs

The owner is ultimately responsible.  The owner's attorney is responsible to sling enough BS that his clients responsibility can be distributed among others involved.


----------



## Yankee

I agree with Mark K and TJacobs


----------



## brudgers

My take is probably skewed by Florida law which ties contractor laws into the building department's role (code officials are also state licensed).

Would you allow the pool contractor to pull another permit in your jurisdiction?

Would you file a charge against his license?


----------



## Yankee

brudgers said:
			
		

> My take is probably skewed by Florida law which ties contractor laws into the building department's role (code officials are also state licensed).Would you allow the pool contractor to pull another permit in your jurisdiction?
> 
> Would you file a charge against his license?


Quite possibly.

If a contractor is not doing his work to code it is a matter between him and his licensing board, and I would report, yes.


----------



## Mark K

You can report a problem to the state licensing board if the contractor violates any licensing laws.  Similar for architects and engineers.

You cannot refuse the pool contractor the right to pull a permit just because he is on a blacklist for bad work.  What you can do is be more thorough than usual in your plan check and visit the job site more often.  If the contractor looses his license you can then refuse to issue a permit to him.

The building department can compliment the efforts of the state licensing boards and vice versa but they are distinctly different.


----------



## Mule

The situation I have is totally different. The State of Texas does not require contractors to be licensed. The pool contractor requested all of the inspections required and passed all inspections up until the homeowner fired him.

I am still having trouble getting the homeowner to secure the proper permits to get the pool into compliance with all finals.

Next step...citations.


----------



## Jobsaver

peach said:
			
		

> In most cases where a homeowner wants to pull the permit, they need to display competence to do so.I'd send them a notice of illegal use. Send it certified.. take it to court. Let them say "screw you" to the municipality in front of a judge.


I'm with Peach on this. Cite the homeowner to court for the portion of these circumstances that have no bearing on the dispute between the owner and contractor.

There are two distinct issues here. One is the change in the contractor relationship, the other is that the homeowner appears to be in rebellion against the ahj.

Also, we always try to make phone call interviews between all parties involved, and a courtesy inspection at first notice of these type circumstances so that scope of work completed by the original contractor can be recorded in the building file. As ahj's, we do hold all parties accountable to terminate any building relationship within the confines of the permitting process. Sometimes, this insures that homeowners are protected from unscrupulous contractors. Sometimes, this helps protect contractors from unscupulous homeowners.


----------

