# Do You Cite Code Sections for Every Violation?



## jar546

Where I started working, each and every violation and plan review deficiency must be referenced to a specific code section.  Is this standard practice for your jurisdiction?


----------



## Glenn

No, never.  That is insane and a waste of everyone's time and resources.  I can't believe someone would come up with that idea.  We are professionals in the job because we understand the code and it's provisions, not the organization of multiple books.  We should not spend our time or memory to memorize the location in a book.  We are professionals at interpreting the intent and purpose of the provisions.  We are not book memorizers and monologue performers.  If we are challenged or if questions are asked, we should then be able to provide validation of our interpretation and the words we are interpreting.  In doing so we should have the time to sit down, open the book and find it.  I have been pulled over for speeding, and I trust the officer knows the speed limit or infraction I made.  Never has it been presented to me by ordinance number.  If I doubt him, it is challenged and researched in court...where time can be had to look up the exact ordinance number.


----------



## cda

Sometimes

Most comments are everyday code items that should not even be a problem on plans

The cited ones are sometimes local admendments or some of those seldom used sections


----------



## rogerpa

Michigan law requires it.


----------



## conarb

I don't know about the law in California but they always cite code sections here, and have for the last 65 Years that I've been doing business.


----------



## Mark K

When the government imposes an obligation on an individual the individual has a right to know what he is compelled to do.  If instead we believe that the building official is not required to justify his demands we have said that the building official is a law unto himself.

When the plan  checker references the code section it allows the applicant to know what needs to be done.  It also allows the applicant to decide whether he agrees with the comment or whether he wants to appeal the demand.

You could require the applicant to request the code provision but it is so much cleaner if it is provided with the original comment.


----------



## jar546

Glenn said:


> No, never.  That is insane and a waste of everyone's time and resources.  I can't believe someone would come up with that idea.  We are professionals in the job because we understand the code and it's provisions, not the organization of multiple books.  We should not spend our time or memory to memorize the location in a book.  We are professionals at interpreting the intent and purpose of the provisions.  We are not book memorizers and monologue performers.  If we are challenged or if questions are asked, we should then be able to provide validation of our interpretation and the words we are interpreting.  In doing so we should have the time to sit down, open the book and find it.  I have been pulled over for speeding, and I trust the officer knows the speed limit or infraction I made.  Never has it been presented to me by ordinance number.  If I doubt him, it is challenged and researched in court...where time can be had to look up the exact ordinance number.



I know that in Pennsylvania if you get a traffic ticket, it must cite the exact law number you have violated and if that is incorrect, it is grounds for dismissal.
Now back to building codes.  In PA, you are not required to cite every single code violation with a reference to the exact code but it is helpful when there are questions and it eliminates all of those pesky phone calls asking you questions or at least most of them.  I don't mind doing so now as it helps me to find each and every code I write up and not only cite it but verify it.  As we mostly see the same violations over and over, this process becomes less time consuming.


----------



## jar546

Mark K said:


> When the government imposes an obligation on an individual the individual has a right to know what he is compelled to do.  If instead we believe that the building official is not required to justify his demands we have said that the building official is a law unto himself.
> 
> When the plan  checker references the code section it allows the applicant to know what needs to be done.  It also allows the applicant to decide whether he agrees with the comment or whether he wants to appeal the demand.
> 
> You could require the applicant to request the code provision but it is so much cleaner if it is provided with the original comment.



Best response so far imho.


----------



## ICE

The request for code sections is most often coming from an angry recipient of my best work...as if they have a code book to reference.  I’m not a savant.  I offer to look up the sections for them when I have the time and get back to them.

I have the codes on my laptop so it’s usually not difficult to provide sections..... but I write a lot of corrections and don’t have the macbook with me or the ten minutes it takes to find 18 code sections. Give me a call at the office in a few days.  I’m there from 8 to 9 and you just might catch me.


----------



## tmurray

We do not. When requested we are happy to provide not only the section number, but the section itself. Performing an inspection is different than issuing a ticket. We perform inspections to try to prevent a violation. Tickets are issued after a violation has occurred. I would certainly agree on using code references on plan reviews, but on inspections seems a little onerous on the inspector. Especially when a lot of what we do is catch things that have been forgotten or overlooked.


----------



## cda

ICE said:


> The request for code sections is most often coming from an angry recipient of my best work...as if they have a code book to reference.  I’m not a savant.  I offer to look up the sections for them when I have the time and get back to them.




One other approach of similar method.

When I suffer from “POI”

Pissed off inspector

I have been known to cite the section::

2015 IBC

or

2015 IFC

Or

Xxxxx. NFPA standard 


Does that count as citing the section??


----------



## Sifu

Yes.  For many reasons, not the least of which is that there are often many ways to comply with a requirement, and giving them the code section provides the requirement, not the remedy.  Also, I always want them to look up the code (after they buy a find a book) for themselves, it gives them the opportunity to figure things out and leaves less room for the notion that I am just making stuff up.  Finally, I have found that if I need to look something up to get an actual code citation, I learn from it.  Many times I have been 100% sure I am right on an issue, but when I go looking for the code reference I will find additional information that might alter my comment.


----------



## steveray

(Add) 110.6.1 Notification of inspection results. Notification as to passage or failure, in whole
or in part, of any required inspection shall be made in writing by the building official or his duly
authorized representative and shall be left at the job site or delivered to the permit holder. It shall
be the duty of the permit holder to ascertain the results of required inspections.

When it is easy or contentious, we do, even though it is technically probably not required...I have found that it takes the wind out of a blowhards sails most of the time when you do....


----------



## Rick18071

I'm in PA and worked for a few different 3rd party companies and the all want me to do it different. One wanted code sections for everything on plan reviews and inspections. One did not require it ever. 
I don't think we would need the code sections for residential, the contractors usually don't have code books. I just call them and tell them what's wrong.  But for a commercial plan review, where I write out a formal letter, I think they are helpful and also a copy of the section itself can be useful.


----------



## JCraver

This should be two different questions, because it has two different answers.

I quote code sections on plan reviews, because it's my experience that architects and engineers don't know what I'm talking about when I don't.  So I provide them with the sections where their plans are incorrect and/or inadequate, and sometimes that helps them fix it.  Or not, and then I send them the comments again with the code sections *bolded*.

Field violations, during an inspection?  Nobody has time for that.  I write down what you did wrong, give you a copy, and it's yours to fix.  If you don't understand the WHY, then I'm happy to see you in my office any time and show you the code book and the sections where you erred.  Maybe 2% of contractors take me up on that.


----------



## Pcinspector1

JCarver has it down,

I provide a plan review letter with code references on commercial projects.

Residential plan review usually has a few issues or questions depending on the lot elevations and I'll write them on their set of plans.

Inspection, on occasion I will provide the code section on the inspection report especially when there's a new code to enforce. It takes some a little while to adapt and the code section reference makes it look like I know what I'm enforcing. In general I think the code section reference is good, but like others have said, very time consuming, and I have other duties.

The code is sometimes tricky with words like "shall" and "generally accepted engineering practice" and "references to testing standards" and other requirements. Not to mention that some codes roll over into other codes like the IFC but may have a different code section and number. Example: IRC R319.1 Site address and IFC 505.1 Address identification, which code do you provide for no address on a final inspection? And then there's the muni-code additions and omissions to cite.

Also if your listing the code violations on your inspection reports, that means your having to go back to do a re-inspection, are your charging them for that additional inspection?


----------



## mark handler

When questioned/challenged, yes.


----------



## TheCommish

If a formal notice of violation yes, if asked yes,  most of the  time no.
When  a decent explanation or request of  professional to another  the cite is not needed, if you want me to look it up please get out your code book licensed contractors are required to have in their possession, oh you  don't have one or the correct one this is not a confidence builder on my part.


----------



## ICE

I see plenty of bogus corrections.  I hardly ever hear people complaining about the bogus corrections.


----------



## Pcinspector1

ICE said:


> I’m not a savant.



I think you are! a real intellectual, a teacher of codes, a solar codes master and a code book guru, I say!

Start giving us the code section on your "Average Day vine!", I didn't know you were on the UPC!


----------



## HForester

I'm sure some inspectors come across the same violation many times and probably have those section numbers memorized. If I was doing that job, I would make up a cheat sheet with the common violations that I find over time and reference each of those to the section number.  Remember when we used to memorize dozen of telephone number because we called them often?  Now that your phone does that for you, what are you using your memory for?


----------



## Sifu

HForester said:


> I'm sure some inspectors come across the same violation many times and probably have those section numbers memorized. If I was doing that job, I would make up a cheat sheet with the common violations that I find over time and reference each of those to the section number.  Remember when we used to memorize dozen of telephone number because we called them often?  Now that your phone does that for you, what are you using your memory for?


Back when we had to remember numbers we could because our brains didn't have to worry about where the phone was since it had a handy string attached to it.  Now, I can't remember any numbers but I use my memory to figure out where I left my phone.  One big trade off!


----------



## chris kennedy

HForester said:


> what are you using your memory for?



Trying to remember what I had for dinner last night? 



Sifu said:


> Now, I can't remember any numbers but I use my memory to figure out where I left my phone.  One big trade off!



I have worked for the same company for 15 years and I don't know the office number off the top off my head.

As an installer I don't get many correction notices but am asked to decipher them often at the office as they all have the section listed, SOP around here.


----------



## fatboy

When asked, I am happy to provide.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Doing commercial plan reviews we usually provide a section number
Residential plan review and inspections never unless asked


----------



## jwilly3879

When they say "Show me."


----------



## Builder Bob

Depends upon the level that the inspection will go to.... if it goes to court, it better be documented with code sections.


----------



## Keystone

Plan Reviews;    For Residential I provide a Chapter Section, if questioned or requested I provide code section. For Commercial I provide code section. 

Field Inspections;    Only provide code section for Residential or Commercial as requested. 

I would prefer to provide code for everything but that is not possible with typical schedule/work load.


----------



## my250r11

TheCommish said:


> If a formal notice of violation yes, if asked yes, most of the time no.
> When a decent explanation or request of professional to another the cite is not needed, if you want me to look it up please get out your code book licensed contractors are required to have in their possession, oh you don't have one or the correct one this is not a confidence builder on my part.



I'm with you on that one, Them: I don't have one, ME; the law says you are suppose to, so I will add that to the correction list! 

If asked i will explain or give section, very seldom get asked anymore unless new contractor in town.


----------



## jar546

Glenn said:


> No, never.  That is insane and a waste of everyone's time and resources.  I can't believe someone would come up with that idea.  We are professionals in the job because we understand the code and it's provisions, not the organization of multiple books.  We should not spend our time or memory to memorize the location in a book.  We are professionals at interpreting the intent and purpose of the provisions.  We are not book memorizers and monologue performers.  If we are challenged or if questions are asked, we should then be able to provide validation of our interpretation and the words we are interpreting.  In doing so we should have the time to sit down, open the book and find it.  I have been pulled over for speeding, and I trust the officer knows the speed limit or infraction I made.  Never has it been presented to me by ordinance number.  If I doubt him, it is challenged and researched in court...where time can be had to look up the exact ordinance number.



For some reason I am just seeing this.  In every state and country that I have received a moving violation while driving, the specific ordinance number has always been on the ticket.

This is not a waste of time and resources.  Inspectors can have cheat sheets for common violations on their clipboard.  This method is very helpful.  If you know a code exists then you should at least know what section and or chapter it is so you can look it up quickly.  My cheat sheet has about 3 pages that I am constantly updating for routine, basic codes and a few odd ones that are rare.  It helps me to remember them.

This is where the do as I say even though I am too lazy to show you the code problem comes into place.  Having a cheat sheet or looking up the code section helps the inspector to remember and sometimes if you read the most recent changes to the code, you just might find out that you are learning something yourself.

Stop the laziness and complacency.  Cite the code section.


----------



## ICE

jar546 said:


> In every state and *country* that I have received a moving violation while driving, the specific ordinance number has always been on the ticket.



Travel the world...terrorize the countryside.


----------



## tmurray

jar546 said:


> For some reason I am just seeing this.  In every state and country that I have received a moving violation while driving, the specific ordinance number has always been on the ticket.
> 
> This is not a waste of time and resources.  Inspectors can have cheat sheets for common violations on their clipboard.  This method is very helpful.  If you know a code exists then you should at least know what section and or chapter it is so you can look it up quickly.  My cheat sheet has about 3 pages that I am constantly updating for routine, basic codes and a few odd ones that are rare.  It helps me to remember them.
> 
> This is where the do as I say even though I am too lazy to show you the code problem comes into place.  Having a cheat sheet or looking up the code section helps the inspector to remember and sometimes if you read the most recent changes to the code, you just might find out that you are learning something yourself.
> 
> Stop the laziness and complacency.  Cite the code section.



I do not view my inspection reports in the same way as I would a ticket. Here, I cannot go to court from just an inspection report. I must issue an order. That order must contain a code section. If the order is not complied with, I can now take that person to court. 

Are your inspections primarily to help contractors do it right or is it to gather evidence to for enforcement? Depending on your jurisdiction, one, the other, or both might be what you need to do. Luckily, when I write a deficiency, the contractor just corrects the issue the vast majority of the time. Sometimes they ask why and I explain why. Very rarely am I asked for a code section. I am always happy to provide it. I recommend that contractors always ask for code sections for corrections that sound odd. 

In my mind, it is all in how you want to structure your department. If you make the report out like a ticket, people will treat it like one. Make it like a punch list, they'll treat it like one. It's all a matter of what gets traction in your jurisdiction.


----------



## Glenn

jar546 said:


> For some reason I am just seeing this.  In every state and country that I have received a moving violation while driving, the specific ordinance number has always been on the ticket.
> 
> This is not a waste of time and resources.  Inspectors can have cheat sheets for common violations on their clipboard.  This method is very helpful.  If you know a code exists then you should at least know what section and or chapter it is so you can look it up quickly.  My cheat sheet has about 3 pages that I am constantly updating for routine, basic codes and a few odd ones that are rare.  It helps me to remember them.
> 
> This is where the do as I say even though I am too lazy to show you the code problem comes into place.  Having a cheat sheet or looking up the code section helps the inspector to remember and sometimes if you read the most recent changes to the code, you just might find out that you are learning something yourself.
> 
> Stop the laziness and complacency.  Cite the code section.


You make a fair case.  However, I still don't often think staffing levels are sufficient for this kind of detail in an inspection report in many cities.  Mine was one of them.  I definitely agree that many, many inspectors need to crack that book open more often.  Definitely agree with that.  I probably shouldn't have compared it to a speeding ticket, because a contractor often sees an inspector more regularly and can build a professional relationship with them.  Where there can be some level of trust formed between professionals working together, things can be accomplished much more efficiently.

Just to be a pain... I could also throw this in there:  105.9 Responsibility, where the duty to comply with code is on those that did the work.  HOWEVER, for any correction that is a local or state amendment to the model code, I always made the statement "per city amendment" to help direct them to what they should have already read.


----------



## e hilton

JCraver said:


> I quote code sections on plan reviews, because it's my experience that architects and engineers don't know what I'm talking about when I don't.  .



When responding to licensed designers with code sections, there's a good chance they will learn from your response and won't make that mistake again.  You both win.  
Homeowners and contractors, who probably dont have a code book ... if you told me "because im the inspector and i know the code and i said so" would be waving a red bandana at a mad bull.  If you know ths code well enough to see the situation is a violation, then you should know what section it is and you should cite that section.  Maybe just the main section, not the sub-sub-paragraph number.   Nothing wrong with expecting the contractor to read thd code, but give them a clue where to find it.


----------



## Inspector Gift

Oregon has mandated that inspectors "Cite It" if they "Write It".   Taking the time to list each code section for every violation I discover is often overly burdensome.  I personally know many inspectors give verbal corrections to avoid the bother, others limit the number of corrections they write... and many don't bother with citing the code sections at all unless they think there will be serious push back or the possibility of an appeal to the State Building Codes Division over the correction.   Oregon doesn't  yet have a penalty listed for non-compliance to their "Cite-it and Write-it" law.   
Personally, I prefer to take the time to explain, REASONS and INTENT for any given code requirement. The contractors are more willing to change their practices if they UNDERSTAND THE REASON of the code.  If the contractor isn't on site, then I call or text them.  Oregon does have a list of common corrections and the associated code sections, which helps some.   The down side is that the code sections change with every code cycle and not all of the items I write up are listed, so I have to go take the time to dig out my code book and hunt up some obscure code section.  Thankfully, _the reasons and intent for the codes remain the same._


----------



## Mark K

It should be department policy if not state law that the applicant can ignore any comment where no code section is listed until a proper citation is provided.  The applicant should respond to the inspector or plan checker, copying the building official, stating that the comments have not been properly cited and thus the applicant does not need to comply with them.

If a design professional recognizes that a code provision has been violated he knows that he will have to deal with it whether or not it is properly cited but too often the comment is not supported by the code or is based on a flawed interpretation of the code.


----------



## ICE

Mark K said:


> It should be department policy if not state law that the applicant can ignore any comment where no code section is listed until a proper citation is provided.  The applicant should respond to the inspector or plan checker, copying the building official, stating that the comments have not been properly cited and thus the applicant does not need to comply with them.
> 
> If a design professional recognizes that a code provision has been violated he knows that he will have to deal with it whether or not it is properly cited but too often the comment is not supported by the code or is based on a flawed interpretation of the code.



There is some truth to that.  It depends on the inspector.  I work with inspectors that are meticulous in their application of the code.  They strive to be correct.  Then their are other inspectors that wouldn't know the difference.  Management's take on it is that we have to work with what we've got.  It's not going to get better any time soon.


----------



## tmurray

Mark K said:


> It should be department policy if not state law that the applicant can ignore any comment where no code section is listed until a proper citation is provided.  The applicant should respond to the inspector or plan checker, copying the building official, stating that the comments have not been properly cited and thus the applicant does not need to comply with them.
> 
> If a design professional recognizes that a code provision has been violated he knows that he will have to deal with it whether or not it is properly cited but too often the comment is not supported by the code or is based on a flawed interpretation of the code.


I get this and agree with doing this on a plan review with architects, engineers, etc., but on a single family home, or a field inspection, why am I giving them a code section for every violation when the contractor or person building their own home doesn't even own a code book? When questioned, we don't just provide the section number, we provide the section.


----------



## JBI

If you are not citing the Code then you are not doing your job as a Code Official. 
If you are going to write it, you better be ready to cite it. 
When I tell someone that something doesn't meet Code, I always tell them which section my decision is based on.
That the individual may or may not own or have access to the Code is irrelevant.


----------



## Mark K

When a police officer issues a ticket or arrests somebody they always cite the law.  Why should the building inspectors be different.

In response to the comments that resist citing  the code because of staffing levels I would offer a couple of perspectives.

In California and I expect most other places the building department can increase the permit fees to pay for adequate staffing.  So if you have a problem with the work load talk with management or is it easier to take it out on the applicant.

Also remember that building department seem to have no problem with imposing additional administrative requirements on the applicant.  The hours waiting in line or just waiting for the plan checker to get to a project.  So why should you expect sympathy from those impacted by your requirements.

Also remember as an engineer I am not excused from complying with a regulation because I do not know where to find it.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Just wrote up over 25, and took 20 photos. Ill get right on that!


----------



## Rick18071

The problem I have here with writing down sections is that the state has a code that adopts certain sections in different code book years. The state has adopted most of the 2015 i codes but not all, it also adopted sections out of the 2009 and the 2018 and some sections the state made up on their own.. A home owner or contractor would have to own 3 different IRC's and the state codes to build a house.
 For instance for an receptacle on a deck I would have to write down "*PA-UCC 403.21 (a) (7) (iii) (L), 2009 IRC E3901.7* Deck requires an electrical receptacle".
I think I would get writers cramp after a few of these if I had to write it. But now it's even worst because I am required to write up the report on a cell phone with 67 year old thumbs! I just tried this and it took me over 2 minutes to put this one section number in my cell phone.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Rick18071 said:


> A home owner or contractor would have to own 3 different IRC's and the state codes to build a house.



This is the crux of the problem, multiple code years, amendments and different jurisdictions create issues for all.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Inspectors usually do not have the time to look up and cite code sections during the day. In fact I instruct them not to because it slows them down and they can get into a confrontation as to the meaning and intent of the code in the field which is not good for anyone. The last thing I want is an inspector that may give the appearance of arrogance when trying to tell someone they are wrong. I would rather have them say "Well let me research it and get back to you" and then call me to research it and provide the correct response. Believe it or not my guys have been wrong on occasion because of a footnote or exception or what they where thinking did not apply to that occupancy group. Then my inspectors will call the contractor and admit the error and explain why and the result is we have built a stronger relationship with that contractor and that we are all humans and make mistakes.


----------



## Pcinspector1

mtlog, 
That's how the last two BO's I worked for wanted it done. I see nothing wrong with it in today's world. I'm the only inspector here so you get what you get but IMO I was coached the correct way. If a contractor questions my inspection report, I'll be sure to get him the answer, even if I'm wrong with an apology. No reason to show the contractor up by citing code sections. 

Maybe this discussion should change to home inspectors forcing home sellers to change out FPE panels and adding GFCI so they can sell their home.


----------



## conarb

Pcinspector1 said:


> Maybe this discussion should change to home inspectors forcing home sellers to change out FPE panels and adding GFCI so they can sell their home.



I heard that there is nothing wrong with FP panels, all that needs changing is the breakers in the panels, has something changed again?


----------



## ICE

Some inspectors have the time to provide code sections....I do not.    Perhaps one in a hundred inspections would a section have an impact.

The people that ask for a section usually demand a section because lest I forget, I work for them.  The best that I can do is get back to them when I have had the time to look it up.  When they are being stupid I ignore them.

When I'm told that they will not do as asked without a code section I explain that I am not in a hurry nor am I telling them that they have to do anything they don't want to do.  So often the correction in question is a Code 101 issue that is laughable.

Small is the number of contractors that have a code book.  Contractors think they are capable of building a house with none of the codes that govern their industry.  What do they do?....Just guess....take a shot in the dark.

The mechanic that works on my truck has a book with every last nut and bolt with pictures.  The guy that built your house follows his heart....he does what he has learned to date.  He may have one years experience or one years experience thirty times.  If you lucked out he's a professional that understands the importance of what he is doing.....just don't ask to see his code books.

Many contractors learn by corrections.  I recognized a crew building a room addition and I asked them how they got the job.  The kid in charge had a stack of corrections sheets that I wrote.  He said that they show that to prospective customers as proof that they are learning.  When they show the customer my signature....well that carries weight.

The only contractors that have ever produced a code book and asked for clarification are electrical contractors. Roofers spend too much time in the Sun.

I don't profess to be infallible.  I have been challenged and I have been wrong.  I have been wrong here at the forum.  I like when that happens.  It reaffirms that I am still capable of learning new things and still have a ways to go.  I've been known to celebrate with a root beer float....with chocolate chip ice cream.....  that gives a little treat at the end.


----------



## Pcinspector1

ICE said:


> The only contractors that have ever produced a code book and asked for clarification are electrical contractors.



Same here, never seen the HVAC man with a code book. 

By the way, "thermoan" comes with red print for a reason young man!


----------



## Pcinspector1

Thermopan


----------



## mark handler

Pcinspector1 said:


> Same here, never seen the HVAC man with a code book.
> 
> By the way, "thermopan" comes with red print for a reason young man!


*And sometimes Blue ….*


----------



## Pcinspector1

Last week while doing a final inspection I put down on the report: 
(1) Plumbing not complete!
(2) Electrical not complete!

Should I have listed everything that the plumber and electrician needed to complete with code violations?

Plumbing: Kitchen sink, no trap, no shuts offs, no pig and no DW drain connection. WH not set, washer trap missing. W
Plumber left at 3:30 pm, they said he had to go feed his cat? 
Who do I charge for wasting the city's time?
Electrical: Let's not waste your valuable time on this.

In this case: Code violation reference not necessary, work performed, well....kinda necessary!

Homeowner, "Can we move in?"

I wonder if areas that are influenced by union trades will meet the code more, like Chicago and Pennsyltucky?


----------



## e hilton

I think just saying the work is not complete is sufficient, but if you saw something that looked like they thought it was compkete and was wrong, you could have called that out.


----------



## JBI

Pcinspector1 said:


> Maybe this discussion should change to home inspectors forcing home sellers to change out FPE panels and adding GFCI so they can sell their home.



Home inspectors are a different story altogether. There are 2 words that do not belong in a home inspectors vocabulary and should NEVER be in a home inspection report... 'code' and 'violation'. These are not a function of a home inspection.


----------



## jar546

JBI said:


> Home inspectors are a different story altogether. There are 2 words that do not belong in a home inspectors vocabulary and should NEVER be in a home inspection report... 'code' and 'violation'. These are not a function of a home inspection.



Well, finally something we disagree on.  There is a difference between pointing out a code violation (based on year of construction/renovation) as a basis for validity in a home inspection and writing up a code violation as though you are the AHJ.  Violations are still an issue and need to be documented when it is your job to point them out.


----------



## Pcinspector1

My real estate friend calls Home Inspectors "Deal Killers!"

I was talking to a resident here and he claimed the Home Inspector listed in his report that the garage has to have GFCI protected receptacles. The house was built in 1950. My calculation, that would have been the 1949 UBC or early?? if there was a code used, I don't believe this city used codes back then. Surprised he did't make him put in a fire sprinkler system, carbon monoxide and radon tester? 

Where's Glenn when you need him?? 
Was there a 1949 UBC?


----------



## JBI

jar546 said:


> Well, finally something we disagree on. There is a difference between pointing out a code violation (based on year of construction/renovation) as a basis for validity in a home inspection and writing up a code violation as though you are the AHJ. Violations are still an issue and need to be documented when it is your job to point them out.



Jeff, a home inspector has no authority to determine what may or may not be a 'violation' (see Pcinspector1 post#55), the AHJ has sole authority to make that determination. 
However a GOOD home inspector can identify a potential problem with out the use of the word 'violation'.
As an example, I was doing a home inspection and the home was built after NYS had adopted a statewide code which required 'emergency egress windows'. The home had none in the bedrooms.
My report suggested that it would be difficult in an emergency for someone to climb out of what were essentially transom style windows high on the wall. I then suggested replacing at least one window in each bedroom to facilitate emergency escape and recommended contacting the local AHJ for any requirements that might need to be met. 
I knew the exact code sections to quote in both the code at the time of construction as well as the new code sections. My job was not to quote code or cite violations, my job was to identify possible hazards or areas of concern.


----------



## Rick18071

I took a seminar for home inspectors once that a home inspection ran for recruiting new people just because I was interested. It was only two hours long and gave us a check list. Codes where never mentioned (or EER's, GFCI"s, stairway dimensions, etc). Mostly concerned with hand rails, open j boxes, leaking roofs, mold, rot, vents and working HVAC and plumbing. No cert required or anything else for the inspector or company.


----------



## Pcinspector1

I lived in my previous home for over 24 years and raise to children. The Homie inspector got me for an undersized $125.00 dollar A/C circuit, a radon vent system @$750.00, a crack in the brick veneer @1,500.00 and a rotten $30.00 cedar 6x6 guard rail post that codes did not require. If I didn't correct the items I stood to loose the sales contract, so I took care of the items. 

What a racket! 
I think the legal term is extortion.

I've had the Homie's call here and ask If I require the FPE breaker panels need to be removed? On occasion they will ask what year a house was built in?

"Deal Killers!"


----------



## tmurray

Mark K said:


> When a police officer issues a ticket or arrests somebody they always cite the law.  Why should the building inspectors be different.
> 
> In response to the comments that resist citing  the code because of staffing levels I would offer a couple of perspectives.
> 
> In California and I expect most other places the building department can increase the permit fees to pay for adequate staffing.  So if you have a problem with the work load talk with management or is it easier to take it out on the applicant.
> 
> Also remember that building department seem to have no problem with imposing additional administrative requirements on the applicant.  The hours waiting in line or just waiting for the plan checker to get to a project.  So why should you expect sympathy from those impacted by your requirements.
> 
> Also remember as an engineer I am not excused from complying with a regulation because I do not know where to find it.



Can you take someone to court based sole off an inspection report? When a police officer writes a ticket, there is a court date at the bottom. This is what the ticket is designed to do. To go to court.

The courts in Canada have been careful to distinguish searches arising from the criminal code and subsequent ticketing with those arising out of administrative law and subsequent inspection reports. To me, and maybe it's different here than other places, equating a police ticket to a building inspection report tells me the person doesn't understand what at least one of the documents do.

 I cannot take someone to court based on an inspection report. It is not a legally enforceable document. It is essentially the opinion of the inspector. Our next step is to issue a correction order, which does have a code section on it.


----------



## Pcinspector1

This morning, a friend let me read his Home Inspection report. I told him, "it was a good report" with photo's including explanations. The HI found problems and reported them, that's his job, did not cite code violations, which IMO is the correct way the HI should present the findings. Cracked flue liner, SD's older than 10 years and not working properly and other issues were noted. Actually, I was impressed with the HI's software, very up to date, I think I'll look into some report software, my typing and auto corrections... not so good.


----------



## jar546

When I was a home inspector, I was also ICC certified as a residential building inspector.  Private owners would hire me to inspect their homes being built, even though there were "official" code inspection under their permit.  At no time with all of inspections that I did was there ever one house that had code violations which were already signed off as "passed" by the code inspector.  I always scheduled my inspection right after the code inspector.  I routinely reported the actual code violations that were overlooked and if I were to do that type of work, I would do it the same way.  You can't write up a deficiency on new construction without validating it to a code section.  Like it or not (and most inspectors I was coming in behind did not) that is the way I chose to do it because it was the right thing to do.

In addition, as expert witness for homeowners who had construction defects, it was my duty and obligation to cite code sections for the violations that were overlooked by the code inspector.  There is a place for everything.  Code officials don't own the codes, they are for the public and should be referred to in order to describe and validate a violation.


----------



## ICE

When I purchased my home I was required to sign dozens of documents when they accepted my offer.  One document was an instruction that I was not allowed to let any government official in any capacity to have access to the property.


----------



## tmurray

Home inspector companies and claiming things are 'code violations" was a big problem for the first couple years I was with my current employer. We did all the inspections for an owner during the build and then a year later she decided to sell. A home inspector cited the lack of 5/8" Type X drywall on the garage side of the wall between the garage and the house as a code violation. When she called, she demanded to know why we missed this violation. I told here that there is no requirement for a fire separation between a house and an attached garage with a capacity of 5 or fewer vehicles. "What do I do now" she asked me. I told her to ask the home inspector for the code violation. I also told her that if he can find a provision that requires that, the Town will pay to have the sheetrock installed. She hung up from me very happy.

Next day or so, I get a call. It's the home inspector. To my surprise he actually owns a code. The way the fire separation section breaks down in our code for a garage and adjacent occupancy is:

1. a storage garage needs a 2hr separation
2. If the storage garage has a capacity of 5 or less, 1.5hr is required
3. if the garage is attached to a dwelling unit, and is intended for the sole use of that dwelling unit, the fire separation required in sentence 2 need not apply.

I argued with a home inspector for 20 minutes that the words "need not apply" meant that sentence 2 doesn't apply. He still didn't believe me at the end. Here is how it ended:

Him: Well, you say it's not required and I say it is, so who makes the ultimate determination.
Me: I do.
Him: That seems awfully convenient.
Me: It sure is for me.

I have worked with amazing home inspectors that have picked up serious life safety issues in existing homes, but they are definitely the exception to the rule.


----------



## JCraver

I've been here 5-1/2 years, never spoke to a home inspector.  RE agents and appraisers, but never a home inspector.


----------



## Pcinspector1

JCraver said:


> I've been here 5-1/2 years, never spoke to a home inspector. RE agents and appraisers, but never a home inspector.



It's a treat!

I've had a couple HI's ask when a house was built. Then the ol question: "Do you require the FPE panel to be removed?"

If it was installed to code when it was installed I can't make someone take it out! If it's your opinion it has defects, that's your call buddy as a HI, but don't exclaim the "City Inspector said "it's gotta come out!" cuz I'm not saying that! "capeesh"


----------



## Mark K

While there are differences between criminal law and civil law in other cases the government is acting against the recipient of the citation.  This imposes an obligation on the recipient and limits his freedom to act  and costs him money.

Why should the building inspector have the ability to impose costa on the building owner without any authority?  The fat that at a later level of the enforcement process a code section will be provided is of little consequence to the building owner since it is often cheaper for the building owner to pay the extortion than to deal with the delays.

By the way you or I cannot take a speeding ticket to court.  It is the legal system that takes action against the recipient of the ticket.


----------



## Rick18071

What's wrong with FPE panels? Had to replace one years ago in a mobile home because I could not get any replacement breakers.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Rick18071 said:


> What's wrong with FPE panels?



Rick, I don't want to post any legal stuff: You can research: New Jersey court case against Federal Pacific Electric for more information. I'n not staying between the lines of this topic, bro.


----------



## tmurray

Mark K said:


> While there are differences between criminal law and civil law in other cases the government is acting against the recipient of the citation.



I want to be clear, I am not talking about civil law. I am talking about administrative law. I really have no idea how this is impacted or impacts rights between two parties.

A citation is a writ from the courts or a ticket. It is the start of a court process. I can do this as a by-law enforcement officer (the ticket part), but cannot do this as a building official. So, the building owner is not getting a citation from me.



Mark K said:


> Why should the building inspector have the ability to impose cost on the building owner without any authority?



I do have authority whether I am citing code or not. I am an appointed building official. I am following the requirements set into place for the administration of administrative law. Everything else is someone's opinion. You think people should have to have code sections? That's fine. Go ahead and cite them. I really don't care. 



Mark K said:


> The fat that at a later level of the enforcement process a code section will be provided is of little consequence to the building owner since it is often cheaper for the building owner to pay the extortion than to deal with the delays.



I think you are making an assumption that the requirements are not in the code. Otherwise it is not "extortion" it is me doing my job.


Ultimately, unless you are required by a statute/act/law to provide a code section every time, it is up to the department whether they want to provide one or not. This ultimately has an effect on level of service and the fee structure of the department. These items need to be carefully considered and should not be a "one size" fits all answer.


----------



## Pcinspector1

tmurray said:


> A citation is a writ from the courts or a ticket. It is the start of a court process. I can do this as a by-law enforcement officer (the ticket part), but cannot do this as a building official. So, the building owner is not getting a citation from me.



That's how I see it, the summons or ticket starts the court process.

Slight twist here: I'm also the Building Official/Code Enforcement Officer and can right you a summons to court.


----------



## fatboy

I have said this before, I will be happy to provide sections when asked. I am not "extorting" anything, i am doing my job in the most cost/time effective manner.

If I had to do it, it would cut my inspection stops in half, and I would probably be a jerk about it, and ONLY give them the section number, "must comply with 303.2. Then they DO have to go buy a code book and figure it out themselves, rather than me giving them specific instruction.

Careful what you ask for.


----------



## e hilton

ICE said:


> When I purchased my home I was required to sign dozens of documents when they accepted my offer.  One document was an instruction that I was not allowed to let any government official in any capacity to have access to the property.



I have bought homes in texas and va, and never had that come up.


----------



## ICE

e hilton said:


> I have bought homes in texas and va, and never had that come up.


It was a first for me. It takes a good thirty minutes to do all of the signatures and after a while I lose interest and just sign it......so I might have encountered it before without noticing. I know....not good....


----------



## e hilton

ICE said:


> I lose interest and just sign it.....



Judge Judy would not approve.


----------



## e hilton

fatboy said:


> , and ONLY give them the section number, "must comply with 303.2. Then they DO have to go buy a code book and figure it out themselves, rather than me giving them specific .



That sounds reasonable to me.   And then they can look foe exemptions.


----------

