why I prefer to diy

[billconner]

Chatham County will not recheck buildings ok'd by disciplined inspector

Despite the mistakes, WRAL 5 On Your Side has learned the county will not recheck the safety of any other buildings inspected by that inspector.

www.wral.com

 

[tez929rr]

Wow. I’m sure the county is avoiding liability at all costs.

 

[Notgrownup]

CYA with paper , or immunity if all else fails.

 

[gizardlizard]

Wow, that’s crazy. I don’t trust ANYONE and this is why I do all my own work. Never in my life had a vehicle worked on by anybody other than myself. Pretty proud of that too.

 

[loganb]

Article is click bait for this crowd until they start putting examples of the violations and full listing of what all was screwed up

 

[reader2580]

What does this have to do with DIY? This is about a building inspector not doing their job. It could have been a house built by a homeowner and have code violations that got missed by the county inspector. In many/most areas of the country you definitely need a building permit to build your own house.

 

[Old tool guy]

This is about a building inspector not doing their job.

And an incompetent contractor.

 

[SlotlessMan]

Around here, you still get inspected regardless of who does the work.

DIY is great, but you could be a screw up just like the stoner you hired to do the plumbing.

 

[ybnormal]

What does this have to do with DIY? This is about a building inspector not doing their job. It could have been a house built by a homeowner and have code violations that got missed by the county inspector. In many/most areas of the country you definitely need a building permit to build your own house.

any clown can get a permit, and then they build it themselves

 

[gsmith22]

public entities are generally immune from liability. so whether the inspector caught stuff or didn't catch stuff has no practical consequence. Designers (architect, engineer, etc.) have a responsibility to prepare plans, drawings, and specifications in accordance with the building code. Contractors have a responsbility to construct in accordance with the building code. Problems in construction generally lie with one of those two groups. I have never seen it lie with a building inspector regardless of how incompetent they are. And if you DIY, you are generally taking on components of both designer and contractor.

If you read the article, the suit against the county got tossed (due to the immunity thing) and the contractor who screwed up the construction is on the hook. get mad at the county all they want, but the contractor who put it together wrong is rightfully who is at fault.

 

[andyvh1959]

At one time my ex was a contracted home inspector. She would do home inspections for realtors, for home pending sale. Now, she had done a bit of DIY on her own home, but she had no background in plumbing, electrical, HVAC, structural, etc. So likewise for county inspectors, I am always skeptical their actual knowledge of what they inspect and approve.

 

[reader2580]

any clown can get a permit, and then they build it themselves

A DIY person can screw up just as much as a contractor. The issue here is an inspector that didn't identify numerous code violations.

I know when I build something I am very particular about doing things right, but that doesn't mean I know the right way to do everything.

 

[ybnormal]

A DIY person can screw up just as much as a contractor. The issue here is an inspector that didn't identify numerous code violations.

I know when I build something I am very particular about doing things right, but that doesn't mean I know the right way to do everything.

an INCOMPETENT inspector, and then the local gub'mint hides behind the immunity law to justify not having to return money that was required to be paid for required inspections.

If I had the knowledge I wouldn't be afraid of building something but I'd rather pay someone to do a large project but have the knowledge so I can check up on them during the build to see if they are cutting corners.

 

[gsmith22]

beat on the inspector all you want, but you can't sue the crown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
the contractor is the entity that actually constructed the components wrong and a judgement was awarded to the homeowner from the contractor.

There is nothing stopping a homeowner from hiring their own inspector to look out for their interests and if that inspector fails to find a problem, then they certainly would have liability. Happens all the time in commercial construction. The vast majority of homeowners won't pay for this. To be clear, the government inspector is NOT your inspector.

 

[zippyslug31]

When our house was built 5 yrs ago the county inspector would come out here at the various times and supposedly check that codes were followed. I was always surprised that (1) things never really "failed" inspection, and that (2) the inspections never took that long.
For the final inspection the guy was here literally 2 minutes and then signed it off. A month or two later and this inspector retired.

It never sat well with me and I always wondered if my damn house was going to fall over some day.
Say what you will that we could have hired some other inspector but that's **** since part of the point in paying for a permit is that some qualified person is supposed to care enough to make sure the codes are followed. I have very little confidence that anybody checked that that this was performed up to snuff. All I can hope for is that the various trades did their jobs well.

 

[gsmith22]

Say what you will that we could have hired some other inspector but that's **** since part of the point in paying for a permit is that some qualified person is supposed to care enough to make sure the codes are followed. I have very little confidence that anybody checked that that this was performed up to snuff. All I can hope for is that the various trades did their jobs well.

There is literally no one that hires an owner's inspection agency for residential construction until residences get so big and cost so much they mostly start to resemble commercial buildings (where every owner has their own inspector seperate from the building official inspections). I'm not saying you should have done that as its not commonplace. All I am pointing out is that legally, no "inspector" working for any government agency will ever be liable for anything that wasn't constructed properly. The contractor is liable becuase that entity actually constructed your house. Its no more complex than that. The purpoted goal of construction plan review and inspections and the resulting permit fee (wether explicitly stated or not) is to verify that construction throughout their jurisdication is mostly uniform and generally adheres to whatever building code is in effect. "Mostly" and "generally" being the key words here. If they catch something great, if they don't catch anything its no skin off their back - which is infuriating I get it. But they aren't your inspector working for you as much as it might seem that should be the case because you pay taxes and all that. I don't know how else to say this. Your house could burn down from an electrical snafu that the inspector should have caught - your recourse is the general contractor and their electrical subcontractor. And its not me "just saying this", I have witnessed this over and over again in various construction litigation cases. No inspector or government agency is ever on the hook. Hilariously, every time someone brings up, "well this passed inspections" in a construction litigation case, they are literally laughed out of the room as everyone knows its meaningless.

Edit: think of a situation where there was no building department/inspections. Everyone would do whatever they wanted and it would be chaos. I'm not a fan of the current system, but it certainly beats the anachy of no system. Much like democracy, its the worst way of government except for all of the other ways to govern.

 

[dcg9381]

Wow. I’m sure the county is avoiding liability at all costs.

No liability.

"When Muehlbach sued the builder and county in civil court, the county claimed governmental immunity and the judge agreed."



Course, the solution isn't going to work either:

"There needs to be closer oversight and peer checking for building inspectors"

Around here, we've got some municipalities with a single inspector. They're not exactly "well paid" - so you're gonna kinda get what you can hire. And frankly, expecting a single inspector to know structural, plumbing, electrical, etc - that seems like a pretty impossible job to keep up with.

There is nothing stopping a homeowner from hiring their own inspector to look out for their interests and if that inspector fails to find a problem, then they certainly would have liability. Happens all the time in commercial construction. The vast majority of homeowners won't pay for this. To be clear, the government inspector is NOT your inspector.

I agree, we've hired our own. My recommendation would not be to go with a jack-of-all-inspection trades as recommended by your Realtor. Find someone that works in the trade and offer $$ for an inspection of those systems.

I don't understand how this builder made "structural problems" - here, the lumber goes through a big package that comes with a stamp. GC doesn't get to pick and chose, it's all built to plan.

Or you can just open up the electrical panel and post a photo on GJ in the electrical section if you want your electrician to really be under the microscope...

 

[gsmith22]

No liability.

"When Muehlbach sued the builder and county in civil court, the county claimed governmental immunity and the judge agreed."



Course, the solution isn't going to work either:



Around here, we've got some municipalities with a single inspector. They're not exactly "well paid" - so you're gonna kinda get what you can hire. And frankly, expecting a single inspector to know structural, plumbing, electrical, etc - that seems like a pretty impossible job to keep up with.

yes, all of this precisely!

 

[reader2580]

You pay the city for a permit and inspections, but no liability if they miss code violations. What good are the permit and inspections then?

 

[dcg9381]

What good are the permit and inspections then?

Revenue.

Although permits with fees required that are not followed up on by an inspection process are called "taxes".

I mean I get it. The city shouldn't be liable for the **** *** work of builders, that's a private contract between owner and builder. The inspection process is generally there to address a min quality of work and "typical" things - at least here - like homes over allowed height, set backs, and a number of other "common" violations.

Do I really think my local inspector is going to flag something, say if one of our trusses fell off a truck and didn't get installed? I doubt it.

But the upside is ALL of this stuff is leverage when you're getting close to cutting that final check on your home. It's just ashame here that the home "passed" and apparently is so defective that it needs tear down. The inspector "moved on" (details TBD).

 

[rjacobs]

I was at our current house build with the electrician superintendent when the city building inspector came by to check a few tagged items on the framing inspection. He was really thorough IMO. It was joist hangers that had like 10 nail holes in each side, but only 5 had nails in each side. He said "yea the spec is 50% for the rated load, which they met, but we require 100% and the framers around here know it, they just try to get away with it and save 10¢ in nails"...

He said the inspections they do:
in ground plumbing prior to foundation pour
post foundation pour slab/plumbing
framing
plumbing/gas
electrical
venting
insulation
hvac
fireplace
smoke detectors(they made the builder move one smoke detector because of its location)
drainage(that it was graded to plan)
sprinkler system
final inspection

and there may be one or two others I dont remember. He also had a 3 ring binder on every inspection, every tag, etc... that my house had had and after the build closed it was all digitized and kept with the deed at the county title office... I was impressed at what the city did, but I know they do it to keep the damn builders honest.

He gave me his business card and said "if you see anything sketchy, call me and ill come look"... fantastic.

Of course the electrical superintendent was like "**** me" but he couldnt say anything LOL.

He came by about a week after we closed and asked to see a few items that were last minute installs and he hadnt gotten back over to check, I think sprinkler system backflow and a few others. Asked me to run the sprinkler system to make sure everything was working properly.

I was VERY happy with our city/county building inspectors. But obviously as with this story YMMV...

 

[reader2580]

Revenue.

Although permits with fees required that are not followed up on by an inspection process are called "taxes".

It is illegal in the state of Minnesota for a city to charge more for a permit than the city's actual cost. Permits cannot be used as a profit center for the city. There have been a number of lawsuits charging that some cities were charging more than cost. Cities argue that there are more costs to the city for new houses than just the cost to run the building department. Roads need to be expanded for the extra traffic and so on.

There was a lawsuit by a developer because the city or county said the developer needed to pay to expand the road just outside the development that feeds into the development. The court ruled the developer did not need to pay for expanding the road.

 

[dcg9381]

It is illegal in the state of Minnesota for a city to charge more for a permit than the city's actual cost.

And I have two friends who work for city government. Trust me when I say that "actual cost" is somewhat negotiable and is subject to a lot of interpretation and accounting "estimates". I do appreciate the state law - my guess is some city government was out there actually fleecing people. But there is a lot that goes into the expense of having inspectors travel to homes. And what if the economy takes a **** and 50% less houses are built, do you double the price of inspections?

One of the "fees" that I definitely appreciate in the south - both as someone who has built homes and someone who has lived in areas where homes are being built: Clean up bonds. In the south zero Fs are given by 95% of the crews that treat the construction site as their own personal trash can. GCs do the "bare minimum" to keep sites clean. When they (the GC) has to pay thousands up front to make sure that clean up follows construction and the site isn't a disaster after it's sold, they do a better job... A lot better job.

I have not noticed this problem up north. Contractors up there tend to do a lot better job about cleaning up their own work. Of course, the labor there is 100-300% more expensive.

 

[Zeke]

I was at our current house build with the electrician superintendent when the city building inspector came by to check a few tagged items on the framing inspection. He was really thorough IMO. It was joist hangers that had like 10 nail holes in each side, but only 5 had nails in each side. He said "yea the spec is 50% for the rated load, which they met, but we require 100% and the framers around here know it, they just try to get away with it and save 10¢ in nails"...

He said the inspections they do:
in ground plumbing prior to foundation pour
post foundation pour slab/plumbing
framing
plumbing/gas
electrical
venting
insulation
hvac
fireplace
smoke detectors(they made the builder move one smoke detector because of its location)
drainage(that it was graded to plan)
sprinkler system
final inspection

and there may be one or two others I dont remember. He also had a 3 ring binder on every inspection, every tag, etc... that my house had had and after the build closed it was all digitized and kept with the deed at the county title office... I was impressed at what the city did, but I know they do it to keep the damn builders honest.

He gave me his business card and said "if you see anything sketchy, call me and ill come look"... fantastic.

Of course the electrical superintendent was like "**** me" but he couldnt say anything LOL.

He came by about a week after we closed and asked to see a few items that were last minute installs and he hadnt gotten back over to check, I think sprinkler system backflow and a few others. Asked me to run the sprinkler system to make sure everything was working properly.

I was VERY happy with our city/county building inspectors. But obviously as with this story YMMV...

IDK what your exterior is but you probably had drywall nailing inspection, flashing and roof sheathing and the exterior before being covered. I don't understand "post foundation plumbing." Once the concrete is in, next inspection for me is rough framing, rough elec and plumbing and HVAC, then insulation and then drywall. Windows and doors need to be there for rough framing.

After that, nothing until final unless the exterior lath or whatever is there needs inspection. That usually happens with the drywall.

Final needs mailbox, house numbers and required hardscape. Amongst the usual.

 

[billconner]

I don't depend on building department for anything other than not asking for more than law requires. My post and title were about the too often poor work performed by contractors. I think I can generally do better than the average contractor.

 

[NDJ]

beat on the inspector all you want, but you can't sue the crown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
the contractor is the entity that actually constructed the components wrong and a judgement was awarded to the homeowner from the contractor.

There is nothing stopping a homeowner from hiring their own inspector to look out for their interests and if that inspector fails to find a problem, then they certainly would have liability. Happens all the time in commercial construction. The vast majority of homeowners won't pay for this. To be clear, the government inspector is NOT your inspector.

Condo owners were able to sue the cities up here when the leaky condo crisis was happening 20-30 years ago. The city approved the permit after all.

 

[p00p]

Revenue.

Although permits with fees required that are not followed up on by an inspection process are called "taxes".

I mean I get it. The city shouldn't be liable for the **** *** work of builders, that's a private contract between owner and builder. The inspection process is generally there to address a min quality of work and "typical" things - at least here - like homes over allowed height, set backs, and a number of other "common" violations.

Do I really think my local inspector is going to flag something, say if one of our trusses fell off a truck and didn't get installed? I doubt it.

But the upside is ALL of this stuff is leverage when you're getting close to cutting that final check on your home. It's just ashame here that the home "passed" and apparently is so defective that it needs tear down. The inspector "moved on" (details TBD).

those commonly inspected things are easily "overlooked" depending on who it is that is having the work done & the person doing to inspection (nepotism)

 

[dcg9381]

Condo owners were able to sue the cities up here

You can sue anyone you want (see the article, the home owner sued the city). Because 'America.
But it's a dumb idea to sue those that are indemnified. Well, at least in general.

those commonly inspected things are easily "overlooked" depending on who it is that is having the work done & the person doing to inspection (nepotism)

No nepotism here, but smart GCs create rapport and a relationship with the inspectors where they build. And good GCs - frankly the inspector is doing them a favor and keeping them out of a lawsuit. The inspection gives leverage with contractors.. It's not always the GCs that are "skipping" a step - it's often the subs.

I think I can generally do better than the average contractor.

I believe you. I think I could do a better job that some of the contractors. There are also the the "realities" of running a business. Our plumber walked off for about 60 days (he didn't quit) - he just got offered a commercial deal on a timeline where he made a lot more money.

Here, the trades are NOT coming back if you've paid them unless you have future gigs lined up. So owner/builders are one trick ponies and are screwed as soon as they hand over the last check.

 

[p00p]

You can sue anyone you want (see the article, the home owner sued the city). Because 'America.
But it's a dumb idea to sue those that are indemnified. Well, at least in general.


No nepotism here, but smart GCs create rapport and a relationship with the inspectors where they build. And good GCs - frankly the inspector is doing them a favor and keeping them out of a lawsuit. The inspection gives leverage with contractors.. It's not always the GCs that are "skipping" a step - it's often the subs.


I believe you. I think I could do a better job that some of the contractors. There are also the the "realities" of running a business. Our plumber walked off for about 60 days (he didn't quit) - he just got offered a commercial deal on a timeline where he made a lot more money.

Here, the trades are NOT coming back if you've paid them unless you have future gigs lined up. So owner/builders are one trick ponies and are screwed as soon as they hand over the last check.

I was referring to the common things such as setbacks, heights etc.

 

[rjacobs]

IDK what your exterior is but you probably had drywall nailing inspection, flashing and roof sheathing and the exterior before being covered. I don't understand "post foundation plumbing." Once the concrete is in, next inspection for me is rough framing, rough elec and plumbing and HVAC, then insulation and then drywall. Windows and doors need to be there for rough framing.

After that, nothing until final unless the exterior lath or whatever is there needs inspection. That usually happens with the drywall.

Final needs mailbox, house numbers and required hardscape. Amongst the usual.

He might have told me roof inspection, but I doubt they climb on the roof as ours are pretty steep. So it might just be a visual from the ground.

As far as post concrete pour and plumbing, we are on post tension slabs, so I believe they just want to make sure everything is up to snuff on that and nothing was covered over, moved, etc...

I didnt really ask him to detail what all they were looking for at each step, but I was impressed that they came out like 15+ times at the various steps and the documentation they kept and what all they caught... now im sure they see the same stuff all the time as far as short cuts go and they are looking extra hard for that, but like I said, overall I was impressed by our building department inspectors.

 

[reader2580]

I have not noticed this problem up north. Contractors up there tend to do a lot better job about cleaning up their own work. Of course, the labor there is 100-300% more expensive.

The site itself may not be dirty up here, but contractors like to bury trash. I haven't dug up a lot around my house, but my parent's house has trash buried all over in the backyard. My parents had sprinklers installed when I was young and the installers ran into all kinds of trash.

 

[dcg9381]

The site itself may not be dirty up here, but contractors like to bury trash. I haven't dug up a lot around my house, but my parent's house has trash buried all over in the backyard. My parents had sprinklers installed when I was young and the installers ran into all kinds of trash.

That was the standard way to do trash service in rural Texas, before 1960 or so... I think up north too... Quite a few treasures to be found.

This is different. Done with lunch? Leave it at the site. Shingles, framing left overs, you throw that in the yard. Electricians throw PVC and wire in the yard. Same thing with the plumbers.

Even the concrete guys dump their "overage" on site - which is a ***** to clean up.

My neighbor is a Canadian who builds homes in Texas. He says it's just "different" and he has to hire multiple cleaning crews to come in after the trades to clean up.

 

[dchawk81]

I'm wondering what prompted the homeowners to hire their own independent engineers to look at it in the first place.

 

[Uncle murph]

Chatham County will not recheck buildings ok'd by disciplined inspector

Despite the mistakes, WRAL 5 On Your Side has learned the county will not recheck the safety of any other buildings inspected by that inspector.

www.wral.com

Authority without responsibility,a big part of what’s wrong with this country everywhere.

 

[Old tool guy]

Authority without responsibility,a big part of what’s wrong with this country everywhere.

In police work, when a detective is found to have altered evidence to get a conviction, they go back and re-examine all his old cases. Or was that the coroner? Whatever ... it does happen. It’s unfortunate the city hides behind imunity.

 

[cherokee]

public entities are generally immune from liability. so whether the inspector caught stuff or didn't catch stuff has no practical consequence. Designers (architect, engineer, etc.) have a responsibility to prepare plans, drawings, and specifications in accordance with the building code. Contractors have a responsbility to construct in accordance with the building code. Problems in construction generally lie with one of those two groups. I have never seen it lie with a building inspector regardless of how incompetent they are. And if you DIY, you are generally taking on components of both designer and contractor.

If you read the article, the suit against the county got tossed (due to the immunity thing) and the contractor who screwed up the construction is on the hook. get mad at the county all they want, but the contractor who put it together wrong is rightfully who is at fault.

Really, I should tell that to the family that filed suit against us for tripping over a curb in the parking lot, or the guy that took a swan dive off the second floor, or the very over weight woman who had her shoe bust and go rolling down the stairs, or.....................

 

[firebirdparts]

any clown can get a permit, and then they build it themselves

You don't really even get a permit. You guys thinking "permit" are living in the totalitarian zone.

FWIW I don't know how you expect to inspect your way to compliance at the residential level. I really don't. It's not really a practical undertaking. If "dozens of code violations" existed in a single building, I would expect the inspector to miss a lot of them. That's just reality.

The story explains why they hired somebody to critique the house: "Once the family moved in they noticed barely anything was put together correctly-in fact, it’s so bad multiple experts, fear the house will collapse"

I have a friend here in town that bought a really nice house that was built by an architect for himself. That house contained the most grievous structural error that I ever personally saw. Very scary. Luckily we're all engineers, but a very eminent local structural engineer advised them on the recovery plan and he actually didn't get it just right either. Scary stuff, but that was one error, not dozens. Like a lot of houses, it had some "roof shapes" sticking up here and there, and the weight of a room on the second floor and the roof on it came down to nothing in the middle of the living room, with nothing under it. Not even a single joist directly under it, the subfloor was holding the second floor and the roof up. That is an incredibly easy problem to fix.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of people who believe "the government should solve all my problems" and those people are everywhere.

 

[firebirdparts]

So here we go. We can make some sense out of this.

Would be interesting to get some discussion of this in eng-tips.com, I think.

 

[firebirdparts]

It seems like any reasonable person would look at this and say "there isn't a plan to do a structural inspection" and then you wouldn't be whining about the quality of inspections. I would think this is typical of a lot of jurisdictions.

 

[firebirdparts]

What does this have to do with DIY? This is about a building inspector not doing their job.

Fake news. The county commission didn't built that house, and the inspector wasn't supposed to catch structural sloppiness. The contractor is 100% at fault. The county is 0% at fault. The inspector is 0% at fault. Simple as that.

The focus of the story is inappropriate, but you believed it.

If you build a house for yourself, you do a good job on it. What's to stop you?