How to “beat” the building inspector
On This Old House they started the last show saying that the BI was on their case.
He did not like the fireplace. It was a large Rumpford (IIRC I would guess about 4 – 4.5 ft high based on the size of the people). It has a large wood beam for the lintel which the BI did not like.
The showed how the back of the beam was covered with a layer of insulation, then a metal sheet and a masonery coating.
They got an engineer that placed thermocouples at different places on the front and back of the beam. Then they used a standardized fire load that had to be added to at a certain rate and run for 3 hrs IIRC.
The fireload and the max temp rise in the beams where all by UL spec.
Now in the end I think that they where out of spec by 20 degrees. And they decided that they did not have the time to redesign it and retest it.
But it does show what can be done if someone whats to do some that “bad enough” that is not allowed by the basic codes.
Replies
They could run all the tests they want and everything can be within specifications, but still not be code compliant. A variance granted by ahj might be the way to go.
If I were the inspector I would be reluctant to approve the fireplace installation, if it was not built to code. There are too many liability issues. If the house burns down will the insurance company insure the loss if the fireplace construction is found to be at fault ? Would any of the tests performed be acceptable to the insurance company ?
"They could run all the tests they want and everything can be within specifications, but still not be code compliant."What is code compliant?Now the code has very specific instructions for certain construction practice. And one one them is seperation from a masonry fireplace to combustibles.But what does it say if it is not a masonary fireplce? It says to use approved appliacne and install per manufactures instructions. So basically they where attempted to approve a one off manufactured assembly.Now I don't know how the other codes read, but the 200 IRC, R104.11 specifical calls out alternate materials and proceedures if they can be shown by engieenering or testing to meet reconized standards."There are too many liability issues. If the house burns down will the insurance company insure the loss if the fireplace construction is found to be at fault ?"The question has come out many times in differnet forums, more common with structure that have not been inspected and/or DIY work.I looked at all the polices that I have had over the years and asked others to look at these. And none have come up with any terms for HO inusrance that won't cover it if it the construction does not meet code.In fact I have had insurance adjusters tell me that they cover stupidity.Now that does not prevent them from trying to go after other people that might have liability. In this case it would be the engineer that did the test.Most inspectors are government officials and in most case I don't think that they would be liable unless it was shown that there was gross neglicenge (such as aproving it althrough the test cleary showed it failed by large amount) or bribery, but I am not sure about that.Now is some areas the I think that some inspections are still private and required by the insurancce companies and in that case I expect that things are handled much differently.
Edited 4/12/2005 8:35 pm ET by Bill Hartmann
Around here when a new home is being built the inspectors want to see cut sheets for manufactured fireplaces, these sheets have the UL or other approved testing agency approval for that specific unit.
Our town has a separate fire inspector that inspects fireplace installations. He checks mostly that all the required clearances are adhered to. Another town nearby is so difficult about approving and inspecting fireplaces, an alternate test would never be accepted or approved.
Bill,
Maybe I'm having a bad day, but I'm losing you here...
Would you mind going back to these two posts of yours, reread them, and then edit to your satisfaction?
Thanks.
Hey what's the problem. I checked the rules for posting and THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANY POST MAKE SENSE.I did go over it and did not see any basic problem. But I am the first to admit that I am a very bad proofreader of my own writing. I keep seeing what I ment to write, not what is in black and white.Except for the misspellings the only thing I saw was an "or" for an "are". And I am too lazy to try and fix the misspellings.Hey you get what you pay for.Could you give me some clue about where you are confused.I think that most people realize that structurally that "anything" can be done if you have engineering to show that the struccture has equivalent strenght of prescribed structures show in the code books.But this was a different type of problem having to do with fire safety. And I though that it was interesting what options that you had if you had the money and time to use alternate materials or methods.
O.K., it's me.
I took lintel as mantel.
No wonder the BI had his shorts in a knot...
around here... if it has an engineers stamp on it... it's fine by the inspector... has about zero to do with code... they just want it built like the engineer spec'd it... so there is someone else to blame
pony
oh yeah i saw that prob 2 months ago on TOH... who puts wood in a fire and hopes it won't burn? some designer wasn't real bright....
I've had houses turned down for final because there was dirt on the sidewalk. I've had insul. insp. denied because there were hammer dents in the foam. Sometimes it just feels like the inspectors are out to get someone.
frankly I agreed with that building inspector.. putting that wood beam there is just asking for it!
However if I had serious issues that I felt strongly about I would find the data to support my position and politely discuss it with him.. I never see building inspectors as an opponant rather as a resource to be used fully.
Nobody has every bit of knowledge and nobody always does everything perfectly or even well. It might be better to accept input and revise as needed rather than take a position in opposition.
Are all building inspectors wise and intelligent? of course not but neither are cops, go ahead brweak the law and argue with a cop if you want but I don't think it's a smart move..
Saw that edition of TOH. IMO, and based on some experience with variances granted by inspectors, it is a question of authority. Codes are guidelines defining 'safe'. Most inspectors are not engineers and are certainly not specialized enough to make a definitive decision on designs outside of the code guidelines.
In their case their initial design was clearly outside the code requirements. The fireplace builder had used a design which they, not that their professional decision, outside of their ability to produce a valid engineers stamp, counts for much, claimed to be safe.
A question of liability. The AHJ covers, at least partially, for the contractor. Or more accurately the contractors insurance company. An outside engineer stamp approving a questionable design would cover for all of the above while leaving the engineer, and his or her insurance company, holding the bag.
That was the plan behind the heat-rise testing. Had they passed, as I understand it, the engineers would have signed off declaring the non-code compliant design to be functionally equivalent in safety to a code complaint design.
As it turned out the test was roundly failed and the fireplace guys fell back to a, as yet undisclosed and reportedly less aesthetically satisfying, alternate design involving a non-flammable mantle.
What gets me is that the cost of this testing is nothing like cheap. TOH, I suspect, got it at a discount. Last I checked, of course my observation was on a simple electrical issue, you could build a small house for the cost of one of these extended, professionally run and supervised tests.
I still catch TOH but I'm much less enthusiastic about it. When they sold out to the McMansion and 'house beautiful' glossy magazine movement. I lost interest. The first year or so, for the most part, were simple houses with basic and necessary features. Now they have every gizmo known to man and are sprawling designs suitable for a family of twenty. IMHO the trend toward show homes has largely eliminated reasonably sized and modest equipped homes that would better serve the needs of the average family. Designs that will better withstand the test of time.
I agree about TOH. Nearly all their recent projects are studies in excess.
This year's Hometime was pretty good - they did small projects and had the homeowners do most of the work themselves.
That new project is selling for around $2 million. This whole area outside Boston is all excess. In the towns 10 to 15 miles outside boston people have been buying houses for $1 million then knocking them down and spending $2 million putting up something new. The most expensive town, Weston, in 2000 a builder build a 20,000 sq foot palace and was selling it for $18 million. It never sold and right now its down to I think $10 million.
Real estate around Boston is ridiculous because the supply does not meet the demand so prices are much higher than nationally. A good, not great, 2 story colonial of 2500 sq ft will sell for $900, and thats in a good town not one of the most expensive. People around here want new houses, not historic old houses.
One of the inspectors around here wants all the seams on FG insulation taped and any small holes, etc taped. But the same people will not look under a deck and see that it has no joist hangers. Like with everything, there are good, bad and in between. I think around here some inspectors get a little lazy because they have too much to do. The building in some towns has grown so much that if they only have one inspector they really cannot keep up with the inspections if they do a complete inspection. Most, especially the plumbing and electrical inspectors do a very minimal inspection if they know the persons work from the past.
THIS WOULD MAKE FOR GOOD DISCUSSION .HOW HAVE U FOOLED THE INSPECTOR.WE ALL GOT STORIES.
PLEASE DON'T SHOUT. We can hear you just fine.
This was nonething about fooling the inspector. That is why I put "beat" in quotes.It is about alternate ways of getting approvals.
56894.15 in reply to 56894.13
This was nonething about fooling the inspector. That is why I put "beat" in quotes.
It is about alternate ways of getting approvals.
Bill, I got every word of your post and it made sense . Right up till the above .
Heres a quote from Mike I will use ;
" I can never seem to get past this ".
The building inspector is not on any body`s side . Hes doing his job because he cares enough to do his job. He could pass anything thing and it wouldnt bunch his shorts. A BI is a public servant . He`s there to serve . Thats the capacity he works under . He thinks about saftey and longivity. A doctor thinks about saving lives and a builder thinks about building .
Anyway I would never think about beating the building inspector as hes there as your friend if hes doing his job. Sure , point out an alternative method you both can agree on and youve both solved a problem , not delivered a beating .
Think about this ;
Its not known the lifes the BI has saved if hes done his job . Its not known the law suits hes saved the builder and fines prevented. For only one fire can mean more than the BI will ever make .
Thats what a building inspector asks for in his prayers.
Tim
tim... the fire inspectors in West Warwick, RI would certainly agree with your post... they'd really like to go back and redo some of the inspections of the Station Nightclub ....that fire involved foam soundproofing.. cost 100 lives , burned 100 more, all-in-all... more than 400 people in the firethe chronology started with neighbors complaining about the noise.. and the solutions to that complaint got by the inspectorslitigation will continue for years....and will never bring them back to life, nor heal thier scarsMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I realize you dont want to fool the inspector .i just thought it would make for interesting discussion,as i think many of us have done liitle insignificant things that we hope the inspecor will not see.nothing malicious or unsafe.