"dpb" wrote in message ...
evodawg wrote:
...
I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
it
leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.

Not always so simple, no.

Absolutely agree ... it's amazing, how the interconnected complexity of a
plumbing system, discounting leaks, including hot and cold supply lines,
drain lines, water heating/distribution, the proper flushing of commodes for
the next 50 years or so, can all be problematic and are subject to a good
many scientific principles.

(That said, the only thing quicker to chill the bone's of a builder, other
than the sight of an electrician with a sawzall in hand, is a plumber with
one!)

Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in attics
where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed properly
fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still need a lot
of the same skills for proper installation.

All in need of competent "inspection".

I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving from
jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are NOT the
people you want making sure these things are done correctly!

DAMHIKT ...


-- www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

evodawg wrote:
Swingman wrote:

"evodawg" wrote
As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.

If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry
for
inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy
remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.

... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
don't
speak
English.

IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't
seen
nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it!

I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
works
or it leaks.

Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .


And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may well
be when you put your foot through the floor.


Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then
ok.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Swingman wrote:



"dpb" wrote in message ...
evodawg wrote:
...
I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
it
leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.

Not always so simple, no.

Absolutely agree ... it's amazing, how the interconnected complexity of a
plumbing system, discounting leaks, including hot and cold supply lines,
drain lines, water heating/distribution, the proper flushing of commodes
for the next 50 years or so, can all be problematic and are subject to a
good many scientific principles.

(That said, the only thing quicker to chill the bone's of a builder, other
than the sight of an electrician with a sawzall in hand, is a plumber with
one!)

Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still
need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.

All in need of competent "inspection".

I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are
NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!

DAMHIKT ...


-- www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and Plumber
is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
and High Rise Buildings. I'm retired and do the remodel and handyman thing
to keep me busy and I enjoy it. I know code but I can't advertise that I do
this type work with my current license, ridicules!!! Homeowners need to do
some homework before hiring some Jose on the cheap.

Plumbing to me is really basic, it's not rocket science. Electrical takes a
little more initiative.

--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.co.nr/

In article cxZpk.123$5C.82@trnddc02, says...
Swingman wrote:



"dpb" wrote in message ...
evodawg wrote:
...
I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
it
leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.

Not always so simple, no.

Absolutely agree ... it's amazing, how the interconnected complexity of a
plumbing system, discounting leaks, including hot and cold supply lines,
drain lines, water heating/distribution, the proper flushing of commodes
for the next 50 years or so, can all be problematic and are subject to a
good many scientific principles.

(That said, the only thing quicker to chill the bone's of a builder, other
than the sight of an electrician with a sawzall in hand, is a plumber with
one!)

Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still
need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.

All in need of competent "inspection".

I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are
NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!

DAMHIKT ...


-- www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and Plumber
is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
and High Rise Buildings. I'm retired and do the remodel and handyman thing
to keep me busy and I enjoy it. I know code but I can't advertise that I do
this type work with my current license, ridicules!!! Homeowners need to do
some homework before hiring some Jose on the cheap.

You're probably better off not being licensed to do houses. Your
malpractice insurance would likely be more than you make (I'm
assuming your part-time status here). As long as you can find
enough fun stuff to do, lay low (and "advertise by word-of-mouth
only). ;-)

Plumbing to me is really basic, it's not rocket science. Electrical takes a
little more initiative.

I'm the opposite (though I'm an electrical engineer). Electrical,
particularly home wiring, is trivial stuff. Plumbing isn't really
all that involved either, I just hate doing it. ;-)

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
evodawg wrote:
Swingman wrote:

"evodawg" wrote
As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.

If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry
for
inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy
remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.

... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
don't
speak
English.

IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't
seen
nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it!

I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
works
or it leaks.

Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .


And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may well
be when you put your foot through the floor.

That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
(got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this sort
of thing doesn't happen.

--
Keith

evodawg coughed up some electrons that declared:

Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and
Plumber
is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
and High Rise Buildings. I'm retired and do the remodel and handyman thing
to keep me busy and I enjoy it. I know code but I can't advertise that I
do
this type work with my current license, ridicules!!! Homeowners need to
do some homework before hiring some Jose on the cheap.

Plumbing to me is really basic, it's not rocket science. Electrical takes
a little more initiative.


If you guys want to see the future, come to England (specifically England,
or Wales, but not Scotland or N Ireland because they're different...)

Went to see my local BCO (Building Control Officer or inspector). Over here,
Building Control goes way beyond matters of safety. We need officialdom to
change windows and external doors, heating (even vented CH), add insulation
and all manner of other nonsense. Needless to say, much of this never gets
checked in...

Oddly enough, gas work isn't covered. You only need to be CORGI (government
approved scheme) licensed if doing for hire or reward (but you do need to
be "competant" if doing your own work).

Anyway, after an hour's chat over some plans I have for renovating a 1950's
bungalow, it was made clear to me exactly what he thought about of the
fluffy stuff that's been added to the Building regs here.

I feel extremely lucky to have an inspector who's general attitude was "I'll
help you make sure it safe, and about the fluffy stuff, do what you can but
I won't hold you bang up to current standards because we realise it's not
always practical with older buildings" (paraphrased).

Electrics has a lot of Councils flummoxed since it was brought under
building regs in 2005. I was given the choice to have my worked checked
over by a qualified electrician at some 300 pounds cost to me. Or get
myself qualified (but not a government scheme member) and the council would
accept my certification for work done by me on my own house.

I'm generally happy with electrics and can find my way around the IEE wiring
regs, so I signed up for a course leading to the basic domestic installer's
qualification, which wasn't hideously expensive and can be taken over 4
weekends. One more optional 3 day weekend has the option of obtaining a
fully recognised qualification in the regulations themselves, though that
goes beyond domestic work, covering industrial and agricultural. Had to go
and buy a Megger off ebay so I can formally test my systems, but that's a
good thing to do anyway.

Assuming the council don't change their mind, this is a fairly amicable
arrangement which suits me.

However, the problem is that the approach varies wildly from council to
council (the council which is responsible for buildings work and planning
is the district or borough council, which is one level below the county
council, so there are 100's of such councils over England). This is despite
the regulations being set by Westminster.

The policy could even vary from inspector to inspector, though the senior
inspector usually keeps his team singing roughly the same song.

It could so easily have been very very difficult to do anything due to the
near impossibility of implementing some current regulations in an old
house.

Cheers

Tim

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
evodawg wrote:
Swingman wrote:

"evodawg" wrote
As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.

If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry
for
inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of
shoddy
remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.

... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
don't
speak
English.

IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't
seen
nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it!

I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
works
or it leaks.

Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .


And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may
well
be when you put your foot through the floor.

That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
(got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this sort
of thing doesn't happen.

Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"? The issue was permits
and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not require
"licensed plumbers".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"evodawg" wrote in message

Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and
Plumber
is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
and High Rise Buildings.

Makes sense to me. Just because you know the codes for big buildings does
not mean you know the code for a house. Knowing the steel beam needed to
support a bridge does not correlate with the truss for a 20 foot wide roof.

Swingman wrote:

"evodawg" wrote
As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.

If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry for
inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers and
builders, whose numbers are legion.

Would that were true. When we lived in Lewisville, there was a
subdivision in which the homes and sites were inspected by the city prior
to receiving certification for occupancy. What the city failed to inspect
was the fact that the back yards had been filled improperly and in several
years, peoples' yards began to slide into the creek area behind the
subdivision losing both backyard and in some cases endangering the
integrity of the homes. The builder had gone bankrupt in the intervening
time and the city disclaimed any liability despite having inspected and
certified the homes and sites in compliance. Paraphrasing their words the
bottom line was that the inspection process assured that the city collected
its fees and taxes and was no guarantee of quality or habitability. Pretty
much confirmed any cynical views I had toward the inspection process.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Swingman wrote:



"dpb" wrote in message ...
evodawg wrote:
...
I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
it
leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.

Not always so simple, no.

.... snip
Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still
need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.


Yeah, like making sure things are all hooked up. When we moved into our
first house, friends helping us move told us there was a puddle of water in
the guest bathroom. Turns out the A/C installer (or plumber, neither would
admit to whose job it was) failed to connect the A/C drainage line to the
bathroom drain -- so all that June Dallas humidity was dripping into our
brand new cabinet and running onto the floor.


All in need of competent "inspection".

I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are
NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!

DAMHIKT ...


So you're saying just because they think they look good doesn't mean they
are competent?


-- www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Inspectors can also be very reasonable. We wanted a door between the back
of the garage and the newly built parkside hallway. The garage will never
be used for a car (built in 1929 for something mini), and this is well-
known in Radburn. A regular door was a nono, so the inspector and the
builder consulted and decided on a (temporary) drywalled closet to be built
inside the garage. Upon final inspection approval the closet was removed
and now we can move things into the garage from the street side and out on
the park-side. Works fine for all. Our estate will have to handle the
sale of the house, but that will be their concern.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

evodawg wrote:
Swingman wrote:


"dpb" wrote in message ...
evodawg wrote:
...
I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either works or
it
leaks. Pretty stupid simple. But to protect the innocent then ok.
Not always so simple, no.
Absolutely agree ... it's amazing, how the interconnected complexity of a
plumbing system, discounting leaks, including hot and cold supply lines,
drain lines, water heating/distribution, the proper flushing of commodes
for the next 50 years or so, can all be problematic and are subject to a
good many scientific principles.

(That said, the only thing quicker to chill the bone's of a builder, other
than the sight of an electrician with a sawzall in hand, is a plumber with
one!)

Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they still
need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.

All in need of competent "inspection".

I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's, are
NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!

DAMHIKT ...


-- www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Not sure how many inspectors are competent, as long as the HVAC and Plumber
is licensed and has a good rep. everything should be ok. I'm a licensed
General Engineer with a General A California License. My licensing
authority says I cannot work on Houses. But I can build Schools, Bridges,
and High Rise Buildings. I'm retired and do the remodel and handyman thing
to keep me busy and I enjoy it. I know code but I can't advertise that I do
this type work with my current license, ridicules!!! Homeowners need to do
some homework before hiring some Jose on the cheap.

Plumbing to me is really basic, it's not rocket science. Electrical takes a
little more initiative.


A couple of years ago I upgraded my whole house air conditioning system.
This involved installing a new compressor and a new evaporator coil. The
evaporator is the part that cools. It was located in the attic and just
fit up the access hole.
A couple of weeks after a blister developed in one of the bedroom
ceilings. When I broke the blister about a pint of water spilled on the
bed below. I called the installer back and had them fix the problem. It
seemed that the apprentice they had stuck in the HOT attic failed to
properly install the condensate overflow.
Last year when I moved the painter had to replace two sheets of plaster
board in the ceiling that had been damaged by the overflow condensate.
There is no mandatory inspection in the county or city where I lived but
the installer was insured and honorable.

Dave Nagel

Han wrote:
Inspectors can also be very reasonable. We wanted a door between the back
of the garage and the newly built parkside hallway. The garage will never
be used for a car (built in 1929 for something mini), and this is well-
known in Radburn. A regular door was a nono, so the inspector and the
builder consulted and decided on a (temporary) drywalled closet to be built
inside the garage. Upon final inspection approval the closet was removed
and now we can move things into the garage from the street side and out on
the park-side. Works fine for all. Our estate will have to handle the
sale of the house, but that will be their concern.

Han;

Just instruct them to build a drywalled closet prior to the sale
inspection. The buyer can do as he/she pleases with the closet.

Dave N

"evodawg" wrote
As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.

(major snippage)

I don't really want to argue with the above statement, but most places that
I am aware of (in Canada) the permit fees do not come anywhere close to the
actual cost of inspections and any effect on property taxes, other than for
the most major types of renovations or additions, is negligible.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Swingman wrote:

"evodawg" wrote
As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.

If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry for
inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers and
builders, whose numbers are legion.

Would that were true. When we lived in Lewisville, there was a
subdivision in which the homes and sites were inspected by the city prior
to receiving certification for occupancy. What the city failed to inspect
was the fact that the back yards had been filled improperly and in several
years, peoples' yards began to slide into the creek area behind the
subdivision losing both backyard and in some cases endangering the
integrity of the homes. The builder had gone bankrupt in the intervening
time and the city disclaimed any liability despite having inspected and
certified the homes and sites in compliance. Paraphrasing their words the
bottom line was that the inspection process assured that the city
collected
its fees and taxes and was no guarantee of quality or habitability.
Pretty
much confirmed any cynical views I had toward the inspection process.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

So what if the City disclaimed any liability? If I were acting on behalf of
the city I would likely do the same. That doesn't mean there is no
liability and dispite the old saying you can fight City Hall, and win. This
seems like a perfect case for a class action against the municipality
involved.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Swingman wrote:

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers and
builders, whose numbers are legion.

Would that were true.

For the most part, it is true. There are, of course, exceptions to
everything.

When we lived in Lewisville, there was a
subdivision in which the homes and sites were inspected by the city prior
to receiving certification for occupancy. What the city failed to inspect
was the fact that the back yards had been filled improperly and in several
years, peoples' yards began to slide into the creek area behind the
subdivision losing both backyard and in some cases endangering the
integrity of the homes.

The discussion is about enforcing building standards, not the kind of things
that happen when you expect the government to protect you from ALL the
majestic physical forces of nature.

These houses could have been better than 'built to code' and still slide
into a creek due to many more factors than the inspection process ... folks
will simply continue to build where houses do not belong, and no amount of
building standards, per se, will stop that.

The builder had gone bankrupt in the intervening
time and the city disclaimed any liability despite having inspected and
certified the homes and sites in compliance. Paraphrasing their words the
bottom line was that the inspection process assured that the city
collected
its fees and taxes and was no guarantee of quality or habitability.

SOP ... the builder is ALWAYS the responsible party for building to the
various codes/building standards, NOT the geopolitical entity responsible
for enforcing building standards in their particular jurisdictions.

It has always been this way, and I don't even know that you want it any
other way ... unless you want more government intrusion in your life than
you already have.

Pretty much confirmed any cynical views I had toward the inspection
process.

It's basically simple, you want better government/enforcement ... you get
involved in the process.

Granted, you may have to be intimately involved in the business to
appreciate that building standards, and enforcement of same, increase the
odds of a homebuyer purchasing a better product today then they did 40 years
ago, and it is getting better all the time.

That said, you must understand that a house "built to code", is a house
built to minimum standards ... but it is indeed a fact that we do have
better "building standards" today.

But, to assume that means we have better built houses doesn't always follow.

The biggest problem I face in building the best house possible is NOT the
building standards, and NOT the competent enforcement of same, it is the
shoddy workmanship, and lack of pride in same, that goes into building these
days ... along with almost non-existent, and competent, *supervision* during
the process.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Swingman wrote:

Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they
still
need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.


Yeah, like making sure things are all hooked up. When we moved into our
first house, friends helping us move told us there was a puddle of water
in
the guest bathroom. Turns out the A/C installer (or plumber, neither
would
admit to whose job it was) failed to connect the A/C drainage line to the
bathroom drain -- so all that June Dallas humidity was dripping into our
brand new cabinet and running onto the floor.

I can probably go a good way to solving the mystery for you:

HVAC indeed ran the drain pvc. The sheetrockers covered it up behind the
drywall (by accident? ... maybe, but it could also depend upon whose
countries soccer team won the day before in the playoffs). The plumbers
never saw the drain line because it was behind the sheetrock and under a
cabinet/vanity to boot, and it is not the responsibility of the plumber to
know/guess what the AC guys did ... not in this day and age, in any event.

Lay the blame as follows:

The builider for NOT supervising the work and not being experienced enough,
or caring enough, to anticipate the problem; the sheetrockers for being
careless and doing shoddy work; the HVAC contractor for not going back and
insuring that all drain lines were in place before firing up the AC units
for the first time.

BTW ... this is a common rookie mistake. And one, as a builder responsible
for supervising ALL work, I confess to having made myself. But most good
builder's only do it once ... at least so far!


I can guarantee, unequivocally, that _most_ builder's, particularly the
Italian loafered, khaki pants/ blue button down shirt variety, driving
from jobsite to jobsite in a Lexus complete with wraparound Armani's,
are
NOT the people you want making sure these things are done correctly!

DAMHIKT ...

So you're saying just because they think they look good doesn't mean
they
are competent?

As about as competent as the fashionable, three day stubble that goes along
with the territory can make them.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Swingman wrote:

Despite the need for a good design and ductwork, HVAC has a good bit of
'plumbing" involved as well ... Freon lines, drainage, both primary and
backup for the evaporator coils/air handler units, which are often in
attics where they can cause a great deal of damage when not designed
properly fail/get stopped up. While these guys aren't plumbers, they
still
need a lot of the same skills for proper installation.


Yeah, like making sure things are all hooked up. When we moved into
our
first house, friends helping us move told us there was a puddle of water
in
the guest bathroom. Turns out the A/C installer (or plumber, neither
would
admit to whose job it was) failed to connect the A/C drainage line to the
bathroom drain -- so all that June Dallas humidity was dripping into our
brand new cabinet and running onto the floor.

I can probably go a good way to solving the mystery for you:

HVAC indeed ran the drain pvc. The sheetrockers covered it up behind the
drywall (by accident? ... maybe, but it could also depend upon whose
countries soccer team won the day before in the playoffs). The plumbers
never saw the drain line because it was behind the sheetrock and under a
cabinet/vanity to boot, and it is not the responsibility of the plumber to
know/guess what the AC guys did ... not in this day and age, in any event.


In our case, the condensate pipe was not covered by sheetrock, it was just
sticking out the wall; an equivalent attach point on the bathroom sink
drain was similarly setting there. The only problem was the intervening air
gap of about 8 inches and an elbow that, for some reason, the water failed
to follow instead of flowing out the pipe onto the vanity floor.


Lay the blame as follows:

The builider for NOT supervising the work and not being experienced
enough,
or caring enough, to anticipate the problem;

Absolutely. Builder went to great lengths outlining their quality
construction and attention to detail. Seems like that's kind of a big
detail to miss. If I were a builder, I'd have a checklist of items prior
to closing out a site. Verifying A/C drainage would be one of the things
on that checklist.


the sheetrockers for being
careless and doing shoddy work;

In this particular case, I can't fault the sheetrockers

the HVAC contractor for not going back and
insuring that all drain lines were in place before firing up the AC units
for the first time.


Yep

BTW ... this is a common rookie mistake. And one, as a builder responsible
for supervising ALL work, I confess to having made myself. But most good
builder's only do it once ... at least so far!


This was a name-brand builder, they should not have made this mistake.
OTOH, all of the AC units in the whole neighborhood failed multiple times
in the immediate years after the warranties ran out. Turns out the builder
went with the low bidder (explains the hook-up issue) who had purchased a
warehouse full of closed out A/C units and who failed to match inside and
outside units during installation. Installer just went to the warehouse,
grabbed a compressor and condenser and took to the job site. Builder
narrowly avoided a class-action lawsuit (which I normally abhor, but in
this instance was certainly justifiable) because the organizing group was
collecting legal funding around Christmas time.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Swingman wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Swingman wrote:

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building standards
and to protect the unwary against the practices of shoddy remodelers
and builders, whose numbers are legion.

Would that were true.

For the most part, it is true. There are, of course, exceptions to
everything.

When we lived in Lewisville, there was a
subdivision in which the homes and sites were inspected by the city prior
to receiving certification for occupancy. What the city failed to
inspect was the fact that the back yards had been filled improperly and
in several years, peoples' yards began to slide into the creek area
behind the subdivision losing both backyard and in some cases endangering
the integrity of the homes.

The discussion is about enforcing building standards, not the kind of
things that happen when you expect the government to protect you from ALL
the majestic physical forces of nature.


This particular instance included proper certification of the building
site as well. That particular area of TX is one with a high concentration
of clay that swells and shrinks with moisture content. The builder had
filled the back yards into an erosion channel to make larger backyards and
had failed to adequately assure the stabilization of the fill, thus the
later occurrences of backyards sliding away into the creekbed.


.... snip


It has always been this way, and I don't even know that you want it any
other way ... unless you want more government intrusion in your life than
you already have.


I'll agree with the latter statement. This just confirmed that the amount
of intrusion we already have is pretty much useless -- we certainly don't
need more and I wouldn't come close to advocating that.


.... snip

The biggest problem I face in building the best house possible is NOT the
building standards, and NOT the competent enforcement of same, it is the
shoddy workmanship, and lack of pride in same, that goes into building
these days ...

It's not just building, it seems to be endemic to everything. Here, I am
overjoyed when I have work done where it is right the first time. It is
very seldom that this happens anymore, there's always something that is
screwed up; and it's not because I am being overly particular -- this is
big things, like the fact the new brakes on the F-150 just plain locked up
when applying any pressure to them after a brake job. Multiple other
examples abound. I don't know if it is an entitlement mentality that
people think they are deserving of good compensation despite the quality of
their work, or something else, but quality work seems to have become a rare
commodity.



along with almost non-existent, and competent,
*supervision* during the process.


That should be the last line of defense; people should have enough pride
in their work to do it correctly regardless of whether someone is watching.
[Yeah, I'm an idealist]



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

It's not just building, it seems to be endemic to everything. Here, I am
overjoyed when I have work done where it is right the first time.

It's so damn unusual that I actually write letters of
commendation/recommendation to the subcontractors that simply do what they
were paid to do. I'm tickled to do it for the most part. Hoping that the
effort will insure repeat performance, and that the amount of time expended
will be paid back in spades.


That should be the last line of defense; people should have enough pride
in their work to do it correctly regardless of whether someone is
watching.
[Yeah, I'm an idealist]

LOL ... I just used that very term (idealistic) against a client in onsite
meeting yesterday.

In the Austin area, I had just caused the demolition of this
"green/conservation minded to the extreme" client's old house on a 10 tract
to make way for the new.

The old house had been built back in the 70's by a "Mother Earth" hippy
couple who lived in it for about ten years before it obviously fell down
around their ears.

When I heard, for the 50th time, "we'd like to do this and this (basically
to reduce some type of imagined environmental impact issue), I pointed the
now bare ground where the old house recently stood and said "You see that
old house over there?".

She stopped and with a puzzled look said, "But, there is no longer a house
over there!"

I said "Precisely! .. and the reason there is no longer a house there is
because it was built with 100% "idealism", without the least regard for
"realistic" building practices!".

After the silence, that was pretty much the end of "saving the 30 year old
single pane windows", to put back in an energy efficient, new home in lieu
of new, low E, double pane glass that will _really_ have an impact on the
environment!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

covered by sheetrock, it was just
sticking out the wall; an equivalent attach point on the bathroom sink
drain was similarly setting there. The only problem was the intervening
air
gap of about 8 inches and an elbow that, for some reason, the water failed
to follow instead of flowing out the pipe onto the vanity floor.

Another excellent reason why a buyer should _always_ require a 3rd party
inspection before closing on a home. AAMOF, most lenders are now requiring
one ... a good thing!

As I mentioned before, this happens enough that it is almost automatic to
check before firing up an AC in new construction. IOW, what happened to you
is indeed inexcusable, and one of the reasons the "trades" are not paid in
full until the building final is passed, and with all systems going full
blast, giving me the opportunity of doing a "backcharge" under their
contract in the event of a similar, expensive to repair, incident.

In your case, the builder should have been all over the plumbing contractor
for missing the connection; and the HVAC subcontractor for not insuring that
both drainage and overflow lines were operational (attic insulation is often
the last thing to go in and it is very common to see the overflow pan drain
stopped up with insulation _before_ the units are even powered).

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"David G. Nagel" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
Inspectors can also be very reasonable. We wanted a door between the
back of the garage and the newly built parkside hallway. The garage
will never be used for a car (built in 1929 for something mini), and
this is well- known in Radburn. A regular door was a nono, so the
inspector and the builder consulted and decided on a (temporary)
drywalled closet to be built inside the garage. Upon final
inspection approval the closet was removed and now we can move things
into the garage from the street side and out on the park-side. Works
fine for all. Our estate will have to handle the sale of the house,
but that will be their concern.

Han;

Just instruct them to build a drywalled closet prior to the sale
inspection. The buyer can do as he/she pleases with the closet.

Dave N


That's my plan. Our 30 year-old kids are supposed to know about this.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote

covered by sheetrock, it was just
sticking out the wall; an equivalent attach point on the bathroom sink
drain was similarly setting there. The only problem was the intervening
air
gap of about 8 inches and an elbow that, for some reason, the water
failed to follow instead of flowing out the pipe onto the vanity floor.

Another excellent reason why a buyer should _always_ require a 3rd party
inspection before closing on a home. AAMOF, most lenders are now requiring
one ... a good thing!


Absolutely. At the time, we were young and naive and didn't think one
would need a house inspector for a new construction home bought from a
tract builder.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
evodawg wrote:
Swingman wrote:

"evodawg" wrote
As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a permit.

If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which cry
for
inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of
shoddy
remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.

... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
don't
speak
English.

IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you ain't
seen
nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it!

I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
works
or it leaks.

Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .


And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may
well
be when you put your foot through the floor.

That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
(got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this sort
of thing doesn't happen.

Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"?

I did.

The issue was permits
and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not require
"licensed plumbers".

Even worse. Inspections show nothing.

--
Keith

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
evodawg wrote:
Swingman wrote:

"evodawg" wrote
As far as I'm concerned most permits are to generate taxable
income.
Anything not structural or electrical should not need a
permit.

If you would add but Plumbing and HVAC to that, both of which
cry
for
inspection to protect the unwary, I would mostly agree.

That said, the permitting process is used to enforce building
standards and to protect the unwary against the practices of
shoddy
remodelers and builders, whose numbers are legion.

... and, just wait to see how those legions will multiply most
don't
speak
English.

IOW, with regard to building permits/code enforcement, you
ain't
seen
nothing yet! ... and be thankful for it!

I agree, HVAC involves electrical. Plumbing, usually it either
works
or it leaks.

Or backs up or lets in noxious gases . . .


And if it leaks in an inconspicuous place and the leak decides to
drain outside under the siding then your first notice of it may
well
be when you put your foot through the floor.

That problem doesn't go away with licensed plumbers. BTDT, GTWF
(got the wet foot). I can take far more time to make sure this
sort
of thing doesn't happen.

Who said anything about "licensed plumbers"?

I did.

The issue was permits
and code enforcement. Code, around here anyway, does not require
"licensed plumbers".

Even worse. Inspections show nothing.

Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company says
"sorry, your fault".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company says
"sorry, your fault".

I keep hearing this, but I've been over my homeowner's policy (Texas HO-B)
pretty carefully and can't find a clause that lets them deny a claim based on
permitting and/or inspection. Do you have a reference for this?
Thanks,
Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company
says
"sorry, your fault".

I keep hearing this, but I've been over my homeowner's policy (Texas
HO-B) pretty carefully and can't find a clause that lets them deny a
claim based on permitting and/or inspection. Do you have a
reference
for this?

There's more to insurance law than the words in the policy. You
really need to ask a lawyer versed in Texas insurance law this
question, however I suspect that you will find that there is by case
law or statute an exclusion for damage caused by gross negligence or
reckless or illegal conduct on the part of the policyholder. It
doesn't say in the policy that there is an exclusion for an arson fire
in which the policyholder was the arsonist, but do you really think
that they'd pay off on that? Homeowner-conducted repairs that were
not done in accordance with the law are less clear cut but they give
the insurance company wiggle room.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote:

There's more to insurance law than the words in the policy. You
really need to ask a lawyer versed in Texas insurance law this
question, however I suspect ...

Which is why I asked for a reference. This insurance threat has been endlessly
repeated on Usenet, but I've never seen any authoritative source. I'd love to
settle the issue one way or the other. -- Doug

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Swingman wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

covered by sheetrock, it was just
sticking out the wall; an equivalent attach point on the bathroom sink
drain was similarly setting there. The only problem was the intervening
air
gap of about 8 inches and an elbow that, for some reason, the water
failed to follow instead of flowing out the pipe onto the vanity floor.
Another excellent reason why a buyer should _always_ require a 3rd party
inspection before closing on a home. AAMOF, most lenders are now requiring
one ... a good thing!


Absolutely. At the time, we were young and naive and didn't think one
would need a house inspector for a new construction home bought from a
tract builder.


When I was selling my previous house, the prospective buyer hired an
inspection company to look at my place. The chap they sent out was a
disaster. His crowning achievement was in a spare bedroom where he
found NOT ONLY a dead electrical outlet, but also a switch that "didn't
seem to do anything". You guessed it: a wall switch that controlled an
outlet. There were a couple minor items on his list that I fixed but
nearly all were similar if not quite as spectacular as the switched outlet.

The buyer was a PITA who thought if he could keep grumbling and bitching
that I would give him the house. I got tired of it, told the real
estate whiz bang to put it back on the market. The buyer then buys it
"as is" for the price I had listed. Once in a while there is justice.

curmudgeonly yours,
jo4hn

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

There's more to insurance law than the words in the policy. You
really need to ask a lawyer versed in Texas insurance law this
question, however I suspect ...

Which is why I asked for a reference. This insurance threat has
been
endlessly repeated on Usenet, but I've never seen any authoritative
source. I'd love to settle the issue one way or the other. --
Doug'

So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote:


So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.

But you stated it as fact:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company says
"sorry, your fault".

I was hoping you had some references.
Thanks,
Doug

"jo4hn" wrote

When I was selling my previous house, the prospective buyer hired an
inspection company to look at my place. The chap they sent out was a
disaster. His crowning achievement was in a spare bedroom where he
found NOT ONLY a dead electrical outlet, but also a switch that "didn't
seem to do anything". You guessed it: a wall switch that controlled an
outlet. There were a couple minor items on his list that I fixed but
nearly all were similar if not quite as spectacular as the switched
outlet.

Luck of the draw ... I've had the "wall switch" issue to deal with numerous
times. On one recent inspection, the inspector spelled commode "kamode", and
condenser "condinsir" three times each on the same report ... obviously not
a typo.

Worst I've had recently is when a 3rd party, PE, moonlighting as a home
inspector and who charged the buyer $650 for the inspection when the average
going rate is $350, apparently tried to turn a faucet head in the 2nd floor
utility room that didn't turn; broke the faucet, causing a leak under the
sink, didn't say anything about it, and 18 hours later I had to deal with
water damage to the first floor ceiling.

The buyer's were apologetic, but didn't offer to pay anything, apparently
betting, correctly, that I wasn't about to let the cost of repairs to me,
the builder, kill a $650K deal, so we ate it.

The same inspector scared the hell out of the homeowners with totally false
information about the safety of the code required arc-fault breakers in the
bedrooms, and wrote up the wrong AC unit for what was an unnecessary
"repair" in any event ... and, back on your topic, as he was walking out the
front door after being paid, told the buyer that the wall switch to turn off
the upstairs balcony lights didn't work ... you guessed it ... it was a
three way switch!

I've got plenty more "3rd party Inspector Closeau" stories, but I'll quit
there.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:


So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.

But you stated it as fact:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company
says
"sorry, your fault".

I was hoping you had some references.

Would you grow up.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
....
So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.

Be _far_ better if you'd verify your facts before posting fud...

--

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...
So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.

Be _far_ better if you'd verify your facts before posting fud...

It amazes me that people get angry at being told that if they ignore
the law they can get in trouble.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:05:27 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...
So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.

Be _far_ better if you'd verify your facts before posting fud...

It amazes me that people get angry at being told that if they ignore
the law they can get in trouble.

--

I'm not seeing anyone getting angry. I'm seeing individuals asking
for a reference to back up a statement. I've heard the same statement
a number of times, have asked for a reference myself and have never
been offered one or ever seen a case that backs up the statement.

It seems to be a popular troll for scaring people into thinking
insurance, warranties, etc. are not going to protect them.

Had a plumbing failure that caused a great deal of water damage
several houses ago. There was no way to ascertain whether the failed
plumbing was original or add on and whether if add on, was covered by
permit and inspected. Insurance adjuster never mentioned it, just
processed the claim. As was the case the repair to the plumbing
($50), was not covered, but the damage, several thousand, was.

An anecdotal sample of one.

Frank

J. Clarke wrote:

Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company says
"sorry, your fault".

Not true around here at least (Saskatchewan, Canada).

My insurance company has no idea about the actual state of the
house...they just work off actuarial tables based on type of
construction, age of house, etc.

Hypothetically assuming what you say is true, how exactly would it be
enforced? How would the insurance people know whether something was
done by you or by someone else before you bought the house?

Chris

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:05:27 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...
So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.

Be _far_ better if you'd verify your facts before posting fud...


It amazes me that people get angry at being told that if they
ignore
the law they can get in trouble.

--

I'm not seeing anyone getting angry. I'm seeing individuals asking
for a reference to back up a statement. I've heard the same
statement
a number of times, have asked for a reference myself and have never
been offered one or ever seen a case that backs up the statement.

It seems to be a popular troll for scaring people into thinking
insurance, warranties, etc. are not going to protect them.

No, it's for scaring people into dotting their "i"s and crossing their
"t"s so that if something does go wrong their asses are covered. What
objection do you have to doing this? Is the 25 bucks or whatever for
a permit going to mean the difference between survival and starvation
for you? Did a building inspector rape your cat?

Had a plumbing failure that caused a great deal of water damage
several houses ago. There was no way to ascertain whether the
failed
plumbing was original or add on and whether if add on, was covered
by
permit and inspected.

If permits are required for "new work" and it wasn't on the original
approved plan then it's not covered.

Insurance adjuster never mentioned it, just
processed the claim. As was the case the repair to the plumbing
($50), was not covered, but the damage, several thousand, was.

An anecdotal sample of one.

Now suppose the damage had been several hundred thousand? Do you think
that they might have scrutinized the situation a bit more carefully?

Insurance companies are about profit, just like any other business.
It costs more on a small claim to contest the claim than it does to
pay it, even if the claim might be slightly questionable. If it's a
big claim and might be the result of something that the insurance
company is not required to cover then they may very well choose to
contest it.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Chris Friesen wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Believe what you want to. Permit required, no permit pulled,
inspection required, no inspection performed, insurance company
says
"sorry, your fault".

Not true around here at least (Saskatchewan, Canada).

My insurance company has no idea about the actual state of the
house...they just work off actuarial tables based on type of
construction, age of house, etc.

Huh? How do actuarial tables enter into paying off a claim?
Actuarial tables are used to assess rates, not to determine damages or
whether the company is going to pay off on a given claim.

Hypothetically assuming what you say is true, how exactly would it
be
enforced? How would the insurance people know whether something was
done by you or by someone else before you bought the house?

How would you prove that you didn't do it? And suppose that you do it
and it fails after you sell the house and the next owner's insurance
company decides to come after _you_ for doing illegal and substandard
work? Then what?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:30:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:05:27 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
...
So call around until you find an insurance lawyer and ask.

Be _far_ better if you'd verify your facts before posting fud...


It amazes me that people get angry at being told that if they
ignore
the law they can get in trouble.

--

I'm not seeing anyone getting angry. I'm seeing individuals asking
for a reference to back up a statement. I've heard the same
statement
a number of times, have asked for a reference myself and have never
been offered one or ever seen a case that backs up the statement.

It seems to be a popular troll for scaring people into thinking
insurance, warranties, etc. are not going to protect them.

No, it's for scaring people into dotting their "i"s and crossing their
"t"s so that if something does go wrong their asses are covered. What
objection do you have to doing this? Is the 25 bucks or whatever for
a permit going to mean the difference between survival and starvation
for you? Did a building inspector rape your cat?

So I guess you made up your statement about the insurance being
invalidated in the spirt of protecting us from our foolishness.
That's the question that was presented to you. I (we) simply want to
know if you can quote reference or case for that statement. Can you?

Had a plumbing failure that caused a great deal of water damage
several houses ago. There was no way to ascertain whether the
failed
plumbing was original or add on and whether if add on, was covered
by
permit and inspected.

If permits are required for "new work" and it wasn't on the original
approved plan then it's not covered.

Insurance adjuster never mentioned it, just
processed the claim. As was the case the repair to the plumbing
($50), was not covered, but the damage, several thousand, was.

An anecdotal sample of one.

Now suppose the damage had been several hundred thousand? Do you think
that they might have scrutinized the situation a bit more carefully?

Sure, but not deny the claim on the basis of a building permit or
inspection. Please quote case or reference.

Insurance companies are about profit, just like any other business.
It costs more on a small claim to contest the claim than it does to
pay it, even if the claim might be slightly questionable. If it's a
big claim and might be the result of something that the insurance
company is not required to cover then they may very well choose to
contest it.

--