ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area Homeowner pack service panels

I don't understand the idea of a federal law suit for an EC turning down work? Or a city in federal cort for not aproving a homeowner job?

If the HO dosen't pay for an EC I can't imagine him hiring an attorny. Sounds like another topic.

Tom

If the HO dosen't pay for an EC I can't imagine him hiring an attorny. Sounds like another topic.

I did talk about the "disdain" some people have for EC's above and I believe some will go to any length and cost to get their way.

About the same time the electrical contractors respectibility got cut down by at least a couple of notches because anybody can do electrical work now. If you don't believe me just go to some of those DIY electrical boards and see the disdain they have for EC's.

As for where George is coming from, see what he had to say in this thread- https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001052.html

-Hal

I just want to know if it was an equal protection or property rights case...

Imagine if tomorrow all the AFCI makers ended production for some rational reason. What would happen? You have to follow the law, but the law can't be followed because no one makes the part. Now suspose your AHJ demanded you follow the code. What would you do?

In this case the contractors all refused the work. Within their rights, but if the city requires licensed contractors be used to do some work, and then they refuse or don't exist... Yeah, he had a winner.

bumper sticker from one of our trade rags
I think it was from( electrical contractor)

George, an EC's license is NOT a hypocratic oath! (To heal the sick and lame wiring) It's a qualification to do business as an Electrician.

And all of the Building Dept's that are forced to allow unqualified persons to work on thier own homes have an option out of it. San Francisco's Permit Counter (who I believe have been taken to court on the issue and won.) will have an Inspector come out to question HO's on what they want to do, and grill them on how they are going to do it. Some simple questions about basic wiring, and safety revolving around the scope of work, and they get a permit, and later an inspection too. Occasionally, I get to hear one turned down, especially for service changes. And PG&E wont connect or meter anything without a green tag from the City.

While standing at a permit counter one day, I got to listen to a HO get refused a permit for a service change, a conversation that got pretty heated and ended like this. "We (Inspectors) are out there, NOT to make sure your house is safe, we are there to make sure your neighbors house is safe from you. The fire in your house can take out a City block."

[This message has been edited by e57 (edited 02-06-2005).]

In this case the contractors all refused the work. Within their rights, but if the city requires licensed contractors be used to do some work, and then they refuse or don't exist... Yeah, he had a winner.

Well, that's not exactly correct now is it.

HO knew full well that he was not permitted to do the work himself-

Quote: I did the wiring for my new house without either a permit (the code office would not give them to unlicensed people)

I'm sure at that point he could have had his pick of contractors but the HO's intent was never to have a contractor do the work to begin with. No contractor ever refused.

Knowing full well that he could not do the work himself, he thumbed his nose at the law and went ahead and did it anyway.

Now, the house is finished and the HO wants a C of O.

So:

the AHJ refuses to inspect unless all the work is removed and installed by a licensed professional, and no licensed professional willing to go against the inspector.

I think it's a bit erroneous to say that "no licensed professional [is] willing to go against the inspector". More accurately, no licensed professional wanted the liability for signing off on work like this.

As for [the] work is inspected so there is no public safety issue that requires a licensed professional that doesn't hold water either.

Most importantly, the work can't be inspected fully as would normaly occur because the walls are closed up.

Further, inspection never guarantees that the work is safe, only that as far as the inspector can determine the installation meets the NEC and other applicable codes. There is a certain amount of trust given the EC by the inspector. Being a licensed professional means that you will do your best to both know the code and apply it. An inspector can't see everything and by being a professional it is given that you have the training and experience to do the job correctly. This basic principle doesn't apply with a HO doing the work.

requiring the existing work to be removed is unreasonable

Well, maybe but I don't consider it unreasonable to require all walls and ceilings to be removed to allow inspection. At that point I can't see not being able to find an EC to take whatever steps are necessary to insure code compliance and pass inspection.

At this point a wise AHJ issues a permit to the homeowner, offers to pay legal fees and a lot of money to keep the whole thing quite.

An I've got a bridge I want to sell you!

-Hal

A lot of my work begins with removing the work of a homeowner or handyman. It's usually very profitable, I can't imagine turning it down.

Dave

Yes, and that's my point. I don't know if some or all of this story is BS but if true this guy's hands are not exactly clean. He willfully ignored the law and deserved everything he got. I can't see any court siding with him.

Kind of like a 14 year old kid in court for driving without a license. If the kid had George's attorney he would argue that his client was well aware that you needed a license but nobody would give him one so he was justified in driving. I doubt that any court would then give him a license, pay his attorneys costs and award him damages to boot.

-Hal