Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Is this a Structural Observation or an Inspection?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Chuck , Bill(s), et al
Here in Ontario, you can sue the city and the inspector
and that is one of the reasons the government is trying
to dump more responsibility on to engineers and archies
by means of a "Building Regulation Reform Act".  Anyone
submitting drawings to a municipality has to pass a
code competency test and carry a minimum amount of
insurance mandated by the gov't.  It takes effect 1
July 05.  The theory is the that it will speed up the
permit process but the real idea is that when something
goes kablooie, we will get sued before the municipalty.
In British Columbia, the law states you can't sue the
municipality.  They had all those leakey condos and the
only ones who were still around were the professionals,
with insurance of course.
Anyway, I am going to speak to the chief building official
about his disappearing inspector.
Gary

On 16 Apr 2005 at 20:36, chuck utzman wrote:

> The city's plan checkers, building inspectors, etc. all enjoy
> "sovereign immunity". You can't sue the King (dates back to the Magna
> Carta IIRC).  The building inspector is never "hanging out there"
> (unless he's taken a bribe). If you've ever done much forensic work
> you would realize how little quality control you get from the city
> inspections.
> 
>  IMO the best way to get the structure you want is to do structural
> observation. Here in Marin Co. most jurisdictions are pretty good
> about requiring it. (The county inspectors typically won't schedule
> their "inspections" until they receive a FAX from the EOR notifying
> them that he is satisfied--usually for rebar & hardware, epoxy mounted
> hardware. diaphragm nailing, LFRS, & structural framing.. Plus special
> inspections for welding, high strength concrete, etc.)
> 
> My contract & G/N both require (& explain) it, & now most plan
> checkers are asking for another separate set of  notes on the face of
> the drawing restating the requirements. (And it still doesn't always
> happen.) Chuck Utzman, P.E.
> 
> Bill Allen, S.E. wrote:
> 
> > Bill -
> >
> >  
> >
> > If I had a situation as described by Gary, I would immediately issue
> > an amended Structural Observation report which would include the
> > actions of the building inspector.
> >
> >  
> >
> > T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
> >
> > ALLEN DESIGNS
> >
> > Consulting Structural Engineers
> >
> > http://www.AllenDesigns.com <http://www.allendesigns.com/>
> >
> > V (949) 248-8588
> >
> > 	
> >
> > .
> >
> > 	
> >
> > F (949) 209-2509
> >
> >  
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BCainse(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:BCainse(--nospam--at)aol.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 4:42 PM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: Re: Is this a Structural Observation or an Inspection?
> >
> >  
> >
> > In a message dated 4/16/2005 10:29:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > T.W.Allen(--nospam--at)cox.net writes:
> >
> >     Gary -
> >
> >     My first paragraph in my structural observation reports states
> >     in detail that the SO is not an inspection and does NOT replace
> >     any mandated inspections.
> >
> >     So....IMO, his ass would still be hanging out there in my case
> >     for whatever liability there might be which I believe is
> >     probably fairly minimal.
> >
> >     This is the exact wording of my first paragraph:
> >
> >     In accordance with project requirements, I visited the site on
> >     xxx, 200x for the purposes of performing a structural
> >     observation. This event does not replace the need or the
> >     requirement for inspections by representatives of the building
> >     department or inspections required for items specified on the
> >     construction documents identified as "special inspection
> >     required".
> >
> >     Regards,
> >
> >     T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)   
> >     ALLEN DESIGNS   
> >     Consulting Structural Engineers   
> >     http://www.AllenDesigns.com   
> >     V (949) 248-8588    .    F (949) 209-2509   
> >
> >     Bill-
> >
> >     I would concur that he's still "hanging out there" but I bet he
> >     doesn't realize it!
> >
> >     Regards,
> >
> >     Bill Cain, SE
> >
> >     Berkeley CA
> >
> >      
> >
> 



******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********