permit inspections

Page 5 of 7  
Scott Lurndal wrote:

<plonk>
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:03:53 -0400, "J. Clarke"

Cite a case, please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Patently untrue.

Patently untrue.

You watch too many scarey movies John.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Marlow" wrote

LOL ... The chorus of that old Bluegrass song, "Fox On The Run" keeps popping up while reading this thread.
And, here comes the chorus, again ...
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:28:40 -0600, Chris Friesen

In Ontario you can do your own work on your own house without a licence - but a permit is required, as is an inspection. If you work on someone elses house and the house burns down (or floods) due to your mistake, the homeowner's insurance - particularly in the case of fire, where the fire marchal's office determines the cause of the fire to be shoddy wiring, will demand to know who did the repairs. If you charged for the job, the homeowner is VERY likely to give your name - in which case YOUR insurance ends up paying their insurance company - and if you have no insurance you are out of luck. And possibly fined as well (insurance or no insurance)
In the case of non permitted and non inspected additions and renovations, you can be forced by the municipality to remove the offending structure - be that a fence, deck, addition, dormer, or whatever at your expense. You can also be retroactively charged for the permit/inspection PLUS a sizeable fine.
EUO, or Examination Under Oath is a common procedure in the general insurance world. So is the property insurance field appraisal (which if agreed to is binding). An EUO, if requested, is mandatory. If you refuse, the insurer can and WILL deny coverage. A PIFA is often asked for by the insurer, but you may refuse. If you accept a PIFA, you have lost the right to further legal action to recover higher costs. Prorerty damage lawyers know how to handle the insurance companies. You don't. I don't. I do know that insurance carriers tend to work on basis of "pay without question if the damage is less than the cost of a protracted legal proceding" as well as "fight like hell if the damages are significantly more than the cost of a protracted legal battle and they think they have a reasonable expectation of winning the case"
On the in-between stuff it appears to be something akin to the roll of a dice. I'll have to ask one of the professionals at the insurance company where I spend my mornings to see if he can provide the policy wordings that can restrict coverage due to faulty workmanship or whatever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I note that you don't contest my point. This is all administrivia that adds nothing to safety. It does, however, give the tax man an excuse to enforce taxes and *perhaps* the insurance company an excuse to dodge coverage. My bet is that if property taxes were replaced by a local income tax, permits and inspections would quickly vanish in all but the staunchest union locales.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
krw wrote:

So you're saying that skyscrapers would go up without permits or inspections?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

No, I'm saying that you're a complete fool.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
krw wrote:

Better a complete fool with a signed off inspection than a brilliant boy like you with an unsaleable property.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

You are a fool. Absolutely wrong, as well.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
krw wrote:

Well, that's two tries you've made at scathing rebuttal neither of which amounted to more than name-calling? Care to try for a third?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

anybody's shoes full of yellow liquids yet?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I generally don't wear shoes in the house-----but there is this strange puddle...............
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

... snip of snipping match

Don't know about that, but my eyes are glazing over.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I'm not name-calling, just stating the facts. I have no unsaleable property. In fact, I own no property (for two more weeks, anyway). I had no problem selling my previous homes, even though I had made extensive modifications, mostly without permits or inspections. I added a garage to one and pulled permits, had the foolish inspections (what a bunch of morons), and had been issued a CO.
Yes, you are a fool and a liar. It really is that simple.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not true John. Though often stated here, there are so few cases of insurance companies not paying due to some form of owner neglect or whatever, that they become insignificant. Insurance companies daily pay for every form of stupidity, code violation, etc. on the part of the homeowner. They have to - they take the money.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or theplumbing allows contaminated water into the rater supply - BAD. Plumbing requires inspection for the safety of us all - as well as to recuce the likelihood of structural damage and black mold infestations in the building in question due to poor workmanship. If building standards are not enforced it is like food inspections not being enforced - as has been the case with the vast meat recalls from Maple Leaf Foods in Canada these last few weaks - or water plants not being inspected - like Walkerton Ontario several years back (E-coli) or the levys around new Orleans 3 years ago this week.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada" wrote in message wrote:

You mean like requiring a permit to repair drywall or paint your house? While I absolutely do agree that certain things should require permits - electrical panel work, gas piping, supply side water installation/renovation, sewer work - there are other things that exist simply to supply the city with meaningful occupation - painting your house, replacing a faucet, replacing an outlet, installing drywall, installing a hot water heater.
Permits are a way for the city/county to protect you and others from situations that require expertise and skill to perform safely. But taken to a logical conclusion they are the means by which the state can remove your freedoms without you even noticing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.