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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada" wrote in message
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.
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
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.