# Owner Doesn't want to pull permit



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Kowboy said:


> “Before work begins, obtain evidence that the contractor has obtained a permit. During the course of the project monitor the inspection records. This will protect you from being responsible for code violations that the contractor might commit on your property.”
> 
> http://www.naperville.il.us/emplibrary/BuildingPermitBrochure08-09.pdf


Did you not read the document? The paragraph above states that these are suggestions to consider. 

Your snippet does not say it's the responsibility of the contractor just to check to make sure that they got them. 

Here's what they're site says:

Building Permits

Residents must obtain necessary building permits through Development Services before beginning any new construction or additions to existing buildings, including decks, fences or pools. Municipal codes also regulate sign installation, water softeners, air conditioners, swimming pools, fences, antennas, lawn sprinkler systems, driveways and accessory outbuildings.

See the RESIDENTS part? 

On the app is clear that I am the representative party.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

TimNJ said:


> If there is any involvement with an insurance claim, you will be hung out to dry by the insurance company.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That wasn't my point. My point was pulling the permit doesn't mean that you won't get sued or charged with a crime of something goes wrong.


----------



## TimberlineMD (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm pretty sure, that in Cali, if a permit is required and you do not provide it, then your opening yourself up for action against your license by the CLSB.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

TimberlineMD said:


> I'm pretty sure, that in Cali, if a permit is required and you do not provide it, then your opening yourself up for action against your license by the CLSB.


I could see that.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

TimberlineMD said:


> I'm pretty sure, that in Cali, if a permit is required and you do not provide it, then your opening yourself up for action against your license by the CLSB.


If it's within 4 years. The CSLB only has jurisdiction for 4 years. After that it's the local district attorney. If rarely gets that far. Obtaining a permit after the fact will usually resolve the issue.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

I'd like to point out to the OP that there's more to installing a hood than meets the eye. It needs to be spec'd to the stove. This is why I highly recommend getting an HVAC contractor involved.


----------



## Tonygalvan (Aug 13, 2013)

Thank you all for the feedback. I will tak to the owner and just walk away from it if he doesn't want to get one. I'm pretty much newly licensed and that's why I came here to get some advise. I appreciate the feedback.


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

TNTSERVICES said:


> That wasn't my point. My point was pulling the permit doesn't mean that you won't get sued or charged with a crime of something goes wrong.



My point was that if you are required to get a permit and don't, and something goes wrong, whether contract wise or product wise,
you will be hung out to dry.


----------



## Stunt Carpenter (Dec 31, 2011)

Did they give you a reason from not wanting a permit? 


builddaley.com


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

TimNJ said:


> My point was that if you are required to get a permit and don't, and something goes wrong, whether contract wise or product wise,
> you will be hung out to dry.


Not if you can prove that you did everything to code and where not at fault.


----------



## greg24k (May 19, 2007)

In NJ penalties are stiff, if contractor don't meet the requirements the suing party gets awarded triple the damages.


----------



## ryan71 (Jan 25, 2016)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Not if you can prove that you did everything to code and where not at fault.


You better have deep pockets, if there is a fire.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

ryan71 said:


> You better have deep pockets, if there is a fire.


Like I said a permit doesn't let you of the hook.

I'm not advocating not getting the permit. You guys make it sound like a permit is a get out of jail free card. I would agree that you are more screwed if you don't pull the permit.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

ryan71 said:


> You better have deep pockets, if there is a fire.


Only if the fire is caused by a code violation. it has to be shown that not getting a permit was the cause of the fire, or just as important that a building permit could've prevented the fire. Not getting a permit isn't the DA's trump card to prosecute you for any and everything. 

Same with most laws. The only exception that I know of is intoxication. It's going to be your fault no matter. 

Example, here in Cali if you get in an accident and you don't have a valid drivers license, it doen't automatically make it your fault. It would be a violation of the law but if the other driver blows through a red light they still have to pay and can be ruled at fault entirely. Same with not getting a building permit, if the house burns down because you are welding in the garage and I built a patio cover in the back without a permit nothing is going to happen to me.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

I did a fairly sizable remodel before that had 63 can lights along with a room addition and full gut down to the studs in the rest if the home. In the end there were 66 can lights. The inspector didn't count them. Would you of resubmitted with plans and permit fees for the extra three lights?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Californiadecks said:


> I did a fairly sizable remodel before that had 63 can lights along with a room addition and full gut down to the studs in the rest if the home. In the end there were 66 can lights. The inspector didn't count them. Would you of resubmitted with plans and permit fees for the extra three lights?


I wouldn't.


----------



## Golden view (Feb 16, 2012)

Californiadecks said:


> I did a fairly sizable remodel before that had 63 can lights along with a room addition and full gut down to the studs in the rest if the home. In the end there were 66 can lights. The inspector didn't count them. Would you of resubmitted with plans and permit fees for the extra three lights?


The inspectors here don't care about things like that that probably don't matter. In fact I might even point out the fact that we added a couple cans to distract him from something else.:laughing:


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

I always tell the "I don't want a permit" folks the next time they need an operation, to tell the surgeon they want to save a few bucks by not sterilizing the instruments.

I'm sure if they shop around, they'll eventually find a 'doctor' willing to oblige them.


----------



## jhark123 (Aug 26, 2008)

Not getting a permit only benefits the customer.


----------



## Golden view (Feb 16, 2012)

jhark123 said:


> Not getting a permit only benefits the customer.


Assuming the contractor is good.
And not always in the long run. Can cause problems when the place sells, for example.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Kid? Did he just call you kid? :laughing:


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Californiadecks said:


> Kid? Did he just call you kid? :laughing:


I know you are old enough to be my dad, but him? :laughing:


----------



## ryan71 (Jan 25, 2016)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Did you seriously call me kid? Thanks!
> 
> We are talking about homes being held up or lost due to lack of permits, not construction related deaths. You might want to check your Alzheimer's meds old man, you are confused. :laughing:


I'm a hair under fifty, so I'm good. I was referring to deaths and court to relate to you proving this or that. That court room will put reality in your life's experience. 

And yes, homes get held up for sale by no permit from time to time. Not often, but yes it happens. 

But, because your so smart and have so much experience, let me put it this way.

Lets say a buyer gets a home inspector, to do a report, finds structural issues that warrant the BCO to get involved because of safety issues. The homeowner wanting to open up his floor plan, took out a bearing wall holding a second floor and put in a subpar header to hold the load.
Now do you think that no permit held up that sale? I already know the answer. But what do you say, whippersnapper.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

I told the HO we'll just add the lights if he counts them he'll give us a correction notice. He never counted them. But we omitted a couple things so I had to go down and get permission not to build something on the plans. Nuts!


----------



## elementbldrs (Sep 26, 2010)

Californiadecks said:


> Nope, all responsibility falls on the contractor. The city will never be at fault for not seeing something. I'll bet you will find a disclaimer from your municipalities somewhere in your paperwork. Again if the place burns down because of faulty work you are going to get the shaft regardless.



Not true. Inspectors and building departments regularly called into lawsuits, especially on ADA cases. The absolutely have liability, I don't care who they work for, and neither do lawyers.


----------



## ryan71 (Jan 25, 2016)

Californiadecks said:


> Kid? Did he just call you kid? :laughing:


Mike, me and you are the same age. I've been here before, not often and lost my info. So resigned. No I was never kicked off. :no:

But yea, he's a kid.


----------



## ryan71 (Jan 25, 2016)

Californiadecks said:


> I told the HO we'll just add the lights if he counts them he'll give us a correction notice. He never counted them. But we omitted a couple things so I had to go down and get permission not to build something on the plans. Nuts!


I agree, it is nuts. This house I just finished, call for r=38 in ceiling. Well from the time I submitted complete drawings to the time I did the final, the code changed to r=42 in ceiling. I had 38 in. Inspector checked drawing and said after this one its got to be 42. I said ok. But tell me how I get to r=42. When they make 11, 13, 15, 19, 30 & 38. He said blown in, I said good. You coming back to fix any drywall issues? 

He shrugged.


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Not if you can prove that you did everything to code and where not at fault.



That won't fly in NJ.
It would be no different than if you did a job with no contract.
You go to court, you lose.
You have violated the consumer protection law.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

elementbldrs said:


> Not true. Inspectors and building departments regularly called into lawsuits, especially on ADA cases. The absolutely have liability, I don't care who they work for, and neither do lawyers.


Never said the city isn't liable for anything. They aren't liable for poor work that they didn't see.


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

TNTSERVICES said:


> I've heard that before but I've never heard it actually holding up or stopping a sale.




Happened to a homeowner where I was working once.
I was there replacing their front door.
The neighbor came over and I overheard them talking about the building inspector doing a pre sale inspection.
They had finished the basement with no permit.
The sale was held up by the building inspector because the finished basement had no permit and therefore no inspections.
The homeowner ended up having to rip all the sheetrock off the walls so they could inspect the framing and rough electric.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

TimNJ said:


> That won't fly in NJ.
> It would be no different than if you did a job with no contract.
> You go to court, you lose.
> You have violated the consumer protection law.


You are in violation of the law. Doen't mean you're liable for any fire just because it's in the vicinity of your Un permitted work. Your work has to be the cause of the fire to be held liable for the fire. That's the way it is even if you get a permit. And no the inspector will not be at fault because he didn't see your shotty work.


----------



## CENTERLINE MV (Jan 9, 2011)

Tinstaafl said:


> Uh-huh. Good luck with that if you ever wind up in court. Pinning accountability on a gummint guy is tougher than trying to nail down an architect.


My point is that there is a buffer if it goes to court and that we as the contractor did our due diligence by following the process and the letter of the law. Would you disagree that repercussions would be just as severe to a contractor that pulled a permit versus one that did not? im not saying the contractor would be free and clear, I'm stating that the contractor at least has a case and a fighting chance.


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

elementbldrs said:


> Not true. Inspectors and building departments regularly called into lawsuits, especially on ADA cases. The absolutely have liability, I don't care who they work for, and neither do lawyers.


In NJ building inspectors are only liable if it results in death or serious injury.
I tried pulling them into a lawsuit I filed on a neighbor for building an addition on my property.

Judge dismissed the township and inspector from the suit.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

California has exclusive immunity clauses for public officials.

A Public Employee Is Immune From Liability
For Approving Non-Code Compliant Work

It is well established under California case law that a building inspector may knowingly and intentionally approve work that is not code compliant without incurring any liability to the owner of the building and/or the contractors. California statutes provide that public entities and employees have immunity from liability for certain types of actions or inactions. Public entities are generally immune from liability except as provided by statute. Similarly, the public entity is immune if the public employee is immune from liability. A specific statute makes public employees immune from injuries that result from their discretionary acts. The building inspector’s approval or disapproval of work is such a discretionary act. Irrespective, there is a specific statute exempting public entities from liability for approved plans or the design of a work of improvement on public lands.


----------



## CENTERLINE MV (Jan 9, 2011)

TNTSERVICES said:


> I would think it would have to be pretty obvious and the cause for the inspectors to be on the hook. And I don't see how an inspection would completely eliminate the responsibility and accountability of the contractor who performed the work. It's still my responsibility to know the codes.


I'm not implying the sign off constitutes a total elimination of responsibility and accountability. I am arguing, however, that there is a fighting chance in court that due process was followed. The permit sign off is a legal document stating that the work was done to code and/or to the satisfaction of the building official. That's good ammo to have in the arsenal if it goes to court. Without out a permit, you've got nothing.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Every set of plans I've ever got approved says right in the stamp that the approval does not allow any code violations. Here's the disclaimer.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Every set of plans I've ever got approved says right in the stamp that the approval does not allow any code violations. Here's the disclaimer.


right next to the stamp that says they are not responsible for errors and omissions....


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

Californiadecks said:


> You are in violation of the law. Doen't mean you're liable for any fire just because it's in the vicinity of your Un permitted work. Your work has to be the cause of the fire to be held liable for the fire. That's the way it is even if you get a permit. And no the inspector will not be at fault because he didn't see your shotty work.


Years a go there was a case brought up in either Qualified Remodeler or Remodeling magazine on Long Island where a contractor replaced some outlets in a customers home. 
The customers home caught fire and burnt to the ground.
Fire inspectors could not pinpoint the cause except that it was "electrical".
Homeowners insurance pinned it on the contractor as last one who did electrical work on the house.
Contractor went to his insurance company and they denied him because he was not licensed to do electrical work.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

I'd also like to add I'm not advocating not getting a permit, but I'll bet we all are not 100%. I'd also like to mention, it's a false sense of security to think a permit or inspection will protect you from any liability of shotty work or a code violation.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

TimNJ said:


> Years a go there was a case brought up in either Qualified Remodeler or Remodeling magazine on Long Island where a contractor replaced some outlets in a customers home.
> The customers home caught fire and burnt to the ground.
> Fire inspectors could not pinpoint the cause except that it was "electrical".
> Homeowners insurance pinned it on the contractor as last one who did electrical work on the house.
> Contractor went to his insurance company and they denied him because he was not licensed to do electrical work.


That would've happened regardless of a permit or not, unless of course the inspector would've caught the crappy work. But had it got inspected and the house burnt down the end result would've been the same.


----------

