# Fire blocking after the fact...... No permits



## dontgetinmyway

*Does anybody think this kind of thing is right?*

I know this is not the question posted, but as it looks like that one was answered satisfactorily, I'm going to question the premise.

Why should anyone have the right to hold up the sale of private property based on something like fire blocking?

Don't get me wrong - fire blocking is a good thing, and should always be done as a matter of good practice.

My belief is that we should not be forced into any of these things - much like wearing a seat belt is a good idea, but should not be mandatory. It's a personal freedom issue, and to view it as a "well, you ought to do it anyway so what's the big deal" issue is wrong.

What happened to "caveat emptor" ?

Let the potential buyer decide whether he wants to buy the house "as is" or not. And please don't give me any song and dance about the buyer not being equipped to understand quality or good building practice - the private market can always provide an expert for things in which we are not ourselves competent.

The codes used to just be about safety - which I still disagree with, but now they are policing quality and efficiency and way overstepping their bounds.

Everybody wants to rule the world, I guess, but that's not what we should allow to happen here.

If you look at the history of gov't regulation and the 18th amendment, you will see that when people had enough of gov't interference, there was not only a political movement to stop it, there were many instances of "revenuers" going missing.

I wonder how far we are from history repeating itself, or if there's too much complacency or fear for that anymore.

Anyway, rant over - I'd just like to hear what the percentages are.

Bob


----------



## A-1 Interiors

dontgetinmyway said:


> I know this is not the question posted, but as it looks like that one was answered satisfactorily, so I'm going to question the premise.
> 
> Why should anyone have the right to hold up the sale of private property based on something like fire blocking?
> 
> Don't get me wrong - fire blocking is a good thing, and should always be done as a matter of good practice.
> 
> My belief is that we should not be forced into any of these things - much like wearing a seat belt is a good idea, but should not be mandatory. It's a personal freedom issue, and to view it as a "well, you ought to do it anyway so what's the big deal" issue is wrong.
> 
> What happened to "caveat emptor" ?
> 
> Let the potential buyer decide whether he wants to buy the house "as is" or not. And please don't give me any song and dance about the buyer not being equipped to understand quality or good building practice - the private market can always provide an expert for things in which we are not ourselves competent.
> 
> The codes used to just be about safety - which I still disagree with, but now they are policing quality and efficiency and way overstepping their bounds.
> 
> Everybody wants to rule the world, I guess, but that's not what we should allow to happen here.
> 
> If you look at the history of gov't regulation and the 18th amendment, you will see that when people had enough of gov't interference, there was not only a political movement to stop it, there were many instances of "revenuers" going missing.
> 
> I wonder how far we are from history repeating itself, or if there's too much complacency or fear for that anymore.
> 
> Anyway, rant over - I'd just like to hear what the percentages are.
> 
> Bob


i agree with the overreach of govt and b/s (i e : epa lead law) and new energy efficiency codes 
but i guess bottom line is ho took a chance at doing un permitted work and now he is caught i guess if he gets off without a fine he is lucky 
but yeah govt is wayyyyy out of control fast and furious anyone ? solindra ?? epa lol 
i digress


----------



## TimNJ

HO did construction with no permit which means no inspection. That is illegal. 
I suppose the seller could have a document drawn up that says "I didn't know what I was doing when I finished this basement, so even though it looks ok all painted and trimmed, it could burn down with you and your family in it because I had nothing inspected." 
"How much will you offer to buy this place now that you know that?"

Caveat Emptor


----------



## A-1 Interiors

TimNJ said:


> HO did construction with no permit which means no inspection. That is illegal.
> I suppose the seller could have a document drawn up that says "I didn't know what I was doing when I finished this basement, so even though it looks ok all painted and trimmed, it could burn down with you and your family in it because I had nothing inspected."
> "How much will you offer to buy this place now that you know that?"
> 
> Caveat Emptor


 please re read my post i said the ho tried to get away with doing the work without a permit and now he is caught and he is lucky he is not getting a fine the first part of the post you see is a quote from another poster 
regards


----------



## TimNJ

My post was directed to Don'tgetinmyway's post about gov't intrusion.


----------



## A-1 Interiors

TimNJ said:


> My post was directed to Don'tgetinmyway's post about gov't intrusion.


ok i got an email saying you replied to my post 

:whistling


----------



## Yankee Framer

dontgetinmyway said:


> My belief is that we should not be forced into any of these things - much like wearing a *seat belt* is a good idea, but should not be *mandatory*. It's a personal freedom issue, and to view it as a "well, you ought to do it anyway so what's the big deal" issue is wrong.


Maybe you chose a poor example but I wouldn't argue that you shouldn't be made to wear a set belt but I would hope you agree that if this is the case all cars should be able to indicate to emergency services ie Fire, Rescue and Police that the person who was just in a wreck and needs help didn't have their set belt on and they can respond to help if they want or give them the personal freedom to help themselves. :thumbsup:

Or for the fire blocking, again let the fire department and your insurance know and let them choose to help you or not when your house is on fire. Just think of how personally free you will feel sleeping under the stars for a while. :jester:


----------



## TimNJ

A-1 INTERIORS said:


> ok i got an email saying you replied to my post
> 
> :whistling


:thumbsup:


----------



## Tom M

Slippery slope, insurance claims drive codes and inspectors are paid to enforce compliance. 
If there is an occupancy change and upon inspection violations are found to be obvious and there is was no pressure to fix them should the consumer pay higher insurance or should the insurer not pay a claim if there is castastrophe.


----------



## dontgetinmyway

TimNJ said:


> HO did construction with no permit which means no inspection. That is illegal.
> I suppose the seller could have a document drawn up that says "I didn't know what I was doing when I finished this basement, so even though it looks ok all painted and trimmed, it could burn down with you and your family in it because I had nothing inspected."
> "How much will you offer to buy this place now that you know that?"
> 
> Caveat Emptor



I dispute the legality on Constitutional grounds. It is not necessary for me to obtain government permission to work on my property. Even crappy, dangerous work.

Seller could easily choose not to misrepresent the property by simply not representing the property as anything at all - a simple "as is" would suffice, and the potential buyer hires his own expert, and makes his own decision, at his own risk. 

Government intrusion is unneeded and unwanted.


----------



## dontgetinmyway

Yankee Framer said:


> Maybe you chose a poor example but I wouldn't argue that you shouldn't be made to wear a set belt but I would hope you agree that if this is the case all cars should be able to indicate to emergency services ie Fire, Rescue and Police that the person who was just in a wreck and needs help didn't have their set belt on and they can respond to help if they want or give them the personal freedom to help themselves. :thumbsup:
> 
> Or for the fire blocking, again let the fire department and your insurance know and let them choose to help you or not when your house is on fire. Just think of how personally free you will feel sleeping under the stars for a while. :jester:


How 'bout this - I choose whether or not to wear a seatbelt and pay for any services I use, to the degree to which I use them, and you do the same.


----------



## Braciole

thom said:


> greg24k brings up a point that I had forgotten. The IRC requires draft-stopping within enclosed spaces so that the open area is no more than 1000 square feet. If the ceiling space is open above and enclosed, your inspector may require you to show full draft-stopping that separates that space into two disconnected spaces. These spaces are created by suspended ceilings and open web trusses. Even if the framing is dimension lumber (or I Joists) he could insist on seeing draft-stopping at ducts, plumbing, and electric.
> 
> Here, our inspectors require the space be separated approximately in half. They (plans-examiners and inspectors) would not accept a 1200 square foot space being divided into 999 and 201 square feet.
> 
> Around here, since the housing bust started, inspectors have been going out of their way to find every little non-compliance item they can find in order to require re-inspection which further justifies their continuing employment.
> 
> good luck.


Totally agree!!!!


----------



## TimNJ

dontgetinmyway said:


> I dispute the legality on Constitutional grounds. It is not necessary for me to obtain government permission to work on my property. Even crappy, dangerous work.
> 
> Seller could easily choose not to misrepresent the property by simply not representing the property as anything at all - a simple "as is" would suffice, and the potential buyer hires his own expert, and makes his own decision, at his own risk.
> 
> Government intrusion is unneeded and unwanted.


Exactly. Insert the clause that I wrote up in the sales description. Buyer and seller are both on the same page with that.


----------



## thecabinetguy

barry1219 said:


> Before I ever got into construction as a business endeavor I had another career. That required me to live in a bigger city and as a result I had to store a very special classic car that I have had since 1987. The garage I kept it at was next to a roofing company. The fire inspector made his rounds and violated the whole garage because there was not any fire blocking between the units. It was a typical bar joist concrete block structure and there was about 8" open space at the top of each sidewall to the next unit.
> Long story short, landlord hires a guy to restore all the fire blocking. Two weeks later..one of the roofers passed out on the couch in the garage next to my car and let a cigarette drop and catch the whole place on fire!. he survived and the roofing company took a huge loss....the fire did not breach to my unit..and although the firefighters had to flood the whole building to get the fire under control..my car was essentially untouched.
> Fire blocking is crucial to limiting/containing the damage..I am a GC now and I always respect the concept of fire blocking and limit my penetrations to the absolute minimum and fire caulk or drywall repair where required..
> That was my baby..I still have the car..and I have 4 kids now on top of it..so they are what I think of when I see firewalls..


Totally agreed on the fire blocking...tho this really sends the point home...


----------



## sunkist

ok this thread now closed, please move on to our next phising trip, we have all the names of you trouble makers and you will here from us, here in dc soon


----------



## Josss

greg24k said:


> When I saw your post, I knew it had to be NJ...We do "after the fact code violation repairs" all the time since the new law took effect.
> Most town ordinances adapted to have Building department conduct inspection prior to closing and bring everything up to the code and issue Certificate Of Occupancy. If they don't have a record of permit being issued for basement, deck, etc, they will have all inspectors go through the house and write up all violations and make the Property seller get a permit. In some cases they will make the HO take the ceiling fan out if there wasn't a permit taking out for it and replace with a regular fixture if there is no fan box... In most cases electrician has to sign and seal a letter stating that everything meets the code.
> 
> In basements like in your situation, they will make the HO provide horizontal fire-stop along perimeter of the ceiling of all exterior walls (Some towns will require vertical as well 10' OC) etc. If plumbing involved, they will make sure it is vented properly, etc...Same with electrical, bring everything to the code.


What if there is no electrical outlet .. do you still require the fire blocking? Without the electrical there is no fire and therefor no blocking require .. right?


----------



## reggi

Josss said:


> Without the electrical there is no fire


Fire, turning homes to ashes since prehistory. It even works without electricity.


----------

