I would take photos of the stairs and head on over to your city offices for an in person visit. We had an issue with plumbing on our final inspections and I visited my city guy who told me that the plumbing inspections are contracted out and that I probably just got a new inspector who was trying to do his job. My city guy said he'd pass us and to reschedule the inspection. He said that when the inspector got there to tell him about my visit, our conversation and if there were issues, for the inspector to call.

I think a personal visit will be in your favor.

ALot of times, it all depends on the inspector, as well as the jurisdiction you live in. I know of atleast one county I've lived in where if you pulled a permit to do ANY kind of work to an established dwelling, that EVERYTHING had to be brought up to code. For example, one house I worked on there, they expanded their master bathroom. This was an older home (about 150 years old), and the electrical system hadn't been updated since the early 50's. They had to completely update the electrical system throughout the entire house before the local building inspector would sign off on the bathroom.

We had a similar situation to what Bill described. We had to correct all the bad plumbing of the *previous* owner's "remodel" in order for our plumbing (in an entirely different area) to pass inspection, as well as our kitchen area--we had to redo electrics that we'd never touched. Nice little surprise add-ons to our budget... We had to do it because it's law here--if you *touch* any aspect of anything, the whole thing has to be brought up to code. Hope you can avoid that.

Well, you did the right thing by pulling a permit. Now, protect yourself and fix the stairs.
Building codes are there to protect us from ourselves and the inspectors concern is in two parts, 1st is the liability which that same permit would expose the municipality to, were there be a loss attributable to this "egress" violation.2nd, to protect you from liability for that same violation.
This stairway is apparently the prime method of egress, to safety, in the event of a life threatening event. Therefore it should be as seamless as possible.

Something else of interest is the method of correction suggested, "The carpenter would like to rip up all of the carpet, remove the bottom step, and make every other step 1/4" taller." Wouldn't that cause an inequity in the height of the top riser.
Fix the bottom landing, and be done with it.

i live in a small town in rural upstate new york where we only have a code officer who is also the barber... and has it in for my father in law. this summer we got a grant for 20k for things like a new roof, new electrical, windows and doors and some other stuff. according to code, we did not need a building permit for any of the work we were doing. about 2 weeks into the job the code officer stopped by and made our contractor stop work and go get a permit. okay, no big deal. 10 bucks and half a day wasted.

heres where it got ugly. cut to september. after getting our home equity loan we dicided to tear out the old delapitated deck and rebuild. same with the front, although the front didnt change any, just replaced the decking. we finished our decks and were enjoying margaritas for about 3 days untill i got a phone call at work one day. the code officer was there telling my wife the deck had to be torn down. i rushed home to meet this guy. his reasoning was we never got a permit. i showed him the one HE issued to us and he told us it was not for building a deck. now the permit stated it was issued for "general home improvments". he said to add, delete or modify a structure we had to get another permit. i called him bs and asked him to show me in his law books or code books or whatever where it says that. he threatened to have me ARRESTED!!!!! the next day i went to the town planning and zoning comission and spoke with them about the situation. they informed me i had every right to build the deck with the permit i had and they signed off on the inspection.

this code officer has a hard on for my wifes family... my father in law has been to the state capitol in albany several times about this guy, who us stopping him from adding more apartments to his building. basiclly, my father in law applies for a permit to add 3 more units to the building. the officer drags his feet for 8 months. in that time a new code is passed regarding sprinkler systems that if you had more than so many units they had to be put in. my father in law would be over that number... but he applied for the permit before the new code and was no reason it should have taken so long to get the permit...

not a pretty sight.

gotta love small town politics.

The munincipalities are using this beauracracy to generate revenue and in many cases they people are hired and retained by thier ability to do just that.

Ours is using sattelite imaging for monitoring. Software and data are in place to do things most are un-aware of. Code enforcement divisions are being created for the sole reason of maximizing this for a finacial gain.

Well, I just met with the building inspector, and no luck. His opinion was that once I put anything on the floor, since the floor touched the stairs, the stairs now had to be brought up to code. (I find that this is more of his interpretation, rather than anything that is documented clearly anywhere)

At that point, I started to wonder if he was going to tell me that I had to put a vent fan in my unrenoveated downstairs bath too, since these stairs are connected to the first floor. And according to the transitive property, the first floor bathroom is therefore touching the basement floor also.

So, I thought I would provide some images to you folks and let you be the judge. Here's the before and after (currently). The step in question is the 2" bottom landing step.

Tonight the carpenter will be tearing out the brand new carpet and redoing the entire staircase to make each step just a little bit taller, and use a hammer drill to demolish the bottom step.

Somehow, what has been no problem in the past 78 years (i.e. this staircase's bottom step), is my expense.

"1st is the liability which that same permit would expose the municipality to"

On what planet?
Municipal inspectors are immune form anythuing they do or miss except outright fraud (usually taking bribes).

This is strictly a revenue measure.

If a code official won't sign on an inspection, they have to tell you what specific code you are violating. Period. If they won't give you a specific code reference that you are in violation of, take it to the state level if you have to. A lot of inspectors like to enforce their own opinions of what should be done, but they only really have legal authority to enforce what the code in their area says.

Did your carpenter pull the permit, or did you? If the contractor pulled the permit, you shouldn't be having to pay extra for them to meet code.

They don't have to tell you a damn thing. If you try and argue with them, they'll red flag you. Simple as that, and you have absolutely no recourse.

After reading some of these posts, you'd think the Bill of Rights was being repealed. Well, let me point out what should already be obvious: Mickey Mouse crap like this stairway is exactly why building codes are needed.

John

Well, let me point out what should already be obvious: Mickey Mouse crap like this stairway is exactly why building codes are needed.

Agreed. However, unless you want to spend unnecessary thousands in legal fees, your best bet is to kiss the inspector's butt. He can make things go smooth as silk, or he can make your life a living hell, if he gets a wild hair across his butt. What I said above about red flagging a site just because-- I've seen that happen. Once that happens, nothing goes forward on that job until the reason for the red flag has been completely removed and changed.

Oh yeah-- one other thing-- if it's a remodel and you're living in the home while it's going on and he red flags it, in many jurisdictions, you'll me moving into a motel until the problem is fixed, as well.

These are all great posts -- I love it. To answer a few questions:

- The carpenter pulled the permit, not me.

- The permit and drawings have no mention of the staircase or any work on the stairs. They were clearly "not in scope".

- I am sure that the carpenter will expect me to pay him for any work on this, because, after all, the stairs were not included in the scope of work for his bid.

- Lastly, I was actually overcharged on the permit cost because the municipality included the entire square footage of the basement in the cost calculation, even though the work area of improvements (1 room) was only about 1/3 of that size. Again, even though the scope of work submitted indicated what was being done. I asked about getting a refund and it was like nobody had ever asked them that question before, Ha!

brickeyee
"On what planet?
Municipal inspectors are immune form anything they do or miss except outright fraud (usually taking bribes)."
This one and your contention would author the absolutly false belief that it is acceptable for everyone to build and/or modify any structure anyway they could with immunity for their safety.

_________________________________________________________

Their are those municipalities that do, as a matter of coarse, site the code section, and if requested will, their action cannot be by whim or fancy.

"I am sure that the carpenter will expect me to pay him for any work on this, because, after all, the stairs were not included in the scope of work for his bid."

Actually, as a professional, he should have known the "long standing" rule that if there is a difference in the rise between stair treds greater than 1/8" there must be a three foot landing.

"- The permit and drawings have no mention of the staircase or any work on the stairs. They were clearly "not in scope"."

As I mentioned before, they are the primary form of egress, ergo, without the stairway, what would be the access to the room (permitted area).

"Their are those municipalities that do, as a matter of coarse, site the code section, and if requested will, their action cannot be by whim or fancy."

And just what soes this have to do with the concept of municipal laibility for inpections???

If you demand a code section they are required to put it in writing under all the model codes.
It can be very hard for a homeowner or typical contractor to deal with the AHJ under these circumstances since, as correctly noted, they can exact a painful revenge if you set up an adversarial situation.
Most AHJs are more reluctant to take on a PE, but it is not typically worth the trouble on smaller jobs.

Virginia stopped a lot of this when the uniform statewide building code was adopted. No more inspectors and localities deciding how they want the code to be. There are still problems with interpretation occasionally, but at least they are becoming fewer as the various code organizations teach the inspectors what the code intends.
If you live in a state that still allows every municipality to modify the code you can look to your state legislature. You will meet resistance from some firms looking to maintain a lock on work in a particular municipal area based on local rules, but they sometimes can be lured to support the changes if they want to increase the geographic area they can work in.

AHJs are protected from liability the same way as the police. They have no duty to any individual.

If anyone here thinks code enforcement is a hassle try working in a region where there is typically no code's or no code enforcement.

For single family residential structures the state of Ohio has no state code, opting instead to allow each county or municipality to adopt their own code. (One community near here is still using the 1992 BOCA code, but the code books have been out of print since 1998).

To make matters worse, for single family dwellings intended to be occupied by the owner/ownners immediate family, many counties have no county wide code enforcement with the singular exception of requiring a permit and inspection for the septic tank and leachbed.

As if this is not problamatic enough, there is no state required qualification for residential tradesmen. Instead each municipality issues a license to perform a trade service within their respective jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions there is no academic requirement nor even any proven prior experience. One simply goes to the municipal office and provides proof of jobsite liability insurance, workmans comp insurance (only if you intend to employ 4 or more people) and you pay an annual fee to get a residential contractors license. (The downside here is the homeowner has no way of knowing that the Plumber he just hired doesn't know the plumbing code from the morse code and really doesn't care anyway because he or she knows they will not be confronted with an inspection.)

As a result of all this it is anybodies guess what jury rigged nightmares one might find when attempting to buy a house. By example, i recently worked on the plumbing in an owner built house in Brookfield, Ohio that was built in 1999. Imagine my surprise when i went into the basement and found a dirt floor and the floor joists are 10" diameter rough hewn logs, some of which still have the tree bark on them.

As a result of this most of the banks, lending institutes and insurance companies have now implemented a policy requiring an independant code inspection before they will write a mortage or insurance policy. (Many homes are now listed by the banks and insurance companies as cash only and un-insurable.)

I was recently asked to submit a bid on a plumbing renovation for one of these structures. Prior to looking at the house I asked the owner for a copy of the inspection report. I could not believe my eyes when they presented a 23 page document outlining 173 violations of code. Needless to say, I declined to even get involved with that nightmare.

Believe me, if you think for one moment that dealing with code is tough, consider the alternative.

As a side note, and regardless of what the Code states, the stairs as built are unsafe and should be replaced....

"They are not and can be held liable for their actions and the muncipality can also be held liable for any Code Official in their employ."

Have an actual legal cite for that?
In Virginia they have complete immunity.
I have yout to find a state that allows its officials to be held liable in the routine performance of thier duties.
As long as they act in 'good faith' they are generally immune.

Elloquently answered by "manhattan42"

Most of us who endeavore in the fields of code enforcement, have as our first priority, the ethical responsibility to conduct ourselves in a manner that holds our employer harmless, erring on the side of safety, instead of convenience.

brickeye asked:

"I have yout to find a state that allows its officials to be held liable in the routine performance of thier duties.

My own state, Pennsylvania, requires code officials to be protected by Errors and Omissions insurance in order to perform their duties...either as 3rd party private inspectors or as employees of the municipality. The reason for "Errors and Omissions" isnurance to be carried is because code officials are NOT IMMUNE from prosecution or liability either as private individuals, as corporate entities, as government entities, or as agents of government agencies in the performance of their duties.

One of my personal friends, a commercial/residential electrical inspector, needs to carry his insurance through Lloyd's of London because of the scope of his liability which includes the inspection and certification of electrical substations.

If he were to be found grossly negligent in any of his activities were deaths or injuries occurred, he or any other code inspector can be held liable for civil or even criminal penalty.

"As long as they act in 'good faith' they are generally immune."

Hardly.

No one is above the law and acting in good faith protects no one from their own incompetence, personal failures, or intentional misdeeds.

Not even police officers, the President of the United States, members of the military, the Chairman of Corporate Boards nor any private citizen is exempted from prosecution or civil judgement simply because they claim they acted "in good faith"...

Code inspectors are even subject to Federal prosecution under 4th Amendment violations:

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

A code official cannot even enter the premises of a person or gain access to his property without invitation or legitimately court issued warrant.

To do so is a violation of the 4th Amendment's protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"....even if the code inspector acted "in good faith"....

In my area if the codes have changed anything built prior to that is grandfathered in. Two of our interior stairways were built to the 1968 code. Due to other issues we just had both stairways rebuilt to the current code and BOY what a difference! Both stairs are now so easy to climb, it is amazing and we have just a bit more head room then before.

If anyone is balking at rebuilding their stairs to code...THINK AGAIN and if you can afford it, do it!! It has been a week now that the stairs have been rebuilt and I can still tell the difference every time I climb them.

Just a point on immunity, inspectors are protected and immune from suit by the 11 amendment to the U.S. Constitution unless the State specifically voids that immunity. The inspectors are carrying out a state function and are therefore protected the same as the state. So both sides are correct if the state has made the inspectors accountable then they may be sued and where they are not accountable they may not be sued.
Some excerpts from a google search:

That a State may not be sued without its consent is a fundamental rule of jurisprudence.

The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v Georgia (2 U.S. 419) in 1793 (see the Events Page for details). Congress felt that the Supreme Court had over stepped its bounds, and feared it would do so again unless prohibited by the Constitution. The Chisholm case was decided in 1793, just five years after the adoption of the Constitution. The Amendment was approved by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified on February 7, 1795 (340 days). The Amendment limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to automatically hear cases brought against a state by the citizens of another state. Later interpretations have expanded this to include citizens of the state being sued, as well.

Stop and find out what the staircase code is for your area. Are they following IRC or UBC codes or a combination of both? If your carpenter does not know you got a problem. I am a real estate inspector and I have frequently run into contractors that did not know the stair case code. My state enforces IRC 2003 and cities have to follow it but can make it more stringent for their particular needs, like wind storm considerations.

IRC 2003 States that max difference between tallest and shortest riser or largest and shortest tread run is 3/8 inches. Max riser height 7 3/4" (1997 UBC states 8 inches) Nosing is min 3/4" and max of 1 1/4" if tread is less than or equal to 11". Then there is lighting considerations. Know the code or you may be doing it twice.

Sue the city? Forget it, you need to worry about somebody suing you when they take a header down your staircase.

wouldn't it have been cheaper to cut the carpet off just above the bottom step, and pour a concrete 3-foot landing at the bottom of the stairs?

You are doing the right thing is fixing the steps, regardless of the inspector. You and your family may be very used to them, but an outsider will not be. Cost to fix the steps will be much less than an insurance claim, or a law suit.

Paul

"If he were to be found grossly negligent in any of his activities were deaths or injuries occurred, he or any other code inspector can be held liable for civil or even criminal penalty."

Give me a break. Everyone is subject to gross negligence. That is not really what the issue is. Gross negligence implies a violation of Âgood faith anyway.
Ever actually been sued for this? Have a cite for someone who has?

Find me a case where a building code official has been held on Âerrors and omissionsÂ.
It is pure BS to enrich the insurance company. The municipality will not even be protected if the individual has insurance since it is legally secondary to any insurance the employer has.
There has just not been a horrible rash of AHJs being held Âat fault for missing things during inspections. The case is pretty much impossible to prove, the shield laws protect them as long as they act in Âgood faithÂ.

I have reviewed a number of these cases for AHJs. They go nowhere.
While anyone can sue anyone for any reason there are plenty of ways of recovering costs for frivolous suits.

"No one is above the law and acting in good faith protects no one from their own incompetence, personal failures, or intentional misdeeds."

None of which meet the Âgood faith test in any court.

"Code inspectors are even subject to Federal prosecution under 4th Amendment violations:
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
A code official cannot even enter the premises of a person or gain access to his property without invitation or legitimately court issued warrant.
To do so is a violation of the 4th Amendment's protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"....even if the code inspector acted "in good faith"...."

This is pure BS. The law grants jurisdictions the right to inspect and supervise construction under the Âhealth and welfare clause.
If this was true no code of any type could be enforced. An entire house could be built and an owner could simply refuse permission for the AHJK to enter. You are failing to note that the codes carry the force of law, and that includes the requirements to allow access for code enforcement.

I've also seen this. I lived in south Florida for a while after Hurricane Andrew, and there were several news stories on the evening news about Dade County building inspectors basing the pass/ fail of their inspections on how well the "wheels got greased". There was one inspector who was even caught on video taking a bribe from a general contractor, and Dade county STILL refused to fire him until public outcry got so loud that they had no choice. Here's the good part-- about a month later, THEY HIRED HIM BACK ON!!

This is the guy who has the power to kill your job with a little piece of red ribbon, or send your project sailing thru to completion, regardless of how many infractions you have.

Brickeyee's right. It's BS that's there purely to raise revenue. But it's BS that we have to put up with, whether we like it or not. Thank God not all jurisdictions are as underhanded as Dade County in Florida.

Thanks again all for posts and lively debate. I had no idea this was going to generate such a discussion!

Thought I would close out with a comment or two.

Many of you pointed out that the stairs are unsafe and should be fixed, or said I was doing the right thing by fixing. Well, of course that's true, but that was never the issue!

Said another way, there are many things in my old house that are probably unsafe and not up to the current building codes. Correcting all of these starting from the day I bought the house will almost certainly cost more than the value of this structure. I have been tracking my receipts.

The real issue here is timing and who must pay for each item. In this particular case, I did not choose the timing of this repair. My local goverment chose it for me. They also, hence, forced me to pay for it. By this logic I can only assume they could have chosen ANY issue in my house and forced me to fix it.

I can only assume there were many building permits issued on my house since it was built in the 1920's as there appear to be a number of non-original customizations. If so, why did the prior inspectors not force the prior owners to correct this same issue under one of those permits? Or, looking to the future, why could it not wait until a future project to correct this? Perhaps a future project whose scope included renovating the staircase? After all, as far as I know the stairs have been there since 1928.

Again, the issue here is the arbitrary nature of the timing of this request, not the merit of the repair itself or my liability if I sold the house in the same condition that I bought it in. Many of you should keep this in mind.

With that -- I'm done -- mostly.

Final note: For a laugh -- the carpenter, after repairing the stairs to meet the building code (2 days work), actually demanded immediate payment from me upon completion of the stairs work PRIOR to getting them re-inspected. I refused. Not very politely either.

The inspector came the following day, said it was all good, and I paid the carpenter that same evening. Issue closed. Now, I'm trying to get the carpet installers to come back -- no luck so far.

I realize that you've since passed inspection and the situation has ben resolved...

But would it have been possible for you to have simply expanded the size of the "bottom two-inch tall step" into, for example, a 3' square "landing" at the base of the stairs, and left the upper stairs alone?

Compliantly,

Mongo

This issue isn't really about 'building inspectors' insomuch that it is about negligent builders and designers that allow and promote such shoddy workmanship.

Code inspectors who point out such crappy work need not explain themsleves.

Rather builders and architects who supply to their customers such crap and pass it off as "creme de la creme" need to held to the Code minimum and then some and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law....

If and when you go to sell your place, you really don't want the liability risk of the new owners tripping up or down that surprise stair, which could happen. (I remember irregular stairs in Africa that I had to run down!)

That said, I was frustrated when I allowed a second inspector who was there to check out a bathroom framing to take a look at a work in the adjacent basement which was performed according to another town inspector's recommendations. This 2nd inspector seemed to almost gloat when he said he wouldn't approve it unless I had an engineer crunch numbers. The structure proved to be more than adequate according to a simple chart the engineer checked - but at least I have it in writing for any future naysayers.

I would just like the building inspector to talk to me. He will.nwill.not even talk tonyou.utonyou.umkess you file for a permit. I can see nothing in law that requires he talk to a citizen at all before then.

What? 12 year old post for that?

All this discussion and the original question was never answered - In a VERY old house with work done at least 40 years or more ago, when an inspector comes in to inspect work cited on a permit, can they require anything they see be brought up to code?

They can require anything that was never allowed to be brought up to code. For instance, if you have a something that was done 40 years ago, but it wasn't allowed then (ie. it never conformed to code) then that is still a dangerous violation that the inspector can tag.

But if the work was done to code at the time of the work and it isn't being touched by the recent work being done, then it is grandfathered in.

The problem being that administrative law is a real pain to contest. So the question of an inspector's authority is largely moot and the question becomes what can you do about it when the inspector oversteps his/her authority. Many states have some administrative process to review a decision, but often that process itself is biased towards inspectors.

It really isn't about being right or even proving to an impartial observer you are right, it is about getting your desired outcome without spending too much to get it. In my limited experience, that particular sip of juice is not worth the squeeze it takes to get it.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Thanks, greg and bry, THOSE are really helpful answers. AND, super prompt! A teeny bit of my faith has been restored in the internet. If you couldn't infer, I'm going thru that now. The inspector or his chief won't even give me a call to discuss, even after answering my emails where I asked them if they had a few minutes to discuss. I guess that's the writing on the wall.

For reference, the chief inspector actually called back and basically said once the inspector became aware of the code violation he has the right to require correction.

well,the code said maximum hi8 7" 3/4 never said minimum.

City inspectors broke into my home and smashed things up and now I'm suffering for it and having a very hard time living with it. My life being disabled is in shambles. Please help me if someone can. Thank you.

The city inspectors came to my home without notice and carried on like policemen and said I had to call the police to get a copy of their report. A few days later my home was broken into and my furnace was tampered with and things were smashed up. How did they enter my home? Were they actually policemen acting as city inspectors. I've been so upset since it happened I'm finding it very difficult to live with what had happened. Do I need a good lawyer to resolve the terrible issue ?

Edmonton city inspectors are policemen that act like inspectors that break the law as I have experienced. They broke into my home and caused lots of damage like slamming door knots into the walls and smashing a big dent in my furnace. When I asked for a report when they were inspecting my homes furnace two days earlier I was told to call the police for a copy. They denied my request very rudely. I have not been the same since this happened and think that city inspectors that came to my place unannounced should be questioned of their actions with me and their visit to my home. Please help me, I'm falling apart since it happened.

Thank you.

Barry Pidsadowskl

Barrysspace22@gmail.com

780

Don't have them over best way to deal with them