Hi Richard,
RICHARD TAN wrote:Many time a builder will say that it pass inspection several time even it did not meet min code.
Yes, the builder will state that "it meets code" because "it passed inspection".
However, all "passing inspection" means is that the inspector did not write anything up on what they looked at. It is not saying that the inspector "looked at everything" nor is it saying that the inspector "like everything they saw", signing off on the inspection simply means that what the inspector looked at was "good enough to meet code" as the inspector saw it.
We have all seen many things wrong with structures which have been "signed off" by inspectors but which there are many things which do not meet code. The simplest way to set that aside is to relate that, yes, it may be "signed off" but you frequently find GFCI protection missing and AFCI protection missing, does being "signed off" mean those are not necessary and that it meets code without that required protection? Any builder worth their salt or even their shoe laces will acknowledge that, no, if those things were missing, then the structure did not meet code. At that point, their argument based on the inspections being signed off is gone in the wind.
Code inspector are not even required to, nor expected to, "inspect everything", there is no intent in the law for that.
First, if there was, no structure would be built without a code inspector on-site at all times during the construction, and that is simply not feasible.
Second, there was case which went to the Florida Supreme Court which ruled that the building departments responsibilities did not include inspection everything on every structure and making sure that every thing met code, that the building departments responsibilities were to make sure that the structure met code enough so as not to negatively affect the surrounding area and structures. If someone wants to make sure that everything meets code, they can hire an independent code inspector to verify same.