09-06-2013, 03:31 AM
Of course the inspectors should inspect. In the number of county inspections we've had on our original house and now the addition, we've depended a lot on our own oversight of the building process rather than assuming either the inspectors or the tradesman will get everything right. We've had significant errors in both basic design (the house itself and the pipe layout in the slab) and some errors, large and small, by the trades. And, to be frank, errors that we have committed also. Nearly all the trade errors we experienced were done by assistants. We check and recheck work, found the problems and they were quickly fixed. As far as the inspections go, we have had detailed inspections and we have had drive-by inspections. There seems to be little oversight of the inspectors' activities.
Look, if I was running things I would have a structured management program for inspectors, beyond just hiring criteria. Regular training, continuing education, recertification testing and supervisory review of inspections would be a beginning. Inspectors would be expected to professionals working to high standards themselves and would expect high standards of the professionals and amateurs they work with. And, sure, I would certainly include provisions for amateurs to do their own work. As Rob pointed out, gluing two pieces of ABS together is not difficult. But I would have a strict inspection process that would have consequences for repeated poor work. As gogould pointed out, we need to weed out the knuckleheads. Tradesman who screw up would be reported to the licensing authorities. This would be an expected part of the inspection process. Professionals would be expected to perform like professionals. Amateurs who need repeated visits for errors would have escalating fees and an end point where they are required to have work completed by someone else. To this end, I would also increase the granularity of inspections to cover more details of the work, including perhaps unannounced drop in visits to check work in progress.
Naturally all this would require government funding, excellent management (both governmental and trades), maybe higher fees and, undoubtedly most important, people on all sides of the issue dedicated to the idea that competent building practices are more important than saving a few bucks.
Look, if I was running things I would have a structured management program for inspectors, beyond just hiring criteria. Regular training, continuing education, recertification testing and supervisory review of inspections would be a beginning. Inspectors would be expected to professionals working to high standards themselves and would expect high standards of the professionals and amateurs they work with. And, sure, I would certainly include provisions for amateurs to do their own work. As Rob pointed out, gluing two pieces of ABS together is not difficult. But I would have a strict inspection process that would have consequences for repeated poor work. As gogould pointed out, we need to weed out the knuckleheads. Tradesman who screw up would be reported to the licensing authorities. This would be an expected part of the inspection process. Professionals would be expected to perform like professionals. Amateurs who need repeated visits for errors would have escalating fees and an end point where they are required to have work completed by someone else. To this end, I would also increase the granularity of inspections to cover more details of the work, including perhaps unannounced drop in visits to check work in progress.
Naturally all this would require government funding, excellent management (both governmental and trades), maybe higher fees and, undoubtedly most important, people on all sides of the issue dedicated to the idea that competent building practices are more important than saving a few bucks.