Home : Blogs : Mike Parks ESI, RBO ,RPI ,RIUI ,OMHI- Ohio : Electrical and Residential Building Inspector in Ohio

Bad Home Inspection Info - Electrical

The following is from a Home Inspection Report that I was asked to review. Please note that there are many good Home Inspectors out there. The problem is that there also many bad Home Inspectors out there. These are the ones that I take issue with. The ones who perform inspections that they are not competent to do.

Home Inspector Problem 1. Double wired circuits at the main panel (doorbell transformer).

Home Inspector Solution: Properly separate and rewire circuits .Reroute one of them to a new breaker in the panel. Thus providing a single circuit for each breaker.

My response: The doorbell wires were properly installed, are safe and code compliant.

Home Inspector Problem 2. Double lugged neutral and ground wires at the neutral bus bar inside the main panel.

Home Inspector Solution: Properly separate the neutral wires from the ground wires so that each neutral wire is secured by a single terminal screw at the neutral bus bar.

My response: The grounded conductors and the equipment grounding conductors were properly installed are safe and code compliant

Home Inspector Problem 3. Exposed light bulb under basement stairs,

Home Inspector Solution: Properly install a globe or replace the light fixture.

My response: The light under the stairs was properly install, is safe and code compliant.

Home Inspector Problem4. Missing grounds at the corrugated stainless-steel tubing (CSST) gas lines. Proper grounding/bonding of CSST gas lines is required to ensure the gas lines do not catch fire in the event lighting strikes the dwelling.

Home Inspector Solution: Properly ground the (CSST) gas lines.

My response: The gas line (CSST) was properly installed, is safe and code compliant.

I also added: It should be noted that this installation was approved by The City of XXXXXX Electrical Safety Inspector.

In the above example this inspector was acting as an electrical expert and was performing an electrical inspection. If these had been defects they would be code violations.

In Ohio only an Electrical Safety Inspector can tell you if your electrical installation was/is installed to code.

Learn the facts and do not let bad information ruin your real estate deals.

Posted by Mike Parks ESI, RBO ,RPI ,RIUI ,OMHI- Ohio on 09/05/2009 06:42 AM

Comments (44)

Electric in the Home Improvement Channel

electrical and new construction inspections in ohio, electric in older homes, building defects in ohio residential defects in ohio, home inspectors ohio

This post has been included in Ohio Information
Post is included in group: Ohio Home Inspection Info
Post is included in group: Sparky's Plumbing
Post is included in group: Ohio Active Rainers
Post is included in group: Independent Thinking Inspectors
Post is included in group: Ask the Home Inspector

44 Comments on Bad Home Inspection Info - Electrical

SEP

Great info. Just a day in the life for someone that almost know too much eh?

Seriously you are quite a resorce my friend!

SEP

Jim

There are times when some of the above 'may' be a problem. It is knowing when they are that matters.

Mike - I regularly write up these same issues. Please share - what made the installations in this home acceptable?

SEP

Reuben

First this is a SD panel. So the doorbell (so called double tap) wire is allowed with one other wire.

Second have the grounded conductor and the equipment grounding conductor (EGC) used to be allowed. The 'code' is different now. One 'neutral' under a lug. I do not believe that the intent was to prohibit the EGC to be with it. I believe the intent was NOT to have two 'neutrals' under one lug. The 'neutral' and EGC under one lug is NOT a safety concern it is a 'code' violation.

Third the keyless under the stairs is OK. 'IF" there was a shelf added then it could be a concern.

Fourth the gas lines are 'effectively' bonded by the equipment connected to them. The 'new' requirements are an attempt by the manufactures to cover lawsuits. Additional bonding is not going to improve the ability of the CSST to handle a direct lightning strike.

Finally if the AHJ has approved an installation who wants to challenge that opinion in court?

Thanks for the info Mike.

SEP

I don't pretend to be an electrical "expert" in any shape or form, but I've read a lot of your stuff and a lot of stuff from other electrical "experts".

Your responses on the report were assertions with NO explanation of WHY it was right! Kind of weak on the explanations. Just a lot of "I'm right, he's wrong." Not very helpful to the customer seeking understanding and trying to decide who to believe!

You are one electrical "expert". Other "experts" disagree with you Michael, particularly about the grounded conductor and the equipment grounding conductor under the same lug. Here's a link to just one of them.

Since I can't place two neutrals in a single termination, can I install the neutral and ground conductor in the same termination?

UL 67 has been around a LONG time. I'd rather trust the other electrical "experts" on this one.

Double lugged neutrals coming loose are a fire hazard!

Not ALL Square D panels are approved for "double taps" on the breakers. Hard to say without looking at the actual panel.

RE CSST: "The 'new' requirements are an attempt by the manufactures to cover lawsuits," Gee, I wonder if that's becasue they LOST lawsuits on this issue regardless of what the "code" said about it.

Your post doesn't say whether you were acting as a private inspector or as an AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) i.e, "Code Inspector". AHJ's are proven wrong LOTS of times, including in court. Unfortunately, as they operate "under the color of law" (so to speak), they have very limited liabililty for their screw ups. You've posted before where YOU found them to be wrong!

I'd say, "Learn the facts and do not let bad information injure or kill your customer."

Cute pic of the beagle by the way. Doesn't stay on screen long, but cute!

My responses were that of an expert hired by the homeowner not as the AHJ.

I thought it was clear that the installation that I inspected was and is code compliant.

Erby

Just read the SD 'memo'.

Again I stand behind my opinion. Nothing unsafe with both those conductors under the same lug.

The 'memo' assumes that you would remove the 'neutral' or the EGC with out first turning off or disconnecting the 'hot' wire. Both would be irresponsible.

I agree with not having two 'neutrals' under a conductor. Again not unsafe if a 'qualified' electrician is doing the work. Just added safety.

BTW OSHA prohibits 'LIVE" work unless you can show why to work it live. Again this is not a problem if a qualified electrician is working on the equipment.

Please read: http://activerain.com/blogsview/1141043/is-your-electrician-qualified-

I meet this requirement. Does anyone else?

If you re-read the 'memo' it states nothing about this causing a house fire.

How does this concern a HI?

Mike - If the manufacturer of the panel says

When the neutral is disconnected, the objective is to still have the equipment ground solidly connected to the grounding electrode. If both the neutral and grounded conductor is under the same terminal, this cannot be accomplished.

...and another home inspector calls this out, why are you coming along afterwards and saying they're both wrong? It sounds like you walked in to the house with a chip on your shoulder against the other inspector.

I personally don't call out neutral and grounded conductors on the same terminal, but if I did, I'd hate for someone to come along after me and tell me I'm wrong for doing it when the manufacturer says I'm right.

You're walking around with a big Erby - The Central Kentucky Home Inspector Wood chip

on your shoulders.

Your uninformative statements that end in "was properly install [sic], is safe and code compliant." does absolutely NOTHING to help either the property owner, the prospective buyer, or the real estate agents reach a decision.

Now they've got one person saying it's wrong, you saying "was properly install [sic], is safe and code compliant." and not an authoritative source to be had. Just two supposed "experts" both saying "I'm right and he's wrong". Not a bit helpful.

I'm surprised that you, with all your knowledge, think that is helpful to anyone.

Now the Realtors, prospective buyer and homeowner are stuck trying to find a third "expert" who can at least EXPLAIN why what he says is right.

Now I see you declare the manufacturer wrong also. You said the panel was a Square D. The memo is from Square D. I'd bet the panel installation instructions also clearly prohibited it.

But Mikey says "was properly install [sic], is safe and code compliant." Don't matter what the manufacturer says!

Sure seems like your doing a lot of Erby - The Central Kentucky Home Inspector Horn Tooter tooting!

I'd still say, "Learn the facts and do not let bad information injure or kill your customer."

And YOU sir, are passing BAD information! BAD electrical safety information at that!

After reading this blog, I will be very, very blunt and SAY......... I have to disagree with Mike Parks 100% in his statements of everything being "properly install, is safe and code compliant. " Mikee Parks, you are 100% incorrect in your statements. It is very sad to say that guys like Mike Parks is what gives all us 'good' and 'experienced' inspectors a bad wrap!!!!!! I say this with 39 years of experience and will say that Mike Parks needs to find a different profession!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doesn't help much if you don't put your name to it, "Alvin".

Bad "WRAP". Huh.

It's okay to disagree, but you don't really need to be that rude about it!

SEP

It is funny how those (hidden individuals) who are not certified to interpret the code can challenge me. Also those SD opinions are from Jan 2008 far after the installation.

Read NEC 408.41 In that ,if you have the handbook, it explains that the reason is for personnel protection nothing about it being unsafe for any other reason.

Also note that there ARE times that two grounded conductors shall be permitted to terminate under a single terminal.

Since I have no idea what I am saying please read: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=103848&highlight=408.41and draw you own conclusions.

For UL 67 read: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=94172&highlight=408.41

"To carry this question just a little deeper into this ongoing discussion;

Can UL Standard 67 be incorporated into the instructions included with the listing and labeling that is outlined in 110.3(B)?

For those that might not know what UL Standard 67 is more information can be obtained here as to what a standard is about and pricing for purchase.

I contend that a Standard is not part of the instructions included with the listing and labeling of equipment as outlined in 110.3(B) simply because it is a UL document that has to be purchased separately, at a very high cost if I might add ($1000.00), and therefore is not included as part of the instructions included with the listing and labeling." From Mike Whitt off the Mike Holt website.

Again how is this part of a home inspection?

In so far as the chip. Yes I do. Only against those who are acting in a profession that requires experience, proctored testing, and state mandated training.

Read my responses. Do not try to read something into them.

Also funny that since being a Senior Member of the Mike Holt Forum since 2-20-2003 that no one has called me out as giving out bad info.

Mike - was your last post addressed to anyone specific? All of us? Or anyone that doesn't agree with you?

Your wrote "It is funny how those who are not certified to interpret the code can challenge me." How arrogant. Come down off your cloud.

In the link that you posted, http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=103848&highlight=408.41, there are seven pages of comments. What part am I supposed to draw conclusions from? It seems like the only guy that agreed with you was a guy that had snide comments to make about home inspectors, and he was wrong about both of the points that me made.

1. He mentioned that the installation was code compliant 10 years ago. Who cares? Why on earth would a home inspector care if this was acceptable 10 years ago? By that logic, we should also not recommend GFCIs on 50 year old houses.

2. He said that "inspections of electrical work is electrical work" and then posted a link that is now dead. Electrical work is defined here http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PDF/eli_laws_and_rules.pdf. It reads

"Electrical work" means the installing, altering, repairing, planning, or laying out

of electrical wiring, apparatus, or equipment for electrical light, heat, power, technology circuits or

systems, or other purposes.

Clearly, inspecting an electrical panel is not electrical work. This would make a good blog topic.

You asked how this is part of a home inspection, but I say, how is it not? Why do you bring up the history of the code to refute the findings of a home inspector? We all know that home inspections are not code inspections.

First I edited my post before you posted. See hidden individuals.

I did not say everyones opinions on Mike Holts site were mine also.

Again you may your own choices.

In my original post I was trying to point out that someone was calling out so called safety hazards that were not hazards at all.

Hmm, if it's going to cost me money to get the instructions, it MUST NOT be a part of the instructions. Interesting theory.

All of this is just our individual opinions of what is written (well, unless it costs money to look at what is written).

Thanks for sharing yours, but I'll stick with the other side.

I hope you get my drift of providing your customer more than "I'm right, he's worng" would be more helpful in them in reaching a decision about what to do with the information.

SEP

The I am right responses are based in fact, the NEC. If I say that it is installed properly what else must I say?

I have never said do not explain or inform the client. I do that all the time.

Let us try this. If a sanitary tee (a plumbing fitting) is installed on its back then that is wrong. If it is installed, like behind a sink, properly what is to explain?

That is not an I am right he is wrong statement. Just a fact.

Erby

Yes the money theory is interesting.

To everyone else.

What has been lost here is the fact that I wanted everyone to understand that you need to know what is acceptable. Never said that you had to listen to me. Every inspector does his job differently.

I only tell them it's acceptable also, UNLESS there is controvesy (or I expect controversy, such as the FPE panels). THEN they need more information to help them decide who to believe.

In your case, there was controversy. All you gave them, according to the above anyway, is "I'm right, he's worng.

Do you see the difference?

Every inspector does his job differently granted, but according to the Square D literature (and manufacturer's instructions rule), what you said ("The grounded conductors and the equipment grounding conductors were properly installed are safe and code compliant.") is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I agree. We need to know what is acceptable.

Don't believe me. Call Square D and let them tell you it's unacceptable!

The phone number is: 1-888-SQUARE-D (1-888-778-2733)

Let me know if you get a different answer than I did a few years ago when I first became aware of the controversy over this issue.

SEP

Erby

I took your advice. I spoke with SD this morning and they confirmed what I thought was true.

Short answer is I am 100% correct. I do not want to put his name on the Internet. But you may contact me at 614-214-1487 and I will give you his name.

After speaking with him would you please post here what you have heard.

I think that those who have attacked me should offer an apology.

SEP

Glad to hear that, Mike. Now your were "correct" about what?

" The grounded conductors and the equipment grounding conductors were properly installed are safe and code compliant "

The reason it is not a safety concern is that it (the EGC) is not a current carrying conductor. Yes loose conductors are a safety issue. However, if the two wires are secure there is NO problem.

Again I will state that it is against OSHA requlations to work on energized equipment.

Did you know that removing an electrical panel cover on an energized panel IS working live?

Do you wear the proper PPE when removing this cover?

Yes people disagree with me on this also but it is true.

Finally do whatever you will.

PS: Alvin just shows how ignorant he is by his statements.

Most of us are here trying to learn by discussion (and gain some Google Juice). There's always people like Alvin (Mr. Unidentified) who want to poke their head in, stir up some @#$% and disappaar. They're best ignored.

Odd that you were told different than me for a 1998 panel.

For others here's a picture of what we're talking about. It's the white and brown wires at the each side, both under the same screw. Erby - The Central Kentucky Home Inspector double lugged neutrals

What is the definition of live "work". I don't believe that taking the cover off, inspecting the panel without touching anything, and then putting the cover back on, is considered "live work". But, a quick google doesn't give me the OSHA definition of live work and whether or not the above is considered live work.

Do you have an authoritative reference, i.e., the actual OSHA definition of "live work".

Gotta go to work so I didn't spend much time searching.

Start here: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=10135&p_table=STANDARDS

" Live parts. Energized conductive components. "

Qualified person. One who has received training in and has demonstrated skills and knowledge in the construction and operation of electric equipment and installations and the hazards involved.

1910.333(a)(1)

"Deenergized parts." Live parts to which an employee may be exposed shall be deenergized before the employee works on or near them, unless the employer can demonstrate that deenergizing introduces additional or increased hazards or is infeasible due to equipment design or operational limitations. Live parts that operate at less than 50 volts to ground need not be deenergized if there will be no increased exposure to electrical burns or to explosion due to electric arcs.

"Exposed. (As applied to live parts.) Capable of being inadvertently touched or approached nearer than a safe distance by a person. It is applied to parts not suitably guarded, isolated, or insulated. (See Accessible and Concealed.)"

"Accessible. (As applied to equipment.) Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means. (See "Readily accessible.")"

"Readily accessible. Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections, so that those needing ready access do not have to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, chairs, etc. (See Accessible.)"

SEP

Mike, I'm curious about the double lugging:

Can you cite a source that says it is OK to have two circuits (wires) under one lug of a breaker that is not designed for two circuits? I see door bell transformers like this as well and it would be good to have a cite in print.

It does not take a rocket scientist to read a code book and cite what is printed in it. Now when a person deviates from what is written that is when you have problems and this goes for interpretations.

I'm trying to figure out which of those alphabet soup letters behind his name makes him think he can single handedly re-write the National Electrical Code.

I also wonder what the judge or jury would say as he sat in the Defendant's chair to testify to what he posted after an incident resulting from in an injury, death, or property damage which was sustained as a result of a failure of one of his approved multiple tapping scenarios.

Those conditions are expressly prohibited in the National Electrical Code BECAUSE they are HAZARDS and UNSAFE.

SEP

Scott

This was a SD panel (QO series) was installed properly and is still safe and code compliant.

Not that I had to but confirmed by the SD corporation.

Jerry

Thank you for the snide remarks. Sad coming from someone who has more certs. than me.

Do you really think that I would say something is safe just to prove a point?

This panel was inspected by two state certified inspectors. And this one would have no problem in a court of law.

This is NOT new work. This is an existing service. So it does not have to meet the current code.

I know you have the NEC so read in the handbook in Article 408.41 "can be problematic". And that is only for two grounded conductors.

What about 90.1(C)?

Scott: You must have learned both English and electricity in the same pro se home-schooling environment.

Your "facts" are something other than verifiable as apparently is your grasp of reality.

Aaron D. Miller, CEI, CRI, RCI

Scott: Sorry, it's early and that last comment was of course directed at Mike Parks, resident self-elected genius . . .

Aaron

If you would like to discuss this please come back.

Calling me names does not help your point.

Tell me about your background, in electrical, not in name calling.

What about MWBC's?

Do you ask for the two seperate breakers to have a handle tie installed?

I think that this is more of a hazard!

Mike,

Go back to your original post on this and re-read what you wrote.

You take what another inspector said and say what he said is wrong, that nothing needed to have been done, which makes you wrong.

Of course, there is that incorrect terminology you used which may be what is keeping you confused.

Here are just two examples:

"Home Inspector Problem 1. Double wired circuits at the main panel (doorbell transformer).

Home Inspector Solution: Properly separate and rewire circuits .Reroute one of them to a new breaker in the panel. Thus providing a single circuit for each breaker.

My response: The doorbell wires were properly installed, are safe and code compliant."

Jerry Peck: "Double wired" should be "double tapped" or (preferably) "multiple tapped" as there are sometimes more than two, making it "multiple". PROVIDED the doorbell transformer was indeed multiple tapped to a breaker with another wire, IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED AND IS NOT "code compliant".

Jerry Peck: Now, if you are trying to say that the breaker was the type with the two terminal plate under the terminal screw and is suitable for two conductors, the IT WAS NOT "multiple tapped", was it? Correct terminology and correct writing of what you mean are critical in expressing what you are saying, and when you are doing so in an attempt to puff yourself up and degrade someone else, you really need to know and understand what you are saying and writing. It appears you do not.

"Home Inspector Problem 2. Double lugged neutral and ground wires at the neutral bus bar inside the main panel.

Home Inspector Solution: Properly separate the neutral wires from the ground wires so that each neutral wire is secured by a single terminal screw at the neutral bus bar.

My response: The grounded conductors and the equipment grounding conductors were properly installed are safe and code compliant"

Jerry Peck: Let me get this straight here - the first inspector stated that the grounds and neutrals are multiple tapped in the terminals in the neutral/ground terminal bar ... AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS "safe and code compliant"? Really? That is your position?

Jerry Peck: THAT IS NOT the position of the NEC, nor UL, nor of the manufacturers of the electrical equipment.

Those are just two example of what you stated and what is wrong with what you stated.

"Sad coming from someone who has more certs. than me."

Jerry Peck: Mike, yes, I do have more certifications than you, HOWEVER ... *I* AM NOT PUTTING MYSELF OUT THERE re-writing the code and saying that something the code specifically addresses as not being allowed is allowed because *YOU* say it is.

In my take on your first post which began this, you tried to make yourself look better at the expense of others, and, in doing so, you ended up making yourself look like you do not know or understand what you are talking about.

Jerry

The point was and is IF you are going to call something out as a defect, and that inspector did, you need the facts.

HE called two wires under a QO breaker as a defect not me. I simply said that it was safe and code compliant. We all know this to be true.

HE said that the wires needed to be seperated not me. I said it was safe and code compliant. I know this to be true and so does Schneider Electric.

Jerry you may call me and I will give you and you only the name of that individual from SD. I do not want every Tom, Dick and Harry calling him. I would give you my SD case # but that would give you and others access to my information.

Yes I have read: http://ecatalog.squared.com/pubs/Electrical%20Distribution/Panelboards/0100DB0705.pdf but that does NOT apply here.

It is clear that no one understands ex post facto. Also know as 'grandfathered'.

Anyone who is 'qualified' to work on electric would NOT be in danger working on that panel. And there is no hazard to the structure if these wires are secured (torqued) properly.

How do you address MWBC's that are on single breakers? That is more of a hazard then two wires under a lug (terminal).

I am not "re-writing" the code. I just understand it.

"you tried to make yourself look better at the expense of others". YES this is true. That inspector could have cost that homeowner a deal and money. I do not like those who do not know what they are doing harming the public.

If there is no hazard to the structure or the occupants how does this fall under a home inspection?

If this was a true hazard there would be homes burning all over the country.

Can you show me ONE case of an electrical panel (remember this was a SD QO series) catching fire because of the grounded conductor and the EGC being under the same terminal?

I'll bet not.

If you can then I will make a lot of money scaring the public and fixing this so-called hazard.

Since I respect Joe Tedesco maybe everyone should take his advice here: http://askcodeman.com/professional/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5&sid=fc6bb4794f53276ceedb235fbae8a323

NFPA 73 Electrical Inspection Code for Existing Dwellings 2006 Edition

And: http://www.askcodeman.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=186

From Jerry Peck speaking to Joe Tedesco:

"Better than me saying what I did (which was not the "safe" way) would be for you to explain *the proper and safe way* to inspect an energized panel, including photos of the proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) to wear."

OCT

Some additional info for those in NC. I found this on another forum.

"As of now we can't unless you want to jump through hoops: (NC)

State Building Code. - If a licensee includes a deficiency in the written report of a home inspection that is stated as a violation of the North Carolina State Residential Building Code, the licensee must do all of the following:

(1) Determine the date of construction, renovation, and any subsequent installation or replacement of any system or component of the home.
(2) Determine the State Building Code in effect at the time of construction, renovation, and any subsequent installation or replacement of any system or component of the home.
(3) Conduct the home inspection using the building codes in effect at the time of the construction, renovation, and any subsequent installation or replacement of any system or component of the home.

In order to fully inform the client, if the licensee describes a deficiency as a violation of the State Building Code in the written report, then the report shall include the information described in subdivision (1) of this subsection and photocopies of the relevant provisions of the State Building Code used pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection to determine any violation stated in the report. The Board may adopt rules that are more restrictive on the use of the State Building Code by home inspectors."

OCT

Agreed, Mike Parks needs to find another profession. Sorry Mike but it is the competent inspector that see a problem with your assertions.

Home Inspectors are not there to determine if something is code compliant and that is where you fail to do your duties. You seem to be stuck in "code enforcement" mode. Just because something met code at the time of construction means nothing or clients. They hire us to give them the condition of the home. If they want a code review they can contact the local AHJ.

You simply fail to fulfill the service you have been hired to do and that is sad. Do our profession a favor and find another or go back to the enforcement role.

MGI Home Inspection LLC

Please identify yourself. Please tell us your qualifications.

Everything that I posted is backed up in fact. The NEC, the law, and from the Square D Corporation.

If you and others enjoy stating things that are 'WRONG" please continue to do so.

So me and every other 'certified' electrical inspector in the State of Ohio is not as smart as you.

"You simply fail to fulfill the service you have been hired to do and that is sad." No I was hired to prove that the HI was an idiot and that he was stating things (facts) contrary to Ohio law.

In Ohio we do not allow people like you to practice electrical inspections: http://activerain.com/blogsview/281117/Ohio-Electrical-Inspection-Rules

DEC

Mike,

Since you have used my post for trying to make your point, I will comment on your post to make some things clear. The above Home Inspector did not call out code violations or write up his report with code numbers did he? I ask you to re-read the information that the State of Ohio Electrical Board made concerning just this issue. Mike you have been beating this issue to death, and it is time for you to let it go because you will not win this issue according the the Ohio Electrical Board statements. They stated that we the Home Inspector can test, look at, and open any panel to see if we if any safety issue are present. Not calling out code issues because we are not licensed to do so, and we are not to write in our reports the code violation or code reference numbers. If we did, then we would then be in violation according to the Electrical Board. I have again posted the information from my posting for you and other to better understand.

The law related to electrical inspections is not new. Since 1970, persons holding themselves out to perform electrical inspections have been required to be certified by the Ohio Board of Building Standards as Electrical Safety Inspectors.

For the purpose of this law, "practice of electrical inspection" includes any ascertainment of compliance with the Ohio building code, or the electrical code of a political subdivision of this state by a person, who, for compensation, inspects the construction and installation of electrical conductors, fittings, devices, and fixtures for light, heat or power services equipment, or the installation, alteration, replacement, maintenance, or repair of any electrical wiring and equipment that is subject to any of the aforementioned codes. (taken from ORC Chapter 3783.)

This means that if a person is paid to inspect a home, and indicates that they are inspecting the electrical system in accordance with the code, and they are not certified by the Ohio Board of Building Standards as an Electrical Safety Inspector, they would be in violation of the law.

"No person shall engage in the practice of electrical inspection in this state unless he is the holder of a certificate of competency as an electrical safety inspector issued under Chapter 3783. of the Revised Code. Any person practicing or offering to practice electrical inspection shall show proof of his certification upon request as provided by rules of the board of building standards." (taken from ORC Chapter 3783.)

However, if a person holds them self out as a home inspector and offers to perform an inspection of the home and its systems but indicates that they will issue a report indicating the state of function, operation or relative hazards, but not refer to code compliance, they would not be in violation of this law.

Mike I hope that this helps you clear up this issue and you let it die. If you have written proof that a Home Inspector has written in his report the statement of a code violation and used the code reference numbers, then report him to the Electrical board because he is in violation!

DEC

Mark

He was citing code and nothing was unsafe that he called out.

Example #4: "Missing grounds at the corrugated stainless-steel tubing (CSST) gas lines."

Building inspectors are not allowed to inspect these connections so how could a HI? Only ESI's.

"Any person practicing or offering to practice electrical inspection shall show proof of his certification upon request as provided by rules of the board of building standards."

And yes I did just turn someone into the board.

(B) The "practice of electrical inspection" includes any ascertainment of compliance with the Ohio building code, or the electrical code of a political subdivision of this state by a person, who, for compensation, inspects the construction and installation of electrical conductors, fittings, devices, and fixtures for light, heat or power services equipment, or the installation, alteration, replacement, maintenance, or repair of any electrical wiring and equipment that is subject to any of the aforementioned codes.

Light switches not working, exposed wires, defective GFCI's would be examples of what you could report. Yes you should be allowed to state safety concerns that helps the public.

Inspecting the inside of a panel to see if it is wired properly is the job of an ESI not a HI. Two wires under a lug is a 'code' violation not a safety issue. This is from the Square D corporation.

If you look at the inside of a panel and say nothing you have in effect said that it is 'ok'. Sure sounds like performing an electrical inspection to me.

Do what you want. The information that I provide here is to help Realtors understand who is quailified to perform this type of inspection to best protect the client.

If you attended the same state required training that I recieve you would know these facts.

DEC

"Mike I hope that this helps you clear up this issue and you let it die"

Why would I stop tellng people what I do for a living and explain that I have the state credentials to prove it?

"and used the code reference numbers, then report him to the Electrical board because he is in violation!" It is The Board of Building Standards.

You do not have to use a 'code' # to be citing code.

You are also not allowed to inspect the installation of the GEC. I could list more but it would take pages to do so.

HI's are going from performing visual inspections (a generalist) to opening electrical equipment (an expert).

You can not have it both ways but you guys try. At least here in Ohio.

Mike,

You do what you do best, and I will do what I do best. All I know for a fact is this. I have a letter directly from the Ohio Board of Building Standards that has spelled it out on what I as a Home Inspector can, and can not do in concerns electrical inspections. In it, it does state that I can open a electrical panel and look inside it. It also states that I can call out what I feel is a safety issue, IE double taps. Again, as written in the letter. I can call it out as a safety issue and as long as I do not call out a code reference number, and I write it up in my report that we recommend that it be reviewed by a ESI for further evaluation.

Mark

Would you share that letter?

You are probably the only HI to recommend an ESI for further evaluation.

DEC

Mark

"In it, it does state that I can open a electrical panel and look inside it." Anyone can look inside. The problem is are you certified to inspect it? Or comment on it? NO!

"It also states that I can call out what I feel is a safety issue, IE double taps". Show me, from an expert, where that is a safety issue. If you can I will gladly refer to it. It is a 'code' violation!

"I do not call out a code reference number,". You do not have to cite a 'code' reference to be 'citing' code.

If you read the opinion it says "state of function, operation or relative hazards,". Does it work or are there exposed wires or is it broken is about all you can say. It does NOT say that you are competent to perform an electrical inspection.

Do you think that you are competent to perform an electrical inspection? If not, why are you pretending to represent that fact to Realtors and your clients?

Your clients believe that you are inspecting the electric to make sure that it is safe. You and others are misleading them!

You are not qualified to inspect an electrical panel and its connections and I will continue to state that fact. If you do not like that fact then go get certified!

Still waiting on that (your) letter.

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?