It’s always disturbing when a code enforcement action is answered with a threatened or actual lawsuit on the part of the alleged offender. Instead of focusing on the violation, everyone’s attention is taken up with the new lawsuit. If a local governmental agency is in a tough economic position, it may decide to drop the enforcement action instead of incurring legal fees to defend itself against what is usually a frivolous lawsuit. This isn’t fair to the homeowner who responds by correcting a violation or the inspector who is just doing his or her job. When politics is thrown into the mix, it can get even worse. In Camano Island, Washington, a commissioner, who was notified of a violation for building a deck without a permit and a possible wetland violation, has filed a lawsuit against the local planning director and the candidate who ran against her in an election, alleging that the code enforcement action was political in nature. Inspectors need to make sure that they keep good notes if they are placed in a situation where there is political pressure from their superiors. If an inspector feels he or she is being asked to do something that isn’t right, he or she should try to get a response in writing (e.g. e-mail) from the person applying the pressure so that there is a paper trail. That way, if there is a lawsuit filed in the matter, the inspector can show that he or she was doing an action at the direction of a supervisor. Of course, if the action is illegal, the inspector should always insist that the order is vetted by the jurisdiction’s attorney before it is implemented. If the inspector’s request for a legal review is turned down, he or she has to decide whether keeping one’s job is worth going to jail for. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the above case. Such situations usually end up with a settlement of some type.
Revoking a certificate of occupancy can be an important means of obtaining compliance. A strip club in Maine had its certificate of occupancy revoked recently. The Portland Press Herald said that the revocation occurred because
“of an inadequate sprinkler system and other violations.”
Prior to a certificate of occupancy being revoked, the owner/occupant is entitled to due process which means a hearing with the opportunity to be heard and a chance to present witnesses. This process is usually used after other less dramatic attempts at gaining compliance have failed, or if the danger to the public is substantial. In the guide books I have written, the Building Official and Inspector’s Guide to Codes, Forms and Complaints, the Fire Code Inspector’s Guide to Codes Forms and Complaints and the Residential Inspector’s Guide to Codes, Forms and Complaints, I have the necessary notices and appeal forms that fulfill the requirements of the model codes. It is important to follow the required steps to protect the local jurisdiction from liability.
There’s a very descriptive article about the worst bathroom in New York City at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/the-worst-bathroom-in-new-york/
Justin said that a pipe had burst last January, gushing enough scalding water to turn the bathroom into a mold-filled, 24-hour steam room. Water damage had wrecked the floors. They were so rotted that you could dip your arm up to your elbow into the floorboard below the toilet. Meanwhile, huge chunks of the ceiling were missing, and you could see into the rafters above. I thought about Justin getting ready for school in the mornings. How did he take a shower?
It’s a sad reminder that without vigorous code enforcement, buildings deteriorate and people suffer. To think that a family would be better off in a shelter than in one of these buildings is tragic. Housing inspectors who make life better for people who are tenants should be proud of the work they do.
In a recent post, I discussed the foolishness of owners who don’t fix their rental property and end up facing civil liability judgments that could have been avoided if they had just followed the fire code. The family of a victim of a porch collapse just reached a settlement for $2.7 million dollars in Chicago. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2931482,CST-NWS-porch1130.article The victim was trying to adjust a chair on the porch when he fell through the rails. The Sun-Times reported that:
Through evidence discovery and motions, it was learned that almost six months prior to the incident, KMC’s liability insurance carrier warned the company that the large railing gap — 2 feet by 8 feet — should be covered with wire mesh, a release from attorneys said.
By the time of the tragedy, the repairs had not been made. The public doesn’t really understand how code enforcement saves lives and reduces costs to owners. A case like this demonstrates its importance.
