PCCA Bulletin Board

lh_bco · Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 3 Location: Palmyra

Hello. I have a question regarding a residential permit for an addition. The home owner had all of the inspections except for the final inspection and then sold the house without the final inspection. As I was going through our permits that have been inactive for several months, I discovered that the home had been sold. My question is this...who is responsible for completing the permit or correcting the violations that are found during the final inspection. Is there a section of the UCC that this would fall under? My feeling is that the original permit holder (the person who signed the application) would be responsible for this and that this person would need to be served with the list of violations...and of course I would copy the current home owner. Any experience and advice would be greatly appreciated.

RJ · Joined: 25 May 2007 Posts: 4

Dear BCO:
As BCO you must enforce the IRC and the UCC in this situation. First, the permit holder needs to be notified of any violations that exist. Also,notify the current property owner by certified mail. Post the property with regards to being in voilation as well. This should get someones attention. Most of the time people will comply. If this fails, file an action in your local district court against both.

homebild · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 101 Location: West Wyoming, Pa.

lh_bco · Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 3 Location: Palmyra

Thanks to RJ and Homebild. I appreciate your input. I was pretty confident that it was the responsibility of the permit holder, but I wasn't sure if there was anything specific in the UCC that addressed this topic specifically. The whole situation panned out as follows....I contacted the permit holder (original property owner) and he became very irritated and rude. He directed me to his lawyer. I spoke with his lawyer and informed him that the permit holder is on the hook to correct the deficiencies. The new homeowner decided that they didn't want to deal with any type of civil action and they were convinced that civil action was inevitable, so they arranged to have the items corrected and avoid any further aggravation. I made them aware that the UCC holds the permit holder responsible, but they opted to put the situation behind them. Thanks again for all of your input.

Not Bob · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 17

On a similar issue, a house flipper does extensive work without applying for a permit then sells the house. A couple of years later the owner applies for a permit for an addition and some alterations. The BCO discovers existing violations that were most likely done by the flipper, but this cannot be proved. It's my guess that the innocent, well intended owner is on the hook. Does anyone have an opinion.

And on another issue, developer-builders typically form a LLC for a development then dissolve the LLC upon completion. A friend of mine bought such a townhouse last year. I looked at it with him while it was still under construction, noticed many violations and talked to the builder. The builder argued telling me that he was building under the old BOCA code. I notified the TPA who said he would check it out. Nothing was corrected and my friend now has problems with the structure. He was told that he has no recourse since the LLC has been dissolved. Surely some of you have seen similar situations. How were they resolved? Does the TPA have liability for issuing a CO fpr noncompliant work?

RJ · Joined: 25 May 2007 Posts: 4

Hello Not Bob:
You raise two interesting guestions. First, the new owner will have to bring the home into compliance with the UCC if a permit was issued under that code. This again would depend on the extent of the alterations and additions they plan to make. I don't know from your post just what violation are present. If they are simple to fix address them with the home owner and try to educate them on why they shoud make the fix.
The unknows are if any inspections were made,why a CO wasn't issued and how envolved are the corrections on the previous work. The main issue for the code offical is who has standing now and the easiest avenue of compliance. The house flipper is long gone and what happened previously is water under the bridge. We all face the same kind of issues and perhaps a step forward for us is to keep a close watch on the permits that have no daily action for inspection. This can head off a lot of problems.
Next, each case rise and falls on the facts at hand. First, what code was the building constructed under? Second, what are the structural problems?Third,everybody has exposure if the building was not constructed as per the approved plan. How much time has expired since the developer built the house and dissolved the LLC? Did the developer post any escrow with the township?

Not Bob · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 17

Thanks for the post RJ. You brought up an interesting question. "Did the developer post any escrow with the township?" I am not familiar with this concept. Is this common? How is it administered?

RJ · Joined: 25 May 2007 Posts: 4

Escrows are normal for land development or subdivision and the MPC allows up to 110% of public improvements to be posted. This would not include the houses but public improvements. One might have some leverage with the township if they still hold escrow for the LLC. Next is the insurance carrier for the LLC. I suggest a review of the township files to see just what was presented to them. I do not want to give any legal advise, but these are avenues you can explore with pockets. Let us not forget it all come down to money. Just because a corp. was closed doesn't mean the dance is over. You need to gather the fact! If this was landdevelopment there should have been an escrow acccount.