PCCA Bulletin Board

[dumb plumber]

Unless I missed a thread, what have the reprecussions of Allegheny Insp. Services & Steel City vs. North Union Township created in municipalities around the Commonwealth. Maybe everybody is waiting on appeal?

Anyone out there using/ or dealing with third party agencies other than a designated third party agency or municipal code official in opt-in municipalities?
In reading the case itself it only specifies inspections, but is mute on plan reviews etc. And how will the Municipal BCO deal with discrepancies if such are revealed during constrution or better after constrution?

Seems to me the courts have gutted the original intent of the UCC. Just trying to get some views on the subject.

[Near retirement]

That court decision went a long way towards proving how out of touch the Pennsylvania court system is with the laws that are on the books. I don't know of anyone (other than NorthUntion Township) who has had to deal with the issue yet, but it sure does open up a can of worms. I know that I, for one, am hoping that the decision is reversed, otherwise it will be a code free-for-all that will be totally unmanageable.

[rossdesigners]

I have read the opinion of Judge Friedman dated Dec, 06, 2006. And we must remember thay Lawyers wrote the UCC. He points out that the UCC states that municipalities can Hire third party agencys or hire someone to Adminsiter & Enforce the Code but not nessaraly be the sole inspector fot said municipality.

[Thomas F McCosby]

I haven't posted before, I guess I didn't have anything to say. The court case involving opening up inspections to competition will not accomplish what the PBA thinks it will. They want a code so everyone has to meet the same standards but want to be able to select their favorite inspector. Let me tell a little story (fairytale). Once there was a good inspector. He was qualified, experienced, cooperative, and yes even fairly priced. A builder hired him to inspect a 3500 sq ft house because his price was $100 less than his competition. The builder hoped to make $10,000 on this house. The inspector did all his work on time and without complaints. When he went to do the framing inspection he found that the electrician had drilled his holes 1 3/4" up from the bottom of the joist. Now the inspector told the builder that he would have to remove all the HVAC, plumbing, and wiring that was in the way and replace the floor joist so the code was met. The eletrician immediately declared bankruptcy. Now instead of a $10,000 profit the builder is facing a $50,000 loss, is forced into bankruptcy, his wife leaves him, his dog runs away, and no supplier will talk to him. But he must go on, so he get a nice customer to give him the material costs for a small addition. Now go ahead and lie to me and tell me the contractor will hire the same lowest priced inspector because he wants a quality job. Having competition among inspectors is like having competition among police. I'm not going to hire a cop who gives me tickets even if he is right. Competition is fine when contracts are being let by the community but not when it results in everyone having to break the law to get the work.

[Not Bob]

I am all for allowing the owner/architect/engineers retain any qualified TPA he or she desires. Owner/architects/engineers now hire any qualified testing or inspection agency they please and that seems to work. The issue here is "qualified TPA." Presently, if a municipality had a strict – read qualified TPA – and an owner did not want to comply, he might hire a less strict – read should not be certified – TPA. There also could be situations where the municipal TPA was less than capable and the architect want to deal with someone who was competent. That said, the problem is, too many whores are certified as TPAs. Testing labs agencies and inspection agencies are all (at least all I have known) qualified. There is oversight on their activities. There is little or no oversight on TPAs. Perhaps this is where we should start to correct a bad situation.

[The Captain]

Supreme Court Overturns Commonwealth Court Ruling on Inspections by Third-Party Agencies

On Friday, February 20, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the Commonwealth Court Decision (rendered on December 6, 2006) that allowed any certified third party agency to perform UCC inspections in an opt-in municipality, without working under contract with the municipality.

The effect of this decision is to preserve the means of enforcement provided for in existing law and regulation. An opt-in municipality may enforce the UCC by: use of its own employees; retaining (contracting with) one or more third party agencies; jointly enforcing with one or more other municipalities (using municipal employees or retaining one or more third party agencies); or, by contracting with another municipality for enforcement services.