Thread: Frankenstein's electrical panel?

Steve, I stated in my previous reply that this condo unit ownership was "paint inwards." The electrical panel is "behind the paint" and therefore owned by the condo association.

H.G., yes, I did mean electrical receptacles. My bad.

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

Steve, I stated in my previous reply that this condo unit ownership was "paint inwards." The electrical panel is "behind the paint" and therefore owned by the condo association.

H.G., yes, I did mean electrical receptacles. My bad.

Yes you did, but that is a strange situation. So what can you report on?

... someone drew on the wall with crayon?


seriously.


Aren't loose outlets behind the paint?


I've built out a number of condos and the unit owner was always responsible individually for anything that his unit needs. I've had situations where the unit owner wanted more power than the feed to his unit could supply. I know that everything was at his expense.

Regardless of who's expense or ownership it is an important item. I would make a note of it and a rec.

So let me ask you this;

If the person purchasing the condo wishes to move, remove or add a partition can it be done.

I'm sure approved plans, permits, board approvals and building fees and building rules may apply.

If you tell me no, my next question is; is this a rental? or a co-opertively owned building?

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

So let me ask you this;

If the person purchasing the condo wishes to move, remove or add a partition can it be done.

I'm sure approved plans, permits, board approvals and building fees and building rules may apply.

If you tell me no, my next question is; is this a rental? or a co-opertively owned building?

The answer is: It depends.

If the wall is not a common wall, and is not a chase or a wall containing common items, and is not fire-rated, which means that the wall is a partition within the condo and that is all that wall is, then the owner can remove it and take it down.

However, if it is a common wall, a chase, or a wall containing common items, then it would be fire-rated and the owner should not be doing anything to that wall as they will be affecting the fire-rating of the common wall (which is owned by the owner - the condo association).

One of the stranger constructions I have seen was were the electrical feeders all ran up a common wall in the middle of the condo, from the first floor electrical room to the second floor to the third floor to the fourth floor. That wall was fire-rated and anyone going into that wall could damage or cut through the PVC containing the feeders to each floor above (the fourth floor was the safest as that wall only contained their feeders).

Then there were the common walls containing the DWV piping, then the common walls containing the water piping, then the common walls containing the fire-sprinkler piping, there really was very few wall area which the owner could do anything with on those structures.

Of course you cannot move or remove something that can't be moved or removed or altered. That is the reason for approved plans and approved by the board (which usually involves the building's architect.

So, as I already knew, the answer is ... YES.

So why would one not be permitted to open a panel inside a unit?

Once again, I already know the answer is yes.

I'm disgusted at the completely unjustified comments by those that imply that Mrs. Sisson in anyway failed to meet the SOPs of either Maryland or generic ASHI.

She not only met the standards, and the exclusions and limitations (which are restrictive), the unit is a condominimum unit, formerly an apartment. Its electrical supply and maintenance of electrical system(s) is via building management. Athough implied "condo unit" inspected is currently a 'dwelling unit', that's an assumption, we've all made (in theory it may not be). We do not know if the building is solely multi-family or is of mixed occupancy. We DO know that electrical supply and maintenance is provided by building management - we've been told this by Mrs. Bob Sisson, the OP. We have also been advised that the building occupancy is other than solely the single condo unit.

Frankly, its an ASSUMPTION this door-containing face covers a panelboard in the first place. (i.e. in theory it *could* be a switchboard, and in further theory and unknown vintage of building or 'condo conversion' branch circuit disconnects which may or may not be exclusively serving the condo unit may be elsewhere, e.g. beyond the confines of the 'condo unit').

THERE IS NO METERED dedicated electrical service to just this condo unit, What is behind the branch circuit disconnects (front) of this panel front IS LIKELY NOT EXCLUSIVE to this condo unit occupancy, and likely NOT EXCLUSIVE to supplying SOLELY the branch circuit disconnects accessible at the FACE!!! (i.e. supplied by taps, access to other conductors in addition, etc.). It is under the exclusive ownership, supply, and control of the building ownership/maintenance.

Keep this phrase in mind, for example, at 2008 NEC Exception to 230.72(C) and 2008 NEC 240.24(B)(1):

"In a multiple-occupancy building where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management"


Nothing has been discussed to suggest there isn't "continuous management supervision", nor that there isn't a remote location which is accessible to an owner or other where a dedicated or a non-exclusive disconnect or group of disconnects is present. In either case - and even in neither case if the building & electrical supply system is of greater age, is there any requirement for same.

Dwelling Units are not required to have a service nor an exclusive main power feeder nor a singularly phased power feeder, nor individual metered power supply in multiple-occupancy buildings.

The State SOP does NOT require TRESSPASSING, it does NOT require inspection of any COMMON area, or COMMON BUILDING SYSTEM(S) or componant(s) on behalf of a dwelling unit inspection in multi-family (more than 4) or mixed-occupancy buildings. The LIMITATIONS expressly provide for this. THE UNIT does NOT have a "SERVICE". It is supplied by a non-exclusive, unmetered, unknown ratings, source of supply PROVIDED by the building, which may or may not be a dedicated secondary feeder(s) but more likely (secondary) tap(s).

The building may have multiple transformers, it may have a varried and complicated distribution system. The "service" is to the building not to the "condo unit".

As long as the occupant has access to branch disconnects or continuous management supervision, good enough. The unit owner or occupant does NOT have to have access or inspection behind the face of branch disconnects - and they do not have to be IN the unit itself - depending on vintage of the building and/or condo conversion from apartment.

The limitations and what the unit owner and/or occupnant may or may not do, alter, install, own and doesn't own, would be spelled out in the condo documents, rules, regulations, etc, which ownership and use is subject to, and applicable Law.

Finally, the "assumptions" that there must be ANY "fire-rated walls" (as Jerry Peck just declared two posts prior!!!) anywhere in the building are just that - assumptions, not facts. Containing the 'condo unit' of topic, is just that - erroneous assumptions. There has been NOTHING indicating the AGE of the building itself, the vintage of the establishment of the former apartment 'unit', nor the vintage of the conversion of the former 'apartment unit' to a 'condo unit' of unknown occupancy type, restriction, etc. Finally, it has not been disclosed WHERE in Maryland the 'condo unit' is located. Maryland has an interesting configuration of county authorities, city authorities, which are excluded from the state-adopted, and a LONG HISTORY of building and development which PRE-DATES even "electrification". We do NOT know the number of occupancy units, type of occupancy, vintage of building, description of building, NOTHING.

We could easily "guess" the building could easily be of pre-war II construction, unknown type, could have been broken up further to multiple apartments at some unknown time, and sometime later converted to condo late 70s or early 80s, heck IIRC some MD areas were still using decades old editions of heavily ammended NEC quite recently even, and not requiring any alterations of electrical systems for vintage apartment bldgs to condo conversions 30 yrs ago. Point being - unknown building history unknown description.

How does that adage go???..those ignorant of history being doomed.

Steve T,

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

What CAN be done does not equate to what MAY be done.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

H.G., The 4 unit section is to differentiate between residential, small commercial investment and that of large commercial. It has no bearing on a a particular unit in a condo association. It would pertinent if it was an inspection of the entire combined condo entity where there were more than 4 units or a building with more than 4 apartments. It differentiates between a home inspector and a commercial inspection. But I am sure you know that.

Nope. That is NOT correct. There is no such "commercial" distinction in the Maryland SOP, Code or regulation LIMITATIONS and EXCLUSIONS regarding same. There is no such "apartments" distinction in the SOPs either. Your assertions are false.

The limitations in the regulations to the Maryland SOP previously quoted SPEAK presicely to the circumstances Mrs. Sisson described. There is no requirement to remove the painted over and behind, improperly installed, questionably bonded, picture frame front to inspect a non-dedicated, non-unit COMMON system or COMMON componant BEYOND that which is subject to Unit Occupant (Home Owner) Inspection AND MAINTENANCE. In fact the licensed HI is (according to the circumstances, conditions, and fact-set provided by Mrs. Sisson) limited, from accessing/doing so without building management consent.

She is in no way compelled to access common building systems or common componants, and is in no way compelled to remove any installed FRONT of any panel, cabinet, or switchboard or hand-hold cover which does not have working space clearance, or that which is BEYOND the "paint" on the walls, ceiling, or floor covering demarkation confines of the individual condo unit, is sealed, or if for any reason in HER OPINION at the time of inspection, she determines a risk or potential compromise of safety, injury, or damaging building, system or componant, and that includes cutting paint, reaching over, moving personal property, (cutting a ldoes or may present itself by doing so, or would be violative of any law, regulation, rule, etc.

When the regulations expressly LIMIT one from doing so, AS does the exclusive supply, control, and maintenance provisions of occupancy and access, WITHOUT permission (and likely the attendance of building management representation), one MAY NOT do so.

Just as one may not enter and "nose around" areas posted or locked as RESTRICTED ACCESS, such as fire system panels, building system boiler rooms, transformer vaults, nor de"install" as in take covers off of integrated alarms, call stations/buttoms, or detection componants, tamper with sprinkler head caps and other aspects of integrated or not building systems or componant supression and containment systems, open integrated security annunciation/communication covers, remove riser panels, etc.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Steve T,

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

What CAN be done does not equate to what MAY be done.

Careful...

HG, your potificating aside... the original post was:.......
"Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before".

The original post said nothing about being a condo, old apartment, etc. All it said was..Didn't have the right tool, so I didn't open the panel.

The **** storm that followed brought other details to light, as well as a fair amount of conjecture and clairvoyance from some posters.

While the thread has revealed many new details about the subject property. I am still shocked that Ms Sisson does not carry a nut driver (appears to be either 7/16 or maybe 1/2") to remove bolts of this size that may be encountered on any given inspection.

You have brought up issues that I have, frankly never encountered. In my area we do not have such properties that everything "from paint in" belongs to the association. I have never seen such a property. Fair enough! I get it.

However, based on the original post, I hold my original position of being shocked that an inspector does not carry, what I consider BASIC inspection tools.

Originally Posted by Jack Feldmann

HG, your potificating aside... the original post was:.......
"Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before".

The original post said nothing about being a condo, old apartment, etc. All it said was..Didn't have the right tool, so I didn't open the panel.

OMG, Are you SERIOUSLY "going with that" falsehood????!!!!


Mrs. Sisson's ORGINAL POST clearly made plain the picture was taken at a Condominimum! Sheesh!! Double Sheesh!!!

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!

You've made a special point of harassing and condeming another HI continually, and don't have a CLUE as to WHAT the discussion is ABOUT.

You've repeatedly mischacterized the history and what has actually been said and by whom in this discussion thread. Your latest post's opening is a PRIME example.


She followed up quickly (and despite your assignations) at post #10, you ignored that as well.

YOU OWE MRS. SISSON APOLOGIES, as well as others. YOUR OVERSIGHT, YOUR IGNORANCE, YOUR ERROR.

You have brought up issues that I have, frankly never encountered. In my area we do not have such properties that everything "from paint in" belongs to the association. I have never seen such a property. Fair enough! I get it.

No you don't "get it" STILL. You've got it backwards. The unit owner owns from the paint upon the walls IN and the floor covering, up. The right to occupy the space within. The Condo Association owns what is behind the paint, the floor under the finish, the ceiling above the finish, the walls themselves. No point in discussing limited common elements if you're still backwards on who owns the wall itself.

Now you're claiming you've never seen a condominimum, hmmm,
"that's interesting". How would you know?

HG, Sorry, you are right on ONE point, she did say it was a condo (my oversight). However, I stand behind my comment about not having a proper tool to remove a cover.
According to her post: "Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it.", it sounds to me that she would have opened the cover if she had the correct tool.

Condos, townhomes, PUD's aside, not having the right tools on hand, to do a proper job, is my issue.

While the thread has taken a life of its own regarding condos, and paint, etc, it started with the simple post about not having the proper tool to open a panel and having to disclaim it.

You are right, I do apologize to Ms Sisson for not recognizing this was about a condo. I made the mistake of thinking the post was about the bolts on the panel cover and not having the proper tool to open it.

While we are at it, YOU should consider apologizing to this entire forum for your overbearing behavior.

Again, you ignoreThe contertop in front,The fact that the cover has been painted onto the wall,The markings/labels have been painted over,AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,The UNKNOWN ratings of what lies behindandThat the Panel and what lies behind is NOT SUBJECT to Home Owner Inspection OR MAINTENCE -- it is NOT property of the owner -- FOR GOOD REASON.YOU continue to OVERLOOK that removing this cover by other than "qualified persons" and those authorized to do so, without PPE and in compliance with 70E is UNWISE and UNSAFE.NOT a "simple" SFH "service"!!!

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Again, you ignoreThe contertop in front,The fact that the cover has been painted onto the wall,The markings/labels have been painted over,AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,The UNKNOWN ratings of what lies behindandThat the Panel and what lies behind is NOT SUBJECT to Home Owner Inspection OR MAINTENCE -- it is NOT property of the owner -- FOR GOOD REASON.YOU continue to OVERLOOK that removing this cover by other than "qualified persons" and those authorized to do so, without PPE and in compliance with 70E is UNWISE and UNSAFE.NOT a "simple" SFH "service"!!!

HG, YOU are the one that is ignoring. As Jack stated repatedly and as I stated repeatedly; this thread was about not opening the panel because lack of tool.

If I cared enough, perhaps I would start at the beginning of the thread and see who injected all of these fabricated possibilities and argued them as if, and insistent to be fact.

The inspector did not have a wrench. How did this turned into pages and pages of cut and pasted codes and SOPs and all this other conjecture.

The original post said nothing about a counter top being in the way, said nothing about painted shut, said nothing about not being owned by the unit owner or paint to paint. It just said: "Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it".

Yes, it did say: "But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before".

HG, Have you ever seen anything other than the original screws on a panel? And if you ever did, did that in itself stop you from opening a panel?

"Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!" Since there are no security screws, I don't agree with this thought.

It did mention the unit was a condo, but having inspected, built, rebuilt, bought and sold a number of condos, I can tell you that the fact that the unit is a condo says NOTHING regarding any inspection restrictions.

As far as the bolts are concerned, they are not at all "security" and offer no explanation or clue that they should not be removed to inspect. In my opinion, it look like someone lost the originals and replaced them with what we see.

How this thread grew into this complicated, ranting and raving I do not understand.

If using ALL UPPER CASE is an indication of yelling, what does ALL UPPER CASE, OVER SIZED, BOLD, RED indicate?

I do feel bad how this thread keeps going on and on, as Welmeod may feel that this is all about her: it really is not. She simply didn't have a tool. I'm sure this has already been corrected. We have all gone through this and from time to time will go through it again.


Also, please explain your "ask a stupid question" remark.

She's told you there was a countertop in front.
She's told you (and its obvious by the photo as well) that the panel was did not meet the crieteron for opening, I've quoted twice that definition as per Maryland SOPs.
She's told you now twice as to who supplies power, at whos expense, and who owns, controls, inspects, and maintains the entirety of the electrical supply and distribution system to branch circuit for the condo unit.
The panel cover is not one for the homeowner inspection and maintenance. Nothing beyond the face of the switches or breakers themselves.
She's even told you that building maintenance has been contacted to replace the faulty receptacles and to incorporate GFCI protection in bathroom and kitchen receptacles.

If you don't know the difference between "can" and "may" I suggest you look it up.

The picture was posted on the first post. She's posted what, now four times, three of which confirming the obvious, and having to justify her concluding sentance in the original post, for those "without a clue". Get one.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

She's told you there was a countertop in front.
She's told you (and its obvious by the photo as well) that the panel was did not meet the crieteron for opening, I've quoted twice that definition as per Maryland SOPs.She's told you now twice as to who supplies power, atwhos expense, and who owns, controls, inspects, and maintains the entirety of the electrical supply and distribution system to branch circuit for the condo unit.
The panel cover is not one for the homeowner inspection and maintenance. Nothing beyond the face of the switches or breakers themselves.
She's even told you that building maintenance has been contacted to replace the faulty receptacles and to incorporate GFCI protection in bathroom and kitchen receptacles.

If you don't know the difference between "can" and "may" I suggest you look it up.

The picture was posted on the first post. She's posted what, now four times, three of which confirming the obvious, and having to justify her concluding sentance in the original post, for those "without a clue". Get one.

.
..........
I Love Lucy: Ricky Spelling Lesson - YouTube
.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

HG, YOU are the one that is ignoring. As Jack stated repatedly and as I stated repeatedly; this thread was about not opening the panel because lack of tool.

Steve(n),

I don't care how many times you might post such an assertion, simply doesn't "make it so", and no matter what you might think your assignations as to Mrs. Sisson's professionalism, or proper execution of this or any home inspection is completely OFF the MARK, UNJUSTIFIED, and OFF-BASE.


No, that's not what this topic discussion was "about". That's what you, Jack, and Garry tried to turn and twist it into in your idiotic "slam" fest.

YOU - STEVEN TURETSKY, and JACK FELDMANN and GARRY SORRELLS owe Licensed Home Inspector Mrs. Sisson, your SINCERE apologies.

The topic discussion was "about": Exactly and precisely what Mrs. Sisson Posted & included a photograph of.

She's contributed several posts on this discussion thread. YOU just can't seem to grasp what she has many times now provided. She's told you things that others have pointed out, and yet you still dispute what she has told you herself, many times.

When will you get your head out of your @$$ !!!!????!!!!

When circumstances and conditions are "telling you" to KEEP OUT, or DON'T DO IT, or $hut the 4uck Up! There is generally a good reason to PAY ATTENTION.

You owe the Lady yet ANOTHER (this time be genuine and stop justifying yourself) APOLOGY, for your latest response to her (directed to YOU) post, and your disgusting, unprofessional, continuing attack upon Mrs. Sisson in subsequent posts.

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!

Note: She named the photo "LagBoltPanel.jpg"

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

I couldn't determine the manufacturer as both the outside AND the inside of the door was painted. The unit used to be an apartment, so there was no separate meter (condo fee included all utilities... no furnace or water heater either). If I can't open something with a screwdriver or nut driver, I don't open it. Like a previous poster said, "readily accessible."

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

Yes, there was a counter under the panel, which would have made it more difficult to access it.

It's been quite interesting following this whole thread. I'm learning a lot... especially that one needs to have a thick skin to post!

There were other electrical issues in the condo (loose outlets, complete lack of GFCIs) that I had already recommended evaluation by an electrician.

Since this particular condo ownership was "paint inwards", the wiring/plugs/etc was the responsibility of the condo association, so the seller was going to arrange for repairs to be made prior to closing.

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

Steve, I stated in my previous reply that this condo unit ownership was "paint inwards." The electrical panel is "behind the paint" and therefore owned by the condo association.

H.G., yes, I did mean electrical receptacles. My bad

You've gone on yet again without having read her second-to-the-last post in your directed and inppropriate response to her last post.

Your attempts to re-write and misdirect this discussion thread so as to "bash" and "slam" Mrs. Sisson (along with others) is UNPROFESSIONAL, Uncalled for, INAPPROPRIATE, violates the ethical behavior of professional HIs, the rules of this board, and dammit, is completely UNJUSTIABLE and INEXCUSABLE. The "problem" is not Mrs. Sisson's, it is YOURS and YOUR 'board wars' commrades-in-arms' compulsive myopic (and otherwise challenged and/or impaired) continued participation.

Welmoed, this is not about you or your modus operendi anymore, so please ignore. HG has taken a stand and will now defend that position by resorting to name calling until we all stop posting.

Suppose the deadfront is not sealed with paint and is readily accessible. Should we open an electrical panel in a condo unit if we are told that panel is property of the condo association?
Of course we will open it. It is what we do to protect our clients from evil.

The existence of the countertop was not confirmed by the OP until post #57.

From the original post #1,

Found this at a condo inspection today. Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it. But really? Bolts? Never seen them used on a panel before. Guess the condo association really, really didn't want owners to mess with the wiring!

One would certainly expect comments to be made about not having a tool to remove a common fastener type.

HG, perhaps you should spend some time re-reading THE ORIGINAL POST!
"She's told you there was a countertop in front.
She's told you (and its obvious by the photo as well) that the panel was did not meet the crieteron for opening, I've quoted twice that definition as per Maryland SOPs.
She's told you now twice as to who supplies power, at whos expense, and who owns, controls, inspects, and maintains the entirety of the electrical supply and distribution system to branch circuit for the condo unit.
The panel cover is not one for the homeowner inspection and maintenance. Nothing beyond the face of the switches or breakers themselves.
She's even told you that building maintenance has been contacted to replace the faulty receptacles and to incorporate GFCI protection in bathroom and kitchen receptacles."

HOW MUCH OF THIS STUFF WAS IN THE ORIGINAL POST??????? I'll go ahead and answer...none of it.

You have highjacked this thread and taken it as a cause of your own, repeatedly ignoring several comments about what the original post was about.

Oh wait, you won't bother to re-read anything. You have your emotional and intellectual blinders on so tight that you can't see beyond your own bloated sense of superiority. Misguided I might add.

I'm done with this thread. I won't bother to check back and see another of your large print colored rants.
Peace!

I figured I would get my own "Expert opinion" on this whole situation. At a local ASHI event today, Bob spoke with a local Master Inspector (county code inspector, ICC multi-discipline inspector, ASHI ACI, Master Electrician, etc., etc.) for his opinion. His first words were that the panel had been modified and was not as it was submitted for certification. If the original screws no longer fit, the panel box should be replaced. As for irregular screws, he said, if it was on a code inspection, they just failed; call me back (and pay the re-inspection fee) when I can use the tools I am supposed to use to inspect it. He said he wasn't going to argue with something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. He was quite adamant about not wasting time with something that was clearly wrong.

I am very comfortable with my decision not to open the panel. I have no idea how long those bolts were; whether they were lag bolts or machine bolts; if I removed them, I faced the possibility of not being able to reinstall the panel. The counter wasn't a huge obstacle (although it did make the panel less accessible). And the panel wasn't the owner's property or responsibility.

No, I don't carry a huge assortment of tools. I have a nut driver and a flat and phillips screwdriver. I do carry a razor blade to cut around painted-over panels. I would never dream of cutting through a padlock!! I am a guest in someone else's home; I'm not going to do anything that could damage their property. That's not my job!

You all can continue to argue, but I'm done with this thread.

That is very nice that you have another good excuse, albeit different than the original post.

If I owe you an apology (I don't think I do) for treating you any way other than as an equal, you have it, and I will be sure to treat you otherwise in the future... if that is what you want.

Don't be upset with HG either. He is a vulgar and pompous old fool that has no life, and likes to come off like a know it all. If he didn't have this forum to (try to) come off like an authority... he would have no place. I usually don't read most of his posts, because he is so long winded and boring.

Everyone tries to speak to him like a gentleman and intelligently, but he makes it difficult. I understand why some folks say such nasty things to him.

He thinks he is an authority. He behaves as if to disagree with him is like disagreeing with Jesus Christ... how dare we even think of having a different opinion than him. He should get his head out of his @$$ !!!!????!!!! and $hut the 4uck Up!. He is disgusting and unprofessional. Perhaps he is off his meds.

He has hijacked this thread and denies it, but yet accuses others of the same. Now he is twisting this whole thread as an attack on you. Whereas I see many responses in this thread, he is the only one that has been on the attack.

.
Secure the Women and Children, Release The Hounds
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQCqqnZma_Y&feature=related
.

Welmoed,

I'm not picking on you, just trying to clarify something:

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

Since this particular condo ownership was "paint inwards", the wiring/plugs/etc was the responsibility of the condo association, so the seller was going to arrange for repairs to be made prior to closing.

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

And the panel wasn't the owner's property or responsibility.

Every condo I've ever inspected is considered to be that the owner owns "paint-to-paint", this is because so much of the drywall may be part of a common wall or a fire-resistance rated wall and should not be altered in any way without the specific permission of the condo association.

That said, the "paint-to-paint" ownership thing, the electrical in each condo, starting with the panel and including all branch circuit wiring, receptacles, switches, lighting outlets, etc., is considered to be owned by the owner ... even though those items are 'outside' the "paint-to-paint" wording.

In many condos, the owners are also responsible for the exterior windows and doors, but seldom is the door to the common hallway considered the owners as it is part of the fire-resistance rating of the common corridor.

Typically, the exterior doors and windows start out as being owned by the condo association as they are a component of the exterior structure, however, as soon as there is a leak, the condo association seems to go 'Oh, the exterior windows and doors? Those belong to you. If they are leaking you are responsible.' Of course, the next thing that when an owner wants to change the exterior windows and doors, the condo association says 'Wait, those belong to us, you can't change them.' - until the condo association is told 'Okay, the windows and door are leaking, when can you replace them - next week?' - to which the condo association responds 'Oh, wait, I forgot, the exterior windows and doors belong to you, just submit to the architectural committee the windows and doors you want to use so we can approve the style, color of the frame, and color of the glass.'

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Bingo.

Hello I'm a new member to this site. I've been a (manufactured) home inspector for over 25 years. Maybe my experience doesn't count in this forum, however, I just have to say I've never seen such a childish display of a group of supposed professionals in my life. To be fair there were several people and comments that appeared to be helpful. When it got to name calling and other such nonsense I just started laughing.

I don't know if I can learn anything from this group or not. This is why I tend to stay in my own world of manufactured homes.

I'll just go back in to the dark and see if I've started anymore fireworks.

By the way I do carry all the tools necessary to access a painted, caulked, wallpapered, or however covered panel as well as various special tools for my particular industry. I also ask permission if to open it if the panel is plastered in or whatever in case I damage something. I don't want the liability either.

Peace out!

I carry a Milwaukee 12V driver in the bag. In my pocket I have 3 driver bits: #2 phillips, #2 square drive, and a straight slot. Those bits are rubber banded with 1/4" and 5/16" hex diver bits. Those 5 small bits let me open 99% of enclosures and hatch covers. I also carry a 3/8, 7/16, and 1/2" hex driver bits in the bag for sump covers and odd things that pop up. A 6-in-1 driver tool goes in my pocket. A leatherman tool, utility knife, and a medium pair of channel locks go in the bag.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Yes, I use a razor to cut through paint, wallpaper, and (you forgot) caulk.
I have not seen one "plastered" over.
I have seen some located:
in a kitchen cabinet filled with cans and other stuff,
inside a closet covered by clothes,
and behind a refrigerator.
Those, I did not inspect.

Caulk, Texture, Wallpaper, Paint, Lag Bolts, FPE, Whatever - it gets removed and looked at by me everytime if I can get to it. Tool Town, Harbor Freight, Wally's - all good sources of inexpensive tool sets.

Originally Posted by Greg Filian

I've never seen such a childish display of a group of supposed professionals in my life. To be fair there were several people and comments that appeared to be helpful. When it got to name calling and other such nonsense I just started laughing.
Peace out!

Hi Greg,

You are right.

I hope you realize that I cut and pasted some of my words from HG prior post. If I could rephrase one sentence it would be;

When HG uses expressions like

Originally Posted by HG

get your head out of your @$$ !!!!????!!!!

and

Originally Posted by HG

$hut the 4uck Up

He is behaving

Originally Posted by HG

disgusting and unprofessional

HG, I really don't think you are a fool, but when you behave this way you are behaving foolishly. I do not like when people speak that way, I do not speak to people that way, and will certainly not accept being spoken to that way.

Greg,

Keep laughing

Peace out!

This response is not a an attempt to have H.G. dwell on his parsing of words or to elicited further thread drift and I apologize for what may come from this post.

The purpose is to clarify for forum members in other states, so as not to leave them with misinformation. I tried and failed, at lease for one reader, the idea (thoughts) behind the MD Lic SOP where it relates to the number of units that the license is intended to cover. The MD HI license was an attempt to regulate the Residential HI industry. The law needed to define the scope of the license. Thus they made a differentiation in buildings to be inspected. Residential buildings having more than four dwelling units are beyond the scope of the MD HI Lic. The license is directed at residential buildings, where there may be 4 apartments or dwelling units that comprise the structure. In MD we have homes that were built as single family homes and have remained that way. We also have homes that were converted from a single family to multi family dwelling units. We also have homes that were built as multi family (dwelling Unit) structures. Often the owner would live in one unit and rent the others out. Other times the property would be used solely as a multiple apartment (dwelling unit) investment property. So as to differentiate between small and large apartment (dwelling unit) buildings, there was created the one to four unit dwelling tipping point. Over time buildings in MD have been converted from a solely owned structure to that of a divided structure with condominium distinctions as to how the portions of the property are held individually and jointly. In MD Condo is more a type of property ownership and not a design type.

MD HI Lic law does not speak to the classification of a building as commercial or its zoning designation. I failed to define the reference to the underlying concepts and purpose of the law. And the law itself. Residential can have two connotations in MD. Residential can refer to places where people live and also be a Zoning status for types of permitted use. I was using commercial in the context of the owners purpose in owning a multi unit property. Owning a property with multiple dwelling units that are leased is for the potential return on the investment and may be considered a commercial enterprise. The main point is that there was a distinction made between the number of dwelling units covered in the HI Lic. To differentiate the scope of the HI as a residential inspector and not an comercial inspector for 5 or more dwelling units in apartment buildings which are regulated much differently. As side note. The MD HI Lic Law was later used by individual counties in regulating apartments (dwelling units) in their jurisdiction.

I realize that I may have been taken over by the Dark Side is this long dissertation. I will strive to resist the gravitational pull from the black whole in the future. Again I apologize for what may follow by others that seem only look for or create points to argue and rant over.

I carry some basic tools for instances like this. I owe it to my clients to give a thorough inspection whenever possible. I even carry a bolt cutter (non basic) for those exterior main electrical panels that have locks on them here in Arizona.

Lack of tools is one thing but lag screws would throw up a red flag to ponder if the panel can be opened safely. They have pointed ends and sharp threads. Everytime I see screws that don't appear to be the correct one brings back the memory when my associate started backing out a screw and it cut through the SE cable cover and exploded like a stick of dynamite. If I saw lags I would think hard before I pulled those screws for safety reasons.

At what point are we to say it may be a personal safety hazard to remove the screws/bolts/nails/whatever that secures a deadfront to a service panel? I know that is not the original reason posted for not accessing the panel interior but it may have been in Welmoed's best interests that she did not have the correct tool to open the panel. Lag bolts to secure a deadfront cover? I probably would have attempted to remove them but I would probably have been sweating the entire time.

Now I'm not a by-the-book SOP guy and more often than not I go beyond the SOPs. But any SOP will state in some way or another that the inspector does not have to do something if he/she feels it will put them at risk. We are to incorporate our own personal experience and convictions into our inspections. And if somebody feels removing lag bolts to open a service panel is unsafe, then so be it. I won't argue that point. And again, Welmoed not having the necessary tool on hand to remove those lags may not have been a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Mike Schulz

Lack of tools is one thing but lag screws would throw up a red flag to ponder if the panel can be opened safely. They have pointed ends and sharp threads. Everytime I see screws that don't appear to be the correct one brings back the memory when my associate started backing out a screw and it cut through the SE cable cover and exploded like a stick of dynamite. If I saw lags I would think hard before I pulled those screws for safety reasons.

And rightly you should!

Originally Posted by Nick Ostrowski

At what point are we to say it may be a personal safety hazard to remove the screws/bolts/nails/whatever that secures a deadfront to a service panel? I know that is not the original reason posted for not accessing the panel interior but it may have been in Welmoed's best interests that she did not have the correct tool to open the panel. Lag bolts to secure a deadfront cover? I probably would have attempted to remove them but I would probably have been sweating the entire time.

Now I'm not a by-the-book SOP guy and more often than not I go beyond the SOPs. But any SOP will state in some way or another that the inspector does not have to do something if he/she feels it will put them at risk. We are to incorporate our own personal experience and convictions into our inspections. And if somebody feels removing lag bolts to open a service panel is unsafe, then so be it. I won't argue that point. And again, Welmoed not having the necessary tool on hand to remove those lags may not have been a bad thing.

Agree with you except for two things, what was covered in the first post, and that the cabinet front does NOT enclose a service.

There was NO good reason for anthe inspector to open this LIVE panel. Especially not without conferring and debriefing from Building Management, and consent. Was entirely appropriate to disclaim, defer and document.

Again, this is not a service panel, there is NO emergency, and no good reason to not have consulted building management (even under separate appointment) for safety provisions or to have safely de-energized this panel before such a risky maneuver, and/or to have a NFPA 70E defined "qualified person" address the problem, correct the conditions. Which is of course the basic principles of 70E in the first place.

There is no reason to invade a LIVE and unknown rated series panel, which is not a simple service (single phase AC less than 300V) by an HI, especially with obviously incorrect fasteners, adulterated cabinet with labeling & diagrams painted over, containing unknown Live conductors, taps & risers of with known & unknown complications in a cavelier manner, questionable bonding, uninsulated (egad power!) tools, and without proper PPE and without qualified knowledge, specific to the installation, and qualifed training for the conditions, which includes gathering and assessing the information to determine the degree of hazard and protection required.

The conditions cited previously in addition to the "unknowns" clearly elevate the potential hazard well beyond a 2, which is a level of hazard beyond a regular SFH "service panel" stupendous for an HI to engage in ALONE, and completely unreasonable to engage in the first place when the hazard level can be reduced to zero by simply engaging Building Management in a planned appointment for a non-emergent but necessary correction and de-energization of the panel supply prior to opening.

There is no "proper tool" for removing "improper" equipment. Metal fragments from threadings, cutting insulation, cutting or displacing grounding, multitude of unknowns, including the obvious age/vintage indicators of the installation which includes lesser clearances, spacings, fill spaces and bending radius, and calculated (now known to be flawed) not tested ratings for that time period.

Title of post was clearly both humorous and retorical: "Frankenstein's electricl panel?" Title of photo was indeed "LagBoltPanel" Picture depicts conditions including fastener heads not correct size or type fastener. Condo was the fifth word of the original post. Simple paragraph with aprapos conclusionary sentance.

Clearly the information was provided in the first post.

For those who are unfamiliar, NFPA 70E is a relatively short document, just a few short chapters, and may be viewed on-line for free (must have to register at the site and sign in) in read only mode. I suggest those who don't "get it" should do so.

Dead inspectors write no reports.

BTW, what I'd expect and suspect based on circumstances described by the OP in first & 10th post is a high-leg system (240/120 3-phase, 4-wire).

Especially as location, and as "the condo association" and formerly the "apartments" were/is supplying unmetered electric, has responsibility for all beyond the paint & covers regarding the electrical distribution system, and supplies power as well as the heating and hot water, etc.

Despite the ESP crud from others (i.e. Jerry Peck, Garry Sorrells, etc.), I wouldn't expect 208/120Y distribution system for multi-occupancy residential of that vintage and circumstances described - too dificult to balance phase loads between multi-occupants purely Lighting & appliance loads/use & building systems wouldn't expect to find same EVER in the instant situation. AFAIK Peck doesn't know beans about Delta. He obviously doesn't understand much about wye systems, as he writes it backwards, and presumed to declare I was in anyway infering such regarding the instant topical discussion of Mrs. Sisson's subject topic.

Finally, the watson is "high", other "medication" crud, the "incompetant inspector" "lacking proper tool", "failure", etc. crud directed t Mrs. Sisson, I find just as, if not more, offensive, crass, etc. than @$$ Steve(n), etc. And as far as the hijacking allegtions, three or four of you started the pile-up AND the crud long before and many more posts before I entered the discussion, and "first blood" was drawn by others LONG before I "went downtown".

A couple of things, 1) What make of panel? My vote is I-T-E Pushmatic.

2) A 120/240V 3Ø system is a waste in multi-family unless there are 3Ø loads, a 208Y/120V 3Ø system will be a better choice, as each unit can be tapped of 2 of the three legs, A-B, B-C, C-A & so on.. Which cannot be done w/ 120/240V 3Ø.


PS, since this is the internet, please read the link & read the last line at least 10 times.....

http://www.xecutionrs.com/files/-xec...laint-form.pdf

Hi, ALL &

Up here - B.C., Canada - we're no longer permitted to open a cover, opn an energized panel unless the home is vacant & can be safely de-energized, or the homeowner has permitted us to shut-down. Only exception would be when wearing a blast-sheild & full-length flameproof clothing.

NO exceptions.

This was a specific Directive form the B.C Safety Authority...

All HI's should be aware of this.

Cheers !

Originally Posted by Glenn Duxbury

Hi, ALL &

Up here - B.C., Canada - we're no longer permitted to open a cover, opn an energized panel unless the home is vacant & can be safely de-energized, or the homeowner has permitted us to shut-down. Only exception would be when wearing a blast-sheild & full-length flameproof clothing.

NO exceptions.

This was a specific Directive form the B.C Safety Authority...

All HI's should be aware of this.

Cheers !

You got that in writing?

Would you post it here?

This was kicked around a while ago. WorkSafe BC does not want us endangering ourselves because they provide insurance for job loss and they, like any typical insurance company, do not wish to pay out.

The BC Safety Authority recognizes that we provide an important service, namely discovering safety issues before they become tragic accidents.

The upshot was that we will continue to visually inspect the interiors of E panels, without poking around in them because that is work. If we get shocked to sh$t inspecting a live panel, there will be no compensation. Anyway, that is my interpretation.

Originally Posted by Jack Feldmann

Here is the tool holder I made so I have bits handy. By the way, my idea was published in this months ShopNotes magazine.
Even if it was a FPE, I would probably still attempt to open it.
Sorry about the three photos, I was getting the image is too large error message.

Jack, Looks like a great idea to keep a few sockets and bits together. I would only make one comment. From my experience, using a power tool to remount, or open or close something can get you into trouble faster than you can say "swat that fly!" You need that "feel" you get from a hand tool to determine if something is about to break, is starting to cross thread, or that you need to stop NOW.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

I have a crescent wrench and slip joint pliers in the truck. Don't carry them around on every inspection because should not need them.

I would throw out the slip joint pliers. They tend to chew up things. Compare them to using a Stilson Wrench instead of a Monkey Wrench on a chrome plumbing fitting. With one wrench you can't tell if someone was there, but with the other---you sure can! Use the correct socket or socket driver to prevent scaring. Have you ever seen the TV ad from Sears with a super pliers that does everything? If you closely at the last frame---it's chewed up what it was taking off(quick cut to announcer)!

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Right. They appear to be lag screws, which usually go into wood. That looks like an old fuse box, so I wonder what those screws are going into, maybe past the box into the studs. I carry a small crescent wrench which I use occasionally, and a few nutdrivers, too small for those heads. I would have gone out to my truck, where I have a larger crescent wrench, a few spanners, water pump pliers, vise grips, hammer, shovel, etc etc.

A simple multitool can come in handy as well.

Just cut them off with a gas axe,tell the customer everything inside is shagged.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Right. They appear to be lag screws, which usually go into wood. That looks like an old fuse box, so I wonder what those screws are going into, maybe past the box into the studs. I carry a small crescent wrench which I use occasionally, and a few nutdrivers, too small for those heads. I would have gone out to my truck, where I have a larger crescent wrench, a few spanners, water pump pliers, vise grips, hammer, shovel, etc etc.

A simple multitool can come in handy as well.

Just cut them off with a gas axe,tell the customer everything inside is shagged.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

"....Don't be upset with HG either. He is a vulgar and pompous old fool that has no life, and likes to come off like a know it all. If he didn't have this forum to (try to) come off like an authority... he would have no place. I usually don't read most of his posts, because he is so long winded and boring....

Steve, for comedy relief I look forward to HG's posts----they certainly add a little flavor to the conversations......

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Welmoed Sisson

You all can continue to argue, but I'm done with this thread.

Come on, this is a discussion, not an argument.

Rick,
Don't loose track of the fact that the thread "discussion" started from the statement:

"...Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it....." and as usual evolves in a different subset "discussion". Then the OP made a change up to the reasons for not opening a panel.

Some think that anything that doesn't produce a positive warm comment is argumentative. And if you actually disagree then it is truly perceived as argumentative and a personal attack. Many forget that any discussion is a give an take of arguments for and against a topic.

Arguing, with so much political correctness going on, has has sadly become deemed bad.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Rick,
Don't loose track of the fact that the thread "discussion" started from the statement:

"...Didn't have the tool necessary to open it so had to disclaim it....." and as usual evolves in a different subset "discussion". Then the OP made a change up to the reasons for not opening a panel.

Some think that anything that doesn't produce a positive warm comment is argumentative. And if you actually disagree then it is truly perceived as argumentative and a personal attack. Many forget that any discussion is a give an take of arguments for and against a topic.

Arguing, with so much political correctness going on, has has sadly become deemed bad.

That is why I started using the term "debate" quite some time ago. After all, a "debate" is where two or more parties put forth their "arguments" for their case, and those "arguments" evolve into what are, presumably, 'the best argument' for their side of the "debate".

I carry mini vice grips on my belt at all times during inspections. I would have removed the bolts to see what was inside. However, I'm not going to judge Welmoed for taking the decision she did.

Now, I avoid disclaimers as much as possible. However, disclaimers are sometimes needed and it's up to the individual inspector on site to decide when they are necessary within the practices they typically do. When the decision to make a disclaimer is taken, exactly how it's worded can make a difference in serving the best interests of the client.

I'm interested in knowing exactly how the disclaimer was worded. Getting that right can be useful to any of us at some point in time.

Originally Posted by Garry Blankenship

My guess is that panel has been converted into a junction box. When that happens the guts that often support the cover are removed and "different" fasteners are often used. The real panel is likely somewhere else. Was there another panel in the space - - - near by most likely ?

If it was a j-box you would open the cover and see the splices.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Garry Blankenship

My guess is that panel has been converted into a junction box. When that happens the guts that often support the cover are removed and "different" fasteners are often used. The real panel is likely somewhere else. Was there another panel in the space - - - near by most likely ?

If it was a j-box you would open the cover and see the splices.

With a new year comes new insight. A new theory; it is a wall safe. We all know that thieves would not consider carrying a socket set or tools for such a situation. They would see it painted and having a bolt head and say to themselves "it must belong to the condo association and not the resident".

Wasn't it a US Congressman Jefferson that had hidden money in the freezer. When he should have hidden it in the service panel. William J. Jefferson corruption case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a few times replaced panel cover srews with 10-32 bolts when I ran out of panel screws. As long as they are not pointed like a self tapper or lag bolt they are just as safe and don't change the accessability of the panel. But everyone has their own comfort level and that should be respected.