I am with ILPlumber if its something small (and I dont have my code book with me, and I always carry a set of code books in my truck) anyway if I cant open the book to show the inspector then I comply. And that clause is in the UPC where an administrative authority has discrettion, and your lucky the head inspector is a good guy because if they are stricter then the code you ussually never win the argument. I try to befriend my inspectors and let them know I know the code the last thing I want is for a stress full inspection.
That clause does not give them arbitrary rights. They cannot simply make up something out of the blue and make you comply.
It means they have some flexibility on HOW and WHERE they will apply the code.
Imagine, if we all stopped putting up with the BS, everyone would be better off. The inspectors are mostly just trying to do their job. What is their job? Enforcing the code. What is our job? Following the code. So theoretically, we are both on the same team.
There is no need for animosity as long as both parties approach it from that angle. Yeah, we might get irritated with each other now and then. But if we would all check a bit of ego at the door everything would run smoothly.
I don't have to be right. Neither should my inspector have to be right. We should both focus on compliance with the minimum codes.
As an employer, wouldn't you folks appreciate it if you got a friendly tip that an employee was screwing up in his duties? I would. So should any public servant.
Understand, I am not talking about making an arse out of yourself on differing interpretations. Too many of us do that. And that makes the inspectors eager to bust our you-know-whats on the next job. On those issues, I will comply while engaging them in debate. I will tell them, "Look, I disagree with how you are interpreting this. But hey, it's no big deal. I will do it your way for now."
But I am talking about stuff pulled out of their butts. Like this instance. This is not misinterpreting a vague part of the code. It's making up crap because of ignorance, then refusing to look up the actual code.
Or another example was the guy busting me for not using a 6" liquid filled gauge for my DWV test. Hello? There is NO SUCH requirement. He got a reprimand in his file over that case. (It was a lot more involved than just the gauge.) Without knowing my name, the locals praised me as the guy who made ----- back down and got ----- in trouble. It was in the plumbing supply houses and the electical supply houses and on the job sites. Everyone hates this guy.
Now when ----- inspects my jobs he does it with a meek attitude and goes by the book. The first time he was almost acting like he was scared to say anything. I told him right then, "-----, don't be scared to call me on violations. I WANT you to do your job. I will never get mad at you for calling me on a violation. All I ask is no BS and if I disagree that we can look it up and work it out." Since then he has caused no trouble.
I did screw up when he pulled his stunts. He was looking at a gauge where the even numbers were marked with a numeral and the odd numbers were marked by a heavy line. Plus all the fractional pound marks of course. I had 5 psi on it and he told me he could not tell what it was as there was no number there. I asked him which number was beteen 4 and 6. He said "I can't tell because it's not on your gauge." I replied "If you can't tell that then maybe you need to be flipping burgers instead of inspecting my jobs."
True, but I should have never said it. But he had pulled so much BS that moring I had HAD it. I immediately apologized and he left. The first thing I did when meeting with the bosses was to confess that and apologize for saying it. I told them I believed it, but I should not have said it.
Anyways, each to his own. Just think about whether your approach helps the problem or contributes to it.
