4 ms·
> systematically checking that the rules have been followed (I believe building inspections work like this) For residential, building inspectors certainly don'
by ethbr0 3y ago
> systematically checking that the rules have been followed (I believe building inspections work like this)
For residential, building inspectors certainly don't work systematically, at least in the US.
When and what they check is pretty spotty.
- gpm 3y agoI could be wrong about the example entirely, I've never actually been involved in that stage of construction (or most other stages). My understanding of building inspections in Toronto, Canada was that they were supposed to be reasonable systematic and thorough even for houses, but I'm definitely not a reliable source. Even if my impression was right I definitely have no reason to assume it applies elsewhere. Anyways, hopefully the point came across anyways even if the example was sub-optimal.
- ethbr0 3y agoI clarify because, at least in the US (Canadian laws may differ), afaik building inspection is buyer beware. If an inspector checked something and if they noted the flaw then it would have been addressed. Or they could have just not checked, not noted, or missed it. Same with home inspectors, who are under no legal liability except for the most gratuitous and obvious flaws. Which is contrary to how most people assume the system works when they're buying a new-build house.