On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:18 +0100, Howard Winter wrote: > Jack, > > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:15:24 -0400, Jack Smith wrote: > > > Not the same situation. The county decided promptly, once asked to > > review the case, that the permit was issued in error. By then, the > > building expansion was completed. (I think it may have been at the time > > an occupancy permit was requested, and it was not granted due to the > > complaint.) > > Surely in this case the home owner was granted a permit, and did the permitted work, so he is not to blame. Wrong. Just because you get a permit doesn't mean they've checked to ensure you've complied with every building code. The permit simply means the work can begin. It is up to the builder to ensure they are complying with the code. > The person/department who issued the > permit is in error, so it should be their responsibility to correct - and pay for - that error? No. It is NOT their responsibility to ensure every bit of the work being done will conform with code. > And was the neighbour not given the chance to object > before the permit was issued? (This happens here - I have received a notice from the council about an application to build a rail freight terminal > about half a mile away - it tells me how long I have to raise any objections - if I miss that boat, I don't get another chance). So you are expecting the neighbour to check to ensure what is being built is according to code? While I deplore the situation this person is in, unfortunately the only blame can be laid at them. They did not conform to code. As builder, it was their responsibility to ensure the work WOULD conform to code. The neighbour deserves NO blame IMHO. Even if the neighbour had said nothing, it is very likely that eventually when the house would have been sold the problem would have been discovered and the addition would have had to be removed anyways. TTYL -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist