OIR Meeting 12/6/11

[John Shishilla]

Here is the Docs from Wayne, more from the next post

[John Shishilla]

The rest of the file

[John Shishilla]

Anyone else going to the meeting?

[Bruce M. Graham]

John,
If your coming up 75 I'll have my thumb out

[Nick Hernandez]

Originally Posted by jshishilla

Anyone else going to the meeting?

As I am not able to get into attics because of my knees, I must ask, are the re-inspections subject to the same criterias?

I am thankful to the dynamics behind this injustice that I'm out of this.....

[Michael J. Meeker]

Well I reviewed the form. Thanks for posting it John.

God help us all. Instead of getting easier and making more sense it has gotten more confusing and you will hardly ever find 2 people agreeing on what it should be on the same house. It is just plain asinine. All of the referring back and forth from question to question is ridiculous. Why do they care if some windows "Appear" to be something? Do any of you think that will give someone a credit? Figuring out the roof stuff will be interesting. and under first glance I do not even understand what they want to classify it as flat.

I assume it is a done deal and this is what we are getting but I cannot express my displeasure enough.

How about making a form that everyone could "CLEARLY" understand? This thing is insane and will result in more problems than you can imagine.

Do any of you actually think you are going to get paid more for this?

The good news is there is no way the idiots at the insurance agencies will understand any of it.




AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA
well that felt a little better.

[Michael J. Meeker]

How long do you all think the different bldg departments are going to put up with every Tom, Dick, and Harry wanting all this information.

How long do you think you will be on hold. Have any of you been told to call back a little latter yet.
Who is going to make them deal with us in a timely manner.

Are you guys that contact the bldg departments going to continue to do it for free?

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

Well I reviewed the form. Thanks for posting it John.

God help us all. Instead of getting easier and making more sense it has gotten more confusing and you will hardly ever find 2 people agreeing on what it should be. It is just plain asinine. All of the referring back and forth from question to question is ridiculous. Why do they care if some windows "Appear" to be something? Do any of you think that will give someone a credit? Figuring out the roof stuff will be interesting. and under first glance I do not even understand what they want to classify it as flat.

I assume it is a done deal and this is what we are getting but I cannot express my displeasure enough.

How about making a form that everyone could "CLEARLY" understand? This thing is insane and will result in more problems than you can imagine.

Do any of you actually think you are going to get paid more for this?

The good news is there is no way the idiots at the insurance agencies will understand any of it.




AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA
well that felt a little better.

Here is the answer, mark everything as a hip roof, single wraps,everything protected and 100% masnory. Then when they complain, have thier guy go out there!

[Michael J. Meeker]

Originally Posted by evandeven

Here is the answer, mark everything as a hip roof, single wraps,everything protected and 100% masnory. Then when they complain, have thier guy go out there!

That is going to be what happens. Because they will never claim to have the info they need. How in the hell are we supposed to "KNOW" that the structure meets any code?

Anyone involved with this abortion of a form should be embarrassed. I cannot understand why it cannot be simple and in plain english. WHY WHY WHY WHY.

Well at least with a form this asinine they will never be able to go after anyone for anything because they can just claim they made a mistake or that was not the way they were taught.

[Eric C. Van De Ven]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

That is going to be what happens. Because they will never claim to have the info they need. How in the hell are we supposed to "KNOW" that the structure meets any code?

Anyone involved with this abortion of a form should be embarrassed. I cannot understand why it cannot be simple and in plain english. WHY WHY WHY WHY.

With regards to the code, unless you are a code official, you cannot certify that any structure meets code. You would be in violation of the law. Let's see how this shakes out.

[Michael J. Meeker]

I really cannot believe how bad it is. Is there any one individual who came up with the overall plan. The way it refers back and forth to different things is crazy.

I truly believe that damn near every inspection we do will get reinspected.

HMMMMMMM maybe that is why they are doing it to basically make our inspections useless.

Lets see we do an inspection then they reinspect and take away most credits then where is the client left. They paid for one inspection that says one thing and now they have the insurance companies inspector say it is not correct and his word is taken automatically.

Make no mistakes all those who do re-inspections are in the insurance companies pockets.

My apologies to those friends of mine that are doing them it just does not seem right. Nothing personal in that statement it is just business. Sorry.

Plus the same exact people can do both. I could do a regular wind mit then the insurance company could send me right back there as a reinspector.

The insurance companies can use ANYONE the DEEM qualified. Does anyone else see a problem with that?

[Michael J. Meeker]

Who is going to determine if the corrosion on the wraps is excessive. How are we supposed to measure the distance between the strap and the truss? It cannot be correctly done safely in most cases.

[Brian C. Hoagland]

Originally Posted by mmeeker

Who is going to determine if the corrosion on the wraps is excessive. How are we supposed to measure the distance between the strap and the truss? It cannot be correctly done safely in most cases.

We are lucky they aren't requiring a photo of the distance of the truss from the strap with a ruler measureing it. OOPs I shouldn't have brought that up.

[Michael J. Meeker]

What do you want to bet that will be what the agents think is supposed to be. That is how they do all other measurements. It will probably be how it is taught. The pictures are a very large part of the problem.

Today in century village I managed to get into the attic and had a clear 10 foot shot of the strap. the problem with the photos is getting the proper angle. If I were to crawl there I would have to been on my belly with each foot and hand on opposite trusses and in push up position inch my way forward with nothing but the drywall under me. It looked as easy as pie but in reality was dangerous as heck. I easily identified the configuration from the hatch and if there was any doubt I could have used my monocular. What do all you who think it is great think will happen When the agents start saying that's how Juan Lierler does it??????

Something needs to be done before someone dies

Why has each form gotten more extensive and MORE confusing and more stuff that does not go towards any credits with each edition. If it does not result in a credit or penalty then it should not be on the form. How hard is that concept to get???????????

[Nick Hernandez]

Originally Posted by evandeven

With regards to the code, unless you are a code official, you cannot certify that any structure meets code. You would be in violation of the law. Let's see how this shakes out.

If you are a code enforcement official and go against the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) you can be brought before the board (Building Code Administrators and Inspectors, DBPR), and defend yourself with the possibilty of fines, suspensions and more...