0

I recently sold my home (November 2023). In due diligence, the buyer found an open permit from 2015. It was a sheet metal permit from a kitchen hood install. The sheet metal subcontractor pulled the permit but never called for the final inspection (nor did the GC). The town would not do the inspection without the sub present. I finally got the sub to come out and the permit was closed. Now, I just received an invoice for $400 from the sub. Is this normal? It seems like this cost would have been included in the original project and the sub not closing it out in 2015 was his oversight. As a side note, the GC unfortunately passed away a few years ago, so the sub is my only point of contact here.

7
  • 1
    It definitely sounds like an oversight, however this depends on the agreement that your GC had with the subcontrator, without any documentation it would be difficult to determine who's on the hook for closing the permit. Also, since the work was done in 2015, the subcontractor would have to ensure that work is up to code for 2023 before closing the permit, so presumably that was done.
    – Matthew
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 20:04
  • 1
    And you wonder why people don't want to pull permits...
    – SteveSh
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 20:48
  • 1
    f there were no agreement in writing that there is a cost to you to have the sub onsite for the inspection, then there is no recourse for that vendor. That said, the idea that a GC or sub must be onsite for an inspection to be done is an unreasonable demand. I am glad I do not live in your local.
    – RMDman
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 21:14
  • I'm sorry. But if it was the contractor's or sub's responsibility to pull the permit, then it is not unreasonable to assume that they would be responsibly for the inspection & closing out the permit. If they are still in business, OP should consider taking them to small claims court.
    – SteveSh
    Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 21:26
  • 1
    Bummer. Again, the contract rears its ugly head, as sometimes they are written for permit work to be a t&m extra. (Because of the unpredictable nature of permits.) If it was me, I’d call the sub and offer 200 cash in exchange for a ‘paid in full’ receipt. (Paid is important to avoid future liens.) Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 21:43

1 Answer 1

4

I'll start this the way I started my comment: bummer.

On the plus side, you sold a house. Even if you pay full pop for the sub visit, it's a relatively small price to pay for completion.

In this case, it seems that the contract rears its ugly head, as sometimes they are written for permit work to be a t&m extra, because of the unpredictable nature of permits. But if you had a useful contract to hand, you probably would have mentioned it.

It does make me wonder if you had a written or verbal contract with the sub for this visit. This would introduce a certain amount of gray area.

If it was me, I’d call the sub and offer 200 cash in exchange for a ‘paid in full’ receipt. Remind them that it was a quick visit. (Paid is important to avoid future liens. Generally, a sub wouldn't have to take a homeowner to court to slap a lien. Though the whole lien thing is complicated by the fact that the property in question has changed hands... maybe that's one for the legal stack.)

Parenthetically, I think your jurisdiction is a bunch of jerks for demanding that the relevant sub be present.

1
  • 1
    I agree it's prolly a legal stack issue. First what's the local law regarding window of opportunity for filing lien. Secondary issue is if he was actually a sub then it's the electricians problem to prove that your payment to the GC didn't cover subs. Commented Dec 6, 2023 at 2:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.