Please take note of the…

Please take note of the serious concerns below:

Building Official's inspections of newly-built homes or extensively renovated homes should be done with a written report, signed and dated by the inspector who does the on-site inspection.

This entire process is too vague and un-transparent. Homeowners need to see a written report of any deficiencies so they can know about issues are still outstanding.

Several times over the past 13 years when we have bought new homes, or extensively renovated an older home, or built a custom home, we've noticed that years later, after the completion of work, several building permits have remained open. The builder often forgets or is long gone, he's got his money, and doesn't' care. There is no enforcement to get him to close all permits before leaving the site. How is the homeowner to find out about open building permits?

The Building Department should send an e-mail to the homeowner after occupancy citing the numbers of the permits still open, and the issues still outstanding. Usually this is only discovered by an alert real estate agent when the home comes up for sale. Sometimes this is 10 years after construction and occupancy.

Trying to find someone at the City of Toronto Building Department is often a big challenge since many inspectors seem to have retired, there is no file by street address for documents, it seems, and the consumer is given a typical, frustrating, bureaucratic run-around.

Your procedures need to be easy and transparent and consumer-friendly. There has to be someone who is responsible for inspections of a property, full names, titles, no running away with just first names or no name, (everyone's busy), no passing the buck to others, and no asking the homeowner several times to re-send the same plans or engineer's reports. Tracking down a different inspector for each permit is also challenging.

Often inspectors have told us they've closed permits without a site visit or without a visit by the trades person who had a deficiency in their work. Recently two plumbing deficiencies viewed on site by an inspector were apparently "solved" by a few phone calls between the plumber and the inspector. How is this possible? What were the issues? How did they get "solved"? The inspector retired several weeks after the site visit.

Occupancy permits are often given by someone at the Building department saying "I've ok'd it", and I'm now retired, so I won't be available and I don't know who will be on your file. Or "you don't need an occupancy permit for a residential home". Or a builder said to us - my father knows the Building Inspector so he'll ok anything for me. Does that make sense?

A plumbing on-site inspection which failed on two issues a few months ago was subsequently closed by the Building official without any site visit by the plumber or the inspector, or any information on the deficiencies given to the homeowner. Very unprofessional.

Also, other homeowners have talked about "drive-by" inspections by city inspectors where the official asks the name of the builder or trades person who did the work, and just ok's it by phone. This is very concerning.

In summary, the building inspection and permit closing process is far too vague and un-transparent.

The homeowner has invested his life savings in the home, and should be the first to find out any outstanding issues regarding the construction or renovation of his property. Most builders, once they've left the site, and demand full payment (no withholding or they won't do the work), and they can't be relied upon to close permits or even inform the homeowner.

A written report should be given to the homeowner of each City inspector's visit, full name, direct contact phone and e-mail, their title, and description of any deficiencies. No phone calls, no drive-by inspections, no friendly relationships between builders, their trades, and municipal inspectors. This entire process needs to be transparent for the homeowner/taxpayer.

If the process is completely above board, and there's nothing to hide, then prove it in a written and dated and signed document by the municipal inspectors. This is all now pretty much a black box. It should not be.

Also, one other issue:

I asked City of Toronto Chief Building Official in 2011 that hydronic (hot water heating) installations such as outdoor snow-melts for driveways/walkways be covered under the Building Code, since in 2011 they were not. Eight years later, I have not heard whetted this addition has been made. There are too many unqualified tradespeople working in hydronics installation. These are costly systems and also not inspected in the home by the TSSA. They often fail due to improper installation or mis-use of indoor water heaters for outdoor applications.

Builders looking to short-cut and pocket more profit may use indoor water heaters (since they often get a bonus to install them from the manufacturers), and leave the homeowner to pay twice to get tanks removed and a proper installation re-done. Tarion warranty is unhelpful here and has sided with builders on this issue, saying they don't warranty any rental HVAC equipment.

Please advise if this addition has been made to the Building Code to cover hydronic installations.

I hope you will take these concerns seriously and make changes to the current system.

Thank you,

Barbara