Originally posted by @Nate Hawkins:
It is interesting that everyone has strong dislike for their inspectors.
Nate, I'm inclined to believe your post is well intended, yet I'm puzzled by your comments. Effectively, you're suggesting that folks contact the same inspector they dislike for a recommendation? Notwithstanding my confusion of that, should one seek the input of an inspector, as @Account Closed noted, there are potential issues with doing such. That said, readers should be cautious about that which they ask an inspector. Simply asking for a recommendation, could lead to being given their cousin's company's name. Not that that means that they're not a quality contractor, but...
I believe it's best to phrase questions that are fact based rather than opinion.
"Everyone" dislikes their inspectors? That's simply not a valid statement. And, personally, I'm cautious of those who have a widespread disdain for inspectors. Like or dislike of an inspector is irrelevant to the task at hand (i.e., getting approvals). Inspectors have a job to do and are often given great authority to interpret subjectively (hence the so oft found stamp on plans that state "subject to field inspection"). That's just part of the dynamic. Disagreeing with an inspector and liking/disliking them are best kept separated.
If I'm the client (e.g., investor, building owner, etc.) I want the inspector to be acting on my behalf and ensuring the contractor's work is up to code. I don't want an inspector handing out freebies, if it's at the expense of the work.
Sure, as the contractor, we benefited from such gratuity before, by receiving an approval without the inspector having actually inspected the work. BUT it was given based upon a long history of past performance (i.e., the inspector knew our company's quality of work, having seen it over and over for years), not because we fed into their god complex, bought them lunch, or hung out with them in hopes of getting the proverbial candy bar. I fully acknowledge that this didn't truly serve the best interest of the client, but that client hired us because of the quality of our work and the reputation that ensued.
For the readers here who may not otherwise know, it should be noted that if the plans/specs exceed code, yet the work in place only meets code, that may be a legitimate reason to fail an inspection. Kudos to an inspector who holds fast on this. Meeting code is not universally indicative of quality work either (the latter of which is subjective of course). Codes are generally written from a safety standpoint... I've walked through many a-room that were framed with 2x8 joists (that met code) only to hear all the china in the cabinet rattle, or see floor tile cracking due to floor joist deflection.
