How bad is this? - DIY Chatroom

mt232 · 04-24-2007, 04:21 PM

When I didn't like the contractor installed windows, the contractor agreed with me selecting and installing new ones. When I started to do that I found what you'll see in these pictures. The 2 x 10 in the back (the one they expected to be hidden) is actually 2 shorter 2 x 10's nailed together. Is this as horribly wrong as I suspect, or is it a common shortcut by subpr builders?

billinak · 04-24-2007, 05:37 PM

If that is supposed to be header above the window, then yes, that is terribly wrong.

**AtlanticWBConst.** · 04-24-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mt232

When I didn't like the contractor installed windows, the contractor agreed with me selecting and installing new ones. When I started to do that I found what you'll see in these pictures. The 2 x 10 in the back (the one they expected to be hidden) is actually 2 shorter 2 x 10's nailed together. Is this as horribly wrong as I suspect, or is it a common shortcut by subpr builders?

That's pathetic....That is not even something that could be called a structural header....
It HAS to be a solid piece of stock....

MinConst · 04-24-2007, 10:33 PM

WOW that's a sin

troubleseeker · 04-24-2007, 11:15 PM

"horribly wrong" is a mild description. The proper words to describe this would be deleted from this site. It is obviously intended to be a header, so it needs to be one full length piece and suppported with jack studs under the ends.

concretemasonry · 04-25-2007, 12:02 AM

What did the building inspector say?

After all, he works for you if you own the property

mt232 · 04-25-2007, 12:51 AM

I found this and replaced it as part of switching the windows. I'm meeting the contractor in my lawyers office tommorow.....as you can imagine from those pictures (yes, thats what they called a window header) we have many other issues. I've had an incredible amount of grief with this company, and I am really an easy going person, but at this point I had no choice but to enjoy hearing my lawyer tell him that I can sue, I should sue, and I will win and run him out of business.

Digital photography is great.......they also caused water damage to most of the first floor and I have a great shot that shows bare fresh wood sticking out of a torn tarp with no grommets left to tie it down....great detail.

J187 · 04-25-2007, 09:45 AM

If you really thinking of sueing or you think you may come to that, take a regular 35mm picture as well. I know at least in MA, digital imagry is not admissable in court - damn photoshop.

tigerbalm2424 · 04-25-2007, 09:52 AM

Not to say people shouldnt use contractors, but in MY opinion this is a perfect example of why i do everything myself. Even when you pay someone to do the job expecting it to be done right, you could get work such as this....

The contractor is probably staring at a dictionary right now trying to figure out what this big word you used in the conversation is.

"header"

J187 · 04-25-2007, 10:04 AM

Here is a five-minute idea as to why you can't bring digital pictures into court...

NateHanson · 04-25-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J187

If you really thinking of sueing or you think you may come to that, take a regular 35mm picture as well. I know at least in MA, digital imagry is not admissable in court - damn photoshop.

Just curious - How does the court know/care what kind of picture it is when you bring in prints from your local drug store? They look just the same off a digital camera as they do off a 35mm once they're printed.

J187 · 04-25-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateHanson

Just curious - How does the court know/care what kind of picture it is when you bring in prints from your local drug store? They look just the same off a digital camera as they do off a 35mm once they're printed.

If they are printed at a drug store or otherwise to the point where they do not look digital, it may fly. If there IS a question, you may be asked to provide proof they are not - the envelope or something. Its better to be safe than sorry though. NJ may permit it, I don't know. I have had experience here in MA however where someone I had filed a lawsuit provided digital pictures as proof that I was lying. It was an issue w/ a landlord not providing a safe environment for the building we worked in. We were not lying. The pictures he provided were digital. They were NOT doctored actually, but were not of the ceiling in question. There was going to be an issue about that but before it could even materialize the court informed the opposing lawyer that digital photography is technically not admissable. If it were questioned, it WOULD be your responsiblity to prove the authentication of the pictures. In all liklihood, you'd probably be fine with them - but I'd rather not take the chance.

mt232 · 04-25-2007, 11:07 AM

You make a good point about the photo's, thanks!

Joe Carola · 04-25-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billinak

If that is supposed to be header above the window, then yes, that is terribly wrong.

What do you me IF? It is supposed to be a header, it's holding up rafters and ceiling joists in the picture.

mt232 · 04-25-2007, 12:34 PM

The picture was taken during demo of thier "work"

IF was probably the right word because anyone who has seen it was shocked that it was used as a header.