Dual Credential, Family Tie, and a Request to Adjust
A technician holds both QEI and CAT. A homeowner asks him to perform the acceptance inspection on a new residential incline lift. The installing company’s service manager is his brother. The homeowner also asks him to “just adjust the door operator while you’re there” because it is slow, and to sign a field modification that deviates from the manufacturer’s installation manual. The technician’s QEI inspection authority covers the jurisdiction’s commercial conveyances; the CAT scope covers private residence lifts but not code variances. He has no written disclosure on file with the program. He has performed two prior inspections for this installer and has never disclosed the family relationship. The homeowner is pressuring him to finish the same day because a family member uses the lift.
1. Identify the conflicts of interest and decide whether the technician should accept the acceptance inspection. What disclosure is required?
Read the worked answer
There are two distinct conflicts. The first is the family relationship: the service manager of the installing company is his brother, which gives the technician an indirect interest in a favorable acceptance result. The second is prior undisclosed work for the same installer, which turns a single relationship into a pattern and undermines the appearance of independence.
Acceptance inspection is a verification function. The inspector is not the installer’s quality-control agent, and the owner is entitled to an independent judgement. A family tie to the installer’s service manager is precisely the kind of relationship that a reasonable owner would want to know about before relying on the report.
The technician should decline the acceptance inspection unless the program’s policy expressly permits informed written waiver and the owner, after full disclosure, still consents. Even then, recusal is the safer judgement because the conflict is structural, not merely a one-time social connection. At minimum, he must disclose in writing to the owner, the installer, and the certification program: the brother’s role, the two prior inspections, and the fact that he has no financial interest in the installation company beyond family. He should not accept the job on the same day under pressure; urgency does not cure a conflict.
2. The homeowner asks him to adjust the door operator and to sign the field modification. How should he respond under the CAT and QEI scopes?
Read the worked answer
Both requests fall outside the inspection role and should be refused in that capacity.
Adjusting the door operator is installation or maintenance work. If the technician performs it immediately before or during the inspection, he becomes a participant in the condition he is supposed to evaluate. That compromises independence and creates a practical problem: if the door later fails, his own adjustment is part of the causal chain. He may recommend that the installer adjust the operator and then re-inspect after the adjustment, but he should not perform the work and then pass it.
Signing the field modification is more serious. A field modification that deviates from the manufacturer’s installation manual is a nonconformance unless the manufacturer and the authority having jurisdiction approve it through the proper process. Neither CAT nor QEI status authorizes an inspector to approve a code variance or to substitute his signature for the manufacturer’s engineering judgement or the AHJ’s approval. He can document the deviation, describe the actual condition, and refer the parties to the manufacturer and AHJ. He must not sign as though the modification were approved.
If he stays on the job in any capacity, he should separate roles in writing: inspection only, no adjustment, no approval of deviations. If the owner insists on a package that combines adjustment and sign-off, he should withdraw.
3. What should the technician document and communicate, and what should the certification program do about the undisclosed prior inspections?
Read the worked answer
If he accepts any role, the documentation should include:
- A written conflict disclosure identifying the brother’s position, the prior inspections, and any fee relationship.
- A scope letter stating that he will inspect, not adjust, and that he will not approve field modifications or variances.
- A report that records the deviation from the installation manual as an observed nonconformance, with the manufacturer’s and AHJ’s referral noted.
- A note that the owner was advised of the conflict and the limits of the credential.
If he recuses, he should notify the owner and installer promptly, return any fee for the unperformed inspection, and help identify an independent inspector.
The certification program should treat the two prior undisclosed inspections as a disclosure and conduct issue, not automatically as incompetence. The program should ask for a written statement, determine whether the prior reports were technically sound, and consider a sanction ranging from a warning and required ethics training to a period of supervised practice if the pattern suggests the inspector cannot recognize conflicts. The fact that no complaint was filed earlier does not excuse the omission. The program should also review whether its disclosure form is clear, because a pattern of nondisclosure may reflect a confusing process as well as individual failure.