This is Annoying Me More than it Should


Why not have a 2-gang box?! Sometimes I hate my “ADHD-induced OCD” (it doesn’t really exist , I made that up). Well, this is an old house. (It’s a rental house, and it’s spring break.)

1 Like

Nah, it’s shoddy craftsmanship is what it is. It makes my skin crawl… It should annoy you quite a bit…

Obviously one light switch was there before the other was added. They must have had their cover plates replaced at the same time, which is why they look similar.

Plus, what do you expect from cheap college rentals?

Um, a fishing dock*, paper weights that look like smoke alarms^?

*spell check wanted me to type a slang for a body part.
^the owner severely neglected the smoke alarms, one doesn’t even have a battery!

1 Like

Obvious question here is what does each switch do? I can think of one (possibly two) reasons why this would be acceptable - although workmanship is rather sloppy. They could have at least leveled the two switches.

But with this being an older home, there is a possibility that the switch on the left (closest to the door) is in a stud bay just wide enough to fit a single gang switch box. When they wanted to add a second switch, they had to go next stud bay over. They do have whats called a “duplex” switch (which is two switches stacked on top of each-other and only take up a single gang) but they tend to be a little awkward to operate if you are not familiar that there is one installed, and more expensive then just a second box, switch, and plate. The other problem with trying to convert a single switch to a duplex is that it takes a lot more skill. You need to fish blind from a 1" hole to a 1/2" hole in the back of the junction box. There are tricks to making it work (can’t give away my secrets) and a layperson trying it will almost always fail. Plus if the hole at the bottom (or top) of the stud bay where the existing wire is penetrating isn’t large enough to safely feed an additional wire through, you would have to drill a new hole. Again, if the stud bay is only 5" wide, where are you going to drill and not damage the existing wire? Easier just to take the next stud bay.

That being said, they could have spaced it out a but farther. 4"-6" apart would have been acceptable. But then again, who knows, maybe the next stud bay was only 5" wide like the first? Or just some handyman trying his talents into the electrical field? Worst case there’s a bunch of king or cripple studs right where they wanted to put the switch and just drilled the thing out screwing the switch right to the stud! That existing switch looks like a nice place to tap some power! Hopefully that isn’t the case…

1 Like

Simple solution: Wiremold 2-gang box.

Even though it would stick out more, it would save all of us the eyesore. Plus, you can paint it.

BTW, could the owner have painted the cove plates before she (confirmed) put the plates on, assuming she did put them on?

1 Like

Wiremold is an alternative choice but costs about 10x more - you figure a blue cut in box is around $1 and a double gang wiremold box is $10. Rental properties are notorious for cutting corners and costs. The term “minimum code requirement” is thrown around a lot. The more money you dump into a place the less profit you make. To give you an example, when our company goes into an apartment complex and finds a bunch of fire extinguishers in the residential units that need to be serviced or replaced, we quote them an Amerex B417, 2 1/2lb ABC, (all metal construction) replacement. We never get the sale because they go to the local big box store and pick up some cheap plastic handle models for 75% less. They meet the “minimum code requirement”. But a commercial customer will almost always approve the quote.

1 Like

Would you consider this “minimum code requirement,” or just plain laziness?

1 Like

There’s no “minimum code requirement” about it; it’s just plain negligence as a result of laziness!

That’s why the owner is going to receive a letter from me, before she gets into trouble.

1 Like

The installation of a battery powered smoke detector in a residential occupancy most certainly is minimum code requirement. Although many jurisdictions are requiring 120VAC with battery backup or are allowing building owners to install a sealed 10-year battery life unit. You would have to check with the local AHJ to see what is acceptable.

But if you are referring to the lack of a battery - that’s a maintenance or tampering issue and has nothing to do with what’s required under minimum code. Although the owner SHOULD be preforming a regular check on the smoke detectors - at a minimum according to manufacturers recommendations - but local fire codes or insurance requirements may have more weight.

Before you fire up that letter and start raising all kinds of you know what, I would just talk to the owner and let them know about the missing battery. There’s a good chance they will come by and pop one in. It is possible the previous tenant simply swiped the battery for a kids toy or disconnected it when they were up to no good. And the missing battery just hasn’t been noticed yet. Civility goes a long way!

1 Like

Update: the battery is there.
And the owner thought it would be smart to install an alarm in the kitchen.

Boy what I would do to be an inspector.

1 Like