I inspected this deck yesterday. Yes, there are many things wrong wirh it. The entire beam span was not supported by or attached to the posts properly. I am writing up that a beam splice did not bear on a post.
My question is should all beam splices occur over a supporting post or does that change depending on the number of boards making up the beam? I know if an additional 4x4 support post had been used that the entire width of the beam would still not be supported.
I my opinion, beam splices should be supported. And you are right, many other things wrong with that beam.
Yep. It’s bowing pretty severely and the 2 middle pieces have no bearing on or attachment to any posts. They were just sandwiched between the outer pieces with a few bolts to hold it all together.
The beam itself looks overspend. looking at the pic, the beam looks like 16+ feet long, from post to post.
A four-ply built-up girder with three splice joints is nothing more than a single-ply girder with extra weight bolted to it.
They continue over here:
Just about all the pictures I have of the deck have problems. The posts for the railings were not attached properly, improper attachment of the ledger board, no flashing, earth to wood contact with no visible footings ( I did dig a little and still couldn’t find them), joists had no attachment to the beam, and the list goes on and on. 
Yep, you got it. Work up a narrative and send it. With this many problems, you might want to summarize a bit to include several safety concerns then elevate.
Nicely put.
Like the one I had this weekend. The tape on the screwdriver is 4" for baluster measurement. Contact with soil…
Footing or “solid surface” detected…
@tglaze nice photo for the “record”.
I should remember to take a picture like that next time. But yes, I use a long screwdriver to prope around the post. It beats moving dirt and rocks away and then having to put it all back.
Not to nit-pick, but you stated no visible footings. But you also probed.
I would be cautious about commenting on footings without clarifying your methodology.
Example: The footings were not visible or covered with soil/underground. I did probe approximately 4-6 inches at two posts and no footing was detected blah blah blah
I appreciate the nit picking. Your advice may keep me out of trouble.
You can say there were no visible footings. But I would not put that in the defect narrative. Rather, It would be considered a limitation.
If it is in the defect narrative, it gives the indication there are no footings which you wouldn’t know because they were not visible. Unless you probed. Which changes the limitation.
And around we go, lol.
I agree with Darren and others.
Great attitude, Joe!..you will go far! 
What if you probe and hit a rock, and assume it’s a footing?
