Seattle’s Code Complaints and Violations dataset returned 27 distinct case tracking numbers with opening dates from September 1 through September 7, 2026, in a snapshot collected on September 9. Pacific Housing Record selected records classified as “Case,” keeping them separate from complaint requests.
The city’s field definitions distinguish a complaint request from a case regarding a violation. A case is still not an individual violation, inspection, household or unique property. The selected rows cannot establish how many properties currently have unresolved conditions.
Two broad categories, several workflow stages
Fifteen records carry the broad category “Notice of Violation,” and 12 carry “Citation.” These are the source’s case categories, reported separately from its workflow-status field.
| Source category | Cases |
|---|---|
| Notice of Violation | 15 |
| Citation | 12 |
| Total | 27 |
The current workflow labels include eight Initiated, seven Warning, four Under Investigation, three Completed, three EO Vacate Close Issued and two NOV Issued. The city defines that status field as the latest fully completed process step. We retain the labels without expanding the abbreviations or translating every case category into a notice that was issued or served.
“Completed” does not answer every inspection question
Seventeen records supply a latest-inspection date and result. All 17 of those result values say “Completed.” That label alone does not establish that the inspection passed, every condition was corrected or the property is compliant today.
Ten records omit both the latest-inspection date and result. Their absence does not prove that an inspection never occurred. Nine of the supplied latest-inspection dates precede case opening. We preserved those dates as recorded rather than replacing one with the other or automatically treating the sequence as an error. The extract does not explain the timing in each case.
Land use leads the detailed categories
Eight records are categorized as Land Use. Five carry the single combined label “Emergency, Vacant Building”; that label has not been split into separate counts. Four are categorized as Weeds, while another four omit the detailed category.
| Detailed category | Cases |
|---|---|
| Land Use | 8 |
| Emergency, Vacant Building | 5 |
| Weeds | 4 |
| No detailed category supplied | 4 |
| Noise | 3 |
| Tree | 2 |
| Construction | 1 |
| Total | 27 |
The mixture of land use, noise, trees, weeds, construction and emergency or vacant-building records does not establish that all cases concern residential properties. No property addresses or occupancy information were requested for this analysis.
What the dates cover
For this case-only selection, the city defines the opening field as the date it opened a case. Four records have September 1 opening dates, six have September 2, 11 have September 3 and six have September 4. No September 5–7 opening dates appeared in the selected snapshot. That absence is not proof of zero inspections, complaints or other enforcement activity on those days.
The source supplies calendar timestamps without an attached UTC offset. We used their September 1 inclusive to September 8 exclusive date values without converting them to UTC. These case-opening dates remain separate from the dataset’s update time and from our collection time.
How the extract was checked
Two complete reads returned the same 27 records, with no repeated tracking numbers. Source counts, field definitions and metadata matched before and after the capture. The dataset reported its last row update as September 9 at 00:47 UTC; that is not an independent current-status check for each case.
We retained eight fields for tracking number, broad and detailed categories, the Case/Request distinction, opening date, latest inspection date/result and current workflow step. Missing fields remain missing. Similar projected rows with different tracking numbers remain separate cases.
Primary sources: Seattle’s public dataset and its field definitions and metadata. Original responses and exact query details are preserved. This article uses aggregates and identifies no individual case or property.
The records operation behind this publication also supports commercial property research. These records establish neither sale intent nor financial distress. Editorial standards · Send a documented correction.