Structural Engineer screwup - who is liable and how?

keystone

jc808 wrote: »

SE insists revised plans were sent - despite BC and I being in posession of wrong ones.

and the builder too apparently. Or did the builder have the new ones but his troops use the old ones?

Have agreed to insert steel on first floor and remove masonrry wall, which will cost me more £££

thats a [STRIKE]!!!!!![/STRIKE] (stupid forum censor!) shame (:D) - why haven't both the builder and the SE 'fessed up and said we cocked it up between us (I still think both of them have part of the can to carry each). Thats what they carry insurance for.

Will not confront SE until BC sign off job in case he becomes unresposive to queries and BC cannot ok job

He's been paid already n'est pas?

Short term you prolly have the right solution to get the job done even if its going to cost you. In the long term I'd be after them both.

Cheers

vaio

Keystone, don't really see why the poor old builder is getting any of the blame for this, if you get a bright one you might have got lucky and he'd have spotted the mistake but that's a bonus not a reasonable expectation.

The engineer was employed to spec the steels in terms of size & position and if he got it wrong then the remedial costs should come out of his pocket (or PI policy)

keystone

Vaio

I'm not BLAMING anybody. As I said in an earlier post its a question of responsibility. The two are not synonymous.

Cheers

dave82_2

To be honest I would speak to the stuctural engineer now rather than putting it right then asking him to pay!

Is he even aware that BC said the steels are wrong because of his drawing?

vaio

keystone wrote: »

Vaio

I'm not BLAMING anybody. As I said in an earlier post its a question of responsibility. The two are not synonymous.

Cheers

I’d have said that in this case blame and responsibility are pretty much synonymous.

keystone wrote: »

.....thats a [STRIKE]!!!!!![/STRIKE] (stupid forum censor!) shame (:D) - why haven't both the builder and the SE 'fessed up and said we cocked it up between us (I still think both of them have part of the can to carry each). Thats what they carry insurance for......

.......... In the long term I'd be after them both.

Cheers

Again I’d say the builder is not responsible (or to blame) for the mistake of the engineer and should not have to carry any of the costs of the remedial works.

In reality it depends on what the respective contracts say but the mere fact that the client employed a separate structural engineer tends to indicate that the intention was that the engineer would spec the steel and the builder would install in accordance with the engineers drawings issued to him as an instruction by the client.

Would be a slightly different story if the contact was design & build and the builder had employed the engineer. Then the builder would be responsible for the remedial works as far as the client was concerned but would still be able to recover the costs from the engineer.

System

if the steel is overspecced, why not ask the engineer to do new calcs - easier than taking anything down!

keystone

vaio wrote: »

Again I’d say the builder is not responsible (or to blame) for the mistake of the engineer and should not have to carry any of the costs of the remedial works.

Oh absolutely correct but thats not what I'm saying at all. If it came across that way I apologise.

I am saying that the builder must carry some of the responsibility if he failed to check what he was being asked to do thats all. BCO spotted it from the plans - should the builder not have done so too? I mean if the plans said fix these purlins to these rafters with panel pins (yes I know thats a bit extreme) should it not raise an eyebrow?

Cheers