Structural Engineers - They got it wrong!!!

NoBull

Hi Everyone,

I'm looking for a little advice on a problem we're currently having with our so called 'Structural Engineer'.

I'll try to be as brief as possible, but here is the problem:

- We decided it was time for a new kitchen

- We wanted to knock down a wall joining the kitchen /dining room to create a large open planned environment

- We contacted a 'Structural Engineer' who came around to 'inspect' the wall to confirm if it was load balancing or not (at a cost of £100)

After the visit we received a letter detailing:

"We can confirm that the existing blockwork wall located between the Kitchen and Dining room is non-loadbearing. Therefore it can be removed without the need for additional steelwork supports.

Please note that during demolition, care should be taken to ensure no joists bear onto the wall i.e. you can see the end of the joist bearing onto the wall due to an unforeseen detailing quirk. If this is so, please contact this office immediately.

Whilst on site we mentioned that it would be preferable to retain a 330mm pier adjacent to the existing gable wall to maintain some inherent strength."

So, with this confirmation in hand we proceeded to knock down the wall ourselves.

Late Saturday evening it was the point of no return, the wall was down. I looked over the area and something seemed a little odd . . . a fairly chunky beam was sitting where the wall had been.

I jumped up on a ladder and noticed that it was in fact the end of a beam. OH GOD!

So, as instructed, contact the 'Structural Engineers' immediately.

- I rang them - No Answer

- Left Voice mail - No response

- Sent email with photos - No reply

- Sent them a Tweet - Waste of time

- Sent them a Facebook message - Guess what? Nothing

So, it was pretty clear they simply were not contactable over the weekend.

It was getting late at that time so myself, wife and 7 month old son went off to go to sleep.

The next morning I was still not happy, so tried calling again . . . emailing . . . nothing.

So in the end I contacted builders to come around and check the beam who all said they are not sure and we really need to get it investigated asap.

First thing Monday we were straight on the phone and by 11am they were back at the house.

Guess what . . . . it WAS a supporting wall!

Quickly they got a support joist and propped up the beam to secure things.

The disgusting part was they said "They probably missed it as they just did a visual inspection . . . . E.G looking at the floorboards and saying "Yep, its fine" . . . I could have blimin' done that!

They said a support was needed to be put up urgency and they would have to charge us further for a architects drawing.

After a little bit of moaning they decided to do this for FREE and we got the necessary plan back with a long email saying:

Following the removal of the existing wall and our subsequent visual inspection, we have noted the existing floor joists to both sides of the original wall run parallel to the wall. This is in line with our original assessment during our site visit on 17th May 2013. However, we also noted that there is a trimmer beam over the kitchen which was originally supported on the left hand part of the wall (viewing from the front room). Unfortunately, this is an unforeseen detail (as mentioned in our letter dated 17th May 2013) and something that we would not have noticed at the time of the original inspection unless the area was fully exposed for our inspection.


Surely they should have done the inspection properly?

The main thing is the house is now safe again, but at our expense -

- Builder to do the support work
- Building Inspection costs

Not to mention the stress and fear for a while.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My question is, do we have a leg to stand on? Can / should I challenge the company who have caused all this hassle, or is this all part of the fun and games involved in house renovating?

WLM21

Perhaps contact The Institution of Structural Engineers , at

http://www.istructe.org.uk/

or

The Institute of Civil Engineers

http://www.ice.org.uk/

If he is a consultant engineer, he will be in either or both of these.

Ask them for advice

martinsurrey

If they had come in and said they need to lift every carpet and floorboard upstairs which would take 2 days and cost £1,000 more, would you have instructed them?

The inspection was done properly (IMO), they told you what they couldn’t see, and what to do if you found unforeseen elements.

They then did some more work for free, so for £100, you’ve had an inspection and drawings done...

daveyjp

Looks like they did what they could. Advised based on what was exposed, but flagged up the potential for a construction detail which would only be exposed once the work started.

Engineers do generally work Monday to Friday so no surprise they weren't responding. The moral is never start work on a Saturday, unelss you have acro props on hand as security of finding an exposed beam end.

Have local building regulations officers been involved?

macman

Why did you waste time phoning them (and going on Facebook?!) and not just put an Acro in straight away? The time for recriminations was not on the Saturday.

tyllwyd

Their original letter told you to watch out for joists which might be resting on the wall. I don't understand why you didn't see the beam until you had taken down the wall? And when you got the builders in to look at the beam, why didn't they put in an Acro under it for you just in case?

cyclonebri1

Right, if this topic isn't a wind up, sorry OP, it's your 1st post so suspicious, but then;

You guys have to be joking. The poster has done everything correct assuming this is a bona fida structural engineer, if it isn't, it's a whole differint kettle of stuff.

Lets assume the OP paid what the SE asked for, fair enough?

They got a piece of paper giving the green light, the go ahead, how can anyone with a little householder nous disagree that that was the correct way to go? did they do something wrong.

Would anyone who had to ask if it was load bearing, (and get a negative) realise early on when it wasn't? No, they wouldn't


Determining the spine wall of a property is not difficult, usually it isn't even necessary to lift a carpet, but in this case for £100 I think that's a fair expectation, arsoules:mad::mad::mad:

tyllwyd

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

... Determining the spine wall of a property is not difficult, usually it isn't even necessary to lift a carpet, but in this case for £100 I think that's a fair expectation, arsoules:mad::mad::mad:

But it wasn't the spine wall of the property.

RJS86

Difficult one really. I normally advise that they still prop the floor on acrows either side and lower it off slowly after demolishing the walls just to prevent any sudden actions on the ceiling or stud walls above when removing the wall. Last thing you want is cracks in your finishes because of some overzealous demolition work.

You can never really be sure, even if the floors don't span onto a wall, that there isn't a member over the wall which has come to rest onto the masonry through deflection or an unforeseen trimmer sat onto the wall. The only way to be sure would be to have an intrusive inspection.

I do have some sympathy for the engineer though. In some cases the inspection comes some weeks before the works start and sometimes the outcome of the inspection decides whether the client bothers with the work at all. So they don't want to lift a load of floor boards and/or cut into plasterboard to find out for sure. Not saying that's the case with the OP but it's common for clients to want to keep it visual rather than intrusive.

Leif

I agree with cyclonebri1. The engineers stated in writing:

""We can confirm that the existing blockwork wall located between the Kitchen and Dining room is non-loadbearing. Therefore it can be removed without the need for additional steelwork supports."

That is unambiguous. Acting on the above false information could have caused a house collapse and injury or death. I would hope they could be reported to the licensing body (or whatever) and have their licence revoked. But I suspect they might just get a letter saying "Look old chap, don't do it again, what what." .

The second post is sensible. Also contact Trading Standards for advice. Bear in mind that these people could cause injury to someone else if they carry on in the same vein.

penrhyn

In addition I would recommend the insertion of a garden gnome where the sun don't shine. Thats the trouble with dealing with Mr O'Reilly.