Structural Engineers - They got it wrong!!!

Leif

Come to think of it, the OP has not mentioned how they got hold of the structural engineer (although we now know how they would like to get hold of them), and on what basis they think they are structural engineers.

A few weeks ago some builders were doing a neighbours driveway with paving bricks. I was given a low price quote to redo my drive, and when I added on removing concrete paths and replacing with gravel, the quote was unchanged. I asked for a 'business card', and when I checked up, there is no such company, and the address is a caravan site with permanent caravans. (Text removed by Forum Team)

Did they have a company number or a VAT number? Are they on Companies House?

NoBull

WOW - Never expected so many replies, Money Saving Expert really is great!

I'll try to answer the questions various people have posted:

Would I have paid £1,000 for a survey?

Probably not . . . I'd of left the wall up and had a separate kitchen / diner

Having Building Regs been involved?

Yeah, since the problem was noticed we've had building regs around every day ensuring that work is carried out correctly, they have been great.

Why did I try posting Facebook / Email / Phoning?

I was doing as requested, make contact ASAP. I'm no expert when it comes to building work, i simply trusted their letter which said I could take down the wall.

Is this post a wind up?

Nope, it really did happen

The Structural Engineers we used were a large local company that we spent time looking through their website / work / recommendations

Application of a garden gnome?

Hmm, would that help? haha

How did we get hold of the Structural Engineer?

"David Smith Associates" . . . we relied on the power of Google

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

The good news is the house is now safe, build regs happy and the new kitchen is coming on Friday

jonesjw

1 The text in their report is clear. Engage a solicitor to take the matter up.

2 It seems a little over the top to pay even £100 for someone else to check which way the joists run. If you are competent to knock the wall down, you are also competent to check the joists and therefore conclude if it is load bearing yourself. Of course if the joists run over the wall and are continuous, then it actually does need an engineer to calculate the bending stresses and deflection that would result from increasing the span. Wl^3/3EI and all of that.

cyclonebri1

tyllwyd wrote: »

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

Sorry, meant supporting wall, but moving on this bit from the surveyors contract says it all really, ie what you are getting;

" i.e. you can see the end of the joist bearing onto the wall due to an unforeseen detailing quirk. "


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:, an unforeseen detailing quirk that still gives the OP two rooms into 1, but he didn't want 1 of them to be the bedroom.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:, obviously just a minor detail.:o:o:o

cyclonebri1

Leif wrote: »

Come to think of it, the OP has not mentioned how they got hold of the structural engineer (although we now know how they would like to get hold of them), and on what basis they think they are structural engineers.

A few weeks ago some builders were doing a neighbours driveway with paving bricks. I was given a low price quote to redo my drive, and when I added on removing concrete paths and replacing with gravel, the quote was unchanged. I asked for a 'business card', and when I checked up, there is no such company, and the address is a caravan site with permanent caravans. They must have been pi-keys.

Did they have a company number or a VAT number? Are they on Companies House?

That was my original thought too, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I didn't believe a bona fida operation would be as lacidaisical as this;), but given the OP's latest reply it seems they are, nice to see a little name and shame:T

martinsurrey

NoBull wrote: »

Hi Everyone,



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.

jonesjw wrote: »

1 The text in their report is clear. Engage a solicitor to take the matter up.

2 It seems a little over the top to pay even £100 for someone else to check which way the joists run. If you are competent to knock the wall down, you are also competent to check the joists and therefore conclude if it is load bearing yourself. Of course if the joists run over the wall and are continuous, then it actually does need an engineer to calculate the bending stresses and deflection that would result from increasing the span. Wl^3/3EI and all of that.

You’re right, it is clear and covers EXACTLY the circumstances outlined.

However, this isn’t the structural engineers fault, it’s the OP or builders fault.

Taking care is NOT finishing the job and then noticing a joist.

cyclonebri1

martinsurrey wrote: »

You’re right, it is clear and covers EXACTLY the circumstances outlined.

However, this isn’t the structural engineers fault, it’s the OP or builders fault.

Taking care is NOT finishing the job and then noticing a joist.

You are wrong on so many counts, the OP didn't finish the job, they din't even spot the end of a joist as per the warning, they found a whole beam.

And they did try to follow the instructions given by Mickey Mouse and Co, but it was their day off.

Leif

martinsurrey wrote: »

You’re right, it is clear and covers EXACTLY the circumstances outlined.

However, this isn’t the structural engineers fault, it’s the OP or builders fault.

Taking care is NOT finishing the job and then noticing a joist.

Quote: ""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.


Quote from later in the OP: "Guess what . . . . it WAS a supporting wall!"

There is the issue of confirming that it was a supporting wall e.g. getting a written statement from someone competent such as the Building Control Officer. If that can be done, then it is proven negligence/incompetence.

RJS86

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

You are wrong on so many counts, the OP didn't finish the job, they din't even spot the end of a joist as per the warning, they found a whole beam.

"Late Saturday evening it was the point of no return, the wall was down." - Sounds like they finished the job to me.

I don't see how the fact it was a "whole beam" makes that any less the builders fault. Surely it must have been easier to spot and flagged up before the whole wall is down. That's not saying it's not the SE's fault but in these circumstances some care should be taken by all parties.

To me a beam that runs over the top of the wall sounds peculiar. I'd expect a trimmer to perhaps be sat onto it, but a beam that passes over the top of a wall and sit onto the same wall making it load bearing makes no sense. I might be missing something but I don't think we know enough to go around calling them mickey mouse and co.

"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!" - what preparation / opening up was done prior to the SE turning up? Most consultants aren't going to turn up on site with a crowbar, screwdriver etc to lift the floorboards. If they are already loose then fine but they are not builders and probably aren't insured to carry out that work.

Obviously the engineers are still at fault but I think some of the criticism is harsh. I would recommend the OP takes it to the IstructE. The company should probably look at how they communicate with their clients to ensure they understand the limitations of their work and what they could do to aid their inspection.

Leif

I wonder what the BCO said? I would have thought (s)he was the ideal person to say whether the engineers were at fault.