Advice on who is liable

babydudeph

We are currently doing a refurb where we are knocking 2 rooms through to create one big space. The room we knocked through consisted of a load bearing wall which included a chimney and a partition wall which separated the hallway. 

As part of this, we’ve had to consult with a structural engineer who advised that we would need 3 steels - 2 to run parallel to the joist and hold up the chimney (which we agree with) and one to run perpendicular to the joists in the same position as our partition wall.

When he did the site visit we did challenge why we needed a steel for where the partition wall was as it was made of plasterboard, was hallow and this wasn’t load bearing. But he was adamant that it was supporting the roof rafters.

We proceeded as advised and purchased 3 steels. Come the day of knocking down the wall, it was pretty apparent that the rafters were not resting on the partition wall and thus unlikely to need the support of the steel. So again we queried with our structural engineer why we needed the 3rd steel placed where the partition wall was. The reason we challenged in the first place was because having the 3rd steel would have also reduced the ceiling height.

He wasn’t sure and thus asked us to confirm with building control if it was needed, to which the confirmed it wasn’t required.

Hope that all made sense. My question is, as the structural engineer clearly got his plans wrong despite us challenging on the day of the site visit, would he be liable for the extra cost we had to bear as a result of purchasing the 3rd steel which wasn’t needed? 

Doozergirl

Your structural engineer is far better qualified to know what is needed than building control is. 

A wall cannot be made from plasterboard.   Presumably it was a stud wall.  A stud wall can absolutely be a load bearing structural wall and even if it isn't directly load bearing, it can help control other forces that are placed on a building, as well as reduce bounce where the joists above become undersized for their new span.  

I'd take anything my structural engineer felt was needed over anything building control say!    

theonlywayisup

Exactly as Doozer has explained.  The wall may be a racking wall which is equally important as a load bearing wall.  

The SE is the most qualified person to advise.  If you aren't happy then ask another SE.  I am shocked that you say your SE told you to ask BC for their opinion as that is not how it works.  Building Control really know very little about SE and they rely on the SE calculations provided by the SE in their sign off of the build not the other way around. 

babydudeph

Doozergirl said:

Your structural engineer is far better qualified to know what is needed than building control is. 

A wall cannot be made from plasterboard.   Presumably it was a stud wall.  A stud wall can absolutely be a load bearing structural wall and even if it isn't directly load bearing, it can help control other forces that are placed on a building, as well as reduce bounce where the joists above become undersized for their new span.  

I'd take anything my structural engineer felt was needed over anything building control say!    

It is indeed a stud wall - thanks for the correction, the world of renovation is very new to me. It was a timber frame with lathe and plaster. 

Interesting - I didn’t realise that a stud wall could be load bearing. There was definitely nothing resting on it with regards to the joists and seems to have been out in by a previous owner as it was sat on some engineered floor rather than original floor boards. But take your point on the use for other factors.

It is all very confusing that eventually he told us to ask building control instead, as we were paying for his expertise. Once building control gave their opinion, he amended his drawings and calculations to just be for the two steels. Leaving us with a giant steel sat in the middle of our new living room 😂

You live and you learn I suppose - thanks for your responses.

Bendy_House

Whilst the SE is the 'expert' here, I think it's very clear from what Baby has told us that this stud wall served no structural purpose; it was only a partition. The SE made a mistake. They assumed too much. They seemingly did not check. They did not do a thorough job.

I suspect the SE's suggestion to check it over with the BCO - in most cases they are also 'experts' - was probably not so much to check WHETHER it was required, but to check that the BCO was 'happy' with the changes - they were were on board with this move, and wouldn't raise it as an issue.

I mean, if the ceiling joists weren't even sitting on the top of this stud wall, then that's pretty conclusive. (I'm guessing that the lath was sandwiched between them?!)

So, on this discovery, the SE wasn't so much saying "I dunno - ask the BCO", but "Hmm, it ain't structural after all - check with the BCO it's ok to proceed on this basis."

Imo, the SE did not properly carry out the job for which they were tasked, and should have OFFERED to cover the cost of the spare steel.

Doozergirl

Bendy_House said:

Whilst the SE is the 'expert' here, I think it's very clear from what Baby has told us that this stud wall served no structural purpose; it was only a partition. The SE made a mistake. They assumed too much. They seemingly did not check. They did not do a thorough job.

I suspect the SE's suggestion to check it over with the BCO - in most cases they are also 'experts' - was probably not so much to check WHETHER it was required, but to check that the BCO was 'happy' with the changes - they were were on board with this move, and wouldn't raise it as an issue.

I mean, if the ceiling joists weren't even sitting on the top of this stud wall, then that's pretty conclusive. (I'm guessing that the lath was sandwiched between them?!)

So, on this discovery, the SE wasn't so much saying "I dunno - ask the BCO", but "Hmm, it ain't structural after all - check with the BCO it's ok to proceed on this basis."

Imo, the SE did not properly carry out the job for which they were tasked, and should have OFFERED to cover the cost of the spare steel.

No.  The structural engineer IS an expert. No need for putting the word into quotes.  A chartered SE is a protected title.  

The building control officer is categorically not an expert on structural engineering.  They are an expert on the building regulation documents and totally rely on the advice of SEs.

The OP has questioned a fully qualified expert and apparently got back up from a BCO after the event who has taken the view that they can get away without it.   The BCO has looked and not calculated, the SE has calculated. 

The OP has got what they wanted.  No steel.  If I were minded the same way, I'd see that as a bonus.  I'm not minded the same way so I'd have put the steel in regardless because I know who the expert is.  I would not be trying to get money out of someone who hasn't been negligent and is trying to do their job.  

I am not an expert either, because I am not a qualified SE, but I do understand the hierarchy.  I'm not trying to state something as categorical that I know nothing about here.  

As an example of what you are stating is not structural because it has nothing resting on it - the gable wall of some houses may not have anything at all resting on them in terms of joists, not even the rafters, but if you took the wall out, the whole building would come down with a significant gust of wind.  They brace the walls connecting to them.  They are very much structural.  

Bendy_House

Doozergirl said:

Bendy_House said:

Whilst the SE is the 'expert' here, I think it's very clear from what Baby has told us that this stud wall served no structural purpose; it was only a partition. The SE made a mistake. They assumed too much. They seemingly did not check. They did not do a thorough job.

I suspect the SE's suggestion to check it over with the BCO - in most cases they are also 'experts' - was probably not so much to check WHETHER it was required, but to check that the BCO was 'happy' with the changes - they were were on board with this move, and wouldn't raise it as an issue.

I mean, if the ceiling joists weren't even sitting on the top of this stud wall, then that's pretty conclusive. (I'm guessing that the lath was sandwiched between them?!)

So, on this discovery, the SE wasn't so much saying "I dunno - ask the BCO", but "Hmm, it ain't structural after all - check with the BCO it's ok to proceed on this basis."

Imo, the SE did not properly carry out the job for which they were tasked, and should have OFFERED to cover the cost of the spare steel.

No.  The structural engineer IS an expert. No need for putting the word into quotes.  A chartered SE is a protected title.  

The building control officer is categorically not an expert on structural engineering.  They are an expert on the building regulation documents and totally rely on the advice of SEs.

The OP has questioned a fully qualified expert and apparently got back up from a BCO after the event who has taken the view that they can get away without it.   The BCO has looked and not calculated, the SE has calculated. 

The OP has got what they wanted.  No steel.  If I were minded the same way, I'd see that as a bonus.  I'm not minded the same way so I'd have put the steel in regardless because I know who the expert is.  I would not be trying to get money out of someone who hasn't been negligent and is trying to do their job.  

I am not an expert either, because I am not a qualified SE, but I do understand the hierarchy.  I'm not trying to state something as categorical that I know nothing about here.  

As an example of what you are stating is not structural because it has nothing resting on it - the gable wall of some houses may not have anything at all resting on them in terms of joists, not even the rafters, but if you took the wall out, the whole building would come down with a significant gust of wind.  They brace the walls connecting to them.  They are very much structural.  

Doozer, this is an internal stud wall with nothing resting on it. The house ain't going to fall down.

I think it's safe to assume that the SE assumed that it DID support the joists above. This mattered a lot to the overall alterations, as the presence of this steel was going to affect the ceiling height, or perhaps leave a boxed-in steel, neither of which are remotely desirable. Knowing this, I think there was a greater onus on this SE to investigate properly - it mattered, beyond mere cost.

The SE almost certainly made an error. I don't think clients should have to pay for their errors.

stuart45

A lot of.people.make the mistake of thinking that a stud wall can't be load bearing. There are some called Trussed partitions that can take a load from above without a wall below, or even the joists from the floor below.
An SE can make a mistake, as can anyone. I've come across things like them getting the original thickness and type of construction wrong.
You can't always know what's underneath until the work starts and things get opened up.

Bendy_House

stuart45 said:

A lot of.people.make the mistake of thinking that a stud wall can't be load bearing. There are some called Trussed partitions that can take a load from above without a wall below, or even the joists from the floor below.
An SE can make a mistake, as can anyone. I've come across things like them getting the original thickness and type of construction wrong.
You can't always know what's underneath until the work starts and things get opened up.

Of course, Stuart.

But who is liable for this seeming error?

Take it to its logical conclusion - what if the SE under-specs a structural support and damage is caused to the house as a result? I think we would all agree on that one?

Or an SE doesn't carry out a full investigation, spec's a steel that is not required and is not used, and... what? Walks away?

stuart45

Possibly the SE is at fault, although you always have to hear both sides.
Normally the builder spots an over engineering error and double checks it.
Things like this often come to light once the work starts.

Doozergirl

Bendy_House said:

stuart45 said:

A lot of.people.make the mistake of thinking that a stud wall can't be load bearing. There are some called Trussed partitions that can take a load from above without a wall below, or even the joists from the floor below.
An SE can make a mistake, as can anyone. I've come across things like them getting the original thickness and type of construction wrong.
You can't always know what's underneath until the work starts and things get opened up.

Of course, Stuart.

But who is liable for this seeming error?

Take it to its logical conclusion - what if the SE under-specs a structural support and damage is caused to the house as a result? I think we would all agree on that one?

Or an SE doesn't carry out a full investigation, spec's a steel that is not required and is not used, and... what? Walks away?

Why does anyone have to be liable? 

What if the structural engineer did their best with the information they had at the time without having x ray vision?  What if that steel was absolutely crucial and it wasn't there on site because the SE had taken a punt.  

Realities on site are usually the complete opposite of this.  I've found brick walls seemingly just hanging from themselves and not touching the floor and huge joists not supported on one side at all whilst uncovering previous 'work'. 

To not have to do something once it's uncovered is a bit of a bonus.  The building work is a bit cheaper than it might have been and there is a steel which still holds value.  I'd still rather have erred on the side of caution.   It's easy to speak with hindsight once you've all the information you couldn't have had before.