Advice on who is liable

GDB2222

FreeBear said:

GDB2222 said:

FreeBear said:

GDB2222 said: In the meantime, what does the op do with the steel? 

At the moment, there is a shortage of steel which is pushing the price up on an almost daily basis. The supplier may well accept the steel being returned, perhaps for a small restocking fee. Failing that, ebay.

Don’t they get cut to size for specific jobs?

Yes, but they can always be cut down for smaller jobs. Saves having to cut a full length.

So, their restocking fee will take further wastage into account. I can see that that might be unattractive for the op, although it might be her best bet.

FreeBear

Neighbour had quite a bit of steel ordered for a loft conversion - He had the supplier ringing up offering to buy back for 50% more than was originally paid. Steel prices are crazy at the moment !

Bendy_House

Doozergirl said:

Bendy, without wanting to be disrespectful to the OP, you're taking the word of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about over that of a structural engineer and holding it up as gospel. 

Yes, all the replies made on here are reliant to a large extent on the info provided by their respective OPs. If that info is incorrect, then responses will tend be as well. Often you can sense if a poster is not being 'balanced', and can withdraw, temper or challenge accordingly.

This case would, tho', appear to be;

"Are you SURE we need that other beam? It'll mean a lower ceiling height."

"Yes, you deffo need one."

"Oh, ok then..."

Later...

"Oh look! I don't think the beam will be needed after all! What do you reckon?"

"Er, you may be right - let's ask the BCO to confirm..."

"Nope, you don't need it - you are good to go!"

SE: "Tough, pal."

Yes, I do paraphrase :-)

Section62

Doozergirl said:

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.  

This^

I would regard the cost difference for any restocking fee charged to be the equivalent of an insurance policy. 

I.e. what you pay out to avoid dealing with the potentially far worse consequences of not taking that precaution.

Section62

Bendy_House said:

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.

This^ is why people employ chartered structural engineers.

So they don't have to rely on people with no structural engineering qualifications to give an answer, without seeing the structure, as to whether their home and family are at risk as a result of making alterations to it.

The 'liability' question will probably be answered in the SE's standard terms of appointment.  Which may detail the additional costs associated with intrusive inspections and multiple site visits, vs design assumptions made with or without a cursory inspection.

If I was sure the SE didn't know what they were talking about on the first site visit then I'd ask a second one for advice before proceeding.

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

This^ is why people employ chartered structural engineers.

Who got it - something very basic - wrong. And that was after being asked if he 'was sure'.
And who seemingly went on to defer to the non-expert BCO.

Never mind the cost of the steel, baby could have ended up with a lower ceiling. That's quite significant in my books. And utterly galling if revealed that it wasn't even necessary.

Doozergirl

Bendy_House said:

Section62 said:

This^ is why people employ chartered structural engineers.

Who got it - something very basic - wrong. And that was after being asked if he 'was sure'.
And who seemingly went on to defer to the non-expert BCO.

Never mind the cost of the steel, baby could have ended up with a lower ceiling. That's quite significant in my books. And utterly galling if revealed that it wasn't even necessary.

You're not listening at all.  

This is turning into another tiling thread.    

plumb1_2

Doozergirl said:

You're not listening at all.  

This is turning into another tiling thread.    

Horse to water, rings a bell.

Bendy_House

Doozergirl said:

Bendy_House said:

Section62 said:

This^ is why people employ chartered structural engineers.

Who got it - something very basic - wrong. And that was after being asked if he 'was sure'.
And who seemingly went on to defer to the non-expert BCO.

Never mind the cost of the steel, baby could have ended up with a lower ceiling. That's quite significant in my books. And utterly galling if revealed that it wasn't even necessary.

You're not listening at all.  

This is turning into another tiling thread.    

Now't wrong with that. I wasn't wrong that time either :-)

Jumblebumble

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!    

Hmm
I do not think you can necessarly extrapolate this from you to the OP
You may have a good well qualified structural engineer and you no doubt encountered  incompetant building control officers as I have  but you have absolutly no idea if this structural engineer is in his first week of work following qualification and if the BCO is someone who is an ex structural engineer with 20 years experience 
( why else would a structual engineer say " I dont have a clue Ask the BCO ?"
In my own profession I am not particularly well qualified but I can promise you I have encountered many people with Masters level qualifications  who do not have a clue
They know all the theory but no practical experience so the slightes deviation from what thery know flummoxes them