Advice on who is liable

Bendy_House

stuart45 said:

Non load bearing walls can start to take loads over time. Upper floor partitions are an example in the centre of trussed rafters taking a large span, or under sized joists sitting on a wall. Removal won't normally cause the floor to collapse, but the rafters or joists may deflect and cause ceiling cracks.

Oh behave!

The argument now is that non-load bearing structures could BECOME so, ergo...?!

Sorry, Stuart, you are great, but that's like the other post earlier on where this stud wall could possibly be preventing this house from folding like a pack of cards.

An SE is employed to determine what beams are required when a wall is coming down. This one DID NOT check whether this wall was load-bearing. 

He presumed. And he got it wrong. And, hadn't this been corrected, his paying client would have had a sticky-out beam or a lower ceiling. He already has an extra bill.

And folk are ok with this? The SE just shrugs?

stuart45

Bendy, the post is for information purposes. It may, or may not apply to the SE's thoughts in this matter.
It could well be that the SE has made an error in this case, they do make them. They tend to over engineer, as under engineering will come to light. Over engineering is often a matter for discussion but most people will think it's better to be on the safe side.
You may well be correct in this case, but the OP has not returned and more info would be needed..

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Doozergirl said:

Can we address this 'lowering ceiling height' if we're going to continuously to refer to it.  

The ceiling height is lowered only where the joist sits, you know, like a joist that is supporting where a wall has been removed and features in millions of homes up and down this country.  It's not a compromise for most people or something to be upset or complain about if it happens.  It's normal.   

It rarely, if ever impinges upon anyone's enjoyment because the steels are designed on a project by project basis not to.  The average ceiling height is 2.4m - enough to accommodate a steel underneath in the average home.  

No one needs to reduce the entire ceiling height to deal with it.  It's not a thing.  

(a) I'm going by what the OP has said, and (b) even an unnecessary boxed-in beam is 'ok', 'cos an SE didn't carry out a basic check?

Whatevs.

What did you have in mind for this missing "basic check"?  What simple thing could the SE have done to rule out the possibility the wall being removed had no load bearing function?

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Sorry, Stuart, you are great, but that's like the other post earlier on where this stud wall could possibly be preventing this house from folding like a pack of cards.

Are you saying you don't believe a 'stud wall' can have a structural function?

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

Bendy_House said:

Sorry, Stuart, you are great, but that's like the other post earlier on where this stud wall could possibly be preventing this house from folding like a pack of cards.

Are you saying you don't believe a 'stud wall' can have a structural function?

Come off it, S62 - of course I know they can be. But they do need to be in physical contact with the load they are supporting.

Your comment is a bit, you know... 

Bendy_House

stuart45 said:

Bendy, the post is for information purposes. It may, or may not apply to the SE's thoughts in this matter.
It could well be that the SE has made an error in this case, they do make them. They tend to over engineer, as under engineering will come to light. Over engineering is often a matter for discussion but most people will think it's better to be on the safe side.
You may well be correct in this case, but the OP has not returned and more info would be needed..

Absolutely, Stuart. We don't know the end tale. Other than the SE seemingly accepted a further beam was not required, after confirming it with the BCO. (I did say before, that this was quite likely to be just the SE making the BCO 'aware' of the proposed changes, and confirming they were acceptable so wouldn't be challenged afterwards.)

I presume, on exposure of the wall covering or the ceiling lath, the joists were found to be not in contact with the stud wall. 

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

Bendy_House said:

Doozergirl said:

Can we address this 'lowering ceiling height' if we're going to continuously to refer to it.  

The ceiling height is lowered only where the joist sits, you know, like a joist that is supporting where a wall has been removed and features in millions of homes up and down this country.  It's not a compromise for most people or something to be upset or complain about if it happens.  It's normal.   

It rarely, if ever impinges upon anyone's enjoyment because the steels are designed on a project by project basis not to.  The average ceiling height is 2.4m - enough to accommodate a steel underneath in the average home.  

No one needs to reduce the entire ceiling height to deal with it.  It's not a thing.  

(a) I'm going by what the OP has said, and (b) even an unnecessary boxed-in beam is 'ok', 'cos an SE didn't carry out a basic check?

Whatevs.

What did you have in mind for this missing "basic check"?  What simple thing could the SE have done to rule out the possibility the wall being removed had no load bearing function?

Based on the info provided - that the SE seemingly assumed that this stud wall was supporting 'joists', so presumably of a floor/ceiling above, and I think there was mention of the the ceiling being lath(?), then either a wee hole being punched in this ceiling in its corner with the wall, or else looking from above - whether that would have required a floorboard being lifted, I don't know.

This is an unreasonable expectation?

Bendy_House

Ladies and gents, if it is beyond an SE's remit to hammer a hole in a ceiling corner/lift a floorboard in order to determine whether a walk is load bearing, even when their assumption was challenged by their paying customer, then fine. There endeth the tale.

Doozergirl

Perfectly reasonable,  I'll remember that the next time a customer who has never built a thing decides to question our time-served structural engineer and the SE defends their decision.   

The house is coming down on my firm's heads, so maybe I'll just decline the job, like I did recently.  You can do the job instead!

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Section62 said:

Bendy_House said:

Sorry, Stuart, you are great, but that's like the other post earlier on where this stud wall could possibly be preventing this house from folding like a pack of cards.

Are you saying you don't believe a 'stud wall' can have a structural function?

Come off it, S62 - of course I know they can be. But they do need to be in physical contact with the load they are supporting.

Your comment is a bit, you know... 

Any evidence the wall wasn't in contact with the walls either end of it, or in contact with the floor at the bottom?

Don't fall into the trap of thinking a wall is only 'loadbearing' if the load is coming from above.

My comment was.... wondering if you were really disputing what someone with experience in the subject (DoozerGirl IIRC) had said about the possibility of a 'stud wall' being an important structural element, the removal of which could result in serious structural failure.

If you accept a 'stud wall' (which could be 'timber frame construction') could possibly be providing lateral support (i.e. at either or both ends), or could be supporting the floor below (rare, but can happen) then it becomes obvious that a 'simple check' of looking at what is above the wall isn't enough to rule out the possibility of the wall being 'loadbearing'.  There are other things that need checking... but the clock is ticking and SE time is expensive relative to the cost of steel.

Bendy_House said:

Ladies and gents, if it is beyond an SE's remit to hammer a hole in a ceiling corner/lift a floorboard in order to determine whether a walk is load bearing, even when their assumption was challenged by their paying customer, then fine. There endeth the tale.

Normal practice is that SE's don't start poking holes in walls and ceilings.  If you want an SE inspection of something you normally need to get a builder in to uncover the structure, then get the SE to visit. (see multiple 'lack of BC signoff' threads on this forum for confirmation)

You may find a SE willing to do some uncovering themselves, but that will be priced into the contract (e.g. with additional cover for liability if the hole they make goes straight into your ring main or CH pipe)

There are two main approaches to employing a SE.  The first is the quick and dirty one where the SE will make assumptions and provide you with a solution which will pass BC. It may not include a site visit. Most domestic work is done that way. It is cheap for a reason.  The second approach involves far more investigation and analysis, possibly some computer modelling.  You may need that for complex domestic work, but it is expensive and less common.  The SE's terms of engagement with the OP should outline the approach they were taking and the level of assumptions to be made vs investigation and detailed analysis.  Without having any information about those terms none of us here can comment on whether the SE should be liable for what you feel is an 'error'.