Difference in structural engineer opinions - how to proceed?

FreeBear

Doozergirl said: I've also seen some really dangerous work that has apparently been designed by an SE and subsequently passed by BC, so that also doesn't fill me with confidence either. 

This one will leave you having kittens....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNRiaXVRBgU

ThisIsWeird

The roof looks nice.

casper_gutman

ThisIsWeird said:

The roof looks nice.

But for how long with no wall holding it up?   

NB this was before installation of the beam, though. Even a quite significantly underspecified steel beam properly installed under the wall would most likely have prevented this sort of wholesale collapse.

weeg

Are you/ have you directly commissioned and/ or paid for the advice from the second SE? Because if you don't have some sort of contract with them, then you aren't covered by their professional indemnity insurance and are on the hook if something goes awry. So use what ever one you definitely have cover under.

FWIW, I would usually include details of foundation remedials on my drawings, with a TBC depending on investigations.  Whether or not they are required depends on so many different factors, some engineers will always say you need to upgrade the founds, but that's honestly quite often to do with how much they are being paid (small fee = less time = more generic and therefore more conservative design). I realise that sounds cynical, but that's my experience (and I've worked for a variety of consulting structural engineering companies who have taken different approaches)

casper_gutman

Excellent point, @weeg. Don't ignore this, @boots_babe !!

boots_babe

weeg said:

Are you/ have you directly commissioned and/ or paid for the advice from the second SE? Because if you don't have some sort of contract with them, then you aren't covered by their professional indemnity insurance and are on the hook if something goes awry. So use what ever one you definitely have cover under.

FWIW, I would usually include details of foundation remedials on my drawings, with a TBC depending on investigations.  Whether or not they are required depends on so many different factors, some engineers will always say you need to upgrade the founds, but that's honestly quite often to do with how much they are being paid (small fee = less time = more generic and therefore more conservative design). I realise that sounds cynical, but that's my experience (and I've worked for a variety of consulting structural engineering companies who have taken different approaches)

Thanks weeg. We are paying both engineers - we actually got the 2nd engineer involved to get a second opinion on a different issue (long story) but he ended up also looking at this for us. So indemnity insurance valid whichever one we go with.

Your additional comments are helpful, it all helps me to start to better understand how we find ourselves in this situation, and to weigh up the best way forward.

gzoom

Doozergirl said:

However, years of experience tells me that it's almost never better than you expect.  

Personally, I would go with the builder's choice because that builder has years of experience with structural engineers and having to trust them to keep them safe whilst working too.    

That was our experience and the experience of our builders. For the sake of a few Ks extra is costs of concert just go with the most sound ground works solution. 

The biggest 'regert' I have on our build is we didn't listen to the builder and knock down the one existing wall left standing of the orignal house......guess which wall is now showing signs of raising damp