Structural Engineer problems - who to turn to?

[Ness]

Can anyone help please? 

 

We took on a structural engineer who was recommended (and cheap) and we have had nothing but problems. He took 9 months to provide calculations which meant nothing to me (I know they're not meant to..... hence the reason we paid him), so they were passed onto the architect. 

 

All seemed well, foundations were poured, we took on LABC as our warranty and they over saw the foundations. We stopped due to lack of funds and are waiting for the sale of our house to go through now, but we got an email from LABC saying that their engineer has reviewed our plans, the SE calculation and the ground investigation report provided and (2 months after the foundations were poured) he doesn't think they have been designed correctly! It is very naughty when they had all this info at the start, to come back at this late stage, but basically the foundations we have have not been designed to take enough weight and should have had steels in them. This is according to the soil investigation report (which the SE had). 

 

So so I have spent 2 months chasing my structural engineer as I need him to come back with why he has designed it the way he has, which may be enough, but he keeps ignoring my emails and calls, or I get the odd one saying he will respond, then nothing. I can not by pass him otherwise I would and we have already taken on a second SE to complete some of the things that were unclear from his calculations. 

 

So (in a long winded way..... sorry) my question is.... does anyone know where I take this as I cannot get a response. I know that SE have warranties, how would I find out who this is? Or would it be a case of instructing a solicitor? Small claims court..... I just have no idea? We paid 7k for our foundation and simply do not have money to put this right if it comes to it, so surely his warranty should cover him? I know LABC go over the top, presumably most insurers do? I have pleaded with the SE etc.... and been extremely patient and we paid him to do a job.... where do we go from here? We can't do anything else until he can satisfy LABC's questions (it has been passed by building control though) and we may need to get a mortgage at some point. I know the SE had a breakdown a couple of years ago which explains a few things..... but it's just bad work ethics. 

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated, I have tried googling and looking into everything I can to find out..... but I just have no clue what to do! Thanks everyone and a happy new year to you all  

[PeterW]

So just to clarify ...

 

SE has designed the foundations and they have been poured 

Building Control have signed off the foundations and design 

LABC Warranty have said they won't sign off the design ..??

 

So the way to do it is to write (recorded delivery) to the SE giving 14 days to respond otherwise you will be taking legal action. If he doesn't then it will cost you a solicitor's letter but it will be worthwhile. 

 

Secondly find out if he is a member of any chartered institute as they normally have a complaints procedure - find it and follow it. 

 

Finally you need to get LABC to advise why they think the design is incorrect in simple terms - I would hazard a guess that someone somewhere has not read something correctly as it's unusual for Building Control to pass something without checking so there is a discrepancy somewhere. 

 

Keep a record of all correspondence with the SE as you may need it if it doesn't go smoothly. 

 

And good luck ..!

[Ness]

Thank you @PeterW..... yes you are correct. LABC we're happy with the foundations until their SE looked at the paperwork, which should have happened beforehand. 

 

I was was thinking I need to send the recorded letter, I have all correspondence otherwise and it is pretty much all done via email. 

 

LABC have sent a list of things they were not happy with, most are pretty simple to rectify but it all basically comes from this soil investigation report. We was originally having a basement, but we scrapped the idea due to poor soil (we have a high water table) so this report had recommendations about foundations ect.... we have got spread footings and most people have commented they are an complete overkill at 1.2m wide, going to 2m in some places. The soil investigation report was never submitted to building control and they never asked for it.... but LABC said the foundations were designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 50kN/m².  However the Site Investigation Report confirms an allowable bearing pressure of only  25kN/m²

 

I can't answer that, I have since read through the report and that is what it says, so why would the engineer design it in such a way? LABC insisted on the site investigation report, which we had already had anyhow.  If I get a letter sent out tomorrow, that may be enough to make him respond. 

 

To to be fair..... building control were pretty crap. He didn't even have the right plans with him when he came to pass it off. And the LABC inspector was the old building control officer (who we know quite well from previous stuff) so the BC just said, oh if he's happy with it, we are! 

 

Thanks for for the advice.... I will get this letter sent out and hopefully it can all be rectified.... I think I will need the luck too.... ha ha! 

[ProDave]

I'm getting confused over who said what. You seem to be using LABC to do building control AND warranty, but it is not clear in some of your statements which one has failed it?  Are there indeed seperate departments and separate inspectors for these 2 functions?

 

As regards load bearing, what you need to know is what load bearing the completed building will impose on the foundations that have been poured, not some theoretical value.  Could it just be that the overkill foundations could take 50KN/m² but are not actually being asked to support that much?
 

[Ness]

Sorry @ProDave...... I didn't mean to confuse. LABC are just a warranty company like NHBC. Plans were signed off by building control and then we approached LABC before we started for the warranty only. They are the ones that have the issues..... not building control. It would not be the end of the world if LABC pulled out of insuring us (which is the worst case senrio) but I would rather have them onboard. It has still been passed by building control and is ok to build. 

 

As far as the loads goes..... I get what your saying, but the soil investigation  report was done before we even knew what we was building out of as we were seeing what the soil was like for a basement. So in theory what you say makes sense as the weight of what's on top would make a huge difference. The point LABC are making is that they should have been designed to take a load 25kn/m2 not 50kn/m2 so in theory they are taking less of a load than they should. Obviously the SE could answer all of this if he would take the time too.

 

The other choice is that we have a new soil investigation report and hope it says something different..... but at 2500.00 it's a bloody expensive option.   

[ProDave]

I think the thing you need to check is what the actual load will be with the building you are constructing. If it's under 25KN/m² then happy days.

If not then that's when your troubles begin. And you do need this information from your SE. So rather than go at him with both guns blazing "blaming" him, start by simply requesting the actual ground pressure imposed on the foundations. Is that information actually stated in any of the documents he provided?

 

P.S I took LABC to mean Local Area Building Control. Why do people choose such confusing names?

 

[Ness]

On the contrary @ProDave.... I haven't blamed anyone or sent any guns blazing at all. In fact I have probably been too nice about the whole thing. 

 

I sent him the email direct from LABC and ask if he could please answer their questions. I have "repeatedly" asked "nicely". 

 

My email yesterday was simply saying that I am regretful for the situation but unless I get a response within a week, I will have no other choice but to take things further as I need his input. I have been asking over 2 months now and he promised he would be there for any future questions. 

 

I have never accused or blamed and I am sure he has designed them in a way that are perfectly suitable..... but unless he can clarify this..... we can not move move forward. His last email 10th Dec, he said he would respond ASAP, which is great, but he hasn't. 

 

I am sure it will all work out, but we are moving into a mobile home late this month, poss Feb with a newborn (as I am expecting in 3 weeks) and unless we can get this sorted out now..... we can't really do a lot more. In an ideal world it would have been sorted by now. It's just frustrating, but hey.... (as my mum says) I am sure it will all come out in the wash ?

[Daedalus]

A ground bearing capacity of 25kN/m2 seems very low. Is this not a typo on the ground investigation report?

 

Your SE would normally estimate a bearing capacity of 50kN/m2 based on traditional footings (which he has). Anything less then this would normally be piled.

 

Please don't take this the wrong way but your problems with your Engineer are probably caused by the following ...

 

11 hours ago, Ness said:

We took on a structural engineer who was recommended (and cheap)

 

He's probably spent his fee and is now is unwilling to spend anymore time on your project. If you're not getting the service you want approach another Engineer, without knowing the circumstances the timescales seem a bit ridiculous.

 

Hope that helps.

[bassanclan]

Can you PROVE that your structural engineer had the soil investigation report in his hand when he designed the foundations?

 

 

[IanR]

Just taking a step back, a bearing capacity of 25kN/m2 is very low. How is it specified in the soil report that this is the minimum.

 

I assume some bore holes were dug and that's when the pressure test was done? was the 25kN/m2 perhaps just at a certain depth when a maybe a water seam was pushed through?

 

This was my experience on my current site. 200 - 400kN/m2 in most areas and dropping sharply in one bore hole to 20 kN/m2 for a short distance at a particular depth. The Geotech company then wrote a report high lighting this a suggesting a risk that needed to be explored further with many more bore holes and included a quote for doing the extra work.

 

We called them out on this, high lighting that this as a local anomaly at a depth that would not effect the foundation and they mumbled a bit giving a few excuses and then re-wrote their report with a minimum 200 kN/m2 bearing capacity.  

 

If the bearing capacity really is 25 kN/m2 for the whole site then in my limited experience I would have thought piling would be the only option. In which case start to get formal with your SE, as per PeterW's suggestion. 

 

Edit: crossed with Daedalus

Edited January 3, 2017 by IanR

[Ness]

Thank you for your help. I agree @Daedalus but no it's not a typo, that's why we scraped the idea of a basement. I am calling the soil investigation people today @IanR to see if things could change as we haven't gone to the depths of a basement, but the section mentioning the loads was specifically about foundations only. It all goes over my head..... but to be fair I shouldn't be trying to work it all out, that's why you pay the experts ?? I was trying to see what the engineer said as he could clarify it and that could/should be the end of it. 

 

Piling was recommended for a basement and yes 3 bore holes to a depth of 3m. The irony is that the soil was perfect sandy "Norfolk" soil for foundations. We have spread footings so there not very deep and presumably (again) if the SE got back to us.... he could argue why he's done what he's done and the whole situation could be rectified. I agree about the money, he came recommended and most other quote were 3 times the amount. I should have listened to my initial gut reaction..... lesson learnt! Slightly painful lesson ?? I don't think I can get another engineer to answer the queries..... there are about 15 from LABC and some are things like, can he show calculations that he has taken into account x,y and z. If we hadn't poured the foundations, we would have them recalculated with a new "efficient" SE and that would be the end of it..... but hindsight is a beautiful thing! ? 

 

@bassanclan, I have an email sending the report, him thanking me for it and a later conversation stating that he designed it in that way due to the report. So yeah.... I am sure that would hold up ?

[IanR]

51 minutes ago, Ness said:

... and a later conversation stating that he designed it in that way due to the report.

 

Sounds to me that it's going to be OK.

 

Let the GeoTech company know the depth of the foundations and, if at that depth the bearing capacity is better than the 25kN/m2, ask them to either revise the max bearing capacity or add an addendum showing a higher bearing capacity at the proposed foundation depth.

 

Your SE sounds like he's being awkward, but perhaps he feels he's done the job he was contracted to do. I wouldn't be surprised if the SE at LABC also knows that it's OK but doesn't feel he should have to infer that from the report, so wants it spelled out.

 

51 minutes ago, Ness said:

but to be fair I shouldn't be trying to work it all out, that's why you pay the experts ?? 

 

To be fair, you've contracted different parties directly for the different roles, (which is the most "fun" way of doing it!), so you will end up being the interface to each of them and resolving the issues.

 

Think of the money you are saving by not contracting a PM or Architect to look after this for you. And you'd probably still find yourself in the thick of it trying to resolve issues.

Edited January 3, 2017 by IanR

[Ness]

Lol @IanR.... I agree! I always seem to do things the hard way ??? 

 

He took 9 months to do the original calculations so I should have realised then! We were in no rush at the time. As I said.... learning curve. I don't think he is bad person..... just not very efficient..... which doesn't help my cause.... lol!   

 

We will get there in the end....