Seeking Damages

[pdf27]

2 hours ago, willbish said:

Yes I can see it from that perspective. However the critical point here is the first 'opinion' has been found to be so inaccurate and unprofessional that disciplinary procedures against the Engineer have been applied by the Institute of Structural Engineers.

The second opinion wasn't really voluntary, to be used as a comparison with the first, it was a necessity brought about the inaccuracies caused by the Engineer.

Agreed with Ferdinand, I think you're going to need legal advice here and I also suspect that you would probably spend more on legal fees than you would ever recover.

 

Quote

If you feel that your engineer’s failings has caused you financial loss, our specialist professional negligence solicitors will be able to help you.

Here are the main 3 hurdles you will need to overcome in order to win compensation

•  Firstly – was there a contractual relationship between you and your engineer. In particular we will need to have a look at any contract you signed with the engineer and establish what contractual relationship existed with your engineer ;

•  Secondly has the engineer breached their obligations and duties to you – to prove that, we will need to establish that your engineer’s work was below the standard you would expect from a normally proficient structural engineer.

•  What financial loss have you suffered ? Please note that if your financial loss is below £40,000, although you may have a valid claim, our solicitors are unlikely to be able to help you – simply because it is probable that the legal costs of successfully winning your claim are likely to be disproportionate to any compensation you win

https://www.bishopslaw.co.uk/structural-engineer-negligence-claims/

Looks like you've got (2) covered but fail with (1) and (3). If the church were to pay you your costs they'd get (1) and (2) but not (3). You **might** be able to claim against the church, but that will depend on exactly what they told you and how - and getting legal with them might not be the most effective route.

I think your best bet would be to talk to them and point out that your report saved them a lot of money, and ask them to share the cost of the emptying, inspection and report - that would with luck get you 2/3 of your costs back without having to get legal and upsetting everyone. It's probably also more than you'd end up with going down the legal route.

[willbish]

Thanks again all

 

13 hours ago, pdf27 said:

 

I think your best bet would be to talk to them and point out that your report saved them a lot of money, and ask them to share the cost of the emptying, inspection and report - that would with luck get you 2/3 of your costs back without having to get legal and upsetting everyone.

 

I think this point is important. I have no intention of legal action against the Church. Keeping positive neighbourly relations is a priority for me

Perhaps the way forward is a polite letter to the Church explaining my perspective. I am of course thankful that I've managed to prevent a large bill for a whole new system.

A reasonable solution might be to keep 2/3 the costs i've incurred as credit for future maintenance liabilities.

[Mr Punter]

That is a sensible suggestion.  The money you spent on the report has saved you all a fair bit and if you are on the hook for 1/3 of costs it would be reasonable for the others to stump up 2/3.

[SteveMack]

Having used small claims before I don't think you have a leg to stand on; I may be wrong but from my experiences, consider the following.

 

1, You got your own engineer to give you an independant opinion (which turned out correct).

2, If anyone should claim their costs back off the incorrect engineer, it's the church, (it's them who had a formal contract, not you)

3, How are you ever going to quantify what you lost when you didn't lose anything, I refer back to point 1, you did your own due diligence before the work was carried out and prevented your loss.

4, Have you considered asing the church to pay half the reports costs once they claim their costs back as per point 2?  I know there's a 1/3 and 2/3 liability but that seems petty going to that extent if you want to keep the peace in the long term

[Gus Potter]

Interesting thread this.

 

From time to time an SE for example will insert into their terms and conditions of appointment that their liability will for example extend to 10 times the fee value. This is often done where there is say the risk of contaminated land. For example you could design a small portal framed MOT station on an old garage site. The fee for this may only be a few hundred quid but if the ground is contaminated it could have major impact on the structure and clean up costs. The SE could suddenly find they are facing a claim of tens of thousands. It is important particularly when dealing with less experienced clients that the risks are fully explained. This allows them to make an informed judgement. If the client does not want to take this risk then the fee needs be adjusted to reflect this liability.

 

Before progressing it may be worth while finding out what the SE's T & C's were.

 

Pragmatically maybe the best outcome at the end of the day is to contact the SE, explain the current situation as diplomatically as you can, why you feel the way you do and ask them how they may feel about making a contribution to the Church / local community funds as a good will gesture without predudice... and all agree just to leave it at that. While this may appear not to attractive financially in the short term a bit of good will generated now could be very beneficial at some later date.