Basement redesign: Issue with structural engineer

[JGR]

Hello all,

apologies if a similar question has been raised in the forum. I did search extensively beforehand.

 

For my house extension, we have decided to add a basement. 

The original plans that the structural engineer created, stated that the outside walls of the basement were to be made using blockwork.

The structural engineer made site visits in advance of the original plan.

 

This plan was used for tendering and the basement company we choice, estimated according to the original SE plan.

 

During further discussions between the SE and the basement company, the outside walls are now to be made of reinforced concrete.

This redesign has increased the costs of the basement significantly.

Nobody informed me of the increase in costs that this change would cause until shortly before the basement works started, leaving me with no option but to proceed with the basement.

 

I am now in dispute with the structural engineer over this matter.

 

I have a few questions:

 

1. Am I right to point the finger at the SE?

2. What are my options?

3. Would I be within my rights to withhold any due invoices towards the SE until this matter is clarified?

 

Thank you all in advance!

 

[joe90]

14 minutes ago, JGR said:

During further discussions between the SE and the basement company, the outside walls are now to be made of reinforced concrete.

Were you not included in that conversation? As you are the customer you should have been and if the quote increased you would have to be informed surely. I would ask your SE why he changed his mind as you only accepted the quote for a blockwork basement.

[nod]

Has the SE stated the reason for the design change ?

Surely you would have had to resubmit to building control Or did he handle that side 

How much extra cost is involved?

[ToughButterCup]

2 hours ago, JGR said:

...

Nobody informed me of the increase in costs

...

 

What was your cost-control strategy?

 

I ask because I think it reasonable to suggest that all relevant  parties are responsible for managing communication about significant change. Or, maybe  you had a Quantity Surveyor? In which case  ... 

 

[Adrian Walker]

You said "... until shortly before the basement works started, leaving me with no option but to proceed with the basement."  You did have an option and could have stopped the works.  IMHO it's very rare to see a basement (below ground) constructed of block work. If basements leak then it costs £1000s to correct.  I presume that the basement company is providing a good guarantee.

[George]

SE probably meant reinforced blockwork but was assumed to be unreinforced blockwork.

 

Or different ground conditions were found.

 

Either way I can't see you've got a claim against them- you had the choice not to build it.

[Moonshine]

1 hour ago, Adrian Walker said:

 IMHO it's very rare to see a basement (below ground) constructed of block work. If basements leak then it costs £1000s to correct.  I presume that the basement company is providing a good guarantee.

 

My basement is blockwork, 2 skins with a 200mm cavity which was core filed with concrete and mesh. Waterproofing externally and internally.

[saveasteading]

56 minutes ago, George said:

SE probably meant reinforced blockwork

It depends perhaps whether this was general advice or  detailed design. 

As @Moonshine this is perfectly feasible in block, but needs detailed  design .

I've done a basement and chose to use a proprietary block system into which went reinforcement and concrete, rather than standard blocks.

But it needs very specialised and expensive waterproofing if it is to be an occupied space.

On the other hand, a reinforced concrete wall, designed as if for a swimming pool, water tank or reservoir  is feasible too, and may need less waterproofing measures.

Cost difference? It depends on a lot of variables.

 

Without seeing the detailed design and covering correspondence,  and the client brief, and understanding of the contract and supervision responsibilities, we can't really comment on the design suitability, and I probably wouldn't choose to anyway.

[JGR]

Thank you for your replies

 

 - I wasn't involved in the detailed discussion that led to basement and SE deciding a new design was needed. 

 - The SE is stating that the the design change was done after discussions with the basement company

 - The additional cost to the basements works is around 30K

 - My cost control strategy : Obviously I have budgeted for things going wrong, I would like to have been informed about unexpected cost increases 😔

 

I don't think we can comment on design suitability as the other poster mentioned.

 

A general question? Is there a "body" I can complain to to investigate this?

Secondly: Am I within my rights to withhold further payment to the SE until this matter is resolved (I am in dispute with them)....

 

Thank you all very much!

 

[Moonshine]

2 hours ago, JGR said:

 - I wasn't involved in the detailed discussion that led to basement and SE deciding a new design was needed. 

 - The SE is stating that the the design change was done after discussions with the basement company

 - The additional cost to the basements works is around 30K

 

It would be interesting to know what the basement company fed back to the SE that warranted the design change, also had the basement company quoted the works based on the SE design?

 

I would be livid that i had not been informed about design changes and cost implications. i agree that you can't comment on the design suitability as its not your area of expertise, but you should be informed of significant changes in design and costs and be brought into those discussions.

 

I would have this niggling feeling that the basement company hadn't quoted correctly, and pushed back to the SE that it needs to have a different design due to a reason (maybe ground conditions) and it needed to be built a different way. Therefore a variation in works and an extra £30k. I may be paranoid but something doesn't seem right to me.

 

TBH why is the basement company liaising with the SE without your involvement?  

 

Edit: surely the SE would have need your authorisation to carry out further work for the redesign, as they would need that to get paid

Edited January 29 by Moonshine

[JGR]

Thansk for your reply Moonshine

 

1. The basement company quoted based on the original design

2. I introduced the basement company to the SE as a way of parties working together.  However I was never made aware of any significant re-design by the SE and impact financially of the re-design.

3. Very shortly before the works were due to commence I was sent the additional invoice for the new SE design and also the quote for the additional works to be done by the basement company. It was either proceed with the project or stop it with penalty clauses towards the basement company and project delay (subsequent building work is planned upon basement completion etc... Knock on delays)

 

The basement work has now started and due to stage payments they are of course being paid on schedule.

 

What is outstanding is the invoice for the SE re-design. This I am disputing as I believe the original design should have including drawings "close to" the final design.

 

 

 

 

[Moonshine]

But why did it have to be redesigned in the first place 

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, JGR said:

...

2. I introduced the basement company to the SE as a way of parties working together.  However I was never made aware of any significant re-design by the SE and impact financially of the re-design.

...

 

As written, it seems that the SE re-designed something without your knowledge, and is charging you for it . Correct?

 

and in addition got agreement from the basement company and said ;

 

1 hour ago, JGR said:

...

either proceed with the project or stop it with penalty clauses towards the basement company

...

 

put a gun to your head.

 

It seems to me that I have misread / misunderstood something, or there is a distinct lack of Emotional Intelligence in your team. 

 

All it would have taken to avoid this is one phone call.

[ToughButterCup]

On 28/01/2024 at 09:09, JGR said:

...

3. Would I be within my rights to withhold any due invoices towards the SE until this matter is clarified?

...

 

None of us here can give you a properly qualified answer.  It's above our pay (£0:00) grade

 

How much money is at stake here a few hundred or  a few thousand?

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, JGR said:

What is outstanding is the invoice for the SE re-design.

You can't ignore it. At the very least you must write and say that you are not happy and why.

It sounds as if they have done what was required. The issue seems to be who is managing the process and who reports to who?

If we could see the initial brief and instructions to and between all parties,  then we could understand the situation.

That is what your lawyer or claims surveyor would do, at some cost.

.

They will also assess how much you have lost through this process, which may be nil.

 

Cheaper is for you or a friend to run openmindedly  through the paperwork and summarise who said what. In particular look at the initial design...was it an overview or detailed?

[Alan Ambrose]

Hmm, you may have have lost this one. You could have a 3-way call or meeting to understand how it came out that way, but it's possible everyone will be pointing fingers or ass-covering.

 

However, it is possible that the new solution was either the right one to begin with or is a substantially better idea than the original. Not for sure, but quite possible. It would be interesting to try and ascertain the validity of this thought, but you might need to obtain a second opinion from another SE.

 

What you could do now, now that it is built, is try to ensure that if there are failings with the basement, that you have a clear path for redress.

  

[JGR]

Thanks all for your help.

As one of you stated, I am wary that there will be a 3 way call between the SE, Basement company and myself and it will just be a finger pointing call.

 

The amount that is owed to the SE is just over 2K, which I have acknowledged however I stated I am refusing to pay until I have received an answer from them why the designs changed for significantly.

 

I am still awaiting their feedback on the matter. However they are threatening me now with late payment penalties.

[saveasteading]

11 minutes ago, JGR said:

late payment penalties

To which add legal costs, another SE for the continuation of the project and dealing with bco.

I'm not saying just to pay it, because I don't know the circumstances. But you must write to say what your complaint  is and why you blame them. If you are right, a boss may step in to resolve it. 

Writing that letter will clarify your argument....it's  basically what you might end up reading to a court.

[saveasteading]

I realise I wasn't clear. I mean write now with a brief statement of your position and why withholding.

Also write a draft of your whole argument. Who instructed who and why and then the process. That is an exercise to clarify your own thoughts and strength of argument.

[Moonshine]

1 hour ago, JGR said:

The amount that is owed to the SE is just over 2K, which I have acknowledged however I stated I am refusing to pay until I have received an answer from them why the designs changed for significantly.

 

Also i would be inclined to ask on who's authorisation the works additional SE works were conducted under.

 

I am a consultant in the building industry and if there is a design change from another consultant (e,g, mechanical consultant changing plant details) i don't commence with my re-assessment until i have had a chat with the end client (who is paying my bills) in relation to the design change/implications and their agreement on my additional fee (where its required).

 

It sounds like the SE got the redesign request from the Basement company, the SE may have assumed that the Basement company had the authorisation of the design change from you, however they didn't talk to you and get authorisation from you (the bill payer) of agreement of additional works. This is assuming that there was a fixed scope of works for the initial design and it wasn't a rolling hourly rate contract. I would check the SE quote as i would like to think that its a fixed fee scope with hourly rates for additional works, but has a statement such as 'additional works will not be undertaken without written approval'

Edited January 30 by Moonshine

[Alan Ambrose]

>>>

if there is a design change from another consultant (e,g, mechanical consultant changing plant details) i don't commence with my re-assessment until i have had a chat with the end client (who is paying my bills) in relation to the design change/implications and their agreement on my additional fee (where its required).

<<<

 

Yes, that's what you would expect grown-ups to do. It suggests both the SE and the contractor are at fault for not getting the cost increase agreed in ample time. Leaving it until the last minute doesn't count. So, both were either negligent or devious. The SE didn't apparently have anything to gain which suggests negligence, the contractor could be either. It could be that both were negligent though and you have still ended up with the right solution, just 'cos RC was the right answer in the first place. But that suggests the SE made a misjudgment to begin with.

[Moonshine]

13 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

that's what you would expect grown-ups to do.

 

have you seen my profile picture 🤣

[George]

In general, no you shouldn't have to pay for works you haven't instructed... unless you go on to use them.

 

In terms of communication, the SE could reasonably have thought the basement contractor was an authorised agent (to instruct work), especially if they needed the additional designs for their work - which they were contractually obliged to deliver. 

 

And if you go ahead and use the SE's new design then you should be paying them. Especially if you want to be covered by their professional indemnity. 

 

I would view it as a complaint due to poor communication and ask for a discount. 

 

Without knowing more we don't know whether the SE did make a mistake or the basement contractor did when pricing. Too many variables. 

 

I'm sure a lawyer would have a more insightful opinion but that's the last person you want involved. .... ££££

Edited January 31 by George