Cracks under Steel Beam

[billm]

Yes MIstructE

 

[noseall]

Update:
well quite a bit has happened since my last post:
1. BC were asked to inspect the steels/blockwork and commented they would not sign it off until the SE said it has been built according to his design/plans
2. We paid another SE to do some calcs for a couple of small internal beams and at the same time to give us his opinion on the big beams & blockwork. We're still waiting for his report but verbally he said those big beams/bearings/blockwork do not look right but he did not want to get involved
3. My son wrote a lengthy email to the SE the builder used, who is MICE, MISE registered (I checked and he is registered and apparently a 1-man SE Ltd Company) cc to the builder & BC, with photos and asked about steel length, bearings, padstones & blockwork. It has taken a while but he has just replied "due to confidentiality reasons he cannot answer any of the questions as the Builder is his client and not my son" and all questions must come through the builder.
4. the builder is saying he doesn't understand the questions being asked of the SE so is effectively blocking those questions being asked of the SE
5. As the SE the builder used is a member of MISE, I checked their Code of Conduct and I believe he has a duty of care to anyone involved in the build which I interpret that he should answer those questions directly my son posed - being the end user .. is that right ?

In summary, the builders SE appears to be covering for the builder using "confidentiality" as an excuse and the builder is now throwing his toys out of the pram raising other issues in an attempt to get my son to accept what has been built probably knowing what he built is wrong and is using a tactic he has used many times before.

So my question is: can we write again to the builders SE insisting he answers the questions under the MISE Code of Conduct, or risk a complaint to that body if he refuses. At some point the builders SE is going to have to cut the builder lose and chose which side to be on, my sons or the builder, or risk dealing with a MISE complaint.

Once we have his official answer, be it the build id OK or not OK then we can move forward to getting the beams resolved by the builder or by a 3rd party.

And we still don't know the size of the existing beams....(sigh).

 

[johnny2007]

They're taking you for a ride.
Even if the SE answered now, would you trust his answers?
Get a new SE to do the calculations and check that bodge.
The, armed with the report go for the builder and his mates, the SE.
Report them to everyone and everything.
HSE are quite good at kicking rogue builders in the butt.
And I bet the SE would have his own trouble with his regulator.

 

[Koolpc]

They're taking you for a ride.
Even if the SE answered now, would you trust his answers?
Get a new SE to do the calculations and check that bodge.
The, armed with the report go for the builder and his mates, the SE.
Report them to everyone and everything.
HSE are quite good at kicking rogue builders in the butt.
And I bet the SE would have his own trouble with his regulator.

This...

 

[mrrusty]

One result of the latest update is you now have confirmation that the design responsibility rests with the builder, and it is the builder you have a contract with. Assuming the structure is non-compliant, and it looks that way, that does simplify the target as to who you go after. As @johnny2007 says, get another SE report and use it as ammunition either to get the builder to correct the work, and if he won't, then go legal. Going legal should prompt the builder to claim on his PI insurance (which I suspect he doesn't have) probably has PL, but not PI.

Right is on your side, but you are going to need third parties to support you. Do NOT pay any more money until this is resolved.

Also, who made the regs application; you? or the builder acting as your agent? It's 100% your responsibility to get it signed off, but if you have created a contract for the builder to do this on your behalf, again you have some contractual leverage.

The builder has dropped an enormous b'k - taking on design responsibility when he didn't need to as you originally had your own SE...

 

[Koolpc]

Builder prob thought he could cut some corners and make more money!!

 

[^woody^]

The thing with calcs is .... "crap in, crap out".

Anyone can input some figures and get calcs to validate those figures - and someone like the building control engineer may well then "pass" those calculations.

That does not mean that the assumptions made were representative of the actual design or the conditions on site, nor does it mean that the as-built work matches the design indentations - particularly where seemingly minor changes to the installation or elsewhere affect the loading situation and nullify the initial calculations.

You need to be sure that the engineer has used the correct plans and specifications from the plan drawer to base his beam designs off, and that the as-built work matches both the design plans and the engineer's assumptions.

Whilst the builder may well be responsible for the works and those he has sub-contracted works to, it can get messy if say, the client supplied plans to the builder who then contracted engineering design based on those plans, but the plans turned out to be wrong - which may not be the builder's fault. There are issues with implied skill and due diligence and negligence, but the thing with contractual arrangements (written or verbal) involving several parties, is that responsibility can be unclear.

 

[mrrusty]

it can get messy if say, the client supplied plans to the builder who then contracted engineering design based on those plans

Very true, but in post #7 the OP confirms the builder didn't want to use the clients SE and insisted in using his own, hence the transfer of design liability!

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Update:
well quite a bit has happened since my last post:
1. BC were asked to inspect the steels/blockwork and commented they would not sign it off until the SE said it has been built according to his design/plans
2. We paid another SE to do some calcs for a couple of small internal beams and at the same time to give us his opinion on the big beams & blockwork. We're still waiting for his report but verbally he said those big beams/bearings/blockwork do not look right but he did not want to get involved
3. My son wrote a lengthy email to the SE the builder used, who is MICE, MISE registered (I checked and he is registered and apparently a 1-man SE Ltd Company) cc to the builder & BC, with photos and asked about steel length, bearings, padstones & blockwork. It has taken a while but he has just replied "due to confidentiality reasons he cannot answer any of the questions as the Builder is his client and not my son" and all questions must come through the builder.
4. the builder is saying he doesn't understand the questions being asked of the SE so is effectively blocking those questions being asked of the SE
5. As the SE the builder used is a member of MISE, I checked their Code of Conduct and I believe he has a duty of care to anyone involved in the build which I interpret that he should answer those questions directly my son posed - being the end user .. is that right ?

In summary, the builders SE appears to be covering for the builder using "confidentiality" as an excuse and the builder is now throwing his toys out of the pram raising other issues in an attempt to get my son to accept what has been built probably knowing what he built is wrong and is using a tactic he has used many times before.

So my question is: can we write again to the builders SE insisting he answers the questions under the MISE Code of Conduct, or risk a complaint to that body if he refuses. At some point the builders SE is going to have to cut the builder lose and chose which side to be on, my sons or the builder, or risk dealing with a MISE complaint.

Once we have his official answer, be it the build id OK or not OK then we can move forward to getting the beams resolved by the builder or by a 3rd party.

I'd suggest you step aside from blame-throwing, as you'll probably never resolve anything if you're dealing with cowboys as it appears.

How are you on the payments side? Have you paid for more or less work than has been done?

My approach would be to write to the builder to say the contract is terminated due to breach of contract by him, he has no further involvement and you won't be making any further payments. If he demands payment then invite him to sue, then you'd need to show up at the small claims court and prove that what he built wasn't fit for purpose, which shouldn't be difficult once you get it properly assessed. But in all likelihood you'll never hear from him again.

Find a decent SE and/or builder. Give them the freedom to decide what needs demolishing and what can stay and propose a solution.

Just concentrate on how to get the building itself resolved, leave the builder and his dodgy SE mate to find another mug to scam.

 

[mrrusty]

As for payment, payment has been regularly as the project progressed, but there is still mid-teens £000's outstanding so we're not going to be paying anything until this is resolved and because the builder is being petulant, the goodwill has gone, so I'm minded not to pay anything until everything about the build is finished. It would not surprise me if he downed tools and walked off site.

This what the OP said in post #11. @Ivor Windybottom - I agree with your pragmatic approach. Provided that the work done is something like the amount paid, then, assuming that the OP's new report confirms that there are problems, then starting again with a new team must be balanced against the time/cost/hassle of trying to get the existing builder to correct his work at his cost. Once trust is lost, the chances of a good outcome just about disappear.

Horrible situation, but is what happens time and time again - no formal contract, no confirmed scope of work, no clarity about who has design responsibility. I've said it before, but IMHO there is a huge benefit in employing builders strictly on a design and build contract to an outline scope with the backstop that the builder is free to build the detail as he thinks, but whatever he does must be compliant and get signed off. Leave it to the D&B builder to organise the plans, employ the designer, liaise with BC etc. You pay for the builder's risk pot, but get more certainty.

 

[billm]

And we still don't know the size of the existing beams....(sigh).

I have copies of the SE calculations but I won't post them in case this matter progresses in a more formal direction. But these images show the size of the 2 large beams in the Bifold area and the double beam holding the flat roof which you can see on earlier photos.

 

[noseall]

I'd suggest you step aside from blame-throwing

Me too. Ivor is much better at it.

 

[noseall]

I have copies of the SE calculations but I won't post them in case this matter progresses in a more formal direction. But these images show the size of the 2 large beams in the Bifold area and the double beam holding the flat roof which you can see on earlier photos.

152mm x 152mm column spanning 10m!

 

[endecotp]

these images show the size of the 2 large beams in the Bifold area and the double beam holding the flat roof which you can see on earlier photos.

Sorry, I’ve lost track. Are these from your original SE, or are they from the builder’s SE?

 

[billm]

152mm x 152mm column spanning 10m!

That drawing may be out of date as I measured that outermost beam when I was onsite as 180 x 200 and the one over the Bifolds I measured as 205 x 210 and the Double beams are 530 x 210