Do I need a chartered engineer if LABC don't?

[nervous123]

My SE discovered that RSJ fitted by {cowboy }contractor not put in properly and doesnt conform to B'Regs. Also other related structural issues with purlins in loft.

Thing is, SE is not yet chartered (but has much experience in the field and graduated several yrs ago). When I discussed regularisation with LABC they said Calcs and drawings can be provided by a Structural engineer even if he's not chartered.

However, contractor says subject to seeing Report he will rectify and replace RSJ if necessary. Im a little concerned that he may demand to see a Chartered Engineer's report.

Is that a credible concern? Is there any substantial difference between a Chartered and Non-CHartered Engineer? Do I need to worry about the lack of PII? My main aim is just to get it regularised...

thanks.

 

[jeds]

How can your contractor judge if the SE knows what he is talking about? For all he knows he might be a complete tit that has got a bit of info off google. Having said that, I've come across more than a couple of chartered engineers that were tits as well.

Also, beams don't 'comply with regs'. There are no regs that prescribe what beam should go where and what size it should be or how it should be fixed etc. Structure is designed to do a job by somebody who knows what they're doing. The compliance comes when BI is satisfied that the designer is suitably qualified. From your point of view the designer should carry PI insurance. Apart from anything else PI insurance is a pretty good measure of a persons competance because insurers don't just hand it out to anybody.

 

[nervous123]

How can your contractor judge if the SE knows what he is talking about? For all he knows he might be a complete tit that has got a bit of info off google.

He claims to be being advised by an engineer and I am concerned this engineer (if he exists) may demand to see a report by a chartered chappy and then I'll have wasted my money on the unchartered one.

Also, beams don't 'comply with regs'. There are no regs that prescribe what beam should go where and what size it should be or how it should be fixed etc.

Ok - what I meant was that per my SE's calcs, the beam fitted is insufficient as a support, and that therefore BC will be unlikely to approve it.

The compliance comes when BI is satisfied that the designer is suitably qualified.

So if BC are happy even if he's not chartered, I should also be?

 

[jeds]

What size beam has he fitted?

 

[^woody^]

The difference between Chartered and non-Chartered is the £268 membership fee.

"Competence" is the key work, not "Chartered"

How do you know that beam has "insufficient support"?

 

[nervous123]

Thanks Woody.

I 'know' it's insuffiicent as the SE had a look at the upstairs and the loft, exposed the RSJ and did his calcs, and that's what he said. Sorry cant be mroe specific but havent yet got the report.

On another point:

Original contractor (who botched it up in first place) is offering to come and carry out remedial works per SE's report. My instinct is to tell him to leg it, as he has done such damage to my house already (see my other posts..) However, bringing someone else in would cost a few hundred quid, obviously and I dont think my retained payments will cover it.

Is it safe to bring him in, on the understanding that LABC will supervise the job and thus ensure it is done properly? (Espec if I make it clear to BC that this is the same contractor who messed it up in the first place). Or is it just too unwise to allow him to carry out the work and their supervision/approval won't be enough to ensure it's done properly?

Thanks a lot,
nervous

 

[^woody^]

Don't think that the council is going to inspect all the work and check the quality. The BCO only makes a cursory inspection of specific items, and you can't rely on this as confirmation of satisfactory work

I don't know about the extent of the original builders bad work or competence, but his offer to return to do work to the engineers spec is a good one and should be considered - unless you have absolutely no confidence in his abilities

If may be worth having him back and engaging the engineer (or other suitable person) to inspect the work.

Normally you should allow the original builder to correct any substandard work at his own cost, especially if you are thinking of engaging another builder and re-charging the cost to the original builder

 

[nervous123]

Don't think that the council is going to inspect all the work and check the quality. The BCO only makes a cursory inspection of specific items, and you can't rely on this as confirmation of satisfactory work

Not even if I make it clear to them that this is the same contractor who messed the thing up in the first place?

If you're right, sorry but it doesnt say much for BC.

 

[^woody^]

The councils remit and the things that are inspected are very limited.

Lots of people mistakenly believe that the BCO is there for one thing, when in fact he is there for another.