# Engineer wont sign off on Build



## jumper1 (10 Jun 2011)

Hi All, building a new house ,due to some Structural Queries Architect requested that i get an Engineer ,Contract with Engineer(friend of Architect) agreed for doing up some Engineering drawings for Builder and 8 site visits for €3000 Euro Incl Vat, grand no problem .

Six months later i receive a letter from Engineer saying that due to the and i Quote 'Inexperience and Incompetence of the Builder', the Engineer had to come out on site an extra 8 times totalling 16 site visits instead of the original 8 that was agreed . The original bill was 3000 Plus vat now its 4,000 Plus Vat .

Previous to this contact i did not hear anything from the Engineer saying that there was an issue or that they had to visit the site due to issues with the builder .

I contacted the Architect about this and he said that the Engineer had attended the site about 16 times as the engineer was shown on the Site meetings as attending. I contacted the Builder and he said that she contributed nothing to any site meeting and never said a word and often commented that there was no reason for him to be on site . So i dont know where this is coming from . 

I wrote back to the Engineer enclosing the remaining amount due on the original 3000 euro Figure + vat , but said that the extra 8 visits were not part of the original agreement and that I was not informed by the Engineer that there were issues requiring the Engineer to visit the site more often than agreed. I asked the Engineer to forward on the Engineer Certificate so that build could be passed.

The other day I received a letter back from the Engineer saying that i will not receive the Certificate until the extra 1000 plus vat was paid. I believe i am within my rights not to pay the extra 1000 Euros as the Engineer took it upon himself to come on site an extra 8 times without consulting me first. Looks like i will have to go the legal route but am i correct in my assumption that the engineer should not have made an extra 8 visits without consulting me and i am within my rights to demand the Certificate.

Regards, Jumper


----------



## onq (10 Jun 2011)

Quantum Meruit may form the basis of any legal judgement.

The  fact that the engineer estimated his input in terms of time and put a price on that strikes a rate.
If there was a genuine need for him to attend on site, then it is reasonable that he would expect payment pro-rata.

If he is a structural engineer, and if the problems were  structural, then its demonstrable that there was need for an engineer to review them.
If this is so - and I understand  from your post that he is recorded as attending the 16 meetings - the engineer will probably be awarded pay for his time by a court.

However, I am concerned at your lack of knowledge of these events and I would be wondering why you weren't better informed by others and/or didn't keep yourself informed.
What if structural issues arose that required his attention, and he refused to attend citing his previous estimate of time?
Would you be happy that he only cost you €3K if the building was left with defects?

If the engineer has acted competently and attended no more than was reasonably required then you need to consider resolving your costs with the builder, or else hold him liable.
Normally engineers are loath to attend any more than is required - they don't attend  for social reasons- so I'd be interested to discover who requested him to attend.

Also normally engineers don't curry favour with the Employer/Client and he may reasonably have assumed that you were reading the site minutes.
If not, this begs the question why not, or at least why significant defects were not being brought to your attention by the design team.

I trust this is of some use and remain,

ONQ.


[broken link removed]

           All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be               relied                      upon                                                                                                                         as   a                 defence       or                    support    -            in               and       of                        itself     -                                should                               legal                              action                    be                                taken.
           Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to                        advise        in                                                                                                                                Real          Life          with                rights         to                      inspect             and                      issue                              reports             on                   the                                            matters             at                                hand.


----------



## jumper1 (10 Jun 2011)

Hi , going by what you are saying it would equate to getting a builder to build a 3 bedroomed house but then the  builder building a 4 bed house saying that you needed a bigger house as you have a big family and charging you for it . He would be entitled to the extra amount according to Quantum Merit . whats the point in a contract if somebody would do what they feel like. 

Jumper1


----------



## onq (10 Jun 2011)

jumper1,

The comparison you chose does not seem to be appropriate.
You seem fixated on the engineer who is claiming for his time, rather than the alleged cause of the need for this additional time - the builder.

At the risk of breeding even more confusion, it would be more like the  builder having decided to build an extra bedroom without consultation  with your goodself and the engineer having to revise his structural  design to suit.

Can I suggest that you read my first reply again where I have tried to offer more information?
I post and then write more information as it occurs to me and you may only have read the initial post wording.

ONQ.


[broken link removed]

           All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                relied                      upon                                                                                                                           as   a                 defence       or                     support    -            in               and       of                         itself     -                                should                                legal                              action                     be                                taken.
           Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to                         advise        in                                                                                                                                  Real          Life          with                 rights         to                      inspect             and                       issue                              reports             on                    the                                            matters              at                                hand.


----------



## NOAH (10 Jun 2011)

I wonder, what if they visited 50 times or even a 100.  I would contact the engineering body that they are a member of and run it past them.

Of course as with all things legal you may have been sold a pup, do you have anything from engineer in writing?  A contract is a contract and if the fee agreed was 3000 plus vat then that is the fee.

I would love to have a job where I agree a fee, then turn up for extra un agreed visits and then charge the customer more!!  cmon where is the morality in that.

I go buy a car and the contract is 15,000 euro. Car turns up at garage and garage now says, oops we want 16,000.  Same thing.

1000 euro plus vat is a lot and even 3000 plus vat for 8 visits is a lot.

That engineer should have made you aware that the cost was rising. Have you any written work of what they actually did?

And the refusal to sign off house is  a....

By the way I would SERIOUSLY consider getting another engineer to check things over because if the one you had did not have the nous to advise you extra visits were required!!   I shudder to think.

noah


----------



## Mpsox (10 Jun 2011)

What I can't understand here is why the engineer did not say he had concerns about the builder and was going to visit the site far more often then was originally planned. As the engineers customer, I'd be delighted if he told me that whilst the house was being built and pretty peeved if he only raised it as an issue once the house was done. Poor customer service from the engineer


----------



## Pope John 11 (10 Jun 2011)

You need to find out why the Engineer did attend the additional site visits. 

Normally an engineer would write to the Client out lining the reasons for the additional fees. The Engineer needs to justify his/her reasons for the visits.

Also you make it sound as if you were not copied in on the MOM at all, where normally a Client would either attend the meetings or have a representative attend or have the MOM sent to him or her.

It is up to the Project Manager (more often than not it would be the Architect on a domestic project) to bring these issues to the Clients attention. You are afterall the main Stakeholder.

I think there has been a communication break-down as the work has proceeded, or indeed the communcation paths have not been agreed between the design-team, builder and the Client.

I would write to the 'Project Manager' and find out the reasons for the lack of communcation, why the incompetency of the builder had not been drawn to your attention at an earlier stage, justification for the Engineers additional time etc., query dates etc., ask for the MOM. Sometimes Engineers communicate directly with Clients, more often then not all communciation has to go via the Architect. Again what was agreed prior to the project commencing?

At the end of the day, anything outside the remit of the contract, should have been communicated through the correct channels. Anything outside the remit of the contract should have been communciated to the Client immediately.

I would be, and I'm sure many others would be interested to know why the Engineer had to call out an extra 8 times. The Engineer indeed may be perfectly entitled to make the additional claim, but it could be at the contractors expense. You need clarification on this issue.

By the way, what does the contract say?




jumper1 said:


> 'Inexperience and Incompetence of the Builder', the Engineer had to come out on site an extra 8 times totalling 16 site visits instead of the original 8 that was agreed . The original bill was 3000 Plus vat now its 4,000 Plus Vat .




This is not acceptable answer from a professional Engineer. You need to find out the reasons why he made the extra site visits. You should have eight different reasons corresponding to each additional site visit, dates, requested by whom, or was it a decision made by the Engineer.



jumper1 said:


> Previous to this contact i did not hear anything from the Engineer saying that there was an issue or that they had to visit the site due to issues with the builder .


 Again you need to find out why, why the lack of communication?




jumper1 said:


> I contacted the Architect about this and he said that the Engineer had attended the site about 16 times as the engineer was shown on the Site meetings as attending.


 Why have you not requested the MOM or more to the point why has your architect not sent you the MOM, or kept you informed?



jumper1 said:


> I contacted the Builder and he said that she contributed nothing to any site meeting and never said a word and often commented that there was no reason for him to be on site . So i dont know where this is coming from.


 The MOM should clarify this, but you also need the Engineer to clarify their reasons for the extra site visits. You may need a response from your Contractor on this too!


----------



## onq (10 Jun 2011)

Noah,

There is a pervasive self-build spirit in this forum, which at other times is well-praised, but I think that cross-comparisons between different forms of contract and methods of payment are not well supported in this case.
Actions may be taken without instruction by professionals acting for the common or good or private need in relation to building works, particularly where not to act would incur additional costs or do more harm.
Matters of vicarious liability and tort and negligence could otherwise arise.

As long as the actions were necessary and not extravagant, my opinion - and its ONLY an opinion - is that a court will award costs commensurate with the rate previously set.
I'd be very interested to hear how this develops because the principle of necessary intervention justifying costs could be abused if left unregulated and unreported.

As it is, an extra grand for an additional eight site meetings seems a ridiculously low rate for a qualified engineer.
If he can prove his cause one issue you can raise may be the fact you were not kept informed.

This allied with comments by others above may sway a court in your favour.
But you have to find out first if this work was needed.
Find out what your builder did and didn't do.

ONQ.


[broken link removed]

           All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                 relied                      upon                                                                                                                             as   a                 defence       or                      support    -            in               and       of                          itself     -                                should                                 legal                              action                      be                                taken.
           Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to                          advise        in                                                                                                                                    Real          Life          with                  rights         to                      inspect             and                        issue                              reports              on                    the                                             matters              at                                hand.


----------



## Complainer (10 Jun 2011)

If the engineer had genuine concerns about the "Inexperience and Incompetence of the Builder", surely she should have raised these concerns with the client at the time?


----------



## Pope John 11 (10 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> If the engineer had genuine concerns about the "Inexperience and Incompetence of the Builder", surely she should have raised these concerns with the client at the time?


 
It really depends on the channels of communciation agreed at the start of the project. The Engineer may have raised these concerns to the Architect or indeed they could be covered in the MOM. As pointed out above, more often than not the Architect may be acting as the Project Manager on the project and all communciation from the design team members and the builder is done through the Project Manager. However the Client (OP) needs to clarify this?


----------



## mf1 (10 Jun 2011)

I think I posted on this board many moons ago that I could never understand the naivety of so many posters who thought that building their own house was a doddle and something that hardly merited  the intervention of local authorities with their silly ideas about planning permission let alone the idea of building in accordance with planning permission and building regulations. And the idea that you might pay planning contributions? Or pay ( actually pay?) an Architect, let alone an Engineer to have any involvement at any stage - oh, apart from certifying the works and putting their neck and professional indemnity on the line! 

In  Op's case, there is clearly a gap in the information being furnished. Now, either the engineer is a complete shyster OR OP was not keeping an eye on the ball, or, more likely, knew about the extra visits , but reckoned if no-one told him, he would  not pay. Not reckoning on the Cert not being provided.  

The Jury is out, without all the facts,  but I know where I'd put my money. 

mf


----------



## Peter Sweeny (10 Jun 2011)

> In  Op's case, there is clearly a gap in the information being  furnished. Now, either the engineer is a complete shyster OR OP was not  keeping an eye on the ball, or, more likely, knew about the extra visits  , but reckoned if no-one told him, he would  not pay. Not reckoning on  the Cert not being provided.
> 
> The Jury is out, without all the facts,  but I know where I'd put my money.



Certainly agree with mf1 as posted above.

Signing off on building compliance is a very risky business.


----------



## onq (10 Jun 2011)

Jumper1

I have posted a lot on AAM about the need to employ building professionals and here you are doing exactly what I have advised and things seem to have gone pear shaped for you! 

What happened on site to cause defects is open to speculation, but what the builder did and why it needed a total of sixteen attendances from an engineer is the kernel of this issue.

On a large dwelling, once the foundations are excavated, tamped, screeded and poured, and the drains and the rising walls and slab are in, an engineer can take a break depending on the size and complexity of the house.

An inspection at first floor level and again eaves level to review all superstructure before enclosing it and an inspection at roof completion addresses most of the structure - four to six visits usually.

However problems arising with structure on site could double that, depending on how well the repair was attempted and how often it had to be attempted again - and remember the engineer is signing off on this work.

Still - sixteen attendances... that's a lot...I'd have to check that out from independent witnesses.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

           All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                  relied                      upon                                                                                                                               as   a                 defence       or                       support    -            in               and       of                           itself     -                                 should                                 legal                               action                      be                                taken.
           Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to                           advise        in                                                                                                                                      Real          Life          with                   rights         to                      inspect             and                         issue                              reports               on                    the                                              matters              at                                hand.


----------



## onq (10 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> If the engineer had genuine concerns about the "Inexperience and Incompetence of the Builder", surely she should have raised these concerns with the client at the time?



With a small design team and a contractor there should have been


 THREE supposedly competent and experienced people feeding comment to the client/employer.
 PLUS there should have been a regular set of Meeting Minutes circulated.
 PLUS the client should have made his own attendances and seen *some* sign of the problems.
    Most clients cannot stay away from the build.
Even where the defects may have been hidden or covered up or not immediately apparent to a layperson (all very possible) there should have been signs of work being taken down and done again and delays to the programme caused by these events.

The attendances by the engineer suggest an eight-week delay assuming one meeting a week and at least a month even if the meetings were twice weekly.
A month or two is a lot on a tight programme - did nobody notice programme dates slipping?

ONQ.


[broken link removed]

           All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                  relied                      upon                                                                                                                               as   a                 defence       or                       support    -            in               and       of                           itself     -                                 should                                 legal                               action                      be                                taken.
           Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to                           advise        in                                                                                                                                      Real          Life          with                   rights         to                      inspect             and                         issue                              reports               on                    the                                              matters              at                                hand.


----------



## Pope John 11 (10 Jun 2011)

onq said:


> The attendances by the engineer suggest an eight-week delay assuming one meeting a week and at least a month even if the meetings were twice weekly.
> A month or two is a lot on a tight programme - did nobody notice programme dates slipping?


 
ONQ, I wouldn't even be second guessing the OP's construction programme. Yes it should have sounded alarm bells if the works were delayed, but the OP must get to the kernal of this issue which you have rightly pointed out, 

(i) The Engineer needs to give a full and detailed response for his reasons for each of the 8 site visits & justify his additional fees in doing so.

(ii) Following the Engineers response, I think the Contractor needs to also give a written response based on the Engineers comments.

(iii) Having seen both the Engineers & the Contractors responses the Architect, as Project Manager (I am assuming here, otherwise OP needs to clarify) should give written comments regarding both the design team and contractors comments.

(iv)The lack of communication depends on what was agreed between the Client and the three Parties outlined above. Only you the OP (Client) will know what was agreed. Perhaps it was agreed that each Party (i) ,(ii) and (iii) were to communicate any issues directly to you the Client or perhaps all issues were to be communicated via the architect, Party(iii). The Parties responsible for their lack of communication need to also give a detailed response within their correspondence.

(v)The party responsible for issuing the minutes of meeting need to clarify as to why, the Client has not been 'kept in the loop' in terrms of minutes of the meetings and the 'going ons' on the site.

OP need to request written letters from your design team and the contractor.


----------



## Complainer (10 Jun 2011)

Pope John 11 said:


> It really depends on the channels of communciation agreed at the start of the project. The Engineer may have raised these concerns to the Architect or indeed they could be covered in the MOM. As pointed out above, more often than not the Architect may be acting as the Project Manager on the project and all communciation from the design team members and the builder is done through the Project Manager. However the Client (OP) needs to clarify this?



OK, but either way, there should be some communication from the engineer to somebody, before the extra visits were required, pointing the problems arising and the likely cost impacts. Surely that simple degree of change control would be standard practice for any professional?



mf1 said:


> OP was not keeping an eye on the ball, or, more likely, knew about the extra visits , but reckoned if no-one told him, he would  not pay.


Again, even if this was the case, shouldn't there be some formal written/email communication from the engineer to somebody noting the need for extra visits?


onq said:


> With a small design team and a contractor there should have been
> 
> 
> THREE supposedly competent and experienced people feeding comment to the client/employer.
> ...


Would the minutes be the appropriate medium for communicating the need for extra visits?


Pope John 11 said:


> (i) The Engineer needs to give a full and detailed response for his reasons for each of the 8 site visits & justify his additional fees in doing so.


Shouldn't he have done this justification BEFORE the extra visits, and not after?


----------



## Pope John 11 (10 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> OK, but either way, there should be some communication from the engineer to somebody, before the extra visits were required, pointing the problems arising and the likely cost impacts. Surely that simple degree of change control would be standard practice for any professional?


 
Yes, but unfortunately we are in the scenario of 'We are where we are'




Complainer said:


> Again, even if this was the case, shouldn't there be some formal written/email communication from the engineer to somebody noting the need for extra visits?


 
Yes, either he has communicated this to the Architect or to the Client directly. But it looks as if, judging what the OP has said thus far that there has been little communication between the Engineer & the Client. Lets have the OP clarify this though.



Complainer said:


> Would the minutes be the appropriate medium for communicating the need for extra visits?


 
The MOM will normally record what actions are to be taken by what party and what actions have been taken etc. and if not then it can be queried at subsequent meetings. 

Anything outside the remit of the contract (variations) should also be recorded.

Any additional works etc that the contractor carried outside the remit of the contract should also be recorded.

The MOM records also records the parties present and the absentees and to whom the MOM have been sent to etc.

However a letter outlining additional costs and the reasons for additional costs etc should of been addressed to the Client. It goes without saying. 



Complainer said:


> Shouldn't he have done this justification BEFORE the extra visits, and not after?


 
As above, Yes, but unfortunately we are in the scenario of 'We are where we are'. The OP now needs to try and untangle the mess he is in. He now needs clarification from all parties as outlined in my previous post. 

He needs to, what I call, get behind the thinking of all parties at the time of their original actions - why the extra 8 site visits, why was the contractor incompetent, when was he incompetent, what has the contractor to say about the engineers comments, has the contractor even seen these comments, what has the architect to say other then agreeing with his 'friend' engineer (as pointed out by the OP in the 1st post), why is the Client only finding out now, when should the Client known about this, why indeed is the OP not glued in on the issues on site, perhaps he is living 60,000 km away. Is the builder incompetent, or is the Engineer just looking for additional fees or does the architect lack some communication skills, the answer is......We don't know!!!!!


----------



## Complainer (10 Jun 2011)

Thanks for the clarifications. I wouldn't disagree with any of this, though it would strike me that the first simple direct question would be to ask the engineer who he notified about the need for the extra visits and when.


----------



## onq (10 Jun 2011)

I'm surprised at the level of interest this thread has generated from posters I have developed respect for during my time on AAM - its great to see you all taking such an interest!

We seem to be getting near the heart of it now.
The client should have been notified when defects in the work or working practices of the builder were discovered that were likely to lead to delays, increased costs or both.
It is not for the client to notice building defects where professionals and a competent contractor are involved in the build, especially in the case of say, an inadequately strong concrete mix being used, which is totally unobservable and must be ascertained by sending off concrete cubes for testing.

ONQ.


[broken link removed]

           All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                   relied                      upon                                                                                                                                 as   a                 defence       or                        support    -            in               and        of                           itself     -                                  should                                 legal                                action                      be                                 taken.
           Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to                            advise        in                                                                                                                                        Real          Life          with                    rights         to                      inspect              and                         issue                              reports                on                    the                                               matters              at                                hand.


----------



## onq (10 Jun 2011)

Complainer said:


> OK, but either way, there should be some communication from the engineer to somebody, before the extra visits were required, pointing the problems arising and the likely cost impacts. Surely that simple degree of change control would be standard practice for any professional?
> 
> 
> Again, even if this was the case, shouldn't there be some formal written/email communication from the engineer to somebody noting the need for extra visits?
> ...



My comments earlier in this thread about there sometimes being and onus on professionals to act without instruction refers.

_"Actions may be taken without instruction by professionals acting for the  common or good or private need in relation to building works,  particularly where not to act would incur additional costs or do more  harm.
Matters of vicarious liability and tort and negligence could otherwise arise."_

Its one thing to act without instruction in an emergency situation, but an ongoing series of visits / meetings moves from emergency remedial work to ongoing crisis management.
In the former situation immediate action on the day may need to be carried out, for example propping in the cases of imminent structural collapse, followed by an investigation.

But where an issue has been discovered and is ongoing, there seems to be no reason why this was not spelled out to the client by the leader of the design team, namely the architect.
This is regardless of any direct formal or personal lines of communication between the Client/Employer and the Contractor and any other member of the design team, including the Quantity Surveyor, if one was appointed.

Perhaps I am professionally confident as opposed to insecure, but I usually encourage communication between a reasonable client and the design team.
That is, so long as all instructions to the builder are relayed through my office to allow for me to foresee things and seek a coordinated response to any changes requested.
This allows multiple lines of communication on smaller jobs and generally increased the confidence and familiarity of the client with the work of the design team.
The subject project - as others have suggested - betrays all the hallmarks of a lack of communications.

It reminds me of a job I once looked at, where work had proceeded in an uncoordinated manner between architect, engineer and contractor.
An absentee client with more money than sense had been making changes to the built work and finished drawings from a distance.
The architect didn't seem to undertaken any design co-ordination meetings or even a proper review of the built work.

This lead to terrible gaffes in structural method, detailing, expression and building regulation compliance.
All the people seemed competent enough but there were three people pulling in different directions.
I wonder if something similar has occurred here...?

ONQ.


[broken link removed]

           All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                    relied                      upon                                                                                                                                   as   a                 defence        or                        support    -            in               and         of                           itself     -                                   should                                 legal                                 action                      be                                  taken.
           Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to                             advise        in                                                                                                                                          Real          Life          with                     rights         to                      inspect               and                         issue                               reports                on                    the                                                matters              at                                 hand.


----------



## onq (12 Jun 2011)

As part of my research and gathering of information required by an  impending application for registration I checked the files of a project I  on which our office was the head of the design team and read over much  of the correspondence.

Minutes of meetings were sent to all the design team members, the  contractor, attendees from nominated sub-contractors offices and the  client as a matter of course.
Follow up correspondence was sent to nominated sub-contractors, design  team members and the contractor but not necessarily to the client,  unless input was required in order not to shower the client with  paperwork.
The client was always advised in writing by our office as the head of  the design team regarding matters of professional fees, projected costs,  additional costs arising from variations, specific hold up items and  resolution of items which had been dragging.

Depending on the stage of the project, follow-on correspondence  originated from either the undersigned or the interior designer or both.
We had the client install a fax to allow for rapid communication in the  event an instruction or re-design was needed urgently to allow  briefing/approval proceed in a professional manner.
Many of the matters discussed in meetings were the subject of  conversations devising resolutions prior to the meetings or shortly  afterward there were very few fractious meetings because of this.

Cost overruns were the subject of some correspondence, for example a  letter that  referred to the number of drawings issued by one of the  design team members as being nearly double the previous estimate of  work.
This prefaced an application for additional fees consequent on  variations to the work required by the client and necessitating input  which I had formally requested at the time due to changes occurring due  to the variations.
It was my job as head of the Design Team to bring this matter to the  client's attention and agree in principle the note of additional fees.
The client was made aware by me from the start that additional professional fees were likely to arise if significant variations arose.

These days records left by text and e-mails are admissible in court,  and the provisions of the Electronic Commerce Act 2000 in place to  support the legality of electronic documents.
I cannot therefore see how the  client could NOT have known of the problems arising in the subject project.
Unless they were out of the country in a place without e-mail  connectivity AND no mobile coverage.

Even still, there is usually a postal service.
Maybe he was on the Arctic Tundra.
Its a mystery to me.

 ONQ.


 [broken link removed]

            All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                     relied                      upon                                                                                                                                     as   a                 defence         or                        support    -            in                and         of                           itself     -                                    should                                 legal                                  action                      be                                   taken.
            Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                            Real          Life          with                      rights         to                      inspect                and                         issue                                reports                on                    the                                                 matters              at                                  hand.


----------



## Complainer (12 Jun 2011)

onq said:


> AI cannot therefore see how the  client could NOT have known of the problems arising in the subject project.
> Unless they were out of the country in a place without e-mail  connectivity AND no mobile coverage.


Or else, the professionals involved didn't communicate with the client.


----------



## onq (12 Jun 2011)

Well, nope, not as such, Complainer.
An alleged doubling of a structural engineer's time like that usually means significant hold ups.

The structure is as primal as it gets in a building programme - you can work around problems in the later stages but its hard with structure.
If you've problems with the structure that requires sections to be investigated, then repaired or rebuilt, delays arise because no finished work can proceed.

Evident delays without communication from the Design Team should have  shouted at the employer that he was not being kept in the loop by either  his professionals or the builder.
Most employers have their eye on the money and they know that delays mean costs of some sort, so work clearly not moving forward to completion should have alerted the employer regardless.

ONQ.


 [broken link removed]

            All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                      relied                      upon                                                                                                                                       as   a                 defence          or                        support    -            in                 and         of                           itself     -                                     should                                 legal                                   action                      be                                    taken.
            Competent legal and building professionals should be asked  to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                              Real          Life           with                      rights         to                      inspect                 and                         issue                                 reports                on                    the                                                  matters              at                                   hand.


----------



## Complainer (12 Jun 2011)

I see your point - maybe I should have been more specific.

Maybe the professionals didn't communicate with the client about the impacts to the cost of the engineer's services?


----------



## onq (12 Jun 2011)

I think you're quite correct on that, Complainer.

Even meeting minutes should have alerted the Employer and the OP hasn't confirmed he received or read any.
But then again, their very absence should have raised some flags.

Employers can take their eye of the ball, too, especially at this time of year when private things like end of terms and preparation for exams can distract even the most focused parent, or holidays can take you out of circulation for a while.

ONQ.


 [broken link removed]

            All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                       relied                      upon                                                                                                                                         as   a                  defence          or                        support    -            in                  and         of                           itself     -                                      should                                  legal                                   action                      be                                     taken.
            Competent legal and building professionals should be asked   to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                                Real          Life            with                      rights         to                       inspect                 and                         issue                                  reports                on                    the                                                   matters              at                                    hand.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Jun 2011)

Personally I'm baffled how a "professional" can exceed their contract, without informing the client. I'm also baffled how a "professional" can see "incompetence"  and not inform their client of same.


----------



## onq (13 Jun 2011)

<nods>

I think we're all on that page now AlbacoreA, but something isn't adding up here
Delays on structural items usually don't only affect the additional fees the engineer will seek.

But timely notification of a likely cause of delay is important to all  parties to any contract, because so many follow on events stack up when a  primary issue like structure is causing the delay.
The whole point of involving independent professionals in the first place is to ensure that both the Employer and Contractor have their interests and duties fairly administered during a building contract.

All parties, nominated sub-contractors and suppliers, usually start writing and covering themselves with paper because they have scheduled their work for a particular slot and this will be thrown out of kilter. 
Also if such variations cannot be accommodated, then additional storage on site may have to be provided by the Contractor or the Employer for deliveries on dates for which contracts have already been entered into.

ONQ.


 [broken link removed]

            All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                        relied                      upon                                                                                                                                           as   a                   defence          or                        support    -            in                   and         of                           itself     -                                       should                                   legal                                   action                      be                                      taken.
            Competent legal and building professionals should be asked    to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                                  Real          Life             with                      rights         to                        inspect                 and                         issue                                   reports                on                    the                                                    matters              at                                     hand.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Jun 2011)

All this extra work would be itemised. It shouldn't be that vague.


----------



## mf1 (13 Jun 2011)

Only OP knows what went on and OP is not giving any more information so it's all pure speculation.

mf


----------



## Pope John 11 (13 Jun 2011)

mf1 said:


> Only OP knows what went on and OP is not giving any more information so it's all pure speculation.
> 
> mf



Yes, why I have reserved making any further comments, lets all wait for the OP to clear up the matter further.


----------



## onq (14 Jun 2011)

Normally I'd agree PJII, but I find that with laypeople, a degree of rank speculation in an even handed manner in a forum like this allows them to get a better handle on what *should* have gone on as opposed to what did go on.

It prepares them for approaching the problem, in a similar manner to how a glance at a car Owner's Manual tells a total newcomer to motoring where the dipstick and filler cap for the oil is and how to tell them from the windscreen washer bottle filler.

Thus this series of posts will allow the Employer/OP to be in a better position to discern lame excuses / disinformation from the facts when answers are given to the questions we have posed here.

ONQ.


 [broken link removed]

            All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                         relied                      upon                                                                                                                                             as   a                    defence          or                        support    -             in                   and         of                           itself      -                                       should                                    legal                                   action                       be                                      taken.
            Competent legal and building professionals should be asked     to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                                    Real          Life              with                      rights         to                         inspect                 and                         issue                                    reports                on                     the                                                    matters               at                                     hand.


----------



## jumper1 (16 Jun 2011)

Hi All, thanks for your Input. 

It’s not my job to keep tabs on the Minutes and how many times the Engineer visits the Site. The Engineer is a professional, and as a professional should be able to count the number of time they visited the site and let me know if more visits are required than the original agreed visits. As a professional they should know well in advance that if more visits are required then they should inform their employer. 

A contract takes two parties to valid, one party cannot change the contract because they ‘feel’  that it is required without informing the other party and then expect them to uphold the amended contract . To turn it on its head if i ‘felt’ that the builder was fantastic and i decided that the engineer only needed to make 4 visits instead of the contracted visits without telling the Engineer then if the same logic was applied , I would be perfectly entitled to reduce the monies to be paid on the Original Agreement . Because the Engineer did not keep up continuous contact with me to query any changes in the Contract, then it was the fault of the Engineer. 

I believe no matter if the house was falling down , the engineer had no right what so ever without informing me first  verbally ,in writing , Fax , Text , Pigeon, Morse Code that extra visits over and above the original agreed contract visits were required and the extra cost per visit . 


Builder had requested Engineer to Visit Site a number of times but i was never pre informed of this. If the Engineer was having an issue with the Builder nothing was ever mentioned and Builder first heard about complaints from Engineer when i queried the Builder regarding the extra Visits made by the engineer.

Originally Posted by *mf1* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1174820#post1174820
*OP was not keeping an eye on the ball, or, more likely, knew about the extra visits , but reckoned if no-one told him, he would not pay.*

I believe it may have been the Engineer  who though this , keep coming and milk the ‘Cash Cow’  until no real reason to come and then give reason that builder was no good if anybody asked questions. 

I see the *Us *‘Professional people who should not be Questioned’ and *THEM* ‘Laypeople who don’t have a clue and should leave it to us Professionals ‘creeping in , the old Doctor and Patient Mentality.  

Just to let you know no changes were made to original design, so no extra work was required from Engineer on that side. 
 
Regards, Jumper1


----------



## onq (16 Jun 2011)

jumper1,

There is no us and them on AAM - everyone contributes.
As it is, a lot of people have posted to this thread to better inform you and to tease out the issues.
I doubt they would have taken time out of their to do so day unless they  thought there was a distinct possibility that your trust had been  abused.

However on reading your reply it seems as though you haven't addressed some of the issues raised.
You have however adopted a strong position in relation to the minutes.
You seem to think you don't have a responsibility to read them.
Not so - minutes are a means of keeping all parties informed.

If you were copied with the minutes you were obliged to read them to  inform yourself (as the Employer) of developments arising during the  building programme being executed by the Contractor.
Such minutes as were sent should have informed you in sufficient detail  of the difficulties arising and should have recorded the fact that the  Contractor, a party to the Contract to which you refer, requested  attendances by a professional in a matter where issues requiring his  attention had arisen on site.

 ==============================

One instance where matters arising such as extras and professional fee  increments might not particularly concern you (as the Employer) in  relation to cost, is if the contractor is undertaking a design build  contract with the design team novated to him and their fees are included  in the overall contract sum.

Even in a commercial design-build turnkey contract situation, where you  might be contractually isolated from financial implications of delays or  extras in the programme, you as Employer would still read the minutes the better to  inform yourself as to the progress of the building works because any  delay in your development coming to market would mean a loss in revenue  for that quarter for your company and a consequent possible legal battle  to recover monies from the Contractor.

Otherwise in most other contracts risk is borne by both the contractor and the employer.
Where reasonable and provable extras arise you will be obliged to pay  for them or seek to rebut them and then either negotiate a settlement or  have your day in arbitration, mediation or court.

==============================

In relation to the minutes, if such events were mentioned in the  minutes, the only issue remaining would seem to be whether they were  covered adequately.
In an ideal world, yes, someone should have informed you of these  developments separately from the minutes -  assuming you maintained contact with your design team and Contractor and  vice-versa.
The fact that this didn't happen suggests communication was not all it should have been, which reflects  poorly on the professionals and the Employer - remember its  YOUR building and you should be taking a reasonable level of interest in  the proceedings.

==============================

If you had no intention of monitoring the project yourself it was open  to you to engage a project manager or client agent to ensure things went  as planned.
Where you have failed to appoint a project manager or client agent, AND  where you failed to read the minutes, it is foreseeable that you could  end up being uninformed regarding matters arising which otherwise you  would know about.

This is not to excuse the inaction of others, but to point out a general  principle of law - you are obliged to always act to mitigate your loss.
Keeping yourself informed on a construction project costing tens or  hundreds of thousands of Euro would be evidence of acting so as to mitigate your loss.
Where you failed to keep yourself informed I suspect you cannot expect to use your lack of knowledge as a sure defence  against claims of reasonable fee increases.

==============================

As for your interpretation of how contract works and how you might  hypothetically have reduced the number of engineers visits, I doubt that this is  so.
You are a layperson, the engineer is a professional and you are not competent to make that judgement.
If you ever do -(i) make such a judgement and in the face of resistance from  an engineer formally instruct him to withdraw from a project and
(ii)  defects or other  unforeseen events arise that cost you money which his presence might  have prevented​- you will have compromised any action you might otherwise succeed in against the Contractor or Design Team.
Since the cost of attendances are usually a small fraction of the cost of remedying potential defects, this is a false economy.

In relation to the engineer, if he was requested to attend by the  Contractor and he performed his duties diligently and professionally it  is my opinion that a court is likely to award him his fees on a quantum  meruit basis.
I don't offer this comment out of the blue - while waiting for my client case to go on, I had to sit through a case involving an engineer seeking fees in a Drogheda court a few years back - he won.
For €125 a site visit [8 visits for €1000] you weren't paying him huge money.
So, unless you can show either -(i) willful negligence or gross incompetence om his part or
(ii) wholly gratuitous attendances that were definitely not required​- then I think you would be well advised to settle the amount claimed.
Failing this you may have to engage another professional to competently rebut his claim.
(there is an argument that if you are unhappy about his professional standard work you might take legal advice leading to this)

I would strongly advise that you should not repeat the comments you made  above to third parties if referring by name this project, builder or  engineer as its possible they could be construed as defamatory.
I would strongly advise that you take competent legal advice in relation   to the contract you had in place, the  responsibilities of all parties  under it, and the sustainability of your position or otherwise.
I would ask you to remember - its important to know how real world events are resolved so please consider letting AAM readers know how this turns out for you to improve this free online resource.

Best of luck with it.

ONQ.

  [broken link removed]

             All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be                          relied                      upon                                                                                                                                               as   a                     defence          or                        support    -              in                   and         of                           itself       -                                       should                                     legal                                   action                        be                                      taken.
             Competent legal and building professionals should be asked      to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                                      Real           Life              with                      rights         to                          inspect                 and                         issue                                     reports                on                      the                                                    matters                at                                     hand.


----------



## Complainer (16 Jun 2011)

So, what was in the minutes then jumper1?


----------



## onq (17 Jun 2011)

Persistence pays...


----------



## Pope John 11 (17 Jun 2011)

.....


----------



## Pope John 11 (17 Jun 2011)

jumper1 said:


> It’s not my job to keep tabs on the Minutes and how many times the Engineer visits the Site. The Engineer is a professional, and as a professional should be able to count the number of time they visited the site and let me know if more visits are required than the original agreed visits.


 No, you as a Client/Employer have a responsibility to at least read the Minutes & if there are any issues of concern to you, you could address them to the Architect. Sometimes Clients attend the site meetings, sometimes not. 
*Were there any issues in the minutes that would have concerned you?*



jumper1 said:


> As a professional they should know well in advance that if more visits are required then they should inform their employer.


No, a professional will know in advance what set no. of site visits are required. They will not know how many additional site visits are required. 
*Jumper1 could you please clarify why the Engineer required the additional site visits?*



jumper1 said:


> A contract takes two parties to valid, one party cannot change the contract because they ‘feel’  that it is required without informing the other party and then expect them to uphold the amended contract.


 Yes you are correct that a contract requires two or more parties. However you need to 1. establish where the breakdown in communication was, and 2. why there was such a breakdown in communcation? 
*You seem to have answered No.1, by saying that the Engineer should of informed you, but now Jumper1 find out why your Engineer didn't inform you.*



jumper1 said:


> To turn it on its head if i ‘felt’ that the builder was fantastic and i decided that the engineer only needed to make 4 visits instead of the contracted visits without telling the Engineer then if the same logic was applied , I would be perfectly entitled to reduce the monies to be paid on the Original Agreement . Because the Engineer did not keep up continuous contact with me to query any changes in the Contract, then it was the fault of the Engineer.


 No, this not the way the No. of site visits are decided. An Engineer will decide the No. of site visits based on the complexity of the house design & the overall project. The most obvious site visits are - Excavation of the foundations - Pouring of the foundations - Ground floor slab - Construction to eaves/first floor level - construction to roof level. 
*I stress this, its not for the Client\Employer to decide how many site visits are required, its for the Engineer to decide.*

Now, the additional site visits could depend on a variety of reasons:
1. The Contractor\builder could be fantastic!, and no additional site visits are required.
2. The Contractor\builder could be fantastic!, and an additional site visit by the Engineer was required at the architects request.
3. The Contractor\builder could be fantastic!, and an additional site visit was required by the Engineer because the builder came across an existing 'spring' in the location of the proposed foundations. (In other words a builder could be fantastic, but will not always know the existing terrain or ground conditions).
4. The Contractor\builder could make numerous errors!, and additional site visits
5. The Contractor\builder forgot to notify the engineer that they were pouring the foundations a day later. The engineer had to make an extra site visit the following day.
.
.
.
.
The list could go on, and on. But remember too that a 'fantastic' Contractor\builder and a 'disastrous' Contractor\builder have a responsibility too to you the Client\Employer. An Engineer's responsibility is not to tell a Contractor what to do and what to do right. You have the right to have your Contractor to act professionally on your behalf, the same right to ask your Engineer to act professionally on your behalf.

*Now, Jumper1, AAM posters are here to help you. Could you give us the 8 reasons as to why your Engineer required the extra 8 site visits and if you don't know could you please request your Engineer to give you a written document outlining the reasons for the additional site visits?*



jumper1 said:


> I believe no matter if the house was falling down , the engineer had no right what so ever without informing me first  verbally ,in writing , Fax , Text , Pigeon, Morse Code that extra visits over and above the original agreed contract visits were required and the extra cost per visit .


This is a rather wild statement to make. Jumper1, lets look at this from another point of view. The Client has spent to date €200,000 on a house to roof level. He is looking to spend another €100,000 to finish and furnish it. He is delighted at this stage and decides to take 2 weeks holidays and head abroad. The contractor notices a few 45 degree cracks to the gable wall and requests the engineer to visit the site to inspect same. The engineer notifies the architect, but the architect cannot contact to Client. The contractor again notifies the Engineer, stressing that this gable wall is now leaning towards the occupied neighbouring house gable wall. What you are saying you would rather the Engineer in this case to ignore this issue until it is agreed with you the Client. In other words if the €200,000 house falls down, then you the Client will be automatically down €200,000 simply because you wrote to your Engineer and you stated under no circumstances is the Engineer to attend additional site visits. The Courts will question the Client why he didn't allow an Engineer to inspect the project at that time. However no Engineer will ever agree with a Client as to the number of 'additional' site visits that are required, so the above example would not arise. 
*The number of additional site visits is dependent very much on the project itself and how the project is run.*

The Engineer has a responsibility to act professionally within his job, but to also act professionally if public safety becomes an issue, like the example above. An Engineer has to act when there is a need for him to act. The Architect may request the Engineer to visit the site, the Contractor may request the engineer to visit the site. Perhaps at times a Client may request an Engineer to visit the site!
*Your Engineers view was that the additional site visits were necessary, so lets find out why your Engineer required the additional site visits. If he cannot give you specific reasons which are in agreement with both the Architect and the Contractor for the additional site visits, then you need to hold off until you get those specific reasons.*



jumper1 said:


> Builder had requested Engineer to Visit Site a number of times but i was never pre informed of this. If the Engineer was having an issue with the Builder nothing was ever mentioned and Builder first heard about complaints from Engineer when i queried the Builder regarding the extra Visits made by the engineer.


If the builder requested your Engineer to visit the site a number of times. 
*You have to find out No. 1. Why your builder requested your Engineer to visit the site, No. 2. Why was it not communicated to you?
* 

The Engineer more then likely has no issues with your contractor if he is telling the truth, but the Engineer may have issues with the contractor if he is misrepresenting the reasons as to why the Engineer made the additional site visits. 
*You need to get a written response from both your Engineer and your Contractor.  By the way has your Contractor been fully paid?*




jumper1 said:


> ‘Professional people who should not be Questioned’ and *THEM* ‘Laypeople who don’t have a clue and should leave it to us Professionals ‘creeping in , the old Doctor and Patient Mentality.



Yes, you have every right to question the professionals Jumper1. But remember you have several professionals - the Engineer, the Architect, the Contractor, the Quantity Surveyor. But I find its always best to query the professionals as events are happening. Sometimes Clients even visit the site and query contractors directly etc.



jumper1 said:


> Just to let you know no changes were made to original design, so no extra work was required from Engineer on that side.


 Now thats good to know. 
*Now Jumper1 find out exactly the reasons for the additional site visits, the reasons for the visits, why they were not communicated to you and request a written response from the contractor and the engineer, and if needs be the architect.*


----------



## onq (20 Jun 2011)

Wel PJ11,

That was worth waiting to read and no mistake... 

I'm now in suspenders waiting for the next instalment...

ONQ.

  [broken link removed]

             All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot  be                          relied                      upon                                                                                                                                                 as   a                      defence          or                        support    -               in                   and         of                            itself       -                                       should                                      legal                                   action                         be                                      taken.
             Competent legal and building professionals should be asked       to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                                        Real            Life              with                      rights         to                           inspect                 and                          issue                                     reports                on                       the                                                     matters                at                                     hand.


----------



## Pope John 11 (21 Jun 2011)

onq said:


> Wel PJ11,
> 
> That was worth waiting to read and no mistake...
> 
> ...



Cheers ONQ, next installment will depend on the OP's next response.....eagerly awaiting for it.


----------

