Cracks in Concrete Block Wall of House

[Plumjaws]

I engaged an engineer to design and supervise a ground-floor extension by a registered builder, to my two-storey semi-detached. A problem has occurred which resulted in significant vertical, horizontal and diagonal cracks (inside and out) in the upper rear wall of the existing house. These cracks are likely to have been caused by the following: in advance of inserting RSJs, the bedrooms and bathroom above the 8-metre opening were supported by accrows and wood planks (placed under the ceiling only); the exterior wall above was not supported. I became alarmed when the doors upstairs were stuck in the closed position; the reason for this became clearer when I discovered the cracks.

I am due to meet the builder and engineer soon to discuss the cracks issue, but I am interested in other objective opinion and advice relevant to the problem:

Can such cracks be repaired – and I don’t mean a cosmetic/filler/plastering job?
Or, will the entire rear wall have to be replaced – to restore the structural stability of my house?

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[onq]

Plumjaws,

I am surprised to hear of the way this was done.
Both wall and the floor should have been supported.

What did they think would hold up a load-bearing wall?
The joists rest on the wall, so the wall can rest on the joists?
Its the wall that supports the joists, not the other way round!

I hope you took photos of this alleged lack of support.
Because it sounds as though they may have damaged your building.

I think you may need to bring on board an independent building professional.
I would strongly advise you to consider taking legal advice at this stage.
I trust all this work was carried out under some form of contract?

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.

 

[Plumjaws]

Thanks for that sound advice ONQ.
At the first meeting with the builder and engineer I raised the issue of a contract and I believed the builder when he said that a contract is never used in this type of job.

This week, the builder, after scrutiny and discussion with me and the engineer, has accepted full reponsibility for the damage. He has offered profuse apology and a commitment to restore the building's stability before finishing the extension. He wrote that the job of restoration/repair and completion of the extension and will be done to my 100% satisfaction.

Yes, legal opinion has become important, along with third party advice from somebody in the business. I am not now convinced that the engineer is such; perhaps he is just representing a firm of architects and engineers. When we approached the firm and asked for an engineer he arrived, but we have no way of checking his credentials; or have we?

I am awaiting a proposal in writing from the engineer, but what the builder and he suggested verbally is that the rear wall be removed, to the roof, and replaced. They said that there is a cast concrete section above the cavity wall, immediately under the roof. The verbal proposal is to remove and replace the rear wall in vertical sections, up to that concrete slab. On the ground floor there is nothing but a 'nib' at either end and a pillar in the middle supporting the RSJs. It seems to me, as a layman, that to rebuild the wall vertically in sections has implications for strapping/stitching together the sections, along with strapping to the gable and at the point where my house abuts the neighbouring house.

Thanks again. I await developments and the written proposal.

 

[onq]

Plumjaws,

Where there is too much detail it simply cannot be done through AAM.
I specifically cannot comment on the proposed remedial works.
I can comment on some of the other issues.

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

Did the builder originally suggest this engineering firm?
Did you get comments from their clients as to their competence?

Contact the institute and see if the engineers is qualified and registered or not.
Don't be surprised either way.

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

In relation to the proposal, this is potentially more disastrous.
The builder who caused the problem is now proposing extensive remedial works with no professional oversight.
It seems to be "too much, too late", when a little foresight and a ten-line method statement from the engineer could have prevented this problem.

Your builder *seems* to be trying to do the right thing, but the source is tainted.
The "engineer", once again, seems to be not playing his role in terms of the remedial work.

Any detailed proposal for structural repair should have come from an engineer.
This should be inspected and certified by him/her as being complete before other work is attempted.


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

The important thing is that you now have some tough decisions to make.

- Will you to continue with the builder and engineer who appear to be responsible for the present situation?
- Will you appoint a new team or at the least a new engineer?

I'm not sure of your position in a situation with no expressed contract.
I think you could find yourself committed once you allow him to begin remedial work and you should specifically ask your solicitor about this.
The fact that the builder has suggested a hugely disruptive method of doing the work and the engineer has yet to comment causes me a lot of concern.

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

My best advice to you is to take legal advice, stop work, stabilize the building and allow independent inspection by a competent firm of engineers.

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

Not all engineering office have developed expertise in domestic remedial works so its important to ask this question.
I have taken advice from both Downes Associates and Malone O'Regan in relation to remedial works.
I am sure other posters will offer more contact information.

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

If you don't already have one you should also really have an architect on board who is competent at detailing to address the weathering issues and ensure the final finish is up to standard.
Some architects are good at detailing and again you can only tell by seeing their work but you should also realize this was dependent on the quality of builder they used.

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

I hope this is of some use and you might let us know on AAM how you get on.

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.

 

[Plumjaws]

Thanks again ONQ for your input and wisdom.

The engineer had recommended the builder, having previously overseen some of his work. I know now that the builder has written to the engineer with a profuse apology and a guarantee that he will carry out whatever is proposed - to the highest degree.

I have engaged a very experienced and capable structural engineer; he has had a long conversation today with 'my' engineer, instructing him on how exactly to address the problem. In a nutshell, the entire rear wall of the upper floor will be rebuilt up to the concrete bond beam under the roof timbers, using new windows. During the build the floors/ceilings will be propped using rated props on sole plates, and my 'new' engineer will be monitoring closely to ensure that the work is done properly. The cavity will be pumped with insulation, and the rooms upstairs will be re-plastered, with the bathroom retiled throughout.

Yes, I agree with your suggestion on legal advice, and I have stopped all work. When I receive the proposal in writing and my newly engaged engineer gives it his imprimatur I will take it to my solicitor - who may suggest a contract at this stage: at least I will have it on record with a legal firm.

What would I comment on now?

1. The importance of a contract. and involvement of a solicitor.
2. Have an engineer who inspects regularly, but keep a 'weather eye' yourself - without apology.
3. Be concerned when work is left to sub-contractors who in turn leave it to unsupervised semi-skilled workers.
4. Keep notes as an aide memoire - which I always do
5. Keep photographic/video evidence - which I did
6. Not to be shy to ask questions - which I did
7. To stay calm and pleasant at all times - no matter what.

To conclude, I considered dumping both my engineer and builder, but I decided that I would be 'biting off my nose to spite my face': in this regard, my new engineer feels that one must give the pair an opportunity to address the problem.

All of the above should be written in the first person plural as my wife was not 'behind the door' when it came to quality control over recent week. Two heads better than one!

Plumjaws.

 

[onq]

I am delighted to see matters progressing in this manner.

Someone took me to task for my suggesting that a client should "lay down the law" to the architect and contractor on a matter of construction.
The original respondent and another who criticised this approach were concerned, thinking that good relations would be adversely affected.

However, by taking this tough line in your situation, you have commanded the respect of the persons involved in an appropriate manner.
You can now hopefully look forward to sufficient competent professional oversight being brought to bear to resolve matters competently.

More clients should adopt the "trust but verify" approach from the start instead of thinking that a contract would "offend" the builder.
If they did I suspect there would be fewer on building sites, especially by the time the liquidated and ascertained damages clause was explained.

Your new engineer is quite correct when he suggests that you should allow the original "team" to remedy the work.
I seem to recall a precedent about a church refurbishment in English Law where the church building work had a problem.
The church authority brought in another builder to remedy and sought to set off the cost against retention owed to the first builder.

The authority were held to be entirely within their rights to perform as they had, but they had not allowed the first builder to remedy the matter.
In such a case they could only recover the amount of money it would have cost the first builder to remedy the work if he had carried out the work.
To try to put this in context, this meant that while the authority had paid the second builder to do the work "with profits" but could only recover "costs".

This was why I suggested you take legal advice and by the looks of it your new engineer knows contract law well, so it may be that you have just received some.

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

Can I say in closing that your own self-assessment of the situation and the lessons learned is also excellent.
It makes responding to threads like this worthwhile and promotes the use of this forum as a resource for all its readers.

Many thanks.

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.