Engineer wont sign off on Build

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 .

Click to expand...

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 .

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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

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.

Click to expand...

Certainly agree with mf1 as posted above.

Signing off on building compliance is a very risky business.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.
• 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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!!!!!

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.

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.

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?

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

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

Click to expand...

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.