Engineer sued over lopsided house built on boggy land

godtabh

Link

AN estate agent who had been invited by a couple to look at their three-year-old home with a view to selling it asked if they had a ball or an orange to roll across the floor because he suspected the house was lopsided, the High Court heard.

ALSO IN THIS SECTION
Solicitor to lose licence after he admits taking cash
Dad-of-two accused of cracking priest's skull during robbery
School worker who stole €55k avoids jail term
Water Softener Only €674
Soft Water for you & your Family Amazing offer, Only €674
ewtechnologies.ie/water-softener
Earn Your LL.M. Online
Earn an LL.M. in U.S. Law online without leaving your country.
OnlineLaw.Wustl.edu/LLM
Ads by Google
He turned out to be correct and the house, at the Sallows, Letterbarrow, Co Donegal, owned by Karen and Francis Carr, who have five children, was never put up for sale.

"People who visit the house say they are sick when they are in it, that it is like being on a boat," Mrs Carr told the court.

The Carrs have sued engineer Gerard Duke, claiming that he failed to spot that the foundation had been defectively laid, resulting in the lopsidedness.

Mr Duke, of Duke Associates Consulting Engineers in Donegal Town, denies the claim. He says he was not employed in a day-to-day supervisory capacity but only on the basis of periodic inspections, of which he carried out seven at a fee of €140 each.

The Carrs say Mr Dukes was negligent and in breach of duty by failing to inspect the foundations or remedy the defects. They say they were left with a €100,000 mortgage for a house that is now valued at €30,000, but which is unsellable to someone needing a mortgage to buy it.

FOUNDATION

Luan O Braonain SC, for the Carrs, said Mr Duke entered a contract with the couple to obtain planning permission for the house, which was built in 2003 and 2004, and provide supervisory and inspection services.

There would be evidence that the house was built on a wet and boggy area, which would be apparent to anyone, but particularly an engineer, counsel said.

Under cross-examination by Gary Fitzgerald BL, for Mr Duke, Mrs Carr said the building was done by direct labour whereby they directly employed builders and tradesmen.

She disagreed that it was her responsibility to either have engaged Mr Dukes on a supervisory basis or spent an extra €50,000 on paying a building contractor to carry out all works.

The hearing continues.

Interesting. It could be a case of the engineer not doing his job right or client expectations been off and being "prudent" when it came to site inspections.

leonidas83

godtabh wrote: »

Link



Interesting. It could be a case of the engineer not doing his job right or client expectations been off and being "prudent" when it came to site inspections.

I would have thought they were being prudent employing this engineer in the first place. For me its an open & shut case, how the engineer didn't realize it was being built on boggy land or that the house was lop sided is negligent in the extreme.

sydthebeat

The engineer would have been engaged to certify compliance with building regulations and planning permission.

As structure is part A of the building regulatIons he would have failed in his duty to ensure compliance with this regulation.
The engineer will be found to be negligent.


It does highlight however the Misunderstanding that people have about engaging someone to 'supervise' as opposed to engaging someone to inspect.

godtabh

His counter is that he wasn't on site. He wasn't paid to witness/supervise the construction. I'd say he was only there to sign off on the bank cheques

Turbulent Bill

godtabh wrote: »

His counter is that he wasn't on site. He wasn't paid to witness/supervise the construction. I'd say he was only there to sign off on the bank cheques

7 inspections and (presumably) no negative feedback on the work makes him negligent in my eyes. Not being present to supervise is moot if you don't pick up obvious errors during milestone checks.

godtabh

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

7 inspections and (presumably) no negative feedback on the work makes him negligent in my eyes. Not being present to supervise is moot if you don't pick up obvious errors during milestone checks.

Depends on what he is checking. The contractors built the house and yet didn't notice anything

Turbulent Bill

godtabh wrote: »

Depends on what he is checking. The contractors built the house and yet didn't notice anything

The article mentions that he failed to inspect the foundations, which implies to me that it was (or should have been) within the scope of his work. Who knows what the contract actually stated, or if one exists.

Maybe the contractors went bust in the meantime.

godtabh

Very possible that the builder had no insurance etc or gone bust and the clients cant go after him.

The fact that they were living there for so long and didnt notice it but as soon as it was pointed out to them all of a sudden people feel sick in the room has my suspicions raised

sydthebeat

godtabh wrote: »

Very possible that the builder had no insurance etc or gone bust and the clients cant go after him.

The fact that they were living there for so long and didnt notice it but as soon as it was pointed out to them all of a sudden people feel sick in the room has my suspicions raised

The 1% rule strikes again?

Mahogany Gaspipe

I'm unsure how posters here are able to form any opinions on the case with the little information given in the link.

Surely we need first ask was the foundation either designed incorrectly; or constructed incorrectly; or both?

Also what were the results of the site investigations carried out prior to the PP application being submitted? Presumable, whether correct or not, the ground conditions were deemed suitably competent for a house to be built upon.

godtabh

What's the 1% rule?

A SI wouldnt be needed for a planning permission. Detailed design more than likely wouldn't have been submitted as part of the PP.

No such thing as a "foundation engineer". An engineer would have designed a foundation.

sydthebeat

http://www.Google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qbeeurope.com%2Fdocuments%2Fireland%2Fexpertise%2FQBE-Irish%2520Broker%2520Article-May%25202011.pdf&ei=zfpjUpH8Ac3y7Abv44HwAg&usg=AFQjCNG2x9odZd5hcRL7l9SBGBpwWE3ZQw

Hope that works, I'm posting from my phone.

Victor

godtabh wrote: »

Very possible that the builder had no insurance etc or gone bust and the clients cant go after him.

It's a self-build. Seems like an element of 'pay peanuts, get monkeys'.

Mahogany Gaspipe

godtabh wrote: »

What's the 1% rule?

A SI wouldnt be needed for a planning permission. Detailed design more than likely wouldn't have been submitted as part of the PP.

No such thing as a "foundation engineer". An engineer would have designed a foundation.

A SI (as in) a trial pit logging the ground condition would certainly be required for the PP.

Were the ground conditions logged incorrectly is the first question.

godtabh

Mahogany Gaspipe wrote: »

A SI (as in) a trial pit logging the ground condition would certainly be required for the PP.

Were the ground conditions logged incorrectly is the first question.

Only if you doing percolation testing for soakaways etc

Mahogany Gaspipe

godtabh wrote: »

Only if you doing percolation testing for soakaways etc

A little bit surprised at the confusion here tbh.

I am not a civil engineer so maybe if there is one reading they can clarify. I myself am a final year geology undergrad and I have a keen interest in engineering geology.

AFAIK all PP applications for a house will require two site investigation tests to be carried out and reported on.

• A test for waste water percolation known as T Test also known as a P test. This test only acesses the abilty of the ground to transmit water.
• And for particular relevance here foundation design a trial pit must dug to record the depths and lithologies of the different soil horizons (topsoil, subsoil, weathered bedrock, fresh bedrock etc)

The trial pit is obviously necessary to specific foundation type.
So clearly the first questions to ask are: Was the trial pit dug? Were the ground conditions recorded and interpreted correctly? Was the foundation specified to the correct requirement and then was it installed to those conditions?

I think that all of that is bread and butter stuff for a civil engineer.

sydthebeat

Mahogany Gaspipe wrote: »

A little bit surprised at the confusion here tbh.

I am not a civil engineer so maybe if there is one reading they can clarify. I myself am a final year geology undergrad and I have a keen interest in engineering geology.

AFAIK all PP applications for a house will require two site investigation tests to be carried out and reported on.

• A test for waste water percolation known as T Test also known as a P test. This test only acesses the abilty of the ground to transmit water.
• And for particular relevance here foundation design a trial pit must dug to record the depths and lithologies of the different soil horizons (topsoil, subsoil, weathered bedrock, fresh bedrock etc)

The trial pit is obviously necessary to specific foundation type.
So clearly the first questions to ask are: Was the trial pit dug? Were the ground conditions recorded and interpreted correctly? Was the foundation specified to the correct requirement and then was it installed to those conditions?

I think that all of that is bread and butter stuff for a civil engineer.

no i think this is confusing the issue a bit.

Yes, trial and water table holes are dug .... however, these are dug at a remove to the location of the dwelling, generally at a minimum of 10 meters but more usually 20 m +.

For counties these holes will be inspected by either a private agent qualified to carry out these EPA tests and/or a local authority agent.
These holes are generally in filled before any planning decision is made for safety purposes.

(CURRENTLY) The on site works begin and an architect / engineer is engaged to provide certification of compliance on completion but also certify at interim stage state the work complies with B regs. The foundation inspection stage is usually the first stage.

In order for the engineer to offer this opinion s/he needs to visit the site and ascertain to their satisfaction that the proposed foundation type is suitable for the ground conditions. where i work (midlands) this is usually completed by having strip foundations opened before the visit. Should issues be apparent from this, a different foundation is designed to resolve whatever issues have arose.. be it raft, piles, wide strip etc.
Certain areas of the country would have raft foundations as the default, but which should also be designed site specific.
Trial holes should be dug around the periphery of the dwelling if there are concerns of issues not visible on inspection. Local knowledge in this regard is priceless.

Only after these inspection should the engineer certify interim compliance with B regs, and specifically Part A.

All this being said, its very easy for a professional to be huge out to dry by unscrupulous builders who do things such as removing reinforcement, pouring insufficient grade concrete etc

godtabh

A foundation design wouldn't be included in a PP.

Mahogany Gaspipe

I was assuming that the engineer being sued had also looked after the planning application and would then have also observed the sub soil conditions; I suppose this may not have been the case.

If it was the case that the engineer was brought to certify building work after the PP application was made, he is still responsible to ensuring that foundation design is suitable for the ground conditions and to do whatever was needed to establish this.

No doubt, what it unfortunately comes down to is the attitude of "....well if you want me to hire in a excavator for a day digging trial holes around the site to see what the ground conditions are I'd be as well of get Joe bloggs Engineer who's happy enough signing off anything for a couple of hundred cash".

Victor

Mahogany Gaspipe wrote: »

AFAIK all PP applications for a house will require two site investigation tests to be carried out and reported on.

• A test for waste water percolation known as T Test also known as a P test. This test only acesses the abilty of the ground to transmit water.
• And for particular relevance here foundation design a trial pit must dug to record the depths and lithologies of the different soil horizons (topsoil, subsoil, weathered bedrock, fresh bedrock etc)

The trial pit is obviously necessary to specific foundation type.
So clearly the first questions to ask are: Was the trial pit dug? Were the ground conditions recorded and interpreted correctly? Was the foundation specified to the correct requirement and then was it installed to those conditions?

I think that all of that is bread and butter stuff for a civil engineer.

To include the foundation design as a requirement of planning permission would shift responsibility onto the council who will not willingly take that responsibility (look at the ghost estates and pyrite problems).

While a project would ideally have a foundation design at that stage, it is by not mean a a requirement at any level, unless there is something very special involved, e.g. digging a basement in a rich archaeological zone.

Mahogany Gaspipe

Victor wrote: »

To include the foundation design as a requirement of planning permission would shift responsibility onto the council who will not willingly take that responsibility (look at the ghost estates and pyrite problems).

While a project would ideally have a foundation design at that stage, it is by not mean a a requirement at any level, unless there is something very special involved, e.g. digging a basement in a rich archaeological zone.

Just to clear up that I never implied that a foundation design is required for a PP application; rather that a trial pit is required and, correct me if I'm wrong, it is primarily to obtain information of the ground conditions and this information should be used in designing the foundation.

godtabh

Mahogany Gaspipe wrote: »

Just to clear up that I never implied that a foundation design is required for a PP application; rather that a trial pit is required and, correct me if I'm wrong, it is primarily to obtain information of the ground conditions and this information should be used in designing the foundation.

Yes but that information isnt required unless it is supporting information for a percolation test and/or soakaway area.

If they have a connection on to a mains sewer its highly unlikely that any SI was done. Given that they were building on a bog it is highly unlikely that the ground would be suitable for percolation test and/or soakaway areas. So I would put my money on no SI being done full stop!