Odd situation Building Surveyor v Builder

Ginger83

Hi just wanted some views on this please

Work being carried out at home and doorway is being widened from one room into another. Our building surveyor got a structural engineer to inspect and 150mm thick concrete heads minimum were recommended. The builder installed 150mm x 100mm heads on their flat so the thickness is only 100mm.

The building surveyor won't sign it off saying it doesn't meet engineer's spec but builder says it's fine.

Any thoughts?

Wildly Boaring

As a structural engineer I'm completely on your surveyors side. I'm biased. But if an engineer went to the bother of speccing something why would it "be fine".

If it collapses and kills someone the builder will just point at the fella who signed it off

Edit. When something is specced by a structural engineer it is not recommended. It is the design.

Also assume the engineer was explicit that they were to be 150mm deep lintels.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117665117#Comment_117665117

Yes he said 150mm minimum thickness. The building surveyor in fact asked him to do an inspection beforehand.

The builder says he will get a cert from the concrete company to say they are fine.

We don't want any conflict but nobody gets paid without the job being signed off.

scwazrh

Building surveyor is the one signing off so what he says goes .No point arguing the point on a small project.He specified the requirements and the builder did his own thing so it’s the builders cost to rectify.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058200881/odd-situation-building-surveyor-v-builder

Surveyor is in the right here, and fair dues for him in going the route of getting the structural design instead of the cowboy approach that it "will be fine".

Builder is also talking BS, and the concrete supplier will not sign off on the use of this in your specific situation.

muffler

Agree with the above. Stick with the surveyor.