How much are 'we' paying to protect engineers PI insurance?

"We need to use piled foundations (to protect my PI insurance)" , they explained

Now that we have done soil borehole tests and designed the piles we feel that it would be safer to go down another 600mm (you will have to pay for this extra depth)

We have to pay but were piles even necessary?

There is a 200 year old building within 25m of our site and the building that we are extending is 40 years old and showing no signs of any structural problems.

We still need piles.... but why??? -- see above

Sounds more like you need to get a second opinion, not all 'engineers' are equal.

@Tony, the excess on their policies.....?

Our SE put so much steel in our roof that the earths magnetic field has changed and birds are flying the wrong way.

I had three engineers. One for the main body of the house, chosen because he was happy to sign off straw structure. But he wasn't happy with (de)signing a passive slab foundation, though he regularly does concrete raft designs, nor was he comfortable with a complicated timber roof structure so I had separate engineers for those. Oh, and the first floor structure was (de)signed by the supplier's engineer.

I shall have to defend my profession a bit here. Yes, Engineers can be a bit conservative; this is doubly so for structural engineers (in my experience - I'm the chemical variety). However, in the end, if it does go wrong, they are the ones who are up in front of the judge, not you. That does change one's perspective somewhat.

It is a bit like the difference between Climate and Weather, it is hard to know if SE are cautious because of their professional responsibilities or if the insurance companies have forced them into it.
There will be a lot of variation between SEs but only a few insurance companies underwriting those risk.

I would not like to use a professional that does not have insurance.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: joe90</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: dimengineer</cite>I shall have to defend my profession a bit here. Yes, Engineers can be a bit conservative; this is doubly so for structural engineers (in my experience - I'm the chemical variety). However, in the end, if it does go wrong, they are the ones who are up in front of the judge, not you. That does change one's perspective somewhat.</blockquote>

Dimengineer, not having a pop at your profession at all, I am having a pop at people that have access to information and knowledge of professionals but still choose to rely on insurance backed "others", I know I am not risk adverse.</blockquote>

Thats OK, not accusing anyone of having a pop. Just trying to give the view from the "other side" if you like

I think the difficulty is that sufficient people think that if something moves or cracks the correct thing is for the builder to fix it, or sue the builder until he does. Then the various third parties with an interest - mortgage companies and insurance companies - insist that the building is built to industry-agreed standards. In the case of foundations, that means the NHBC standard, which is fairly prescriptive. And that's become so usual that building inspectors look for it as well, even when it's not a requirement. It's much like the approved documents, in effect.

And as people have said, it's usually simpler and cheaper to go along with it than argue the toss. I did persuade my engineer that it didn't matter if my garage heaved a bit, especially if it heaved the same amount as the drive in front of it. So he agreed we could do without a big deep hole filled with hardcore underneath the raft.

Quite agree Tony - I have fallen out with the structural engineering industry myself. It is the minority that are useful. My minority has retired and I have no idea how to find another without a bunch of £500/hour consultations to rule them out one by one.

Generally I would discuss and agree with building regs before (and hopefully instead of) employing a structural engineering consultant. I reckon my house won't be the first house that anyone has ever built and there should be some rules of thumb. You'll still be going 2m on the foundations if there is a tree in a nearby county.

The real sillyness for me is when you want to fiddle a little with a 400 year old house where they forgot the foundations. Engineering for me is mostly common sense with a calculation every other week (I'm an engineer myself). I've not found a structural engineer who does the common sense part and I find that annoying.

Structures have changed a bit since my house was built. In the old days they built shallow foundations and used flexible materials. My lime mortared brick wall has sunk a few inches but has not cracked. Modern practice is to use cement which is very stiff so any movement will cause cracks so foundations have to be very deep. I don't know why it is not possible to use lime in difficult builds which would otherwise require the use of structural engineers with piles. Lime would allow the building to take a bit of movement and is very much cheaper than employing consultants with no common sense.

If anywhere West Country, try http://pasquibbs.co.uk/

That %age doesn't include other consultants' fees as part of the project cost.

Any 'lead designer' (meaning Architect?) who tries to bump up project cost in order to bump up his/her fees is an idiot.
Far more valuable than a bit of cream on this job, is the whole of the next job, which comes by recommendation from happy clients who haven't been ripped off.

If the architects fee is a %age of the project fee, why should the fee go up if the owner wants gold plated bathroom taps and top of the range hand made floor tiles etc. Why not a simple m2 price? Over here it is a m2 price agreed at the beginning.

Is the fee really a % of out turn cost

It may have been that way in my youth (and that was on a sliding scale anyway)

Most consultant appointments are fixed fee (based on the predicted out turn cost, but fixed fee, with a scale of charges for "change" nonetheless)

Personally, if the client wants to treat me with the practices of the bazaar rather than as his trusted professional advisor, then I can hardly be criticised for treating him the same way - he's trying to sell me his risk on the cheap, I'm just selling it straight back to him

Not difficult, if you want to use a smaller beam or a shallower found, then do it and sign it off yourself

Regards

Barney

What do you do for a living, Nigel - just asking. What are the criteria you use when selecting professional advisors

I've no problem with developing the client - consultant relationship, much of what I do is based on repeat commissions from satisfied clients

There are also clients whose focus is "how cheap - and of course you'll be taking full responsibility" - basically, they want to buy my skills (and my PII) at the lowest cost (or at no cost)

Not intending to make this personal in any way, but look at Joe 90's point regarding his roof design "He knows it's right, he just wants someone to sign that off" - but infers that he's not happy to pay for that

Barney