Recently I had displeasure of inspecting failed dwelling, this is what I reported:
Summary of the Report Findings:
This dwelling is subject of foundation subsidence manifesting in uneven concrete slab, internal cracking and internal brickwork corner separation between the dwelling and garage on the adjoining property. Significant structural repairs are required and recommended.
Expert Opinion:
There is no doubt that this dwelling has suffered major structural damage due to foundation subsidence and that repairs by a method of underpinning will be required.
Cursory review of design structural drawings reveal this is a “P” problem site with bored piers to the front of the dwelling (in the area where the dwelling has subsided).
There is no doubt that this type of foundation failure should not occur with a properly designed footing system and that it is highly likely that a construction defect is responsible for a foundation failure.
I recommended further investigation to determine the cause of the foundation failure.
This are the findings of further investigation:
A summary of the opinion or opinions of the expert:
1) Large stormwater drain was constructed deeper than designed and too close to the dwelling
2) Foundation is undermined by the deep drain
3) This dwelling has suffered catastrophic foundation damage
4) The cause of the damage is deep stormwater drain too deep and too close to the edge of the building.
5) Engineering report(commissioned by builder) has failed to find the cause and the extent of the damage to this dwelling and has consequently reached wrong conclusions.
6) In my opinion engineering report(commissioned by builder) is biased because it seeks to blame the owner for the lack of drainage maintenance when in fact the builder constructed all surface drainage and paving in accordance with Town Planning endorsed drawings.
7) In my opinion the builder is liable for the full cost of foundation repair and restoration of damaged dwelling
How could engineer blame the owner for poor drainage when in fact the builder has constructed the paving and drainage in accordance with TP endorsed drawings?
Does not obligation of maintenance come after obligation to construct drainage correctly in the first place?
It is inexplicable how highly qualified engineer with over 40 years of experience and including forensic investigation of buildings could have missed deep drain so close to the building and the catastrophic subsidence of floor levels. How did he get it so wrong?
That is unless the answer is that he is merely builder’s lap dog willing to bark anything for his feed.
In my opinion I think this engineering report is fraudulent and I can’t wait for expert witness exchange.
Make up your own mind an leave a comment.
Stay tuned this story is developing
For other blogs about shonky engineers:
http://www.buildingexpert.net.au/blog/building-inspection-insurance-claim-here-we-go-again/
http://www.buildingexpert.net.au/blog/bored-pier-subsidence-would-you-trust-this-structural-engineer/
It’s a nice post.