Few years ago my client had terrible problems with her renovation job. The builder knocked out a roof prop and the roof sagged. Instead of re-propping the roof and fixing the problem, the builder continued as if nothing happened. Walls 40 mm out of vertical were tiled and doors leaning out.

I prepared a report but in her wisdom (or desperation) the client got a report prepared by Building Commission. The inspector was a civil engineer. This is what I had to say about his report (edited):

This report was commissioned by Mrs.——-  to comment on  Inspection Report for (address)  by Mr.———- appointed by BACV

After reviewing the report by Mr.——- I believe that the client would have the right to be disappointed .

In relation to the Inspection report by Mr.—  I have the following comments:

In my previous reports I have made a very serious allegations against the builder.

In particular the central allegations were:

1      That the builder has removed a structural roof prop without first providing temporary supports.

2      That as a consequence of the above the roof has partially collapsed and has pushed walls out of plumb.

3      That the builder has installed another prop to support the roof but that prop is structurally deficient.

4      That because the roof is supported by a deficient prop it is unsafe

5      That the builder has exposed the owners and their children to asbestos trough broken asbestos sheets at the job and the exposure is continuing.

To support allegations 1&2 the following evidence was offered.

• The removed prop which was found in the ceiling space has damage consistent with it being knocked out whilst still heavily loaded
• Ridge 2 has dropped on one side.
• Rafter joints at ridge had opened up
• Hip tile pointing cracked consistent with partial roof collapse
• Walls were pushed out of plumb in kitchen and bathroom area by obtuse props.
• Fascia and gutter bulged out

Mr.— has failed to adequately deal with this allegation and the supporting   evidence.

Mr.—has completely ignored the original prop which was found in the roof space

He has incorrectly identified the roofing member as hip beam whereas it is in fact

a valley rafter.  In item 1(5) he says “A beam supporting roof

rafters midway between ridge2 and  the external wall”. Does he mean underpurlin?

It is evidently clear that whilst Mr.— might be a qualified civil engineer and whilst he may be proficient in matters of : bridges , tunnels, roads or sewers he does not know the terminology of domestic roof frame construction.

His reasoning in 1(5) is incoherent and structurally unsound resulting in flawed

conclusions in 1(6).  In any case Mr.—-‘s  one incoherent sentence attempts to deal with allegation offering  six supporting pieces of evidence.

It is a fact that no structural work was carried out to the home by anyone other than the current builder. This fact and the chronology of events is clearly reported in my report of 23/08 2004 which shows that roof tiles were refurbished and repainted in 2003 and long before the current builder started work.

Firstly the cracking of hip pointing is serious as it has come away from hip tiles and as evidenced by attached photo and this would have been obvious to Mr.— if he had a better look.

The statement he makes in first sentence of 2(5) is engineering stupidity. Of course it is possible to move around prop without cracking the roof if you take care with temporary propping.

Mr.—– has failed to understand the facts pertaining to damaged roof hence his comments and conclusions are unreliable and should be set aside.

It is evidently clear from the attached photograph (taken in the roof space) that the new prop is not supported by stud and is therefore defective. It is inexplicable why Mr.— has not seen this for himself. Naturally his conclusions that follow are defective.

Owners and their children have been exposed to asbestos by builder’s negligence.

Mr.—- acknowledges this fact but does nothing about it as it is “unfinished builder’s work”.

Mr.—‘s  conclusions and treatment of this item is nothing short of criminal negligence as it allows asbestos mishandling and exposure to continue at builder’s leisure and as  continuing risk to the owners.

I would have thought that the minimum acceptable direction to the builder would have been as follows:

The builder has failed to follow recommended practice for safe handling of asbestos and is directed to immediately engage approved asbestos handler to remove the risk of exposure.

Conclusions:

       I believe that Mr.—‘s  report is so seriously flawed as to be unusable for the

purposes of conciliation.

Furthermore I believe that the Building Commission is unwilling and unlikely to take action against its own inspector.

Therefore there is no point in continuing with conciliation and you should  continue with your other options.

The engineers’ report was not useful to my client because it also gave builder an opportunity to hide behind.

This story has no happy ending because the client did not bring me to a compulsory VCAT  mediation, she was outplayed and got nothing.