Do I need a Structural Engineer ?

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Without inside pics its pretty hard to guess, but I wonder if the builder just wacked 3 holes in with a sds. I mean a decent sds with decent bits you would hardly notice if you drilled too deep and blew the inside bricks.
I mean I suspect he could have assumed it was double skinned or something and got carried away wacking the holes in thought nothing of it.

Neighbour is completly unreasonable not allowing a quick look so you can take photos from inside.

Also as stated, you employ a professional, its their issue if they mess up, not yours.
They need to be given the opportunity to inspect the issue and propose a solution.

 

[2004typer]

I don't have any photos of the others side of the garage wall.He show me some photos of the damaged bricks but isn't willing to share one and neither allowing the my builder for access.

In that case, tell him there is nothing further you can do until he will allow access, or at least a video call so you can view the damage that is being accused within a contemporaneous timeframe - a photo without any context is not evidence, the image could be from anywhere/anytime.

Any reasonable neighbour would allow access to view the accusation of damage - in the absence of this how are you supposed to act in a reasonable manner.

Maybe there is no internal damage and they are annoyed you've fixed a post to the wall. People are obviously allowed to build right up to their boundary, but I'd suggest some leeway is appropriate to at least allow what amounts to three fixings into a wall, that they would never actually have sight of (if done appropriately with no damage and no consequence to the integrity of the wall).

 

[dl8860]

OP I'm a structural engineer. Ask your neighbour for pictures of the damage for you to review, then share them on here.

BTW I am not chartered nor have I ever worked on masonry structures. But your neighbour hasn't stipulated anything in that regard I imagine.

 

[ik9000]

This thinks me of a different angle now!!.What if he himself damages along with the brick damage and tries to prove its a structural damage?.Is this scenario a possibility here? Or a structural engineer giving false report about the damages?

An engineer worth their salt is not going to get out of bed over this believe me. If he gets such a report you get your own independent review/report and if he still won't give access you politely tell him to jog on. I've seen far worse get batted away completely due to an obstinate neighbour not giving access (and that was in a project where the builder really had stuffed up big time).

 

[dowie]

So tell him ‘kthanxbye’ - as has been said several times now, your builder needs to be allowed to make good the damage.
Alpha up and sledge hammer his garage down and tell him that’s the problem fixed.

Also as stated, you employ a professional, its their issue if they mess up, not yours.
They need to be given the opportunity to inspect the issue and propose a solution.

Nah, this isn't right, OP's builder doesn't need to be given the right to do anything here as the neighbour has got nothing to do with him.

It's generally the done thing, if you hire a builder and they mess up, to give them the opportunity to put right anything that they've done wrong. But in this case the neighbour didn't hire the builder and seemingly didn't even give permission for anything being attached to his wall.

Also, from the neighbour's perspective, the liability is with the OP AFAIK, the builder was hired/was working on behalf of the OP so the OP is the person the neighbour will pursue (if it comes to small claims/county court) it is up to the OP to pursue the builder.

Ideally, the neighbour would simply let the builder fix the issue and (if the neighbour wants) tell him not to stick anything else in his wall and to dig a post in instead but I guess the neighbour could also just tell the OP he doesn't trust the builder, get his own builder round to fix it (inc removing the fixings from his wall) and invoice the OP. OP's builder then perhaps needs to dig a hole for the post instead.

Where it is going a bit OTT is this claimed need for a structural engineer to come round. I'd be annoyed at the OP too and perhaps wouldn't have much faith in his builder either, why didn't the builder ask (either the OP or the neighbour) if there was permission to fix this to the wall? Why was the builder so sloppy that he's just made some wild arsed guess about the wall perhaps being thicker than it is and managed to blow out three bricks?

He is expecting me to pay for the
1. Structural Engineer visit
2. Fix the bricks
3. And a sign of from an engineer. I have to pay for all these it seems to solve the issue.

I assume he will exploit money out of me for the above and never appoint a structural engineer.

That's getting a bit silly tbh... get invoices for anything you need to pay. A structural engineer generally isn't going to be looking to collude with some random client on a ridiculously small job to scam you out of a few £s and will have a standard hourly fee etc..

This thinks me of a different angle now!!.What if he himself damages along with the brick damage and tries to prove its a structural damage?.Is this scenario a possibility here? Or a structural engineer giving false report about the damages?

Well for a start you've mentioned he's already shown you a photo of the damages? He's just not sent the photo to you.

Why don't you just communicate with him a bit better, this is partly your fault if you didn't ask for permission - you should have asked or just instructed your builder to dig in a post. If you'd asked you might have found out there is only a single layer of bricks (and frankly your builder is a total dumbass for just cracking on without having any clue how thick the wall is too).

You think it is excessive for a structural engineer to come around and as everyone has pointed out it very likely is, you, however, have actually seen the photos of the damage (we haven't), what you could say is you're happy to make sure the damage gets put right (ideally, for you, simply by having your builder fix it) but you want to get an opinion from others re: the need for the structural engineer ergo you want him to send you photos of the damage (that isn't unreasonable).

 

[Thekwango]

seemingly didn't even give permission for anything being attached to his wall

moreover i have taken permission before doing this job as well

it's hard to follow but i assume this means he got the ok

 

[dowie]

it's hard to follow but i assume this means he got the ok

Yeah it's not clear at all, I directly asked the OP if he'd got permission but he only mentioned this in the reply, his assumption that now he will need to fix the post in the ground:

So, i assume that he will not allow me to fix the post to his wall.Rather i would fix the post on the ground which would be safer option.

 

[ik9000]

Yeah it's not clear at all, I directly asked the OP if he'd got permission but he only mentioned this in the reply, his assumption that now he will need to fix the post in the ground:

Strictly speaking he didn't need permission. It's polite to ask, but a boundary wall on the boundary - i.e. assuming that wall face is the legal boundary and he's not trespassed then he can fix a gate to it.

Under the gov. guidance on the Party Wall Act 1996 some things are defined as being too trivial to need a Party Wall Award. Minor fixings is one of them.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-party-wall-etc-act-1996-revised-explanatory-booklet
https://assets.publishing.service.g..._Wall_etc__Act_1996_-_Explanatory_Booklet.pdf

6 What about things like putting up shelves or wall units, or installing recessed electric sockets, or removing and renewing plaster?

Some works on a party wall may be so minor that service of notice under the Act would be generally regarded as not necessary. Things like:drilling into a party wall to fix plugs and screws for ordinary wall units or shelving cutting into a party wall to add or replace recessed electric wiring and socketsremoving old plaster and replasteringmay all be too minor to require a notice under the Act. However, the key point is whether your planned work might have any possible consequences for the structural strength and support functions of the party wall as a whole, or cause damage to the Adjoining Owner's side of the wall. If you are in doubt about whether your planned work requires a notice you might wish to seek advice from a qualified building professional.

Had the builder worked in a sensible manner the damage could and should have been avoided and there was no need to get permission and go through the rigmarole of a Party Wall Award in accordance with the Act. The OP has done nothing wrong in that regard. There is a big gate post about 300-500mm off the face of the wall. All those screws are doing is stoppping the end of the short fence flapping around. The net load is negligible and mainly in the longitudinal (in-plane) line of the wall, which it will easily withstand. There is no real risk of structural problem nor damage, provided the workmanship is/was properly undertaken.

This really is a storm in a teacup that the adjoining owner is getting his knickers in a twist about. Had the builder not been a muppet it would all have gone fine. In any event the OP does not need to alter their design. He can fix to his neighbour's wall if it defined as a boundary wall (ie the boundary line between you) or a party wall (shared ownership - unlikely here) and due to the presumption in favour of the works embodied in the Act the neighbour can't refuse. The Act allows the OP to do it. All the neighbour can do is request submission of the proposals up front and an independent review of the proposals. All of which is unnecessary though for minor screws, and tbh I can't see a Party Wall Surveyor being willing to take this on, the fees would be disproportionate.

 

[dowie]

Strictly speaking he didn't need permission. It's polite to ask, but a boundary wall on the boundary - i.e. assuming that wall face is the legal boundary and he's not trespassed then he can fix a gate to it.

Under the gov. guidance on the Party Wall Act 1996 some things are defined as being too trivial to need a Party Wall Award. Minor fixings is one of them.

Not sure it is a party wall, surely a party wall is either a wall actually on a boundary (i.e. a wall that straddles and is shared between the two properties) or a wall wholly on one property but that which the other property derives support from?

This doesn't seem to be either, this seems to be the neighbour's garage wall which is presumably all on the neighbour's property!

Imagine a terraced house - you have a party wall that might straddle the boundary line or the wall might actually reside all on the neighbours property but it is also responsible for holding your roof up/integral to the support of your building too - that's where rules about party walls come in surely?

This is simply a wall for a garage that seemingly goes up to the property line but aside from that has, seemingly, nothing to do with the OP's property. I mean just read what you've linked to - it's talking about fitting electrical sockets or carrying out plasterwork - you're talking about a wall in say a terraced house etc.. a completely different scenario.

 

[ik9000]

edit: I've just gone through 3 guides I have here and they contradict each other so far as I make sense of them. I'll see if I can get clarification on this. At best there seem to be a couple of subtleties around:
1) is any part of his building adjoining that wall anywhere along its length
2) where the legal boundary line is defined as running in the deeds

One thing to be careful to ascertain is whether the legal boundary is the face of the wall, or, say the gutter overhang. If it's the overhang then the wall is set-back, and the OP would appear to be trespassing whether or not he fixes to the wall itself (if there wasn't a gate or similar there to start with).

 

[dowie]

It’s the garage, it’s surely just the usual setup with small detached houses set closely together? Or semi detached but OP’s isn’t attached to this one. I.e OP has a path and gate running alongside the property.

Yeah presumably the gutter quite possibly does overhang so potentially OP has even crossed the boundary slightly. OP should really have asked first.

 

[gc123]

as has been said ..if hes awkward which he is just get your house insurance to sort it ..its what you pay for, they will claim or try to off the builder if he has insurance. maybe the garage contains cannabis plants and hes worried your letting the heat out?

 

[kindai]

the liability is with the OP AFAIK, the builder was hired/was working on behalf of the OP so the OP is the person the neighbour will pursue (if it comes to small claims/county court) it is up to the OP to pursue the builder.

No.

If the builder was employed by the OP then yes, but as a contractor it is the builder who has acted in a negligent manner and is liable, and why they have liability insurance.


There is an exception that if the OP has instructed the builder to act in a specific way where damage was foreseeable, but again the onus would be on the neighbor to prove this.

 

[dowie]

No.

If the builder was employed by the OP then yes, but as a contractor it is the builder who has acted in a negligent manner and is liable, and why they have liability insurance.

There is an exception that if the OP has instructed the builder to act in a specific way where damage was foreseeable, but again the onus would be on the neighbor to prove this.

Nah, AFAIK the landowner can be liable for their contractors too, just stating they're a contractor not an employee isn't some get out of jail free card

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher

Also, imagine the builder was a cowboy builder and just shut down his ltd company to get away from a bunch of CCJs, well is that just something the neighbour has to suck up after not having contracted him in the first place? Doubtful, they'd just go after the OP and get him to pay up.

 

[kindai]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher

You need to read into this in more depth before quoting it to me.

Also, imagine the builder was a cowboy builder and just shut down his ltd company to get away from a bunch of CCJs, well is that just something the neighbour has to suck up after not having contracted him in the first place? Doubtful, they'd just go after the OP and get him to pay up.

Ok if we are going down "imagine" routes. Imagine the builder was driving up the driveway to the job and ran the neighbor over. Would the neighbor try to claim off the OP or the guy who ran him over?

 

[dowie]

Ok if we are going down "imagine" routes. Imagine the builder was driving up the driveway to the job and ran the neighbor over. Would the neighbor try to claim off the OP or the guy who ran him over?

What does that have to do with property damage? That's just being silly - you might as well say what if the builder goes round and murders his wife... it's got little relevance.

The builder was contracted by the OP to do a job, in the process of doing that job he damaged the neighbours property. Yes the builder should be covered by insurance to pay out for damages, however if he tries to dodge this then the OP is still likely to be pursued by his neighbour. The neighbour didn't ask for any of this/didn't contract the builder.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

He is expecting me to pay for the
1. Structural Engineer visit
2. Fix the bricks
3. And a sign of from an engineer. I have to pay for all these it seems to solve the issue.

I assume he will exploit money out of me for the above and never appoint a structural engineer.

So, i assume that he will not allow me to fix the post to his wall.Rather i would fix the post on the ground which would be safer option.

I don't have any photos of the others side of the garage wall.He show me some photos of the damaged bricks but isn't willing to share one and neither allowing the my builder for access.

Or what? He can expect you to do lots of things, but it you don't - what's going to happen. The most he can do is file a claim in court, and if you've made a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue I can't see how he's going to to get anywhere.

 

[kindai]

What does that have to do with property damage? That's just being silly - you might as well say what if the builder goes round and murders his wife... it's got little relevance.

The builder was contracted by the OP to do a job, in the process of doing that job he damaged the neighbours property. Yes the builder should be covered by insurance to pay out for damages, however if he tries to dodge this then the OP is still likely to be pursued by his neighbour. The neighbour didn't ask for any of this/didn't contract the builder.

Even if you were correct, just because theres damage doesnt mean the neighbor gets a blank cheque to do what he wants at any cost.

The neighbor also has a duty to reduce his own costs. Should he bring a successful claim against the OP (unlikely) as long as the OP goes about it correctly he would at most be responsible for the removal and reinstatement of 3 bricks. He also has to prove negligence by the OP for a successful claim.

Thats if theres even any provable damage, given the neighbor is yet to provide any evidence by the sound of it.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

It's generally the done thing, if you hire a builder and they mess up, to give them the opportunity to put right anything that they've done wrong. But in this case the neighbour didn't hire the builder and seemingly didn't even give permission for anything being attached to his wall.

The reason its a done thing is quite specific, its due to the way the courts will deal with a situation that occurs when parties cannot agree and end up having to go legal to resolve them.

Any party even if they are seriously put out has to act reasonably, and part of that is literally that they cannot incur excessive/unreasonable costs that will fall on the other party. Every party MUST do their best to ensure that this does not happen.
And this is specifically why the first port for any dispute is to allow (unless there is very clearly a competence issue to a non expert) the expert (assuming there is one) to review the situation. Not necessarily fix it, but to review it and propose a solution.
The next reasonable step would be for the parties to try to agree on another expert to review the damage if one of them believes the builder in this case is either lying or incompetent.
But again, bearing in mind that costs must be kept reasonable. The level of expertise needs to be born in mind in regards this next step, most people would reasonably expect another general builder could inspect and quote for the repair. If that builder deemed it structural they would say so, otherwise they would be able to quote for this and as such the seriousness and whether in reality the original builder would be up to the repair would become somewhat more clear.
If for example the original builder was in fact just a fencer then a general builder/brickie would be more expert than a fencer and probably a reasonable level of expertise to undertake the repair. No one would expect a fencer to be able to correctly identify an issue with brickwork.

If the neighbour refuses to allow inspection and it ends up in court and with everything we have to go on here it would likely be deemed unreasonable on the neighbours part, the neighbour is going to end up picking up the majority of the cost.
Of course assuming the damage is minor and any competent diyer let alone builder could fix it satisfactorily. This is all guess work at this point.

The neighbours refusal to allow inspection would go against him if it ended up at that court stage.

 

[kindai]

The reason its a done thing is quite specific, its due to the way the courts will deal with a situation that occurs when parties cannot agree and end up having to go legal to resolve them.

Any party even if they are seriously put out has to act reasonably, and part of that is literally that they cannot incur excessive/unreasonable costs that will fall on the other party. Every party MUST do their best to ensure that this does not happen.
And this is specifically why the first port for any dispute is to allow (unless there is very clearly a competence issue to a non expert) the expert (assuming there is one) to review the situation. Not necessarily fix it, but to review it and propose a solution.
The next reasonable step would be for the parties to try to agree on another expert to review the damage if one of them believes the builder in this case is either lying or incompetent.
But again, bearing in mind that costs must be kept reasonable. The level of expertise needs to be born in mind in regards this next step, most people would reasonably expect another general builder could inspect and quote for the repair. If that builder deemed it structural they would say so, otherwise they would be able to quote for this and as such the seriousness and whether in reality the original builder would be up to the repair would become somewhat more clear.
If for example the original builder was in fact just a fencer then a general builder/brickie would be more expert than a fencer and probably a reasonable level of expertise to undertake the repair. No one would expect a fencer to be able to correctly identify an issue with brickwork.

If the neighbour refuses to allow inspection and it ends up in court and with everything we have to go on here it would likely be deemed unreasonable on the neighbours part, the neighbour is going to end up picking up the majority of the cost.
Of course assuming the damage is minor and any competent diyer let alone builder could fix it satisfactorily. This is all guess work at this point.

The neighbours refusal to allow inspection would go against him if it ended up at that court stage.

Bingo