Richard, Infact whilst i have added a note I have not mentioned the words Additional Costs as i feel this 'opens the door' some what thanks for your useful comments

Agree with comments. I usually use a large and simple "IF IN DOUBT, REFER TO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER"

Unscrupulous Contractors!! Perish the thought. From the dark side: Surely as professionals we should not be ‘hiding things away’. It may be that small builders don’t look at specifications, but I would suggest that larger contractors do. It would amaze many some of the things I find in specifications which as an unscrupulous contractor I would obviously use against a designer! However the guidance note for the drawing is clear and would have worked if the contractor had been able to make contact. Put yourself in the builder’s situation with men on site unable to progress because of a difference between the schedule and the drawing and no contact available. The client would certainly have been knocking on the designer’s door if the three men had been sitting in their van all day drinking tea at his expense! How critical the timing was to the additional works might be interesting to pursue. The initial comment was that there had been no attempted contact, only to be changed later. If that message had been picked up might there have been time to advise on the link orientation? The key, as we all know, is to have a clear and simple contract with good communication, though when did we last see one of those!

Angus, my comment about hiding was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I intended to convey the opinion that we should not present our work in such a manner that we encourage claims. Your suggestion that, "The client would certainly have been knocking on the designer’s door if the three men had been sitting in their van all day drinking tea at his expense!", is not a scenario that my piddling fees would cover. Most of my work is done without a contract, as is the work on site. In my experience, I would expect the builder to absorb such expenses where something isn't clear on my drawings in relation to what is found on site, but I wonder if this has been tested in law?

I have a similar situation myself at the moment. An architectural practice asked us to price for the design of some steel beams and other odds and sods. We were told a design only service was required, no drawings or site visits as client was a former joiner turned project manager and would undertake coordination and management of the build himself. A price was proposed, revised and then agreed, and subsequently paid... A set of calculations were issued which incorporated a summary section of required member sizes but not showing any dimensions as the project was an extension/ alteration, so subject to site measure which I think we’d all expect a competent builder and project manager to understand. We worked off hand drawn details with no dimensions so had to scale for design lengths etc. We then get a phone call; “can you come to site, the steel is in the wrong place” I get to site to find the builder waving my calcs saying “we fabricated to your dimensions, so you’re responsible”. It transpires the client just gave the builder the whole lot of calcs, he’s gone through it, found a page not in the summary section, where we’ve marked up some scaled dimension and he’s then instructed the fabricator to work to that! The worst part is the dimension they’ve taken isn’t even to an actual member; we have two beams coming in side by side at right angles to a third supporting member. For design purposes we’ve marked up an assumed centreline of the two beams to position the point load on the third and they’ve considered that accurate enough to fabricate to! There were no calls before hand to even ask if they should double check any of this, just a builder who has ploughed on and a client who has let them. The builder’s first words when I get to site are “this is what you have PII for isn’t it?” I felt like saying (and wish I had) “Er no, we have PII to cover serious catastrophes that are of our making and not those of incompetent builders” When I point out all our calculation sheets have a foot note showing “All dimensions for design purposes only” I’m told that that’s just stupid! The architectural practice advised us early on that they we’re on a reduced scope of service at the Client’s request and that’s what they wanted from us. The client’s wife rang at the end of last week to convince me that as “construction novices” they “should have been told” and “could not be responsible for this outcome and don’t feel they should pay the extra costs of altering the steelwork” which I’m finding very hard to square with their request for design only and the fact the husband has been in construction for twenty plus years..... I feel I’ve done all I’ve been asked to do with regards our appointment and that I can’t be held responsible for the failing of the client not to supervise the work they assumed responsibility for nor for the builder carrying on without raising any query. I can’t help but feel I’ve not heard the last of this but really don’t want to notify the insurers as it wouldn’t be worthwhile paying the excess.

A lot of the problem is to do with how we are perceived by the public, including people working in the industry. I believe that, mostly, we are perceived to be contractors. But we are actually our client's agents, & our function is to provide clients with specialist advice, passed on to contractors & other interested parties. I think that most domestic clients want the cheapest price for design, not understanding that this might cost them many times over on site. When I was a checking engineer, I saw schemes that were designed in such a way that they minimized the engineer's costs, but would be expensive to construct, so the client wasn't getting a good deal, rather, they were getting shafted. Sometimes it was so blatant that it made me quite cross, but my role was just to ensure that it was safe & not likely to develop cracks & distortions. I try to do my designs so that they meet the conflicting requirements of safety, strength, economy, stiffness, aesthetics, durability, etc., so I spend a lot of time on them. This often means that I end up working for a low hourly rate. I imagine that plenty of other engineers do the same. We are working in what economists call a failed market.

I have to admit that I'm in the habit of providing of submitting calculations only directly to Building Control if I can. There can be too much in there that can be misinterpreted by a layman.

Richard, I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek too. My final point was the most relevant. However in these days everyone expects responses instantly which can be particularly difficult for the smaller firms. I would not expect fees to cover contractor losses, though that would be nice at times. Just trying to put another slant on the problem. The last thing we need is more lawyers but I would question why someone should pay for the error of another. Contracts need not be extensive, but there needs to be clear understanding, amongst all parties involved, of the roles and what is expected. This is also apparent in Andrew’s post. What was the brief, what was expected, who knew that? Public perception of Structural Engineers has been raised sharply in Scotland through the SER scheme. It also assists building control. Perhaps there should be greater lobbying for its implementation in the rest of the UK. How did the client in Andrew’s project get a building warrant? How were the designs which were undertaken transposed onto working drawings? Who has responsibility?

I'm taking my first tentative steps with my own new company dealing in this market and these are the exact horror stories that send a chill down my spine.I've come across similar situations in the past whilst working for consultancies but back then i had the backing of bullish associates and directors who would threaten legal action at the drop of a hat.I dont recall ever actually seeing a contract for a domestic project (typically £300 or £400) fee , generally there are a few *rse covering notes cobbled together by the engineer and stapled to the front of the calcs package.I'm i missing something? are standard contracts used for projects this small? i can see where that would be desirable but also how this may scare clients away.

Angus, this thread has brought up an important issue. As you say, "...why someone should pay for the error of another?" In these trying economic times, this might become more of an issue, to our detriment. Part of our problem is that we don't consult with the client, rather, we consult with the architect, etc. So the client misunderstands our role, & sees us as a contractor. So when a misunderstanding occurs, we get blamed. For instance, I've recently had a situation where I had to do some extra work on a building that was unexpectedly found to have some cob walling internally, when opened up, & an external wall that appeared to be solid 9" from the bonding but was actually cavity. My fee estimate did not cover all the complexities that this building threw up. When I suggested that I would bill for the extra work, the client was indignant, & said that they knew the external wall was cavity. I've not been paid the full amount that I billed. As these clients probably think that I'm a contractor, they expect me to get everything right. If they realized that I'm their agent, & need to be properly funded to adequately represent their interests, I'd stand a better chance of being paid my due. What I think we need is a short contract that explains to the client, (the householder), what our role is, because in my experience they don't understand. It could cover reasonable situations for extras, & indemnify us against 'unfair', (to be defined), claims. It should carry the imprimatur of the Institution, (& why not a joint effort with RIBA & RICS, etc.?), so that we are not perceived to be trying it on, & so that it looks official.