Marc came to m home without a ladder to inspect whether a wall was load bearing or not. I provided my own ladder and he spent 3 minutes looking at the wall to conclude that said wall was not load bearing. He did not inspect upper level load above the area in question nor did he inspect the lower level for underpining. He spent more time making sure my cheque was made out to the right counterparty, Suffice to say his cheque was cancelled and he is now threatening me for litigation. I work with lawyers for a living and we had a chuckle with his veiled threats. No service was rendered therefore no payment received. Case closed.
- Company Response
The mandate given to me by my client was to examine the second floor structural system in order to determine if a wall which had been removed a few years ago at first floor level was originally a load-bearing wall or a non-load bearing partition wall. I noted that the removed wall was perpendicular to the second floor joists and was supported by the first floor joists. The first floor joist system could not be examined as it was not visible and also inaccessible in the apartment below the client’s unit. The removed wall originally supported framing for a large bulkhead, which contained forced air ducting. It was possible to examine the top end of the original wall studs through a small opening on the side of the bulkhead, where a return air vent was located. Here it was noted that the wall studs had been cut at the level of the bulkhead ceiling. It was also noted that no beam was visible that would normally have been installed for support of the second floor joists if the removed wall had been load-bearing. I told the client that a small opening would have to be created on the side of the bulkhead so that I could come back and examine the second floor joists, at the top of the removed wall, to determine if the joists overlapped or are continuous between a ceiling beam at one end and a load-bearing wall at the other end. Should the joists be continuous, a calculation would then be made upon measurement of their size and spacing to confirm that the removed wall was not load-bearing. The client agreed to create this opening and to call me for a return visit. This would have been done at no extra cost to the client. My investigation was done in a professional competent manner and I would be happy to discuss my methodology with any other engineer which the client may retain to carry out another investigation on site. I had all necessary equipment in my truck including step ladders and would have used mine but the client offered the use of his own step ladder. I spent 60 minutes on site to carry out my investigation and got the impression at that time that the client was satisfied with my services.