An engineering report is a professional opinion based on the information available to the engineer. That does not mean every engineer will necessarily reach exactly the same conclusion.
If you disagree with a structural engineer’s report, the best first step is usually to understand exactly what you disagree with and why.
Sometimes the problem is a misunderstanding. Sometimes important information was not available when the report was prepared. And sometimes a genuine difference of engineering opinion exists.
Start by Reading the Scope of the Report
Before challenging the conclusion, check what the engineer was actually engaged to investigate.
An engineer may have been asked to answer a very specific question rather than assess the whole building.
Look at:
- the engineer’s instructions;
- the stated scope of the inspection;
- any limitations in the report;
- the documents or information reviewed;
- the areas that were inspected; and
- the questions the engineer was asked to answer.
A disagreement about something outside the original scope may require additional investigation rather than correction of the original report.
Identify the Exact Point You Disagree With
It is much easier for an engineer to respond to a specific concern than a general statement that the report is wrong.
For example, you might disagree with:
- the stated cause of cracking;
- whether damage is recent or longstanding;
- the significance of structural movement;
- whether a particular repair is required;
- whether damage is associated with an insured event;
- the interpretation of drawings or photographs; or
- an assumption used in the engineer’s assessment.
Write down the specific issue and identify any evidence you believe supports a different conclusion.
Ask the Engineer to Explain Their Reasoning
A professional engineering report should contain enough reasoning for the reader to understand how the engineer reached their conclusion.
If something is unclear, ask the engineer to explain it.
Useful questions might include:
- What evidence supports this conclusion?
- What alternative causes were considered?
- What observations were most important?
- Would additional information change the opinion?
- Were any assumptions necessary?
- Is further testing or monitoring warranted?
Quite often, a discussion resolves what initially appeared to be a disagreement.
Provide New Information
Engineering opinions depend on evidence.
If relevant information was unavailable when the report was prepared, provide it to the engineer and ask whether it affects the conclusion.
Useful additional evidence might include:
- older photographs;
- construction photographs;
- original drawings;
- previous engineering reports;
- repair records;
- survey or floor-level information;
- plumbing or drainage investigations;
- rainfall or event history; and
- photographs showing how damage has changed over time.
A good engineer should be willing to reconsider an opinion if genuinely relevant new evidence becomes available.
Consider an Independent Second Opinion
If the disagreement remains significant, an independent engineering review may be appropriate.
The second engineer should ideally receive the original report, relevant drawings, photographs and other available evidence rather than being asked simply to produce a competing conclusion.
The purpose should be to independently assess the engineering issue.
A second engineer may:
- agree with the original conclusion;
- agree with some parts but not others;
- identify information that is missing;
- recommend additional investigation; or
- reach a different engineering opinion.
Different Engineering Opinions Do Not Automatically Mean Someone Is Wrong
Structural engineering often involves judgement.
Two competent engineers can sometimes place different weight on the same evidence, particularly where information is incomplete or several possible causes exist.
The important issue is whether each opinion is supported by appropriate observations, evidence and engineering reasoning.
When the Matter Involves an Insurance Claim
Disagreements about engineering reports commonly arise during insurance claims.
The disagreement may concern:
- the cause of damage;
- whether damage was sudden or progressive;
- whether deterioration existed before the event;
- the extent of damage attributable to an event;
- the appropriate repair methodology; or
- whether further investigation is required.
An independent structural engineer can review the available evidence and provide another opinion where the issue is sufficiently important to justify further investigation.
When the Matter Is Becoming a Dispute
If the engineering issue forms part of a building dispute, tribunal matter or court proceeding, the role of the engineer can change.
At that point, it may be appropriate to engage an engineer specifically to provide an independent expert opinion.
The engineer should understand the question being disputed, review the relevant evidence and clearly explain the technical basis for their conclusions.
For more information, see our structural engineering expert reports for QCAT and court matters.
Complaints About Professional Engineering Conduct in Queensland
Professional engineering services in Queensland are regulated by the Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland (BPEQ).
If your concern relates to the professional conduct of an RPEQ, BPEQ has a formal complaints process.
BPEQ recommends first attempting to resolve the issue with the engineer or a senior person within the engineering firm where appropriate.
BPEQ can investigate professional conduct and possible breaches of the Professional Engineers Act, including concerns about unregistered people carrying out professional engineering services without appropriate RPEQ supervision.
BPEQ is a professional regulator. It does not resolve private contractual disputes or order an engineer to provide compensation, restitution or rectification.
Is the Engineer an RPEQ?
Professional engineering services carried out in or for Queensland generally need to be performed by a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ), or by someone working under the required direct supervision of an RPEQ.
If you are concerned that professional engineering services have been provided by an unregistered person without appropriate supervision, BPEQ can provide information about the regulatory requirements and receive information about possible breaches.
Need an Independent Review of a Structural Engineering Report?
Cornell Engineers undertakes selected independent reviews and forensic structural investigations where there is a genuine technical disagreement about structural damage, building movement, causation or repair.
Send us the original engineering report, property address, relevant photographs and a brief explanation of the particular conclusion you are concerned about.
We will review the information and let you know whether an independent engineering assessment is likely to assist.