Silver Creek was initially asked to perform a structural evaluation of modified roof trusses in Mr***’s garage and make recommendations as required in May of Mr*** had independently cut the trusses and added collar ties to install a car lift in his garageUnfortunately, this
modification rendered the structure unsound and we were contacted by his realtor to provide structural engineering servicesAfter our evaluation, it was determined that reinforcements would be needed in order for the garage to be structurally soundFrom the beginning of this process, Mr*** wanted to maintain control of the design and give final approval before construction beganHe listened to our recommendations, but reserved the right to modify our design based on his needsSilver Creek rendered our design based on Mr***’s requests while still ensuring the garage would be structurally soundMr*** approved of our final design and construction beganOnce the construction was complete, Steven K*** visited the site to observe the workHe immediately expressed concern that the garage door would be unable to openMr*** dismissed this as being an issue because he had already planned on getting a new garage door that was specially made to work with this designOn August 16, 2017, Mr*** confirmed via email that he approved MrK***’s report which stated: “Based on my observations, the completed work meets or exceeds our design intent. The roof framing of garage #** meets all code requirements as now reinforced.” In September, Mr*** called our office to say that he was unable to get the special garage door he wantedHe was now upset that the current garage door, which he planned to replace, could not openMrK*** agreed to meet with him again to discuss the issue and see what could be done to fix itMrK*** met with Mr*** on Thursday, September **, not the 24th as written in the complaintMrK*** explained that his role as a structural engineer and primary focus in rendering this design was to make the garage structurally sound while meeting the architectural preferences of Mr***It was clear Mr*** was upset and MrK*** wanted to alleviate the burden of his client as much as possibleNow that Mr***’s original garage door plan has fallen through and his needs had changed, MrK*** offered to provide a redesign of the garage to accommodate a standard garage door free of chargeThis would involve the removal of only one beam, not both beams, the design of how the angle iron would be connected to the headers and in-walls, and the calculation of the loads to ensure the load path workedHowever, Mr*** refused our offer and stated that he could fix it himselfMr***’s claim that MrK*** didn’t know there was a doubleheader above the garage door is untrueMrK*** brought up the doubleheader as something that could be used in the redesignThis job was billed as hourly, not to exceed $1,To date, Mr*** has paid $1,He currently has an outstanding invoice in the amount of $375, which he agreed to pay even at the time of this disputeRegarding Mr***’s desired settlement: MrK*** has already offered services free of charge to meet Mr***’s current needsWe were saddened that he refused our help and sincerely hope he is able to find a solution that satisfies his expectations
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
What Silver Creek Engineering sadness fails to acknowledge is had they simply done what they'd agree to in the contract I signed their mistakes which lead to their failure to design reinforcements that allowed the normal operation of the garage door likely wouldn't have happened or would have been caught by their staff during the design stage. They're wrong when they state only one structural beam will have to be removed to correct their faulty design as multiple beams and will need to be removed to correct their careless, unprofessional work. If it's so simple to correct (as they suggest), why are they refusing correct that harm they've done?
Regards,
[redacted]
Silver Creek was initially asked to perform a structural evaluation of modified roof trusses in Mr***’s garage and make recommendations as required in May of Mr*** had independently cut the trusses and added collar ties to install a car lift in his garageUnfortunately, this
modification rendered the structure unsound and we were contacted by his realtor to provide structural engineering servicesAfter our evaluation, it was determined that reinforcements would be needed in order for the garage to be structurally soundFrom the beginning of this process, Mr*** wanted to maintain control of the design and give final approval before construction beganHe listened to our recommendations, but reserved the right to modify our design based on his needsSilver Creek rendered our design based on Mr***’s requests while still ensuring the garage would be structurally soundMr*** approved of our final design and construction beganOnce the construction was complete, Steven K*** visited the site to observe the workHe immediately expressed concern that the garage door would be unable to openMr*** dismissed this as being an issue because he had already planned on getting a new garage door that was specially made to work with this designOn August 16, 2017, Mr*** confirmed via email that he approved MrK***’s report which stated: “Based on my observations, the completed work meets or exceeds our design intent. The roof framing of garage #** meets all code requirements as now reinforced.” In September, Mr*** called our office to say that he was unable to get the special garage door he wantedHe was now upset that the current garage door, which he planned to replace, could not openMrK*** agreed to meet with him again to discuss the issue and see what could be done to fix itMrK*** met with Mr*** on Thursday, September **, not the 24th as written in the complaintMrK*** explained that his role as a structural engineer and primary focus in rendering this design was to make the garage structurally sound while meeting the architectural preferences of Mr***It was clear Mr*** was upset and MrK*** wanted to alleviate the burden of his client as much as possibleNow that Mr***’s original garage door plan has fallen through and his needs had changed, MrK*** offered to provide a redesign of the garage to accommodate a standard garage door free of chargeThis would involve the removal of only one beam, not both beams, the design of how the angle iron would be connected to the headers and in-walls, and the calculation of the loads to ensure the load path workedHowever, Mr*** refused our offer and stated that he could fix it himselfMr***’s claim that MrK*** didn’t know there was a doubleheader above the garage door is untrueMrK*** brought up the doubleheader as something that could be used in the redesignThis job was billed as hourly, not to exceed $1,To date, Mr*** has paid $1,He currently has an outstanding invoice in the amount of $375, which he agreed to pay even at the time of this disputeRegarding Mr***’s desired settlement: MrK*** has already offered services free of charge to meet Mr***’s current needsWe were saddened that he refused our help and sincerely hope he is able to find a solution that satisfies his expectations
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
What Silver Creek Engineering sadness fails to acknowledge is had they simply done what they'd agree to in the contract I signed their mistakes which lead to their failure to design reinforcements that allowed the normal operation of the garage door likely wouldn't have happened or would have been caught by their staff during the design stage. They're wrong when they state only one structural beam will have to be removed to correct their faulty design as multiple beams and will need to be removed to correct their careless, unprofessional work. If it's so simple to correct (as they suggest), why are they refusing correct that harm they've done?
Regards,
[redacted]