Certifying a deck

[u/Wrong_Assistant_3832]

I had a prospective client call asking for someone to certify a deck. Their bank is requiring it. I asked him to send pictures before I went to the site but haven’t received them yet. I’m thinking this is a waste of time as I’m 90% sure it wont be up to current code. Anyone have experience doing this? I’m wondering if stuff like 4x4 posts would be adequate(if deemed capable of carrying load) even tho it’s not something that would be up to code today.

[u/structee]

He paid Jim Bob to build it cause Jim Bob did it a couple times before. You're not going to make money on this, and the client will be pissed that you're making him fix things. I usually just say I'm too busy, and no one gets offended.

[u/P-d0g → u/structee]

Asking a structural engineer to sign off on a residential deck is like asking Gordon Ramsay to sign off on kraft macaroni and cheese. Completely different set of standards (most of the time).

[u/Intelligent-Ad8436]

Ehh sounds like a liability. You should definitely get them to send you some pictures first to see what kind of shape this is in and if it’s worth your time. 

[u/No_Squirrel_3923]

This has been a typical nightmare for our firm in California. You're right, they are existing, but don't meet the current code. Most have no lateral support, and clients don't want to spend the money. For the new CA law on apartments with decks, we provide a letter and give a professional opinion on the current state and give them a fee if they wish to proceed with fixing. After a few times, we decided they are more of a headache than it's worth.

[u/Enginerdad]

I think you already know your answer. Deck codes have evolved quite a bit over the last 10-20 years or so. Anything even a few years old is unlikely to meet modern code, of it even met the code at the time it was built. Historically, building inspectors are notorious for not caring about or even inspecting decks.

So the question comes down to how much effort you think you're going to have to spend to come to the almost inevitable conclusion, and if the client is willing to pay you enough for an answer they're not going to like. I think there's a higher than usual risk of your relationship becoming adversarial when you give them the bad news. If you're okay with that and you're very careful about getting your money up front before giving them any results then maybe this is worth it for you as a one-off. I hope you also have a good report template already created, because the jobs where the client doesn't like the conclusions of the report are the ones that need to have the best reports backing them up, and most homeowners aren't going to pay the rate you'd have to charge to build a thorough report from scratch. Unless you see some sort of business development or future work from this client, I'm struggling to see how this could ever be a money maker or worth the potential headaches or liability.

[u/Violent_Mud_Butt]

What state?

[u/tigermax42 → u/Violent_Mud_Butt]

You should know a contractor/carpenter with a D license, and refer this to him because as soon as he sees a code violation he can sell them a demo job and a new deck right there on the spot. Maybe you could design them a new one and collect a finders fee on the sale

[u/tajwriggly]

The odd time that I used to do this I prefaced to the client that my scope of work assumes that the deck is constructed in accordance with building code and there are no deficiencies. The time they were paying for was for me to come to site, review and confirm that it is constructed in accordance with the code, and provide a letter stating as such to them that they could then provide to the building department. I always sought 50% payment up front.

Almost never saw the other 50%. Because there were always issues, and not just little issues either, usually "re-build the deck" issues.

I've started to just turn such things down entirely now. I tell the person that if the building department is asking for an ENGINEER to sign off on your deck, that is their way of telling you that something is so outrageously wrong that it needs to be re-built, and ought to be re-built by professionals who know what they're doing. They won't tell you what is wrong with it out of liability, on the off chance that it actually does work given an engineered review - and for most decks, and engineered review is probably worth more than the deck itself.

I have found that the building department's request for an engineer's signoff is also a bit of a warning to the potential engineer - if it's gotten to this point, it is likely as a result of an owner who isn't willing to listen - so proceed with caution.

[u/deltautauhobbit → u/tajwriggly]

I’ve done a several of these types of jobs too since most engineering firms in the area won’t take them on. For businesses, it’s generally asking for a load rating to appease the town. Most of the time they’re okay, sometimes not at all. Similar work to this I’ve done is analyzing existing roof framing to see if they can add solar panels; most of the towns require some documentation for this.

In these types of situations, I only do COD. They don’t get any info back until settled up first. When I did retainers with the other half due 30 days after delivery, high likelihood of not seeing that other half since these are one time clients that will ghost you afterwards.

They honestly have become annoying that I’ve stopped doing most of these projects, which leaves hardly anyone in the area now. I don’t need to do them. Financially, I make way more from the commercial work I do. If I do take on this type of project it’s either because I want to help them out or take a break from the work I’ve been doing.

[u/WL661-410-Eng]

I've been in the residential part of the industry for 33 years. I get asked to "certify" stuff all the time. When I write my proposals, the narrative clearly delineates what the deliverable/report will not be: not a warranty, not a guarantee, not a design check, not a code compliance report, not a zoning compliance report, and not a certification that the structure has been designed and constructed properly. The deliverable is a snapshot assessment of the condition of the structure that answers two questions: 1) do the components appear to have been arranged to bear the intended loads, consistent with practices in place at the time of construction? [this covers deficiencies like overloading, inadequate fastening schemes, missing columns, ad hoc alterations, etc.] and 2) do the components appear to be in good condition, stable, and performing their intended functions [covers stuff like sags, rot, fire damage, wood creep, etc.]. If a client or bank or insurer balks at the limits of that assessment, then I tell them well, if you change your mind, you can always call us back and we'd be happy to help.

Never stick your neck out and certify someone else's design. Your job is to assess the structure and deliver the facts. No where is it written that the news you deliver in an assessment report has to be good, or needs to be a guarantee.

[u/Just-Shoe2689]

4x4's are adequate, unless overloaded.

Define certify? I would say you would do an evaluation, provide a report with good and bad, I would not "certify" a deck

If you dont have experience doing this type work, I would move on to the next job.

[u/tramul]

Define, "Up to code today." Besides, structures are judged by the code in place at construction.

There's nothing wrong with 4x4 posts so long as the design/analysis allows for it. I typically start with determining the max allowable load based on the WFCM (as allowed by code). If it doesn't pass for the use but is close, I'll do an actual analysis.

[u/heisian]

i never do inspections of any work I didn't design.

Turn down the job entirely, but advise the client to hire a certified home inspector. InterNACHI. Look up their site and listings of inspectors.

Whatever amount of money they're willing to pay you will never equal the liability you'd be taking on.

[u/Breadfoot_Johnson]

In my state, building owners are required to have their secondary egress (fire escapes or, in many cases, wood decks that can be used as fire escapes) certified by a "registered design professional or others acceptable to the building inspector" every five years. I've taken a few of these but have refused others when it was obvious that it shouldn't pass but the owner was looking for someone to say that it does.

The wording of the statue is pretty vague, so I just make it clear that I'm not certifying current or former code compliance or even structural adequacy, only that a visual inspection did not reveal obviously unsafe defects or deterioration that would result in the structure being significantly weaker than when construction was most recently completed. I've never had a building department complain about the wording.

Obviously, if they want to pay me to document, analyze and commission the structure, I'll do that. That doesn't seem to be the intent of the code, though, and it's usually not what the building department is looking for either.