Cracks appear after a load-bearing wall is removed, a beam proves insufficiently strong, or foundation advice leads to disagreement. This first requires an expert safety assessment and then investigation into the cause. Under Dutch law, a structural engineer is not automatically liable whenever a structure develops problems. Their task, the data used and execution must be distinguished. This guide helps private clients prepare a dispute about structural advice. For serious defects, several advisers or an approaching deadline, coordinating with a lawyer is sensible.
Sources (3)
On this page
1. Have structural safety assessed first
Without investigation, a new crack tells you little about load-bearing capacity, but it should not be ignored solely on the strength of reassuring telephone conversations. If in doubt, engage an appropriately qualified structural adviser to assess the current risk. Ask whether continued use is responsible and which temporary measures are needed. In immediate danger, obtain assistance through the appropriate emergency services. Do not test your suspicions by applying loads, moving props or opening load-bearing components yourself.
Record which parts of the building were accessible, which signs were measured and which conclusions remain provisional. Ask for a clear distinction between emergency advice and a definitive investigation into the causes. Temporary support may be necessary without already answering the liability question. Inform the construction parties involved about investigations and measures insofar as this can be done safely. Keep before-and-after photographs, instructions and invoices so it remains clear why the situation had to change.
2. Identify the client and the precise engineering task
Establish who instructed the structural engineer: you, the architect or the contractor. Check the business named on the quotation, invoice and appointment confirmation. Receiving a calculation through your architect does not automatically make you the engineer’s contracting party. If another party commissioned the services, the legal route must be examined separately. The person signing or providing a telephone explanation is likewise not automatically the individual personally answerable for every cost.
Then identify the scope of work. Did it concern one lintel, the main load-bearing structure, checking suppliers’ calculations or also site inspections? Record excluded elements, such as temporary works or existing foundations. An official 2023 judgment about a renovation specifically distinguished the work of the architect, structural engineer and contractor. Use this as a reason to investigate the contracts carefully, rather than as a prediction of the outcome of your own dispute.
3. Reconstruct the data behind the calculation
Collect calculations bearing dates and revision numbers, together with their drawings. Find the data on which the structural engineer relied: existing dimensions, ground investigation, material strength, loads arising from use and information about existing structures. Ask which assumptions still needed checking before execution. A calculation for a lighter roof extension cannot simply be used after a different material or span has been chosen, for example. Record revised design decisions as well.
Have an independent expert investigate the origin of a possibly incorrect assumption and who should have identified it. Incorrect information supplied by someone else does not automatically exclude an adviser’s own duty to investigate; conversely, a limited appointment need not require full investigation of every unknown building condition. Request concrete explanations: which data were missing, which check was reasonably called for and what would it have revealed? This avoids a report merely establishing that the eventual result was inadequate.
4. Compare the advice with what was actually built
Check whether the contractor received and applied the correct drawing version. Examine section sizes, bearing lengths, connections, reinforcement and changes, but leave technical conclusions to the expert. A correct calculation can coexist with work that departs from it. An incorrect design can also coincide with an execution error. State for each component which deviation is evident from documents and which was established only through inspection. Record missing information without filling gaps with your own assumptions.
Also ask about the sequence of work. Safety of the final structure is a different question from the temporary situation while removing a wall. Who had to supply a propping plan, who gave execution instructions and were warnings issued? Record oral directions as carefully as possible, including dates and participants. A site visit by the engineer does not independently establish approval of the entire work or assumption of every execution check. The content of the visit and appointment remain relevant.
5. Link the technical allegation to specific loss
Ask the expert report to distinguish non-compliance with a standard, actual damage and the need for repairs. Which calculation or check was incorrect, and how did it cause the problem found? Investigate other possible causes too, such as a changed load or a connection not built to plan. A finding that a beam has insufficient reserve capacity does not automatically substantiate all claimed crack repairs. Ask the expert to state limitations and outstanding questions explicitly.
Then budget separately for the necessary structural adjustment, consequential damage repairs, investigations and temporary provisions. Show which costs would also have arisen from an initially correct design. A heavier beam might always have needed purchasing; reopening a finished wall may occupy a different position. Obtain separate quotations for improvements outside the original appointment. One total bill for a modernised home gives insufficient insight into which loss the alleged advisory error caused.
6. Monitor notification, terms and deadlines
Notify your contracting party of the problem in writing and explain why the structural advice is questioned. Request the complete calculation set and a substantive response. Keep the factual complaint identifiable even while investigation continues. Before permanent repairs, discuss whether those involved can inspect and what opportunity to remedy must be offered. Have general terms, including any DNR terms, checked for applicability, complaint provisions, liability limits and the agreed dispute route. A reference to terms does not decide those questions by itself.
Do not wait indefinitely for a final report or reassuring response. In 2023, the Dutch Supreme Court considered a case about strength calculations in which knowledge of damage and the potentially responsible party mattered for limitation. A lawyer must examine when sufficient knowledge existed in your case and what action can protect a deadline. A complaint letter is not automatically an appropriate notice interrupting limitation, and a contractual expiry period requires its own assessment. Prepare a timeline of the first indications and all advice.
7. Develop a workable approach with your lawyer
A useful initial file contains the chain of appointments, calculation versions used, an overview of deviations and the safety advice. State who has access to the building, which work has stopped and which costs continue immediately. Formulate concrete discussion points: who should receive a claim, which technical data are missing and how necessary repairs can begin without needlessly losing evidence.
A construction lawyer can coordinate connected claims against the adviser and contractor and assess whether further expert investigation or proceedings are needed. If the cause is completely disputed, a focused joint inspection may be useful first; urgency may require another route. Discuss the investigation budget, legal costs and your settlement objectives beforehand. Admitting a calculation error does not guarantee recovery of every loss item, so the scale and practicability of the solution also need attention.
Frequently asked questions
Do cracks prove that the structural engineer made an error?
No. Cracks require technical investigation into their cause, seriousness and connection with the appointment. Execution, existing circumstances and subsequent changes may also matter.
Can I bring a claim against the structural engineer if the contractor engaged them?
Have the appointment chain assessed. Your own contracting party and any direct claim against the engineer must be distinguished legally.
Does a legal deadline start only after the final report?
You cannot assume that. Knowledge of damage and the potentially responsible party, earlier complaints and contractual provisions may be relevant sooner. Have this assessed in time.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Rechtspraak — ECLI:NL:RBROT:2023:810 (officiële uitspraak-XML gelezen) Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Rechtspraak — ECLI:NL:HR:2023:653 (officiële uitspraak-XML gelezen) Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Rechtspraak — ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2013:BZ5499 (officiële uitspraak-XML gelezen) Accessed: 2026-10-23
Legal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Construction law in the Netherlands
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.
Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology