# Fake engineers



## Sifu (Feb 9, 2016)

Don't know how to link the article but just read on Fox News a story about two guys in CA who have been passing themselves off as licensed engineers, using false stamps etc., apparently for years and on hundreds of residential and commercial projects.  Someone that is more savvy with computers can probably find the article and link to it.  Will be Interesting to see the fallout.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 9, 2016)

> Don't know how to link the article but just read on Fox News a story about two guys in CA who have been passing themselves off as licensed engineers' date=' using false stamps etc., apparently for years and on hundreds of residential and commercial projects. Someone that is more savvy with computers can probably find the article and link to it. Will be Interesting to see the fallout.[/quote']http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_built.php


----------



## Msradell (Feb 9, 2016)

I wonder how bad the work they did really is? Obviously it was done under false pretense and wouldn't hold up in the court of law but it could still be very sound design work. I love to hear some engineer's opinion of what they actually did.


----------



## Fort (Feb 10, 2016)

I wonder if they fake stamped and signed R3 Single Family Dwellings that did not even require a RDP in the first place!?!...


----------



## mark handler (Feb 10, 2016)

> I wonder if they fake stamped and signed R3 Single Family Dwellings that did not even require a RDP in the first place!?!...


Many projects that would not normality require a RDP in other areas need a RDP in seismic zones D and E, which is where they are "practicing".


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 12, 2016)

I must be a real a$$, I just requested the RDP to sign, stamp and date his design then I verified that he had his out of state stamp? This was before these knot-heads!

Recently a local RDP stamped someones else's drawing and when I did the review it was missing hanger call outs, fire blocking, metal to roof connection info, post connection, footing info etc.


----------



## ICE (Feb 12, 2016)

> I wonder how bad the work they did really is? Obviously it was done under false pretense and wouldn't hold up in the court of law but it could still be very sound design work. I love to hear some engineer's opinion of what they actually did.


They got all of the projects through many building department reviews.  Then they got the work blessed by many inspectors.  The owners should take solace in that fact and move on....no harm no foul.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2016)

> They got all of the projects through many building department reviews. Then they got the work blessed by many inspectors. The owners should take solace in that fact and move on....no harm no foul.


Just wait for the earthquake


----------



## Mark K (Feb 14, 2016)

The fact that building departments accepted the designs should not lead to an assumption that the buildings were code compliant.  Engineers who design these buildings quickly become aware that plan checkers and inspectors do not find all violations. Building inspectors and plan checker appear to think that because nobody is pointing out their mistakes that they are finding all the violations.


----------



## ICE (Feb 14, 2016)

> The fact that building departments accepted the designs should not lead to an assumption that the buildings were code compliant. Engineers who design these buildings quickly become aware that plan checkers and inspectors do not find all violations. *Building inspectors and plan checker appear to think that because nobody is pointing out their mistakes that they are finding all the violations.*


Maybe the dumb ones.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 14, 2016)

> Just wait for the earthquake


An engineer's stamp is no guarantee. We can go to Napa and I'll show you. Or L.A. Or San Francisco.

Brent.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Feb 15, 2016)

It doesn't make any difference whether the work they did was any good or not.  Palos Verde Engineering Co. has grounds for a major civil suit, as well as anybody who used their services thinking that a real P.E was doing the work.  Unfortunately they probably spent all the money they earned, leaving nothing to compensate those who have been defrauded.  Will the people who paid these phony engineers to do structural design for their houses have to pay a real P.E. to review the design, and pay a contractor to make corrections?


----------



## ICE (Feb 15, 2016)

> It doesn't make any difference whether the work they did was any good or not. Palos Verde Engineering Co. has grounds for a major civil suit' date=' as well as anybody who used their services thinking that a real P.E was doing the work. Unfortunately they probably spent all the money they earned, leaving nothing to compensate those who have been defrauded. [b']Will the people who paid these phony engineers to do structural design for their houses have to pay a real P.E. to review the design, and pay a contractor to make corrections?[/b]


That would take the cooperation of the AHJs and that's not likely to be forthcoming.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 15, 2016)

> That would take the cooperation of the AHJs and that's not likely to be forthcoming.


Being that it is in my sandbox, I can answer. we are working with the sheriffs department and the property owners.


----------



## Mark K (Feb 15, 2016)

It is not the responsibility of the building departments to sort this out. The only question for the AHJ is whether the permit was properly issues and whether the work complies with the code. If the building department determines that the permit was void because it was based on documents that were improperly signed and sealed they would notify the building owner that the owner must correct the problem or the certificate of occupancy would be revoked.

The district attorneys could and probably will prosecute the engineers for criminal activities. The state Board that licenses professional engineers will take action against the engineers for violation of the licensing laws. The impacted clients could sue the engineers in Civil court attempting to recoup their losses but this may not be worth it if they have no money.

Some building owners might try to sue the building departments but for a number of reasons I do not believe that such litigation will be successful.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 15, 2016)

> It is not the responsibility of the building departments to sort this out. .


I never said we are. We are working with the sheriffs department and the property owners.


----------



## ICE (Feb 15, 2016)

> Being that it is in my sandbox, I can answer. we are working with the sheriffs department and the property owners.


Correct me if I am wrong.  The fraud took place in dozens of jurisdictions.  The majority of these jurisdictions and the owners are oblivious to the problem.  The first to become aware will be the AHJs.  They have no mechanism to search for and identify which properties where this occurred. AHJs have a vested interest in not looking. The perpetrators are nowhere to be found.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 15, 2016)

Leed investigators are the LA County Sheriffs department.

The AHJs, and there are many, are working with the Sheriffs department.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 16, 2016)

> Correct me if I am wrong. The fraud took place in dozens of jurisdictions. The majority of these jurisdictions and the owners are oblivious to the problem. The first to become aware will be the AHJs. They have no mechanism to search for and identify which properties where this occurred. AHJs have a vested interest in not looking. The perpetrators are nowhere to be found.


​The investigators need proof of the fraud. The easiest way is the records held by the AHJs. If the AHJs are not working with investigators, surrendering what records they have, would that not be obstruction of justice?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 16, 2016)

> ​The investigators need proof of the fraud. The easiest way is the records held by the AHJs. If the AHJs are not working with investigators, surrendering what records they have, would that not be obstruction of justice?


Public records.


----------



## ICE (Feb 16, 2016)

Sure they are public records.  So how many AHJs can search the records for a particular contractor or engineer.  They will have to manualy examine the file for each address and that is not going to happen.  The AHJs don't want to open a barrel of worms.  The Sherif will send a crack team of student workers.


----------



## conarb (Feb 16, 2016)

\ said:
			
		

> Some building owners might try to sue the building departments but for a number of reasons I do not believe that such litigation will be successful.


Why Mark? The AHJ's are there to supposedly protect the public and they accepted fraudulent documents. I don't think sovereign immunity will protect on this one, it would have a few years ago but I don't think it will now. The big issue here is damages, if no one was damaged then in civil matters the issue is mute. If the AHJs work to help prosecute the fraud they could be helping to dig a hole that they could be buried in with subsequent civil litigation. If this costs owners money they are going to be suing, since the culprits probably are judgment-proof it will be others that pay, especially in California where there is doe pleading and a public policy in the courts to hold the deep pockets liable, the policy here is that someone has to pay.

If I were a CBO I'd sit back and do as little as possible and let the chips fall where they may, but don't go near obstructing the authorities in their investigation even though you may be helping to dig your own hole, insurance will pay in a situation like this and that's ultimately what the courts will be looking to.

The criminal and administrative actions are one thing, but at the conclusion there will be civil actions, and the AHJ will be named, the jurors, if it goes that far which it won't, will think: "What's the building department there for if they can't even catch that? And then they turn around and make the homeowners pay for their incompetency.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 16, 2016)

> So haw many AHJs can search the records for a particular contractor or engineer. They will have to manualy examine the file for each address and that is not going to happen.


My software will allow me to search by permit number or by address but not by engineer or architect. RDP's are not required to have a city business license, it's a sweet setup if the AHJ does't check with the state board of "men who draw!".


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 16, 2016)

I'd plea the fifth or the second amendment, wait, those are under attack, use the sanity plea, works every time! I don't recall


----------



## mark handler (Feb 16, 2016)

> So haw many AHJs can search the records for a particular contractor or engineer..


We Can and have


----------



## ICE (Feb 16, 2016)

> We Can and have


We are 100 times larger and can't.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 16, 2016)

> We Can and have


http://www.crw.com/land-management-software-building-permit-software-permit-tracking-software/


----------



## tmurray (Feb 17, 2016)

> Sure they are public records. So how many AHJs can search the records for a particular contractor or engineer. They will have to manualy examine the file for each address and that is not going to happen. The AHJs don't want to open a barrel of worms. The Sherif will send a crack team of student workers.


Our permit management software is essentially a database software built for permitting and inspections. This allows us to create custom fields and create custom reports to return the data from our custom fields. I could do this in about 1/2 an hour since we already record who the engineers of record are for each trade.

We check the licensing for new engineers in our jurisdiction. Sometimes I think we are being overly cautious, but this makes em think we're doing the right thing.


----------

