Unregistered consultancy using a technician's seal
COREN's inspectorate receives a complaint about a firm in Ibadan whose signboard reads "Engr. Ade & Partners Engineering Consultancy". The firm is not registered with COREN. It has produced structural drawings for a three-storey commercial building, now at first-floor slab level. The firm employs one Registered Engineering Technician with a current licence, two unregistered draftsmen, and a site clerk who stamps drawings with a technician seal kept in the office. The registered technician prepared the beam schedules and says the principal "reviewed them". The principal holds no COREN registration and uses "Engr." on business cards. The client says work must not stop because 30 workers depend on the project. The inspector also sees a deep excavation without supports near a boundary wall.
1. What enforcement action should the inspector take against the firm, the principal and the registered technician?
Read the worked answer
The inspector should first secure evidence: photographs of the signboard and business cards, copies of drawings and beam schedules, the seal and stamping records, and registration checks for the firm and individuals. The firm is unregistered and the principal is unregistered but holds out as "Engr." - potential offences under the engineering registration law. The inspector should issue a stop-practice notice, require removal of misleading titles, and refer the firm and principal for regulatory action or prosecution as appropriate.
The registered technician prepared beam schedules for an unregistered firm and allowed his seal to be used by a site clerk. That may amount to aiding unregistered practice and exceeding his scope; it should be referred to the disciplinary process. The client must be told in writing why work is stopping and what must be done. Sealing the site may be justified by the unsafe excavation, but it should be a documented safety measure, not a substitute for due process.
2. How should the registered technician's conduct be handled fairly?
Read the worked answer
The technician should receive written notice of the specific allegations, disclosure of the evidence, and an opportunity to respond and be heard. Relevant questions include whether he knew the firm was unregistered, whether he controlled the seal, whether the principal actually reviewed the drawings, and whether he was directed to prepare work outside his scope. "Review" by an unregistered principal is not valid engineering supervision.
Possible outcomes range from caution and directed CPD to suspension, depending on the findings. The principal should not be allowed to scapegoat the technician; the firm's owner bears responsibility for the unregistered practice. The technician should be told the reasons for the decision and any appeal route. The process and outcome should be recorded so that consistent treatment can be demonstrated.
3. What immediate action is needed on site?
Read the worked answer
Immediate safety action comes first. Stop work at the first-floor slab and the excavation, barricade the unsupported deep excavation near the boundary wall, and move workers away. Arrange a temporary support design by a licensed engineer and have the structure reviewed before further loading. Secure drawings, the seal and stamping records as evidence.
Notify the client and, if there is imminent danger, the relevant local authority. The inspector should photograph conditions and issue a written direction. The client's argument that 30 workers depend on the project does not justify risking a collapse that could injure workers and neighbours. Work should resume only under a registered engineer's supervision and after corrective measures are verified.