Pressure to Certify a Deteriorated Car Park

I cannot sign the draft. The statement that no significant defects were observed is contradicted by the inspection findings: 0.5 mm cracks, delamination over about 8% of the slab, low cover, elevated chloride, and half-cell readings indicating active corrosion. Signing would misrepresent the condition of the structure to a purchaser and could expose the public to risk.

Professional obligations include:

• Competence and due care: a two-hour walkover without drawings, loads, or cores is not an adequate basis for a structural adequacy opinion.
• Honesty and integrity: the letter must reflect what was observed and what was not assessed.
• Public safety: the car park is accessible to the public; a collapse or falling concrete risk is not a commercial inconvenience.
• Scope and limitations: an engineer may report observations, but must not imply a level of assurance that the work does not support.

The partner's precedent and the committed fee do not change the technical basis. If the letter is issued, my name or the firm's name would be attached to a conclusion the evidence does not support.

Offer a factual inspection letter that separates observation from opinion. It would state:

• What was inspected and when, and what was not available (drawings, design loads, cores, full access).
• The observed defects with locations and approximate extent.
• That the observations indicate chloride-induced corrosion and delamination in at least two bays.
• That structural adequacy for current use has not been established, and that further investigation is required before reliance.
• Recommended tests: cover survey, carbonation depth, chloride profiles, half-cell mapping, and a load assessment if the intended use changes.

This meets the client's need for a document before Friday without certifying adequacy. If the client refuses access, the letter records that refusal and the resulting limitation. I would also propose a phased approach: non-intrusive testing first, then targeted cores if the sale proceeds. The client can then decide whether to accept the risk or delay. The key is that the document must not say the structure is adequate when it has not been assessed.

To the partner, I would be direct and factual: I cannot sign the draft because it states a conclusion the inspection does not support. I would explain the specific findings, the missing basis, and the alternative letter. I would separate the commercial pressure from the technical judgement and ask the partner to review the alternative before it goes out. I would put the advice in writing so the record is clear.

To the client, I would explain that the inspection found corrosion-related defects, that a walkover cannot confirm adequacy, and that the proposed letter reports observations and limitations rather than certifying the structure. I would offer the phased testing option and the timeline. I would avoid blaming the client for refusing access; I would simply record that the refusal limits the opinion.

If the partner insists on the original letter, I would not sign it. I would escalate to the firm's principal or ethics adviser, document the escalation, and ask for a written instruction if anyone wants to override me. If the firm still issues the letter without my involvement, I would disassociate myself in writing. In an extreme case involving imminent public risk, I would consider notifying the appropriate regulator, having first sought advice.