The overall building structure of the back of 68A Harold Street is a double-pitched roof single store#y building with double brick wall built approximately 100 year ago. The collapsed roof was timber framed with tiles. The supporting wall of the roof that now collapsed did not present any structural issue and it was of solid double brick construction. This is the same as the double brick wall on the opposite side which is still standing. At it is evident it does not present any structural issue.
The building is of solid construction, which never presented any evidence of structural defect. It has been standing for almost 100 years without presenting any structural movement, design defect ect. No Wet or dry rot was found prior the incident, and not sign of rotted timber was found on the site of the collapse. So sign of structural issues could be noticed prior to this event not only in the collapsed part of the building but also no other sign if structural issue is present anywhere else.
Design and material defects present themselves within 20 years from construction. Therefore the design and material defects cause of the collapse can be evidently ruled out. Also this type of defects do not cause a sudden catastrophic collapse but they are gradual in nature. Additionally, as mentioned earlier they original material or structural defect would have shown signs soon after construction was completed approximately 100 years ago.
The Solid sound Structure of the building structurally defect free.
The whole building is of solid construction and free from structural defects. This also applies to the part of the building that collapsed, which was of solid construction and free from structural defects:
1 no record of structural defects.
2 no record of any structural movement
3 no cracks on any walls, indicating any possible sign of structural failure.
4. The building was rented wholly and used for several years without structural report issue
5 the original design was sound and no movement
6 no subsidence was reported, and no subsidence is present on-site.
7 as we will see later on the side wall that was blown outwards double brick and reinforced by internal pillars and the window openings were bricked up.
8 the property was subject to a secured loan. A requirement of secured loans on any property is subject to a structural survey for mortgage purposes. The structural survey needs to show that the building is of durable and sound construction, therefore not expected to collapse.
As points from 1 to 6 we also refer to the fact that the building was subject to mortgage security. This means that the property was subject tot a formal structural survey instructed by the mortgage company.
At the time of the first collapse, the property was subject to a secured loan (Specify the loan) Sound overall structure proof lacking defects of the building due to mortgage
It is very clear that the overall structure was of very good, solid construction which was not expected to collapse suddenly in September 2023. The overall structure did not show signs of subsidence or possible future structural failure, and no defects. The property at the time of the first collapse in 2023 was subject to ta secured loan, or also known as mortgage security. For a property to be subject to mortgage security, it requires to be of solid construction and have no structural defects. As it is well known, banks require surveys on the buildings securitized in order to issue their secured loans on the property.
The property was subject to a mortgage at the time of the incident in September 2023 thief means that a survey carried out . Mortgage company do not lend on properties that have structural issues. And the structural issues alleged by the insurance company would not lead to the type of collapse in September 2023.
Therefore the mere fact that the property was surveyed by a professional chartered surveyor approved by a financial institution further proof that the property was deemed structurally sound by an independent structural surveyor. Therefore, the hypothesis of the structural inherent defect is further excluded. As we have seen, the most a structural defect can lead to is a slow and predictable collapse and not a catastrophic sudden collapse like the one that occurred in September 2023.
Therefore, the above is a further proof that the structure was deemed of stable and solid construction byte an independent surveyor. As we know, solid construction cannot collapse in a sudden catastrophic fashion unless major event (all covered by the policies) took place.
The timber found recovered on site on the 28th of September did not show any sign of rot. Therefore, the structural deterioration is ruled out. However, even if no structural fault evidence was found collapses due to structural faults are slow and predictable and do not result in sudden double bricked walls reinforced by columns to catastrophically collapse all at once like in this case. On the contrary, this side wall collapse is easily justified by the real cause of the collapse, as per the neighbours’ testimony, was an explosion. Explosions cause sudden catastrophic collapses, not fires or structural faults. So much so0 that explosives are used in controlled demolitions to cause immediate implosion of the buildings in their footprint. In this case the explosion took place in inside the building close to the central part of the wall that collapsed.
As we will see the lateral forces imposed by the pitched roof is not sufficient to push outwards a double brick was reinforced with pillars.
As it is well known, for old building without any signs of subsidence that are built over 70 years prior they are good for mortgage security because the likelihood of developing any structural catastrophic issue is very remote. Also even more remote if not impossible is the natural collapse of a structural reinforced double brick wall to be blasted outward instantly.