Attachment # 4

Email correspondence from Anna Becker regarding engineering concerns at 12 Vickery Road

From: [Redacted] To: [Redacted] Subject: RE: Background Documentation for Engineer Problems for 12 Vickery Road Build Date: March 27, 2023 2:13:00 PM Importance: High

Hello Robert,

Just following up on my email from last week to see if you’ve had a chance to review our documentation to determine if we can request a second engineer to review our existing project. Do you know of an engineer who can provide a honest opinion?

John mentioned to me that in his discussion with you, you said there was a form that can be completed on the EGBC website that allows us to request a second opinion. I tried looking at their website and even used their search engine but without any success. Is this a form that only the local authorities or another engineer must complete?

Thanks, Anna

From: [Redacted] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:13 PM To: [Redacted] Subject: Background Documentation for Engineer Problems for 12 Vickery Road Build Importance: High

Hello Robert,

Thank you for offering to assist John Becker, my husband, and myself with the problem we are experiencing with Mark Buesink of buepoint engineering ltd. for the owner/build project at 12 Vickery Road.

As John mentioned I filed a complaint with Engineers & Geoscientists British Columbia (EGBC). While I was preparing the background information for EGBC [Redacted] John mentioned that the 6 x 6 posts on the ground floor was bowing and cracking and it appeared that the 8 x 8 posts on the living space (upstairs) was leaning towards where the 6 x 6 posts was holding up the upper floor, I contacted Mark and expressed my concerns via email. After receiving Mark’s response to my concerns about the problem posts, I finalized my documents and submitted my complaint to EGBC on February 9, 2023; however, given the size of the attachments, it did not go through. I tried splitting the document but apparently the picture in the email was too large so until I followed up on my February 9th and February 24th emails by phone on March 1st I did not know EGBC had not receive the submission.

Mark’s response to my concerns about the 6 x 6 post was:

“There do not appear to be problems with posts. However, I can review that if you’d like. If you are worried about collapse, I’m surprised you are unwilling to do the remedial work for that significantly compromised joist.

I will not do an on camera consultation without additional fees. You will see by email that I did not state it was a demand and I was simply responding to your request.

If you would like me to come for a more typical construction phase structural services, I can do so for $500.00”

What frustrates me the most was the double speak in his first line: “There do not appear to be problems with posts. However, I can review that if you’d like.” As my email to Mark asked him to come to site so he can see the problem in person as the Engineer on Record, I had already told him to review. It was like my concern about the structure not being sound was as trivial as the compromised joist for the toilet in my mom’s bathroom.

The following DropBox link provides you the email I sent to EGBC and the Transaction History for Engineering Services document I created to support my complaint: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/viuxvwnyvfifwiho8eild/h?dl=0&rlkey=35h625ivjnjbjeip0qadg6ytp

Please note, we are sharing this information in confidence with you; however, if it is necessary to use in having the Town of View Royal Building Inspections send a letter to EGBC to get an inspection by a second engineer, you may share this information with Stephen (the Town of View Royal’s new building inspector) for that purpose.

We really appreciate your assistance in getting our problem resolved so we can get on with building our retirement home. If there is anything we can do to help, John and I are willing to meet with you at a coffee shop. FYI - John’s phone [Redacted]

Sincerely, Anna Becker [Redacted]