Chartered Electrical Engineer
Array
(
[register] =>
[Membership_Number] => 2664
[Qualifications] => Chartered Engineer 1999 (Reg No 336421)
Fellow Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers 2009
Member of the Society of Light and Lighting 2007
Member Academy of Experts 2011
[Secondary_Occupation] =>
[R1] => Employee
[Expert_Experience1] => All aspects on electrical building services
[Expert_Experience2] =>
[C1] =>
[S3] =>
[Area_Worked] =>
[LegalAid] => 0
[No_Instructions3] =>
[No_Instructions1] =>
[No_Reports_Written3] =>
[No_Reports_Written1] =>
[No_Court_Appearances3] =>
[No_Court_Appearances1] =>
[Key_Words] => BS 7671, 17th Edition, 18th Edition wiring regulations, programme, cost control, energy efficiency, low carbon, sustainability, lighting, emergency lighting, security, structured cabling, lighting, low voltage switch gear, fire alarm systems, lightning protection, standby generator, uninterruptable power supplies, low voltage, high voltage, lifts, British Standards, Building Regulations, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
[Brief_CV] => <strong>Technical Electrical Specialisms</strong>
<ul>
<li>Non-essential and essential electrical infrastructures, building management systems</li>
<li>Emergency standby generation and uninterruptable power supplies</li>
<li>Solar photovoltaic plants and distribution infrastructures</li>
<li>Sustainability, wind, photovoltaic and air source heat pump systems</li>
<li>Telecommunication and computer data infrastructures</li>
<li>Interior, exterior, emergency, laser, and feature lighting</li>
<li>Conventional and aspirating fire alarm and smoke ventilation systems</li>
<li>Closed circuit television, intruder alarm and access control systems</li>
<li>Conventional, fireman’s and firefighting lift installations</li>
<li>Lightning protection, conventional and specialist computer clean earthing systems</li>
</ul>
<strong>Expert Witness and Forensic Expert Witness Expertise</strong>
<ul>
<li>Mediation, arbitration, litigation, technical and contractual assistance to legal profession</li>
<li>Liaison with Claimants, Defendants, Advocates, Solicitors, Insurers & Loss Adjusters</li>
<li>Single and Joint Expert Witness in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules part 35</li>
<li>Court attendance, cross examination of expert witness reports</li>
<li>Electricity Supply Authority metering, check metering, tariff disputes and settlement</li>
<li>Obviousness, validity/invalidity, state of the art, Patents disputes</li>
<li>Wayleave and boundary trespass disputes</li>
<li>Compilation of desk top study and site investigation expert witness reports</li>
<li>Compilation of detailed forensic expert witness reports</li>
<li>Building inspections to verify compliance to Electrical British Standards & Codes of Practice</li>
<li>Compilation of Bankable Studies, Scott Schedules, damage and loss schedules</li>
<li>Identification of causation, production of remedial work strategies</li>
<li>Quantum and commercial analysis of cost claims and losses</li>
<li>Due diligence and dilapidation surveys</li>
<li>Legislative compliance to national and international standards</li>
<li>Pro bono expert witness and forensic engineering cases</li>
<li>Claimant after the event (ATE) insurance case loss fees/and case win defendant pays fees</li>
</ul>
[Mediator_CV] => RECENT EXPERT WITNESS AND TROUBLE SHOOTING CASES
Caversham Care Home Lift, Caversham, 2014
The Client had commissioned the removal of life expired lift and installation of new lift within a 65 bedroom 2 storey care home. The Lift Contractor failed to install lift within contract programme and was several weeks late due to late delivery of lift flat pack from Spain; problems with engineering staff, damaged lift components, poor workmanship/site management.
Together with Contract Administrator we were instructed by the Client to apply Liquidated and Ascertained Damages (LADâ??s) against Lift Contractor for not meeting his obligations under the JCT Form of Contract.
A series of e-mails followed and a mediation meeting held between the Lift Contractor, Contract Administrator, Client and I, from which an acceptable compromise was reached. The outcome was that the LADâ??s were paid by the Main Contractor to the Care Homeâ??s Tenant Maintenance Fund.
The Laureates, Leeds, 2013 to Present
Under a design build form of a contract, a timber frame 65 apartment assisted living home had been constructed under a design build form of contract in 2008. Occupiers had been complaining of cooking smells within their apartments. Intrusive investigations found that the apartment mechanical ventilation systems had been installed incorrectly/leaked and in many areas the fire compartments had been breached as builders work holes had not been fire stopped.
The Client commissioned a remedial works design package, which was put out to competitive tender and a Main Contractor appointed. As the building is fully occupied, the remedial works are being undertaken on a phased decant basis. Scott Schedules are being produced and the original contract design build Main Contractor Expert Witnesses are being invited to inspect the defects and witness remedial work testing and commissioning procedures.
Attempts to mediate a solution with the Design Build Contractor failed in 2013. Therefore the project is at adjudication stage. A Barristerâ??s Conference was held in January 2014 with the Barrister, Client, Timber Frame Expert Witness, Solicitor and I.
This is a lengthy project as it is highly likely that the full extent of the remedial works and Clientâ??s consequential losses will not be fully known until late 2015. It will not be until later in 2014 that a final decision may be made by the Client to enter into Litigation.
Queen Court, London, 2013
Queen Court is a large luxurious 1920â??s listed residential mansion located in Mayfair, London. The Residents Association had directly commissioned the replacement of the communal area fire alarm, sub mains and small power and lighting systems by negotiating the scope and cost of work with a Main Contractor.
An intrusive inspection ascertained that the installation works had been undertaken to a very poor standard and were not sympathetic to the period style internal and external building finishes.
The Main Contractor had also made an application for substantial additional variations, which after analysis were found to be in the majority of cases not applicable.
A Due Diligence Inspection Report was produced by me and a meeting held with the Residents Association Representative and their Solicitor to discuss the issues. It was concluded that the Residents Association had a valid case and a Mediation Meeting was held between the Residents Association Representative, Solicitor, Main Contractor and I.
The Main Contractor subsequently undertook remediation works in accordance to the findings of Due Diligence Inspection Report and a mutually acceptable financial agreement reached on the Main Contractorâ??s justified variation costs.
Lark Hill Retirement Village, Nottingham, 2012
Lark Hill Retirement Village is a new build mixed use development specifically designed for care of the elderly and was completed in 2008. The development comprises of 327 apartments and bungalows and is supported by on site covered shopping centre.
For a number of years the Client had been in dispute over the installation of a defective Warden Call System by a Design Build Main Contractor.
I was appointed by the Client to carry out an independent Expert Witness Report to ascertain why the Warden Call System intermittently initiated an alarm when triggered by residents or care staff.
The Client advised me that the problem appeared to particularly centre upon Ceiling Mounted Pull Cord Switches not 100% triggering wall mounted Local Units.
This issue was significant. Warden Call Systems are designed for life safety use. They must operate at all times to ensure residents can communicate a potentially life threatening problem to care staff as quickly as possible.
Exhaustive laboratory testing was undertaken in accordance to relevant British Standards. I consequently proved that the actuating mechanism of the Ceiling Mounted Pull Cord Switch was not fit for purpose.
A mediation meeting was held between the Client, Main Contractor and I. The Main Contractor admitted liability and replaced several thousand defective Ceiling Mounted Pull Cord Switches with correctly specified ones, plus re-commissioned the entire Warden Call System.
Charter Quay, Kingston, 2010
Charter Quay is a high rise mixed use development built in the early 1990â??s on the banks of the River Thames and consists of campus style high rise luxury residential apartments, penthouses, shops, restaurants and multi-level basement car parks.
The Residents Association had been complaining for a number of years that the maintenance fee set by Property Management Company had been too high. There was also an underlying long term dispute regarding undertaking remedial work to residential and shop/restaurant rain water and sanitation drainage blockages, which had on many occasions resulted in raw sewage flooding the basement car parking areas and in some instances over spilling into the River Thames.
As installed drawings, rain water/sanitation operation and maintenance manuals and asset maintenance schedules were reviewed and site inspections were undertaken. It was ascertained that the documentation did not reflect what had actually been installed. It was also clear that the rain water and sewage systems had not been properly inspected and cleaned since practical completion.
A comprehensive closed circuit television system drainage survey was undertaken of below slab drainage by a Specialist Drainage Survey Company. Where possible all drains, man holes and pumping chambers were jetted to remove grease, silt and debris and map damaged sections of drainage. An Expert Witness Report was then produced. It was concluded that the Residents Association had inherited latent builders work defects that had not been rectified by the original new build Main Contractor. (In one instance, raw sewage from a restaurant toilet block was found to have been constantly flushed into the River Thames for several years).
It was not possible to make a claim against the Main Contractor as the 12 months defects liability period and the National House Building Councilâ??s ten year warranty had expired. It was also not possible to clearly define latent defects that were directly attributable to the Main Contractor.
The Residents Association alternative course of action was to take their claim for excessive maintenance fees to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. The Residents Association was successful in being awarded a substantial refund of fees against the Property Management Company. The Tribunal also instructed that the drainage remedial work required to be rectified by the Property Management Company at no additional cost to the Residents Association.
Dorset House, London, 2009
A Grade II listed art deco 1930â??s nine storey mansion comprising of 196 residential apartments ground floor petrol station and shops plus basement car park had undergone a design build form of contract power, hot water, cold water and low temperature hot water heating system infrastructure refurbishment over several years. The design build Main Contractorâ??s final account comprised of substantial additional variations, which resulted in the previously agreed original lump sum contract cost being vastly exceeded.
The quality of workmanship was very questionable. Infrastructure risers encroached on liveable areas of residential apartments resulting in flats loosing re-sale value, which also were not compliant to English Heritageâ??s requirements. The building owner also removed all mechanical and electrical plant from the roof to the basement for his own beneficial use (To facilitate the future construction of additional penthouse apartments), which resulted in the loss of premium basement car park spaces.
The Tenants Association appointed a Chartered Mechanical Engineer and myself (Both from the same company) to undertake a full visual survey of the infrastructure fit out and also review the Main Contractorâ??s design information such that an Expert Witness Report could be produced for submittal to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.
A Scott Schedule was also prepared in conjunction with the Tenant Association Solicitor and Chartered Building Surveyor.
The case went to Tribunal and the Expert Witness Report and Scott Schedule were submitted for cross examination. The outcome was in most counts in favour of the Tenants Association, which resulted in the Main Contractor being ordered to pay substantial compensation and undertake remedial work.
Ampthill Social Housing Estate, London, 2008
Ampthill Social Housing Estate was built in the 1960â??s and comprises of three 20 storey high rise residential towers. The Council had let the refurbishment of the telecommunications, electrical and mechanical services infrastructure to a design build Main Contactor whilst the residential towers were occupied by the tenant. The fit out work also centred upon the design and installation of cutting edge sustainable technology.
The Contractor had sub contracted the mechanical and electrical design a third party Consulting Engineer. The quality of the design documentation was poor and the design build Main Contactor had not met his contractual obligations to produce working drawings and specifications for review and approval by the Council. The standard of workmanship on site was also very poor, several months behind programme and over budget.
The Council appointed me to undertake a full technical peer review plus regularly inspect the site and attend workshop and cost control meetings. The project was site surveyed and all available technical documentation was reviewed and key areas of concern commented upon. The findings were reported back to the Council. A series of programming and workshop meetings were chaired by me to explain to the Contractor the areas of concern that required to be immediately rectified.
The mechanical and electrical services installation was also periodically monitored on a weekly basis to ensure that phased practical completion was obtained to the satisfaction of the Council.
Over a period of six months, through close liaison and mediation with the Council and Main Contractor, the project was brought back on to programme the cost overrun brought under control. The standard of workmanship was also greatly improved.
6 Belgravia Place, London, 2008
A four storey luxury house located in the Grade II listed conservation area of Belgravia had been re-built to a very poor standard. The majority of the mechanical and electrical services had not been tested or commissioned correctly and were not fit for purpose.
The Client had decided to make a compensation claim against the Developer/Contractor and employed a Solicitor, an independent Architect and myself to assemble a claim. This required the electrical and mechanical services to be inspected and tested such that a schedule of remedial works and costs report could be produced.
The Architectural and Building Services Report was issued. After a series of mediation meetings; the Developer/Contractor conceded and accepted full responsibility for the buildingâ??s condition. Remedial work was undertaken, completed and signed off to the satisfaction of the Architect and I.
Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 Baggage Handling Facility, Heathrow, 2007
The Architect were advised by the Airport Authority that the lighting level within the Baggage Handling Facility of Heathrow Terminal 5 was â??too brightâ?. I was appointed by the Architect to investigate the problem and produce a report of my findings.
I visited the Baggage Handling Facility to undertake a physical investigation. Point by point light meter readings were taken by use of a BSRIA calibrated light meter at desk top level and a comparison made against the Airport Authorities T5A Problem Bag Area and Office Room Data Sheet requirements.
To enable the lighting level criteria to be determined to an adopted industry standard, I referred to The Society of Light and Lighting, Lighting Guide 7 for Office Lighting. The existing lighting level of the Baggage Handling Facility was also calculated by use of industry standard and proven Dialux software.
It could be seen from the light meter readings and software calculations that the lighting installation achieved an adequate and uniform illuminance in accordance to Lighting Guide 7 for Office Lighting. Consequently the Airport Authorities claim for a defective lighting design was dropped.
Regency House, Esher, 2006
A high end luxury Design and Build Construction Company had built a large luxury three storey house without taking cognisance of building fire regulations. All floors exited on to a grand central staircase. The Building Control Inspector formally confirmed to the Client that In the event of a fire residents could be trapped on the upper floors as the staircase was not fire compartmentalised.
The Building Inspector issued a prohibition notice at practical completion as the Building Regulations had been ignored by the Construction Company and the house was not safe to occupy.
I visited site and researched alternative means of providing fire protection without having to physically compartmentalise the grand central staircase by use of additional fire rated doors and partitions, (This would ruin the buildings architectural design aesthetics). A non-intrusive domestic sprinkler solution utilising plastic pipe work recessed into ceiling voids was designed with full compliance to British
Standards and uniquely, the swimming pool was utilised as the primary source of the sprinkler systems water supply.
I liaised with the Building Inspector to ensure that the sprinkler system was in principle acceptable. Design drawings and specifications were produced, a Specialist Sprinkler System Contractor appointed and the remedial retrofit work was over seen on site.
The sprinkler system was demonstrated as operating correctly to the Building Controls Inspectorâ??s satisfaction and a Beneficial Occupation Certificate was issued to the Client.
York House, London, 2005
A 2,500 sq m Category â??Bâ?? office fit out of levels 1 and 2 had been undertaken by a fit out Main Contactor for an International Investment Company, which consisted of meeting rooms, gymnasium, restaurant, trading desks, general office space, computer suite, sub comms rooms and mission critical electrical services.
The fit out work was completed on time to an extremely tight fit out programme that was not moveable as the Investment Companyâ??s existing building lease had expired and there was no alternative other than to move from their existing office. The Main Contactor was fully aware of the Investment Companyâ??s predicament and took every opportunity to claim for substantial additional variation costs, the majority of which were blamed on the original Category â??Aâ?? installation not being fit for purpose and also not being correctly tested and commissioned.
The Investment Company appointed me to analyse the validity and compliance of the technical and cost variations made by the Main Contactor. I undertook site visits, reviewed Category â??Aâ?? operations and maintenance manuals/as installed drawings plus Category â??Bâ?? as installed drawings, calculations and technical submittals.
A series of mediation meetings were held with the Main Contactor, during which the original variation claims were systematically scrutinised and challenged such that the additional variation costs claimed by the Main Contactor were significantly reduced.
Medway Maritime Hospital NHS Trust, Gillingham, 2004
The Hospital claimed that the Building Services Design Consultancy that I worked for had failed to provide a fit for the purpose switchgear design, which required the equipment to provide essential power supplies to the Hospitalâ??s critical support infrastructure in the event of a power failure. There had been three un-programmed failures of the switchgear resulting in the Hospital being without critical and essential electrical supplies. Consequently my employer notified their Professional Indemnity Insurance Broker of the risk of potential claim who in turn appointed a Solicitor to work on the case.
I assessed an Expert Witness Report commissioned by the Hospital and attended site to ascertain from first principles what the actual problems were.
I produced an alternative Expert Witness Report, which concluded that the Hospital had detrimentally modified the electrical switchgear post practical completion, which was why the essential switchgear had failed when put under standby generator load.
I attended a mediation meeting with my fellow Directors and company Solicitor, together with the Hospitalâ??s Solicitor and Expert Witness. The outcome of the meeting was that my report quashed the claims made by the Hospitalâ??s Expert Witness and the case was immediately dropped by the Hospital.
[Submit] =>
[ACCOUNT_REF] =>
[grade] =>
[Dispute_Experience] =>
[Offiicial_Positions] =>
[Other_Activities] =>
[CVviewscount] => 59
[dateofentry] =>
[cvamended] =>
[updated] => ԭ[
[Brief_CV2] => Position in Industry
Chartered Electrical Engineer, Operations Director of innovative leading edge Electrical and Mechanical Building Services Consultancy.
Summary of Key Experience
Substantial experience in all aspects of Electrical Building Services Engineering. Confident communicator at all levels. Technical and contractual representative to Clients as Expert Witness and Mediator.
Responsibilities
Equity Director maintaingin of technical excellence within my company. Focused on ascertaining and delivering Client requirements.
[update_ws] => 0
[Rec_no] => 1443
[Grade] => PM
[Active] => 1
[Name_Title] => Mr
[Name_Forename] => Simon
[Name_Surname] => Barrows
[Additional_Names] => John
[Company] => Serendipity Chartered Engineers
[country] => GB
[main_address] => Home
[Town] =>
[Overseas] => 0
[Telephone] => 01534 565 829
[Telephone_Extension] =>
[Fax] =>
[TelephoneH] => 01534 565 829
[FaxH] =>
[Mobile] => 07797 791025
[email] => simon@serendipitycharteredengineers.co.uk
[main_contact] => Home
[wwwadr] =>
[Principal_Occupation] => Chartered Electrical Engineer
[Job_Position] => Managing Director
[Employment_Status] => Employee
[QDR_Number] =>
[Gender] => Male
[DateJoined] => 2006-01-17 00:00:00.000
[DateResigned] =>
[Societies] => CIBSE
[user] =>
[Amended] =>
[INVetting] => 0
[InDisciplinary] =>
[profession] =>
[profession 2] =>
[Date entered] =>
[Birthday] => 1960-11-15 00:00:00.000
[Joined] =>
[Tel 2] =>
[Internet] => 1
[InternetStop] => 0
[inetpwd] => baro0106
[InetDate] =>
[Inet_Year] => 2024
[MembType] => 0
[temp] =>
[DXNumber] =>
[DXArea] =>
[ProBono] => 0
[corporate] => 0
[ConfSO] => 0
[ConfSOdate] =>
[AccountsLink] =>
[QDRCancel] =>
[QDRActive] => 0
[hcupdate] => 1
[CIWEM] => 0
[SOCENV] => 0
[BMFDRS] => 0
[councilcall] =>
[PIScheme] => 2025
[PIExempt] => 0
[PIrunnoff] => 0
[PIrunnoff_expiry] =>
[Panel_NMH] => 0
[ED_Number] =>
[ED_Cancel] =>
[ED_Active] => 0
[ICAEW] =>
[ICAEW_join] =>
[ICAEWCancel] =>
[InternetLevel] => S
[url_alias] => simon-barrows
[file_date] => 2006-01-17
[corp_company_ref] =>
[subs_year] => 2025
[sort_display] => Barrows , Simon
[last_modified] => 2025-02-11 14:19:26.077
[profile_view_email] => 1
[Name_Forename_formal] => Simon
[Telephone_c] => GB
[TelephoneH_c] => GB
[Mobile_C] => GB
[email2] =>
[Telephone_w] => 1
[TelephoneH_w] => 1
[Mobile_w] => 1
)
