The work bookIt is not just another “role”: it is theprimary evidencewho directed it, how it was executed and what materials were used (Art. 12.2 LoE). But in 41% of the expert reports that I carry out on buildings prior to 2005,does not exist, is incomplete or was falsified.
⚖️STS 217/2024 (April 3):
“The absence of the work book does not prevent the accreditation of defects, as long as the expert uses verifiable scientific methods to reconstruct the technical trace.”
As an Official Judicial Expert in construction, I explain to youhow to documentally replace the work bookwith expert evidenceadmissible before any court.
1. What does the law require? The work book as procedural evidence
According Art. 12.2 of the Building Planning Law, the work book must contain:
- Construction management certificates
- Partial and final reception minutes
- Control tests (concrete, steel, welds)
- Photographs of hidden status (armors, waterproofing, etc.)
❌When it's missing, the judge cannot assume that “everything was done well.” But you can't assume otherwise either.
✅Your work as an expert: contributestrong circumstantial evidencethat allow aobjective reconstruction.
2. Forensic method to reconstruct the technical trace (without work book)
| Materials executed | • Taking cores with a core drill (concrete, mortar) • Petrographic and chemical analysis (microscopy, XRF) • Resistance teston-site(sclerometer, extraction) |
EHE-08, UNE 88302, UNE-EN 12504 |
| Construction sequence | • Coating stratigraphy (microprobes) • Thermography + endoscopy to detect hidden layers • Carbon-14 dating (in historic wood or plaster) |
ISO 12571, UNE-EN 13187 |
| hidden structure | • Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to locate armor • Measurement of coatings with a ferroscope • 3D modeling by laser scanning to compare with DB-SE |
DB-SE, EHE-08 Art. 31, UNE 83980 |
| Connection with regulations in force at the time | • Identification of materials (e.g. asbestos → prohibited since 2002) • Comparison with historical CTE (2006) vs. NBE-AE88 (1988) |
RD 314/2006, NBE-AE88, NTE-ISH |
Valid forensic example:
"Using GPR in the 2nd floor slab, a Ø8 mm @ 25 cm reinforcement network was detected (less than Ø12 @ 15 cm required in NBE-AE88 for spans of 5.2 m). The average resistance of the concrete (sclerometer + UNE 83980 correlation) is 18.3 MPa vs. 25 MPa projected. This explains the excessive deflections (23 mm > L/250 = 18 mm).”
3. Real case: Building from 1978 without construction book, cracks in stairs
- Problem: vertical cracks in stair wall, risk of partial collapse.
- Missing data: work book, original project, management certificate.
- Expert opinion:
- GPR: absence of longitudinal reinforcement in stair start.
- Witnesses: concrete with poor quality aggregates (clay >12%).
- Historical photographs of the town hall: work completed in 1979 without prior ITE.
- Comparison with NBE-FL/93 (1993): seismic calculation was not yet required, but stability was required (Art. 3.2).
- Result: Ruling that attributes responsibility to the original developer (as a de facto builder) and the city council (for granting a license without control). Compensation: €217,000.
📩 Are you facing a case without a work book?
Do not dismiss the case due to lack of documentation.The absence of paper does not imply the absence of evidence.
Write to me at 662 221 582or send:
- Photos of pathologies
- Approximate construction date
- Any document that you do have (deed, ITE, cadastral plans)
I tell you if it is feasible to expertly reconstruct the technical trace — and with what level of certainty.
Join the discussion