Client Feedback
What clients say, and why we will not name them.
Most of our work sits inside commercial confidentiality: portfolio acquisitions, tenanted estates, competitive tenders and sites where the client would rather nobody knew a structural question had been asked at all. So the feedback below is reproduced with sector and scale descriptors only. Names, addresses and project-identifying details are withheld, deliberately.
£5M
Professional Indemnity, lender and DNO accepted format
48 hours
Report delivery benchmark from commission
ACE & EIC
Corporate member of both bodies
Engineer-signed
Every report signed by a qualified structural engineer
Why our reviews are anonymised
It would be easier to publish a wall of logos. Plenty of firms in this sector do, and a fair number of those logos represent a single small job or no job at all. We take the harder position because of what our clients actually instruct us to do.
A structural survey ahead of a solar scheme is commercially sensitive information. It can indicate an acquisition in progress, a disposal being prepared, a tenant negotiation, or a defect on an asset that is being financed. Publishing the client name publishes the transaction. Our standard terms treat that as the client's information, not our marketing material.
So the rule is simple, and it has no exceptions: the sector, the scale and the outcome tell you everything you need in order to judge us, and nothing that would cost the client anything. That applies to every quote on this page and every entry in the case study archive. If you would rather work with a firm that puts your name in its marketing, we are not it.
In their own words
Client identities and project specifics are withheld under NDA. Testimonials and case references are presented in anonymous-authoritative format.
The Desktop Structural Roof Loading Reports come back within 24 hours more often than not. For a business running multiple deals simultaneously, that kind of turnaround is genuinely rare in this industry.
We had access restrictions on site and no way to get inspectors onto a fragile asbestos roof safely. The drone assessment came back with a full condition report and structural sign-off. Zero disruption to our operation.
Every structural report we received was produced to the standard required by lenders and approval bodies, no queries, no rework, no delays. That level of consistency is what you need when closing multiple transactions in the same quarter.
We had 20 school buildings to clear within a fixed programme window. Every site came back with consistent reporting and no structural interventions required. The entire rollout proceeded on schedule without a single delay.
The drone assessment identified significant roof degradation that our desktop review had not caught. It directly prevented us from proceeding with an installation that would have required costly remediation mid-project.
We use their Desktop Structural Roof Loading Reports across our entire pipeline. The 48-hour turnaround holds even when we batch multiple sites in a single instruction. It has become a core part of how we run pre-construction diligence.
What comes up repeatedly
Speed that holds under volume. The 48-hour report benchmark is easy to hit on one roof. What clients mention is that it holds when they batch a portfolio into a single instruction.
Reports that are accepted first time. Lenders, DNOs, insurers and MCS assessors all read structural evidence differently. Clients notice when the same document satisfies all of them without a round of queries.
Verdicts that say no when the answer is no. The feedback we value most is from clients we stopped. A defect found before installation is a line item; the same defect found afterwards is a dispute.
Access solved without stopping the site. Live industrial and logistics operations cannot pause for a survey. Combining drone roof condition assessment with an internal structural inspection removes most of that friction.
One instruction instead of three. Structural capacity, roof condition and the resulting documentation handled together, rather than coordinated across separate firms and separate mobilisations.
Written endorsements held on file
Anonymised quotes are the public layer. Behind them sit signed and written endorsements from named clients and partner consultancies, held on file and released directly to prospective clients on request, typically as part of a tender or supplier submission.
Named clients and partner consultancies have given us written endorsements, signed reference forms and approval records. Some have offered to be named publicly. We hold those on file and release them directly to prospective clients on request, rather than publishing them here. A reference carries more weight handed over in a tender than displayed on a website, and it keeps the choice with the client rather than with us.
Worked with us? Tell us honestly.
If we have delivered a survey or a report for you, feedback is genuinely useful, including the critical kind. Reviews on our Google Business Profile are public and help other engineers and installers find us; anything you would rather say privately can come straight to the engineering team.
Send feedback to the team, or reply directly to the engineer who issued your report.
Judge the work, not the logos. Read the assessments in full.