Why Choose Charlie Fleming Associates?
We know, from what we have seen and heard, that our service is better than that offered by many of our competitors. The many reasons for this follow.
Whilst, in this type of work, there is not normally a tight timescale, we can, if necessary, carry it out within a week or two of being instructed. If we say we will get the report to you by a certain date, we will.
Our fees are competitive and we give discounts for long term and retained commissions.
If we provide a quotation we will stick to it. That is what you pay, regardless of how long it actually takes us to carry out the work.
Other companies’ methods can lead to expensive noise control measures being put in place which are not necessary. The reasons for this follow.
Some companies may leave their instruments supervised by a technician or person with no knowledge of acoustics. The risk in this approach is that the person may not notice if the measurements are corrupted by extraneous noise, for example, that of traffic, when music is the source of the complaint. Only the experienced acoustician can assess this in-situ and ensure that artificially high levels are not being reported. Artificially high levels might mean that you have to pay for expensive measures to control noise which is not actually emanating from your pub, plant or factory.
Some companies leave an instrument unattended for 24 hours. The problem with this is that you do not know what has made the noise. Again traffic noise may be drowning out that from your factory, and you might find yourself paying for noise control measures which are not actually necessary.
Calculations performed by some other consultants, whose work we have seen, use quick and relatively simple equations, which err on the side of caution. In this, they tend to over-estimate the noise levels, which again can mean that you have to include expensive noise control measures which are not necessary. Charlie Fleming Associates uses very complex equations which work out the noise levels more accurately, and hence any noise control measures will be more precisely specified than they would perhaps be by other consultants.
Summary of How Using Charlie Fleming Associates Might Save You Money
In one year alone, we were commissioned 6 times to carry out work which had been done badly by other “acousticians”. In these cases the first fee, paid to the other firm, was a waste of money and accepting the cheaper quotation proved to be a false economy. More importantly, in one case, had the noise control measures suggested by another firm been implemented, over £100,000 would have been spent. Our more detailed measurements showed that the control measures were not necessary. In another, a glazing specification prepared by the other consultant to control the noise, was reduced once we had measured it and calculated the internal levels more carefully.
This continues, every year with at least two jobs coming to us because other “acousticians” have not managed to carry out the work satisfactorily.
Charlie uses a Brüel & Kjær Modular Precision Analyzer Type 2260 to measure the noise. Brüel & Kjær is the “Rolls Royce” of acoustical instrumentation, and the 2260 is the most accurate and reliable hand-held sound level meter available on the market. Should it go that far, noise levels measured with this instrument stand up in court.
Having measured the noise and considered the case, Charlie will not hesitate to argue with the environmental health officer if he thinks that a nuisance does not exist. He will, however, always listen sympathetically to the complainant, regardless of whether he thinks they have a just case or not.
It is unusual that a noise nuisance action goes to court, but Charlie has been cross-examined in the Court of Session twice and performed well on both occasions. He has also been cross-examined in other courts and several public inquiries, and has dealt with the questions perfectly well.
Some other acousticians present evidence in a manner which they think will assist the client. Charlie believes that this is not the role of the expert witness. Doing this can leave the client exposed should the evidence be tested in court. Indeed, a senior QC once told Charlie that he would not use a certain acoustic consultant because his evidence had never stood up under cross-examination.
Some other acoustic consultants, to whom Charlie has spoken, are quite emphatic in that they are not willing to put themselves under cross-examination.