Ash wrote:
What you're describing is a straightforward repair situation. I would
expect any competent builder to be capable of replacing deteriorated
timber members on a like for like basis.

What bothers me is who gave you the advice in the first place that you
needed 'professional structural advice'...was it someone on this
newsgroup?

No ... not this Newsgroup .... but if you look at a few more threads you'll
find this Newsgroup offers a lot of good old common sense advice and also
professional advice.

That it might be, but it is not the right place to
be giving out structural advice.

It was the damned building surveyor who, as a condition of a mortgage,
recommended a full structural survey and it was them that wanted to provide
additional support to the walls, floors and roof whilst the work was
undertaken. They even wanted to underpin part of the house because it had
settled a little (the house was built circa 1900) all of which was over the
top in my humble opinion and proved to be over the top because the local
builder knew the houses and the area and what to expect from a 100 year old
house.

A 'building surveyor' is not a structural engineer
and a 'full structural survey' is nothing more
than a wordy condition survey.

What did your builder suggest caused the
settlement? And each time you buy buildings
insurance do you advise them that your house has
suffered historic structural movement and that you
chose to ignore professional advice on putting it
right? Because if you did, I doubt you would get
anyone to take on the risk.