Hi guys
Had a patio laid with sawn sandstone 900x600mm.
It hasn't been pointed yet as landscaper wants me to seal the stones first as he is concerned they may stain and I haven't had a dry enough spell to do so.
In the meantime we have used it and found 3 stones make a noise when you stand on a corner. I suppose this is what you call rocking?
Landscaper refused to pull them up and re-lay saying they will break and it's unnecessary and instead made a runny mortar mix and poured it under offending corners saying that that is an acceptable solution.
Is that a satisfactory solution?
Thanks for any advice.
Rocking patio stones
-
KeburDave
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:09 am
- Location: Farnboroughhampshire
You shouldn't be sealing sawn sandstone for at least 12 weeks after installation, unless you are using a breathable impregnator like Drytreat Stainproof even then I would leave it a while, the slabs shouldn't stain what's he intending on pointing with a 2 part epoxy, grout or sand and cement?
David Booton
-
Wednesday2017
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 9:44 pm
- Location: Essex
-
Tony McC
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8346
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:27 pm
- Location: Warrington, People's Republic of South Lancashire
- Contact:
Hollow, echo-ey sounds when tapped usually indicate a void beneath the flagstone. These can be relatively small voids, but the flagstone acts like a drumskin and amplifies the sound, sometimes making it sound as though there might be a mineshaft under there!
Rocking is when the flagstone visibly moves, usually along the diagonal, from corner to corner, top right to bottom left; top left to bottom right.
Voids can occur even with a full bed when the bed preparation isn't quite as exacting as it could be, so would be less of a concern. Rocking is NEVER acceptable.
The trick of pouring in a slurry is fair enough, if it rectifies the problem, but it should never be used as an excuse to avoid re-laying a loose or rocking flagstone.
Anyone insisting on sealing paving before jointing in order to prevent staining occurring while they carry out the jointing really shouldn't be allowed to carry out the jointing as they obviously lack the necessary skills. A professional would be able to joint *any* paving, using *any* form of mortar, without causing significant staining - that's what makes them professional.
Rocking is when the flagstone visibly moves, usually along the diagonal, from corner to corner, top right to bottom left; top left to bottom right.
Voids can occur even with a full bed when the bed preparation isn't quite as exacting as it could be, so would be less of a concern. Rocking is NEVER acceptable.
The trick of pouring in a slurry is fair enough, if it rectifies the problem, but it should never be used as an excuse to avoid re-laying a loose or rocking flagstone.
Anyone insisting on sealing paving before jointing in order to prevent staining occurring while they carry out the jointing really shouldn't be allowed to carry out the jointing as they obviously lack the necessary skills. A professional would be able to joint *any* paving, using *any* form of mortar, without causing significant staining - that's what makes them professional.
Site Agent - Pavingexpert
-
Wednesday2017
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 9:44 pm
- Location: Essex
Thanks for response Tony McC.
Seems like the fella is intending to start a small claims proceeding to recover o/s money owed which I am holding back in order for someone to re-lay the stones.
Does anyone know what would be required at any hearing to resolve this?
Who will have to prove the case?
He claims it is an adequate fix to stone which move when stepped, I insist they should be re-laid at his expense as they should not move when laid.
How would a small claims court resolve it?
thanks
Seems like the fella is intending to start a small claims proceeding to recover o/s money owed which I am holding back in order for someone to re-lay the stones.
Does anyone know what would be required at any hearing to resolve this?
Who will have to prove the case?
He claims it is an adequate fix to stone which move when stepped, I insist they should be re-laid at his expense as they should not move when laid.
How would a small claims court resolve it?
thanks
Wednesday
-
Tony McC
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8346
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:27 pm
- Location: Warrington, People's Republic of South Lancashire
- Contact:
You challenge his claim; the court will look to appoint a joint expert to examine the claims of both sides, assess the work, and make recommendations to the court.
The parties would be jointly liable for the costs of the appointed expert, but, in most cases, those costs are then awarded to the 'winner' as part of their claim. Noy always, but often.
Each party can nominate an expert, who is obliged to provide the qualifications/cv/similar to accredit their alleged expertise, and each can object to the choice of the other party, but there has to be valid reasons for the objection, such as "it's his brother-in-law" and not something spurious such as "he's too knowledgeable" (both of which I have heard in such cases!)
It is up to the parties to agree on the joint expert, but, if there is impasse, the court may choose who it believes to be the most suitable candidate.
The expert assesses the paperwork and, usually, the work itself, prepares a CPR35 report for the court. Each party receives a copy of the report and is entitled to submit questions to the expert for clarification. Once all this is done, the court then decides on the outcome. In most cases, the court follows the recommendations of the joint expert - again, not always, but usually. In some exceptional cases, the joint expert is required to attend a hearing where s/he can be questioned by the court, buit, as I said, this is rare (once in the last 18 years, IME).
It's important to note that, although the parties are paying for the joint expert, said expert is actually working for the court, and not the parties involved. The duty of the expert is to assist the court in making a decision, not to present a case for or against one party or t'other. An expert can get into exceptionally hot water if they are shown to have been biased or misleading in their report to the court.
In all cases I have worked on, the court has always looked more favourably on those parties that have demonstrably worked to achieve a negotiated settlement rather than bring the matter before the court. Court should always be the last resort, and rushing to use the law rather than common sense and/or arbitration/mediation is usually viewed dimly.
The parties would be jointly liable for the costs of the appointed expert, but, in most cases, those costs are then awarded to the 'winner' as part of their claim. Noy always, but often.
Each party can nominate an expert, who is obliged to provide the qualifications/cv/similar to accredit their alleged expertise, and each can object to the choice of the other party, but there has to be valid reasons for the objection, such as "it's his brother-in-law" and not something spurious such as "he's too knowledgeable" (both of which I have heard in such cases!)
It is up to the parties to agree on the joint expert, but, if there is impasse, the court may choose who it believes to be the most suitable candidate.
The expert assesses the paperwork and, usually, the work itself, prepares a CPR35 report for the court. Each party receives a copy of the report and is entitled to submit questions to the expert for clarification. Once all this is done, the court then decides on the outcome. In most cases, the court follows the recommendations of the joint expert - again, not always, but usually. In some exceptional cases, the joint expert is required to attend a hearing where s/he can be questioned by the court, buit, as I said, this is rare (once in the last 18 years, IME).
It's important to note that, although the parties are paying for the joint expert, said expert is actually working for the court, and not the parties involved. The duty of the expert is to assist the court in making a decision, not to present a case for or against one party or t'other. An expert can get into exceptionally hot water if they are shown to have been biased or misleading in their report to the court.
In all cases I have worked on, the court has always looked more favourably on those parties that have demonstrably worked to achieve a negotiated settlement rather than bring the matter before the court. Court should always be the last resort, and rushing to use the law rather than common sense and/or arbitration/mediation is usually viewed dimly.
Site Agent - Pavingexpert