Hi All - hoping for an 'expert' opinion before I get back to the contractor who laid our drive (local, highly recommended). Since it was laid approx 3 weeks ago an area approx 3x1m has settled and how holds standing water. Had the contractor out yesterday to look at it, he agreed there was an issue and gave me a date to rectify. Fast forward to today and he has now messaged me claiming it's may fault because builders merchant hiabs have driven on it (this is true, there were 2 deliveries made when the tarmac was more than a week old).
He has also owned up (not in writing unfortunately) to burying bricks in that particular area under the sub base. The quote was 'to council spec' which is below. I believe the construction to be something like this;
100-150mm type 1(this could have been partially made up of bricks, unfortunately I didn't see it done)
75mm base course
20mm wearing course
So I guess the question here is - am I unreasonable in expecting this road crossing to be up to taking the load of a hiab? Nothing was mentioned to me beforehand I should add.
No: you're not being unreasonable. The apron should have easily stood up to being trafficked by any HGV, that's the whole point of the council spec for what is, essentially, a public highway.
That area is, as I said, the apron, not part of your drive, and so is expected to stand up to more or less anything on the road.
Drag the bugger back and get him to resurface it - but be wary of any minimal patching: I'd prefer a full width by 1.8m re-surfacing, not an itty-bitty patch covering solely the area of the ponding.
Thanks for the reply Tony, appreciate it and your site (which I have pretty much read the whole of!)
Is there is a significant risk of future settling elsewhere, given the whole lot has only been down for 3 weeks or so?
I guess what I'm asking is what extent should I be pushing for on the rectification work? I should add I haven't actually paid as was waiting for a few snagging jobs to be complete.
You can't demand remedial work based on assumption of what *may* happen. You have a claim only against what can be shown, at the time of your claim, to have failed.
In your case, you can't actually demand or expect anything, as that apron will/does actually belong to the local council (depends on when it is formally adopted), and it is for them to pursue the installer.
185mm of black on a VA is heavy-duty specification! That work must have been damned expensive if constructed to that spec...... Down here it is 70/30 for a normal domestic up to 3500kg crossing on top of 150mm 803 sub base.
I agree with Tony above, only the local authority can pursue this matter further, most likely by core testing, but it is unlikely that they will suffer the [considerable] expense of doing this for something so *minor*
RW Gale Ltd - Civils & Surfacing Contractors based in Somerset
I've seen specs like that before, Dave, particularly popular with Highways Depts terrrified of being blamed for bin wagon damage, and with zealously protective agencies working for the LA as an outsource partner.
No surprise, either, that the 100mm base is often omitted, most often when it's the LA (or its agents) carrying out the work!
I've long, long suspected that these published specs are there only to deter private contractors. Most would walk away from such an OTT spec, but if they do put in a price, it will be ridiculously uncompetetive and the work will go to a 'favoured' installer.
Hi Both. Interesting to know how over the top our highways spec is, to be honest I'm not sure any work is actually performed to that spec even by the council contractors! Still waiting to hear back from the contractor incidentally. I had told him before making this post I wasn't convinced the settling had anything to do with a HGV, given it dipped in the centre not the edges and I haven't heard from him since.
Regarding the council perusing it, I don't know how it is elsewhere but here I'm liable for the maintenance of the crossing for a year and it will be adopted following an inspection after that. Obviously I don't want to end up lumbered paying for repairs if it deteriorated further and the council aren't happy.
Most councils and other landowners will use OTT specs to protect them from litigious parties who pounce upon any slight defect, fault or problem as the opportunity to fund a holiday in Florida or elsewhere. Many of us actual practitioners, and many of the inspectors responsible for assessing and checking the work, are more than aware of this and use our common sense when possible. That's why, with the spec you quoted, the base course may well never actually be installed.
If you are indeed liable for the maintenance period, then pursue the contractor/installer/agent with all urgency. There will be a reluctance to carry out any repairs during this defects period, in the hope that either [a] the council adopt the apron regardless and so no cost to the installer, or the installer's liability expires with the end of the defects period, and you become liable for any repairs ordered by the adopting authority.
Get them to accept liability, in writing, while the defects period is still in operation, and, if possible, get them to carry out the repairs before the adoption assessment.
