I really hope you can help me? In September we had block paving path and driveway laid - tegula. As this was all new to us we used a well known company and asked them to provided us with approved installers in our area. We choose three and after references etc choose our installer. On completion of the job we paid and awaited our warranty. Meanwhile we experienced some problems. Edges were moving and we had pooling. Anyway the result was that none of the edges were laid in concrete. The installer explained that this was not needed so we asked the technical dept of the co. they advised us not to sign warranty until it was remedied. It has gone on for 7 months with the Company who approved the installer sending inspectors and agreeing with us. Last week the inspector and contractor were on site - end resultis our edges all dug up and Company suspended installer. They refuse to honour our warranty and although they have agreed to comeback and fix the edges which are currently dug up they refuse to take any further responsibility. How can they leave us so high and dry when they recommended him in the first place. All existing customers ie the references we spoke to will have their warranties honoured by a new installer on the register but we are left with nothing.
Don't know what to do - we thought we had done the right thing?
Who is your warranty with? If the warranty was quoted as part of the package, and you've paid in full, then you are entitled to your warranty - to not provide you with one is a breach of contract, for which you can seek remedy.
Block paved driveways absolutely must have concreted edges, whether the edges are just blocks or kerbs. Anything else is not fit for purpose.
I think it is worth pursuing, even if it costs you a bit of money to do so. If the contractor didn't even both to set his edges properly, I dread to think of what other corners he may have cut.
The warranty should have been issued by marshalls. the installer was recommended by them and the warranty was agreed verbally as being part of the marshalls approved installer unfortunately we didn't get it in writing. The marshalls inspector agreed the edges were wrong but had real difficulty getting the chap to come back. Once he came back he refused to do the remedial work required so the inspector suspended him from the Marshalls register. The installer is supposed to go through rigorous assessments seemingly we are the first to complain about him. The annoying thing is had we not taken the advice of Marshalls and just signed the warranty without raising the issue of the edges we would have had a valid warranty and they would have had to recitified it. so we have highlighted a cowboy and we are the ones paying the price - not Marshalls!!!
Can I ask who is Lara - and do you think she would help?
HI I'm Lara (who used to be a lawyer before the hubby made me have too many kids and got me to run our hard landscaping company).
Was there any written contract whatsoever between you and the installer company? If there was and you can e-mail me a copy of it I will have a look at it for you.
Turning to Marshalls we have considered becoming an approved installer however we have seen so many bad jobs by others that were "approved" we decided to save our pennies. I should add that this is not limited to the Marshalls scheme either.
Was your installer an Interlay member? If they were you could see whether Interlay are able to exert some pressure on them.
Have you paid (in full or at all) for the works. At the end of the day the installation is not one that would, in my view, meet the "reasonable contractor" test. Any Judge will ask what a reasonable contractor would have done when installing the paving.
A strongly worded letter to the installer and copied to Marshalls would seem in order. However the guarantee does not "bite" until " 2. The guarantee will take effect only when the project has been satisfactorily completed and this is defined as; a) all works have been completed by the contractor; b) the customer has made full payment of the installed value to the contractor; and c) the customer has signed the Marshalls satisfaction note that is attached to the guarantee request form"
It might be worth asking Marshalls to confirm how many other jobs the installer has undertaken and whether the installer requested guarantees on those jobs. If you can show that the installer has persistently failed to adhere to the Code of Practice by not seeking guarantees under the scheme then it would appear to follow that Marshalls should have ensured that all referrals made by them to the network were carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice and that the scheme was being used correctly. However, it would appear that the guarantee issue is a moot point as you would not have signed a satisfaction note on this installation, and nor should you.
At the end of the day I would recommend that you tell Marshalls what you were verbally informed of when you made your purchase and tell them that you want the drive lifted and refunded. If you were relying on their approved installer as part of the choice process when you picked your paving and have not received the full agreement you had with them verbally they may agree. Alternatively, you could see whether Marshalls will get another approved (Interlay registered!) installer on the scheme to redo the paving and then offer a guarantee on the new installation.
Please feel free to contact me at lara@warnergrounds.co.uk or PM me but I would need to see the contract if there is one with the installer before I gave you any advice on that!
All the best
Lara
Lara Warner
Warner Grounds
See what our customers say about us at Rated People
In any potential legal discussion, you should be more specific about the individual points.
Who exactly did you engage to install the paving, who did you pay, who offered a warranty, what do you have as written evidence at any stage ? Your introduction to the sorry tale includes too many 'theys' and unspecific references to make legal sense.
It would be unusual for Marshalls to completely underwrite the work of any installer - whether approved or not. Large companies will normally have well written contracts with exclusion clauses, probably restricted to material quality.
At the end of the day, unless you are satisfied with the remedial action that gets carried out by the installer under pressure from Marshalls, you may be faced with the decision to take action against the installer through the small claims court. Although it's relatively cheap and easy to start action, the amount of case preparation could be equal to the amount of site preparation that you installer should have performed.
I'm afraid I've heard Scotslass' story, with minor variations, dozens of times over recent months. As I've said to Marshalls (and other manufacturers) both publicly and privately, the whole 'Approved Installer' scheme is an accident waiting to happen.
With specific reference to the Marshalls' scheme, the customer often thinks their driveway/patio/whatever is guaranteed by Marshalls, but it's not. The contract is between customer and contractor, with Marshalls issuing a guarantee only after the customer says they're satisfied with the work.
When the customer is NOT satisfied with the work, there is no guarantee in place, and Marshalls have very little leverage with a stroppy contractor, other than to remove them from the list.
This situation is not made adequately clear to the customer. The contractors is the one doing the selling, and they have an unfortunate tendency to overegg the pudding when it comes to reassuring the customer about what they can expect from an approved contractor. However, Marshalls aren't completely blameless because their publicity material, in print, in brochures and on the website, promotes the idea that almost nowt can go wrong when a Marshalls approved contractor is used.
Customers read this as being a guarantee from Marshalls regarding installation, but it isn't: it's only a guarantee once the customer declares themselves satisfied. This is precisely why, time and time again, customers are totally dis-satisfied with the work, but Marshalls have no 'teeth' because the customer hasn't signed-off the work.
It's catch 22: if the customer signs-off the work, then they can't have a complaint because they've just signed to say the work is satisfactory, but, if they don't sign-off the work, Marshalls have no direct involvement and can only cajole the bolshie contractor into making good. Unfortunately, many contractors (not all, I must stress) decide to ignore the cajoling, well aware that's there's no sanction other than banishment, which, to be honest, doesn't cause them to lose that much sleep. Let's face it: if a contractor doesn't understand that edge courses MUST be proper restraining edges, they shouldn't be on the Approved List in the first place, and they are quite likely to be the type of so-called contractor that isn't all that concerned about providing a quality service.
Ocasionally, the situation becomes inflamed because the customer (mistakenly) assumes Marshalls will resolve all their problems, only for there to be a delay of days if not weeks before an assessor visits the site. None of this is mentioned in the glossy publicity. When the true situation is explained, the customer is often completely gobsmacked regarding how little protection/guarantee/assurance they actually have. This is when they call me, and there are often tears involved.
I'm not having a go at Marshalls: virtually all the problems are directly attributable to the contractor, but Marshalls have given the impression that they are guaranteeing the conduct of the installer, when this is NOT the case.
What's the answer? There is no easy solution: the obvious one would be to have much stricter vetting and monitoring of contractors, backed up with accredited external training, but who pays for that? Realistically, each 1+2 gang would need to fork out at least a grand a year to cover basic vetting and monitoring that involved up to three random site visits each year. How many of them would be willing to pay that?
Marshalls are a manufacturer: it is NOT their role to police contractors. What they (and other manufacturers) do in trying to ensure customers are steered towards the more reliable contractors is laudable but on the membership fee they charge, it is impossible to undertake thorough and adequate vetting, training and spot checks. Yes, it's better than nowt, but it's a long way short of the panacea to which they (and the contractors) allude in their promotional material.
The real solution is to have professionally licensed home-improvement contractors, required by law to carry insurance-backed guarantees and abide by an agreed disputes procedure. We'll probably achieve such a scenario shortly after pigs learn to fly. Until then, it is still very much caveat emptor
