Page 2 of 7
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:24 pm
by local patios and driveway
Worthy winner, i cant fault it at all.
Plastic or metal?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:46 pm
by mickg
no plastic trophies I'm afraid Dan
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:50 pm
by lutonlagerlout
did anyone else win owt mick?
or did they just turn up for the coronation?
LLL
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:05 pm
by mickg
Yeah Nigel Walker a brew cabin member won an awards too plus other Marshalls register members who attended the evening, in total I think its 8 or maybe 9 awards given out for different categories
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:37 pm
by dig dug dan
Did the photographer wait for the householder to come home and get out of the car.?
Forgive the comment, but there are a lot slips on that drive, and was reading a post today in which the guvnor explained why we don't use them, yet its accepted by the marshalls crew?
It looks fantastic by the way
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:42 pm
by GB_Groundworks
well done mick and great work, and good photos
id like to get paid for taking pictures of paving haha
Steve if you need any help or advice re photos let me know i'll see what i can do
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:52 pm
by mickg
thanks Dan
ha ha no they brought 2 different cars and and a male and female model
If it was block paving then I would agree with you Dan, each of the fairstone setts on the photo are bedded in concrete and jointed with a rigid product
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:52 pm
by mickg
cheers Giles
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:04 pm
by dig dug dan
Are the driveway ones on concrete?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:06 pm
by mickg
yes all of the driveway on the top photo is laid on a minimum of 100mm concrete and both the patio's are laid on a minimum 75mm concrete bed and also jointed using Marshalls weatherpoint 365
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:14 pm
by dig dug dan
Blimey. That must have cost something!
But it certainly looks good, and i am not knocking what you have done, I just wondered if in these circumstances its right.
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:24 pm
by dig dug dan
no lights used, they was at the house for 4 hours in total but was also waiting for the right time when the clouds just blocked off the bright sun glare which gave a better photo
I once had a patio featured in the bradstone catalogue, the guy drove two hours to get to the site, and all day taking pictures, using various props etc, for one photo!
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:08 am
by haggistini
Well done mick smart jobs.
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:42 am
by Tony McC
dig dug dan wrote:there are a lot slips on that drive, and was reading a post today in which the guvnor explained why we don't use them, yet its accepted by the marshalls crew?
Not to detract from Mick's work, which is, as ever, excellent, but it's long been a source of annoyance to me that Marshalls, as well as Bradstone and Brett, allow and indeed perpetuate these breaches of the British Standards in the 'Approved' contractor schemes.
There was a double page image in a catalogue a couple or three years back of the top assessor for one particular scheme patting the contractor on the back while at his feet was a whole series of non-compliant cutting-in.
If you are going to run schemes that claim the member contractors to be better than average, then you *must* enforce compliance or leave yourself open to ridicule and potential court action.
As I said in the comments referred to by Dan, if this way of working is agreed to or instructed by the client in writing prior to construction, then the contractor is blameless, but as allegedly better-tna-average contractors, we have a duty to either do it right or point out the options to the client.
Sorry, I don't want to detract from Mick's hour of glory, which is well and truly deserved. This is a bugbear I have with the schemes, not with individual contractors. I'm a judge on one scheme's awards next month and I know, because it's happened every year for the last 3 years, that my remarks on structural integrity will be over-ruled by someone from the marketing team on the grounds that "it looks pretty". Shouldn't it look pretty *and* be compliant to the CoP?
</rant>