Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:31 am
lutonlagerlout wrote:you have paid the price there for what could have been indian stone
I dont know the site or the remit but for £100 +per m2 I would expect a better slab
LLL
Thanks
Thanks
The Brew Cabin
Paving, Drainage and Hard-landscaping in Britain and Ireland
https://ext.pavingexpert.com/brewcabin/
Just how bad can utility paving be?
Page 2 of 2
Thanks
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:59 pm
Just a thought but would applying a sealant enhance the colour of the slabs, making the lighter areas darker? Just a thought.
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:02 am
Dave_L wrote:Just a thought but would applying a sealant enhance the colour of the slabs, making the lighter areas darker? Just a thought.
could possibly make things worse.
Well okay maybe they couldn't look worse, but sealing them may prevent any possibility of the dark patches fading.
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 9:21 am
lemoncurd1702 wrote:Dave_L wrote:Just a thought but would applying a sealant enhance the colour of the slabs, making the lighter areas darker? Just a thought.
could possibly make things worse.
Well okay maybe they couldn't look worse, but sealing them may prevent any possibility of the dark patches fading.
After rain when they are wet, they look pretty much OK. The white areas seem more porous than the dark areas, and the water soaks into those, darkening them. I wondered about a light grey stain that soaks in? Anyone know if something like that exists or could work here? Thanks.
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:48 am
lemoncurd1702 wrote:One question had the contractor quoted £5k before or after you asked for plain grey slabs.
After.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:40 am
I'm not sure what this nonsense "not suitable for patio use" means. If a paving material is not suitable to take what is generally assumed to be foot traffic only, then what is it suitable for?
Do they mean it's not suitable because it's not a fancy, pretty-pretty flagstone? They can't possibly claim it's because of strength or abrasion resistance, otherwise ith wouldn't be suitable for anything, other than lobbing in a skip, perhaps!
For me, the term 'utility paving' means paving that gives you a hard, flat surface with no particular regard to how it looks. So, your so-called council flags, 3x2s for example, would be 'utility'. The Peak flags from Bradstone/Charcon are in that category and some people would use them for a patio. They are often used for shed bass or kennels, anywhere that a paved surface is needed but the looks aren't all that important.
The discolouration see in the photies is differential curing. It's a natural phenomenon but with the more expensive 'patio' products, the manufacturers go to all sorts of lengths to minimise its appearance. With utility paving, the manufacturing budget just doesn't allow for homogenous curing plasticisers, anti-drying agents, circulated-air curing chambers, SO2-aided curing and all the other tricks used to reduce its incidence.
Which brings us to attributing blame. Bardstone are pretty much off the hook because they sell it as utility and have that nonsensical 'not for patios' escape clause; the BM is probably blameless as they sell what a customer asks for, and without written documentation to show they "recommended" the Peak Wafers, then it comes down to their word against that of the contractor; and it is the contractor who will shoulder the blame, rightly or wrongly.
By informing the client that this was their usual choice of paving for this basic type of project, they have effectively provided professional advice and recommendation. The finished appearance is not acceptable for a domestic patio and they should ahve been aware of this.
That Bradstone are offering the far-more-expensive Panache as a FOC replacement is a very generous offer. If they offered just more of the Peak they would probably be doing more than they would be legally obliged to do, so the Panache is a really good offer.
The contractor could be compelled to replace the whole lot at their own expense, but that might need court action to enforce, so any compromise deal, even if it means bunging him a few hundred quid to ease the pain, is probably a better solution.
However, the message everyone should take from this enterprise is to thoroughly research the choice of paving materials before agreeing to their use. Homeowners should familiarise themselves with what is available and at what cost, contractors should be aware that you generally get what you pay for when it comes to paving materials, and suppliers should make sure they've read the small print related to any products they sell so that they don't put the wrong flags in the wrong place.
Do they mean it's not suitable because it's not a fancy, pretty-pretty flagstone? They can't possibly claim it's because of strength or abrasion resistance, otherwise ith wouldn't be suitable for anything, other than lobbing in a skip, perhaps!
For me, the term 'utility paving' means paving that gives you a hard, flat surface with no particular regard to how it looks. So, your so-called council flags, 3x2s for example, would be 'utility'. The Peak flags from Bradstone/Charcon are in that category and some people would use them for a patio. They are often used for shed bass or kennels, anywhere that a paved surface is needed but the looks aren't all that important.
The discolouration see in the photies is differential curing. It's a natural phenomenon but with the more expensive 'patio' products, the manufacturers go to all sorts of lengths to minimise its appearance. With utility paving, the manufacturing budget just doesn't allow for homogenous curing plasticisers, anti-drying agents, circulated-air curing chambers, SO2-aided curing and all the other tricks used to reduce its incidence.
Which brings us to attributing blame. Bardstone are pretty much off the hook because they sell it as utility and have that nonsensical 'not for patios' escape clause; the BM is probably blameless as they sell what a customer asks for, and without written documentation to show they "recommended" the Peak Wafers, then it comes down to their word against that of the contractor; and it is the contractor who will shoulder the blame, rightly or wrongly.
By informing the client that this was their usual choice of paving for this basic type of project, they have effectively provided professional advice and recommendation. The finished appearance is not acceptable for a domestic patio and they should ahve been aware of this.
That Bradstone are offering the far-more-expensive Panache as a FOC replacement is a very generous offer. If they offered just more of the Peak they would probably be doing more than they would be legally obliged to do, so the Panache is a really good offer.
The contractor could be compelled to replace the whole lot at their own expense, but that might need court action to enforce, so any compromise deal, even if it means bunging him a few hundred quid to ease the pain, is probably a better solution.
However, the message everyone should take from this enterprise is to thoroughly research the choice of paving materials before agreeing to their use. Homeowners should familiarise themselves with what is available and at what cost, contractors should be aware that you generally get what you pay for when it comes to paving materials, and suppliers should make sure they've read the small print related to any products they sell so that they don't put the wrong flags in the wrong place.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:55 pm
Sorry to say this but I think your contractor has taken the P**s. They're unsuitable for a Patio because their crap slabs, suited for shed bases, utility areas, yes, but certainly not a Patio. Problem is, if he's not shown you samples and you've approved his quote, you've got what you (over)paid for, so I don't see what the small claims court can do for you.
Without knowing what he's quoted for it's hard to tell how much work was included for that cost, i.e preparation etc but it seems steep for what you've ended up with. I'm surprised he's offering to replace them with Panache paving, sounds like a lot of work for him, but they're a better product if that's the offer.
Without knowing what he's quoted for it's hard to tell how much work was included for that cost, i.e preparation etc but it seems steep for what you've ended up with. I'm surprised he's offering to replace them with Panache paving, sounds like a lot of work for him, but they're a better product if that's the offer.