Page 2 of 5
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:16 pm
by Ted
There appear to be two parts to your case...
a) Is the paving acceptable in terms of the visual appearance?
(You saw brochures and were led to believe that the PIC would look like the pictures. You feel that it doesn't and you need to prove this).
b) Was the work carried out with reasonable skill and care?
(The fact that there is aggregate near the surface suggests not and there appears to be a lack of CSH).
Proving the latter is much easier than the former, I would have thought.
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:13 pm
by LJU
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:15 pm
by LJU
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:16 pm
by LJU
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:16 pm
by LJU
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:17 pm
by LJU
Ted wrote:There appear to be two parts to your case...
a) Is the paving acceptable in terms of the visual appearance?
(You saw brochures and were led to believe that the PIC would look like the pictures. You feel that it doesn't and you need to prove this).
b) Was the work carried out with reasonable skill and care?
(The fact that there is aggregate near the surface suggests not and there appears to be a lack of CSH).
Proving the latter is much easier than the former, I would have thought.
I don't think either part should be hard to prove!
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:01 pm
by Ted
I think you have quite a good case IMO. 
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:07 pm
by Ted
I hope you haven't paid him in full!
What percentage of the cost he quoted have you paid?
What size is the area he did?
What was his price for the job if you don't mind me asking?
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:49 pm
by LJU
Ted wrote:I hope you haven't paid him in full!
What percentage of the cost he quoted have you paid?
What size is the area he did?
What was his price for the job if you don't mind me asking?
The size of the whole area is 80m2.
30m2 of this the garage is now built on.
The remaining 50m2 is shown in the photographs.
At the time of completion it looked ok (I have some photos of this), it has just got worse and worse as time has gone on.
The price for the job was £4800 and it has been paid in full. As i said before this was the middle quotation out of the three.
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:58 pm
by Ted
Is that including or excluding VAT?
£4800/80m2=£60m2.
At that price, for that size of job, he is pretty competitively priced IMO. I would charge more! Obviously that isn't your problem though - he priced it at that price and did a poor job.
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:05 pm
by LJU
Yes it was £60m2.
In reality I am not going to take the garage down which has been built so I will need 50m2 replacing, so either the original contractor needs to do it, or he provides me with a large refund to get it done by someone else correctly.
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:16 pm
by Ted
A full refund I would say!
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:18 pm
by Ted
You should get several quotes now from other firms for smashing it up and relaying?
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 3:22 pm
by LJU
I have already had one quote of £4000 to relay the 50m2. I have also been with them to a job they are currently doing. 18 months ago they did the drive and they wanted me to see it now to show how it should look. They were back at the property doing a patio to match the rest of the work. I do not want or trust the original contractor to redo the job and am prepared to accept a partial refund at this stage but if i take him to court I will go for the full refund.
