Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:57 am
by Tony McC
This is difficult territory because of the way many in the PIC trade operate, and in particular, the form of contract they use which states that any disputes are to be resolved via RIBA (or another 'official' body) rather than the courts. If you have any paperwork from the contractor, you should check the small print for any such clause.
Next comes the problem of expert witness reports. The way the courts prefer to work is to appoint a joint expert, that is, a single expert that reports on the problem, rather than having one on each side arguing the toss and ramping up costs. If you commission an expert report before being instructed by the court, you run the risk of that report being rejected by the court, and you have no chance of recouping your costs.
Which is the next problem: costs. It's impossible to get a professional quality expert report for less than around 300 quid, and it's often much more than that. Most courts impose an upper limit for costs of 200 quid per side, which is part of the reasoning behind the use of joint experts.
One of the options I offer clients is to provide them with an off-the-record impartial verbal assessment of the work with the aim of giving them some guidance as to whether they have any chance of winning a claim. I've looked at a number of jobs that the client has considered awful, but when viewed with a more dispassionate eye, are actually just 'poor' and the client would struggle to convince a court to instruct total replacement and/or reimbursement of costs paid.
I would suggest you look for something like this. It's not easy to find, because there's a kind of omerta amongst contractors where they don't comment on each other's work, and even when they do, how impartial can it be? Very few civil engineers have relevant experience with decorative concrete, and architects are a waste of food. General builders again lack experience and landscapers are completely out of their depth, so it is incredibly difficult to find someone qualified to comment even in the more densely populated parts of the country. In Cornwall, it will be almost impossible and you may have to pay for someone to travel from, say, Bristol or Southampton.
So: check your paperwork, and if there is no arbitration clause, start asking around concrete contractors to see who they could suggest to take an informal look at what you have.
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:16 pm
by cornishmaid
Hi all, my problem with the company are ongoing. I filed an online money claim form through the court service as I wish to get back the money we paid - £7170 and get the work taken up. The company have come back with a defence and I would like to hear your views!
"The damage to the concrete is at the rear of the property
The washing line stake was not installed by ourselves
The gradient of the concrete follows the gradient of the land and has not been increased or decreased. The properties garden slopes steeply away from house.
The expansion joint does need remasticising.
Downpipes from gutters are often into concrete and does not give any problem.
Puddles can collect on level areas of imprinted concrete due to the fact that the surface is sealed, making it water resistant."
Would be grateful for anyone's thoughts on the above comments. My query is re sloping of patio - surely point is to have it level and steps down to garden area if needed? Or am I off base with this? Also about the washing line stake - the groundworker employed by the company put it in and expected the concrete co to put the concrete up to the top of it so I find it funny they are now denying anything to do with it!
Sorry for long post again but any comments gratefully received.
Ta
Lorraine
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:41 pm
by msh paving
i'm shure Tony will be along with a answer for that defence, but i will add my 2 penny worth "load of bowlarks" would be laughed outa court 
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:36 pm
by Dave_L
Looking at a couple of PIC driveways locally, I would say localised puddling seems the norm, given the riven nature of the PIC surface.
Not a surface I would want on my property.
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:26 pm
by GB_Groundworks
pic = poorly installed crap, in this case anyway :p
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:00 am
by ambient
Dave_L wrote:Looking at a couple of PIC driveways locally, I would say localised puddling seems the norm, given the riven nature of the PIC surface.
Not a surface I would want on my property.
nor mine ive never seen one i thought looked good 
how will these pic companies go on now with permeable regs up to now they are still carrying on as before
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:35 pm
by TheVictorianCobbleCo
No paver worth knowing would pave to follow the slope of the ground, in setting out the MOST critical visual factor re height is establishing run off, using 150mm below DPC as datum, and this run-off should be in the range of 1:40 and 1:80. I've done lesser gradients, but never more - 1:40 already starts looking odd. I can't see you having much success with these turkeys (apologies to turkeys), maybe broadcasting their stupidity as far and as wide as possible will be your best form of attack/revenge.
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:56 pm
by LJU
Don't worry the court will appoint an expert witness to provide a report. They will usually ask trading standards to provide the expert and you will be expected to split the cost with the contractor. You have a very good case re looking at your photos and I wouldn't worry. Good Luck
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:27 pm
by Tony McC
The damage to the concrete is at the rear of the property
I fail to see what difference that makes. Bad work is bad work, wherever it may be. Did you pay a lower rate for the work to the rear of the property than that to the front?
The washing line stake was not installed by ourselves
...but it was cock-eyed and we couldn't be arsed to straighten it, knowing that, once the concrete was place, re-alignment would be impossible.
This is a classic indicator of attitude of the contractor. A professional would have fixed this for you before placing ANY paving. A penny-pincher might have charged you 20 quid for the benefit of their experience and the 5 minutes work involved, but only a cowboy would leave it 'as is'.
The gradient of the concrete follows the gradient of the land and has not been increased or decreased. The properties garden slopes steeply away from house.
But the whole point of paving, whether it is concrete, block paving, macadam or anything else, is to create a usable surface. If the fall is unnecessarily excessive, it is not usable, and therefore not fit for purpose. Obviously, if it would have been impossible or uneconomic to construct a paved area with a *reasonable* degree of fall, then you have to accept it, but I don't believe that was the case with this project.
Imagine IK Brunel constructing the GWR over Box Hill because he was "following the gradient of the land". He recognised such a gradient would make the trains struggle a wee bit, so he used his construction experience to create a more usable pathway - through the hill in a tunnel.
The expansion joint does need remasticising.
He's not the un-missed George W Bush is he, this masticator of the English language? "Remasticising"?
Downpipes from gutters are often into concrete and does not give any problem.
...as long as there is rodding access. Is there?
Puddles can collect on level areas of imprinted concrete due to the fact that the surface is sealed, making it water resistant.
Water resistant? I know what is meant, but that not the correct term.
While it is possible for surface water to lie on the uneven surface of a PIC pavement, the design should seek to minimise this. I'm not sure how sever a problem this might be overall, but in that final picture you posted, the accumulated water is not there because of the surface texture: it's there because the levels are insufficient to drain it away from the wall.
Rather than getting bogged down on these minor issue, focus on the real cause of concern: the iffy workmanship and finishing on what was supposed to be a prestige job, the cracking and the crazy falls.
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:52 pm
by msh paving
Glad to see you pulled the defence apart Tony,i dont know how people can say such rubbish and keep a straight face, i hope they have to pay back every penny
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:12 pm
by cornishmaid
Thanks for your comments guys. I shall fill in the allocation questionnaire - will probably be allocated to fast track. I'll keep you posted as to what happens although may take a while with the court system.
Lorraine
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:20 pm
by Mikey_C
cornishmaid wrote:
Downpipes from gutters are often into concrete and does not give any problem.
To us as we are gone when, they become blocked.
Puddles can collect on level areas of imprinted concrete due to the fact that the surface is sealed, making it water resistant.
and even though we have laid it at a far to greater fall, we still have managed to leave a dip in it.
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:39 am
by cornishmaid
I know it's been a while but just to update you all. We had a hearing with a judge who called for an expert witness report - judge decided a surveyor should complete the report. We duly had this done and basically the surveyor has said it should all be re-done. Saying the rear patio has varying falls of 1:125 to 1:10 and that the falls are too steep for a patio and will generally limit its use and the gradient which exists is unsatisfactory. He also says the driveway is unsatisfactory in that it falls in two different directions along the length of the driveway and also falls in isolated positions towards the side of the building. Feels driveway should be re-laid.
We now have the court hearing on 25 September so hopefully with the expert witness report the judge will rule in our favour. All I want is to have my money back and get the job done properly!
I will keep you posted.
Lorraine
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:34 am
by Dave_L
cornishmaid wrote:He also says the driveway is unsatisfactory in that it falls in two different directions along the length of the driveway and also falls in isolated positions towards the side of the building. Feels driveway should be re-laid.
There's nothing wrong with a driveway which falls in differing directions; more often than not this HAS to be done to get the water off it. Aslong as it has been done in an aesthetically pleasing manner then I'd assume all is well.
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:21 am
by cornishmaid
No Dave L all is not well - water pooling horrendous and not aesthetically pleasing manner!
Thanks again, ps. you're not the people who did the work are you???