Page 4 of 5
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:16 pm
by dandjl
After telephoning almost every day Darren Beck finally answered his phone. However, he hung up the moment he found out who was calling! How's that for customer service?
I have now discovered that Mr Beck also has another company in Sheffield called "PATTERNED CONCRETE" so here's another to steer well clear of.
Same company I was told when I phoned Concrete Xpressions office a few days previously. The "office" actually turns out to be merely a reception centre which handles calls for a number of businesses.
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:18 pm
by LJU
I've not heard anything from my contractor so have issued proceedings in the county court.
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:43 am
by dandjl
Well, September came and went and Darren Beck of Concrete Xpressions Ltd didn't answer any of the telephone calls I made - must have logged my number!
Now I'm thinking of contacting Yorkshire Televisions's "Gripevine" at least that's free (so far as I know) so there's no risk of throwing good money after bad and might at least get some publicity to warn others. Maybe "Rogue Traders" is another possibility!
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:00 pm
by Tony McC
Rogue Traders won't take on existing cases: they only do "set ups".
Have you been back to Trading Standards? What about the place weher you first saw the advert for his services?
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:44 am
by dandjl
Tony McC wrote:Rogue Traders won't take on existing cases: they only do "set ups".
Have you been back to Trading Standards? What about the place weher you first saw the advert for his services?
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:19 am
by dandjl
dandjl wrote:Tony McC wrote:Rogue Traders won't take on existing cases: they only do "set ups".
Have you been back to Trading Standards? What about the place weher you first saw the advert for his services?
Trading standards only provide a letter format to send to the contractor threatening court action and advice on how to proceed with small claims. They do not offer any advice on whether there are legitimate grounds for complaint.
As the contractor's response to my complaint was that "That is the nature of concrete and must be accepted - nothing can be done" I am unsure, without the confirmation of an expert - which appears to be difficult to obtain, whether or not that is true and if I do in fact, have a legitimate complaint.
I suspect anyway that as the contractor is now unlikely to be trading under Concrete Xpressions "Limited" (due to being struck off by Companies House) that course of action is unlikely to be successful.
The garden centre where I first saw the display no longer carry any information.
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:19 pm
by Tony McC
I wish I could say your case was the exception, but this sort of carry-on happens on a daily basis, with all sorts of home improvements.
I also wish I could offer fool-proof advice on how to avoid the cowboys that blight our trade, but there is no way to be 100% certain in all cases. Membership of an accreditred trade body or a vetted consumer organisation such as TrustMark is about as good as you can get, and even then, there's no guarantee you'll get a trouble-free installation.
Have you checked with Companies House to see what name Chummy has set up under this month?
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:53 am
by LJU
I now have a court date and have asked the court to allow an expert witness. I have managed to locate one locally to me (Yorkshire) but would prefer to have more than one on my list so the judge can choose which one to allow. Any pointers where to locate an expert in PIC?
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:24 pm
by Ted
The Society of Expert Witnesses
www.sew.org.uk
The Expert Witness Directory
www.theexpertwitnessdirectory.co.uk
However, I think you will struggle to find someone who claims to be an expert in PIC from these directories. Whilst an engineer can say whether the concrete is well laid, he is not necessarily well positioned to comment on whether the pattern is as well imprinted as it should be if done by a competent PIC installer...
You might consider approaching an architect as an expert. Testing the thickness of a slab is simple work and does not really require an engineer. An architect might seem a better choice over an engineer to comment on the aesthetics. You can search the RIBA website to find a local architect who might take this on. One who is a CIArb member may be able to help.
Otherwise you could approach another PIC installer and ask if they would be prepared to help.
This guy in Leeds looks suitably qualified but I have no idea whether he would want to get involved in litigation.
http://www.plhimpressions.co.uk/contact....ts.html
Finally, you could also approach the supply companies like Creative Impressions and PICS but I have heard that they generally don't like to get involved in disputes as it harms their relationships with their clients, the PIC installers.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:30 pm
by Ted
Tony McC wrote:There's no way the 4-hour training that is offered to PIC wannabes can cover intricacies such as setting-out, establishing falls, installation of drainage, and all the other skills that are required of a professional paving contractor. And anyone that believes a one-day couirse will make them into a tradesman should be shot with balls of sh-one-t!
I have done a training day.
The course did not really cover drainage installation or setting out; it assumed you knew that.
It was more a run through of the materials needed and instructions on how to use them.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:53 pm
by LJU
Thanks again Ted. The materials used were from PICS who have already told me they are not interested.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:16 pm
by Tony McC
There are very few people willing to get involved in PIC disputes, and some of those that do are little better than f*ckwitts. I've come up against one eejit who told the court a 7200mm long crack was a "micro-fissure"!
PICS don't get involved in these disputes because their position is too easily undermined by the opposition. PICS either supplied the materials to the contractor, and therefore are not impartial, or the materials were supplied by one of their direct competitors and the opposition then make out that PICS are just seeking a free pop at said competitor: they just can't win.
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:16 pm
by LJU
Update
A lot has happened since I last posted on here. Now the legal case has completed its course I would like to update everyone on exactly what happened.
At the first court hearing the judge basically ordered a joint report to be produced by an “expert witness� and advised that in similar cases trading standards had recommended a suitable person to be used. The judge then gave us six weeks to get this done.
I contacted trading standards and was given the details of CBAS from Sheffield who agreed to produce a report for the court.
Once completed we were back in Court and were asked by the judge if we agreed with the contents of the report. The report concluded that the work was not completed to a good standard. It took the three slabs in turn.
Slab A now contains the garage which I had built, the report concluded that as I had chosen to build on this slab then I had accepted it.
Slab B is in front of the house. Although the colour had come out of this in a few areas the report said this was insignificant. However the Slab failed as it was not below DPC.
Slab C is the final slab to have been laid. The report said this failed as it has lost its colour and aggregate etc is showing.
The report used a basic calculation for the amount to be refunded. This was the price it cost me for the job to be completed (£4800) divided by the m2 (80). The garage stands on 30m2 so the refund was for 50m2 which worked out at £3000.
In addition to this the report said that the contractor had to dig up and remove the failed slabs at his own expense and leave the sub base for me to have an alternative driveway laid. I told the judge I did not want the contractor to return to my home and wanted the money awarding by the court. The judge agreed to this and set the figure at £500.
The contractor also had to pay all the court costs, loss of earning for me to attend court and for the experts report as he was found to be negligent.
In total the court awarded just short of £4000 to be payable forthwith.
The contractor pleaded poverty and we ended up back in court two more times with him saying he couldn’t afford to pay, with him offering to pay it at £10 per week!
It looked unlikely that I was going to get the money from him so I looked into ways to disguise the mess he had left. The result is seen in the pictures below.
Finally the judge got sick and tired of him and told him he should sell his house to pay me back the money and that I had waited long enough!
At this point I decided to send in the bailiffs – 2 weeks later they had recovered the money for me. The total he had to pay them was over 5k – serves him right.
A few points from this which I would like to make people aware of:
1. This forum was invaluable. Thanks to all involved for advice, the expert witness even used it for reference in part. One major plus for me was the contractor blamed the construction of my garage for the damage – This thread was started by me before the garage was built and I also had photographs to prove it.
2. PICS UK – They told me they wouldn’t get involved in disputes. Hover they decided to back the contractor in court with a letter stating the damage must have been as a result of my negligence as there is no way for the concrete to do what it had. This was written without even seeing the drive. I would therefore never ever recommend PICS or their products to anybody.
See post below for cover up!
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:58 am
by Tony McC
Well, I'm glad you got a result, but I'm surprised to hear PICS allowed themselves to be dragged into the dispute. In all the time I've known them, they've been ultra-wary about getting involved on either side. For them to submit opinion without ever seeing the job is worrying.
Secondly, you should name the product you used to re-colour the concrete as this is a common request.
