Page 1 of 1

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:23 am
by paul ush
I'm a general builder and was asked by an existing customer to extend the front driveway over the garden to the side to allow parking for 2 cars. Priced everything up (dig out, haunched concrete edgings, compacted 100mm plus MoT Type 1, 50mm base layer, 25mm wearing course in 10mm granite (tarmac done by a.n.other)), price accepted, job done.

Skips to remove soil were placed at the top of the driveway. This was stipulated in the price. I didn't think there'd be a problem as during previous work for the customer the same size skip (4 ton) had been placed in the same place by the same skip company using the same small wagon, without damage to the driveway. I also wanted the customer to still be able to park on the driveway and, because of cars parked in the street opposite, it would have been difficult to have the skips placed at the bottom of the drive (not enough room for skip lorry to manoeuvre without having parked cars moved).

No problem with collection of skip 1, but on collecting skip 2 the lorry's back offside wheel sank into the driveway. Skips 3 and 4 were then placed at the bottom of the drive so they could be lifted from the road (with no small inconvenience and delay to the job).

On excavating (all by hand) next to the existing driveway, I find that it's 25mm tarmac on wet clay "soil", interspersed with the odd 1/2 brick, probably laid when the (council) house was built in the 1950s.

I explained to my customer what had happened and quoted for the sunken area (and a bit more, with previously existing large (5-10mm) moss-filled cracks) to be replaced - to the same spec as the new parking area. The customer accepted, work done, all paid up.

This was before Christmas. A week ago the customer complained about paying for the renewed patch of driveway and that the drive looks patchwork.

I agree that there is a contrast between old and new and that the new shouldn't have come so far (about 1m in a 3m wide drive) into the the old but am unsure about how to resolve the problem. I did originally say when measuring the job up that the driveway would look better if it was all new, i.e. the old driveway topped with a new 25mm wearing course, but this was declined as being too expensive.

I feel as though I have done a good job on the new part (customer says so too) and that the skip lorry sinking and the consequential damage were due to the the poorly constructed and worn out existing driveway. The customer says that they didn't ask for the skip lorry to back up the drive (nor did they say it shouldn't).

How would any of you guys deal with this?

Thanks.

Paul

PS Will try to posy a photo later, when I get back from work!

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:19 pm
by Dave_L
Let me get this straight.

The customer had accepted this additional work - was the quotation written and formally accepeted by the customer?

You've been paid in full?

Then I can't really see what grounds the customer has to stand on. You quoted for an overlay - which they declined.

Bad situation to be in I know, we've been there ourselves.

One rule we have is no heavy plant or equipment is operated on existing surfaces - the risk is just too great on unkown existing driveways. As you've seen, the construction can often be suspect, giving rise to sinkage etc.

How would I deal with it? Depends how you value your reputation and chances fo further work via this customer, ultimately.

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:22 pm
by Tony McC
I'm not sure if I've got this right, so can you clarify? The skip wagon damaged the *existing* driveway and you have repaired this so that it matches the surfacing of the new extension to the existing driveway: is that correct?

The customer is now unhappy that the repaired area contrasts with the existing, even though the extension must similarly contrast. I'm not sure what they expected.

In law, you (as contractor) would be responsible for making good any damage to the existing driveway. In turn, you (as contractor) could pursue the skip company, but most skip suppliers have a watertight clause in the small print of their hire tickets that exempts them for any damage incurred when their driver is instructed to leave the public highway, so you're unlikely to get anywhere with that.

So, it comes back to you being responsible for "making good", and that where it gets tricky. How do we define "making good"? To repair the surfacing so that it is once again usable could be interpreted as 'making good', in which case you have clearly met your obligations, but then, the client may argue that within the term "making good" there must be some allowance for aesthetics, and the fact that the repair does not match the existing, it can't be classed as having been 'made good'.

I can't say which is correct. I know lawyers would make a good few quid arguing the point, but it's best not to get them buggers involved. I also know that when utility companies have damaged PIC or bitmac driveways and patios as part of their endeavours, they've been obliged to completely reconstruct the whole surface on the grounds that any repair would not match and would be highly visible. It may be that the utility co's can afford to do this under their insurance cover, but for a smaller trader, it could be very costly.

For me, the best result would be a compromise that satisfies the client and costs me as little as possible. In your situation, I would NOT want to have to re-surface the entire driveway. However, I would offer to coat the entire driveway with a blacktop rejuvenator or slurry seal to make it look as one, in return for a written statement absolving me of any further responsibility. Given that a product such as 'BlackTop' costs around 5 quid per square metre (material cost only), I'd ask the customer to pay a contribution equal to the cost of buying sufficient product to re-coat the undamaged area.

So, let's say the whole driveway is 100m² so will cost 500 quid to re-coat and we'll say that the damaged area comes to 10m², so I'd ask the client to pay 90% of the cost of the BlackTop. When they grumble, I'd point out that I'm providing all the labour and that they are getting a significant upgrade to the whole driveway for a token price. I'd also be willing to negotiate a little - perhaps agreeing to cover the cost of one-quarter of the BlackTop instead of one-tenth.

Splurging 125 quid plus a day's labour has to be better for my pocket than paying for an overlay!

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:01 pm
by Mikey_C
as more customer, not tradesmen I concur with Tony, for reasons I will explain when I have more time to post.

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:06 pm
by paul ush
Thanks all for advice, it is both valued and appreciated.

In reply to Tony, to clarify, yes, I repaired the damaged existing driveway so that it matches the new driveway (both in surface appearance and construction) but I did ask the customer to pay for it, and the customer agreed (without persuasion!).

Obviously I want the customer to be happy with the complete job as we all know how disappointing it is when we get something different to what we were expecting, plus I value my reputation.

I can see a way through this now bearing in mind what has been said so have arranged to go round over the weekend to discuss various solutions. Always better face-to-face.

I'll let you know the outcome!

Now a public apology and public thanks to Tony for some advice by PM over a year ago on good products for pointing Indian Sandstone: sorry for the delay in saying thank you and thank you! It was good advice and I've used the products (and recommended them to others) several times since. Very impressive.

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:35 am
by lutonlagerlout
we get this all the time,ppl want to get their cars off road and ask for skips to be set back so far that the skip wagon leaves the road
i always ask them to sign now before any skip lorry goes on their property,its not the empty ones that do it ,its the full ones :;):
LLL

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:26 pm
by paul ush
Just to let you know how it turned out...

I went to see the customer, with a good idea in my mind what I was prepared to accept and not accept, best case being not having to do anything (highly unlikely!), worst case having to spend a day painting the drive with Black Top and paying for it myself, about £120 worth.

She didn't like the Black Top idea and started on about the driveway still looking patchwork because the the new area would look different to the painted area. I pointed out that there was always going to be a difference, which she accepted. The discussion then came down to a 7m2 area adjacent to the area that had sunk - she reckoned that this would be where the skip lorry's nearside wheels would've sunk, despite the fact there was moss in the cracks. After to-ing and fro-ing a while I decided that I'd had enough of standing there and offered to dig this 7m2 up and put a 1" wearing course down on the existing substrate, with the proviso that if it sinks/cracks/moves/lifts it's not down to me because the substrate's useless (which is why the skip lorry sank in the first place). She agreed, so I'm £140 down but on the other hand it'll only take me 1/2 an hour to lift the 7m2 of existing tarmac.

She tried to get me to mend her garage roof for nothing too but I drew a line there.

Thanks for all your advice.

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:51 pm
by Tony McC
Don't you just love the general public? They never miss a trick!

I recall being asked to repair a washing machine by some old dear because I'd just fixed the flags outside her front door. If he can fix flags - he can fix a washing machine: obvious, innit! :;):

Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:28 pm
by Dave_L
Thanks for the update Paul - glad you were able to sort it out without too much fuss.