As a dispute expert witness, commissioned by the Court to survey and examine landscape projects that have failed for one reason or another, I work mainly on ‘hard’ landscaping schemes, including artificial grass installations. Failures, disputes and causes for complaint are manifold, although they all have the same problem with quality of finish or foundations.
Fundamentally, every complaint boils down to problems with installation. Grass matting becoming detached from fixings, rucking and surface trip hazards, uneven foundations, hard objects left in the ground during construction, weeds growing through the grass, subsidence, mole damage, discolouration of the surface and shrinkage.
When I am commissioned to inspect AG sites, I always request a copy of the quotation and specification (if any – you would be amazed at how many expensive projects have no adequate paperwork) to enable me to establish if the ‘promised’ has been delivered. Does the work completed accord with the quote? This includes quantity, as many contracts mention a certain amount of area to be covered, only to find that a lesser area has been completed. Often, the contractor will counter that the area allowed included off-cuts surplus to the amount supplied in roll form. In these cases, this should be made clear in the contract.
During my inspection, which invariably includes an invasive element i.e. I lift the matting to examine the ground below. Using a core drill/augur, I drill into the various layers and record the depths of each, including noting any geotextile membranes/weed matting that I find. This information is combined with a note of the indigenous soil in the garden, especially under the various foundations. Compacted soil, clay, chalk, light sandy, shaley, stone filled etc – are all recorded, as they should have informed the contractor/specifier when pricing for the project.
In so many cases, a quotation has obviously been based on a standard, uniform pricing structure that has not taken the actual site conditions into consideration. This lack of attention can lead to a set formula, of X amount of excavation, X amount of MOT Type I and a common depth of sharp sand/granite dust, irrespective of the actual requirements of the site.
The most important thing to me, as an expert witness, is to remain totally 100% impartial and independent. Without this independence, I cannot do my job properly. This means being fair to both sides, although in the case of AG installations, complaints tend to be against the contractor or installer. (Many cases begin with a claim for non-payment by the contractor, which then becomes subject to a counter-claim, with the customer claiming against the contractor)
Therefore, if the contractor has specified a particular brand of AG, I will research the company involved and check to see what information was supplied (or available at the time of sale, as recommendations vary year on year in some cases) It is important that the advice given out by the supplier at the time of installation is followed, as techniques have changed and been refined over the past few years. If the contractor has followed the advice given at the time, then their case will be greatly strengthened in a claim case.
I recently watched a dozen or more videos produced by a number of manufacturers/suppliers over the past five years, from countries including the UK, Australia and the USA. Some were a few minutes in length, others ten minutes or more. Not one of them was 100% accurate in their advice. Some were 80%, others less than that. The information and techniques shown invariably made no mention of existing site conditions or soil types. None of them described how to overcome soft ground. Some showed the AG matting being spread directly on top of graded topsoil, whilst others advised levelling the soil and laying only sharp sand.
Some showed spreading a concrete haunch around the border for gluing the matting and prevent lifting, whilst others showed flimsy timber battens, with the matting being nailed or screwed without explaining that the timber should be securely fixed on to vertical timbers driven into the ground prior to fixing.
Some showed dry kiln sand being brushed into the surface, at varying rates from two and a half pounds per square yard to a light dusting. Others recommended using four-inch nails to secure the matting, as if a thin metal spike was likely to hold down a large piece of material when the wind was blowing a gale!
Looking also at certain publications, including laying guides provided by suppliers – not one of them offers any advice regarding the various grades of AG matting. Thicknesses and weights are not mentioned, although they vary tremendously – from 20mm deep ‘pile’ to 40mm, some grasses being formed with two or three different types of plastic (Polyethylene, Polypropylene or Nylon), some with inbuilt ‘thatch’ and deep pile, others barely more than a thin green sheet with a single grade of plastic grass blade and no cushioning at all.
I appreciate that it is difficult to supply detailed information to all consumers, many of whom will only be looking at the cost of installation, and not the technical knowledge to actually fit the product, but I would aver that it is essential for a contractor to recognise the different types of grass available, different physical demands to be made on the use of the lawn, and ensure that a full site survey is conducted before producing a quotation.
Otherwise, if a dispute arises, and due diligence has not been followed and shown to have been neglected, including a fully detailed assessment of the site, any defence will be weakened. If you follow the supplier’s advice, and can prove that you matched the material to the needs of the customer and site conditions, problems are highly unlikely to occur in the first place. It is very important to retain any guide, leaflet or advisory document supplied with the matting, to present as evidence in your defence in case of a complaint. Prove that you followed that advice to the letter – including making an assessment of the site beforehand – and you will greatly improve your chances of being found not liable.
Aftercare information should be provided to the client in a formal manner. This may be a printed leaflet or written advice with the final invoice, the inclusion of which should be noted in the contract.
Other areas causing complaints are weeds growing in the surface of the matting, weed growing from under the AG (usually joints), fading caused by mirrors or bright surfaces e.g. stainless steel sculptures and window frames, moss and fungal infestations and animal urine smells, plus heat, or the effects of sunlight making the surface too hot to touch or sit out on, Despite the fact that the client knows the matting is made from plastic, they complain vociferously and try to claim compensation as well as a new lawn.
There are so many variables concerned in the installation of AG, and only careful surveying and accurate terms and conditions can prevent clients from taking you to Court, as you will be deemed to be the professional, in every way.
Alan Sargent