MANHOLE MAYHEM
I have elected to place a series of genuine projects, all of which came to my attention as part of my Dispute work. All were elements of cases, and all are ‘Somewhere In England’ and thus cannot be identified. I will explain each one in turn, together with their – very brief – stories and outcome of the cases.
Recessed manhole filled with block paving.
Background; Paving contractor took up an existing car park and increased the paved area in size to fill the whole of the front garden of a detached house thus providing a car-park large enough for four cars.
The owner was not at all happy with the quality of the finish and refused to pay the contractor. The contractor sued the customer, and they counterclaimed due to many issues with the project, all on the quality of the works, not quantity.
The manhole cover is just one example of the quality of the workmanship. Apart from the poor detailing of the cuts, the 50mm Bradstone block paviers were laid into sharp sand, with absolutely no cement at all. The blocks were therefore both loose and mobile. Whenever a foot or wheel went over the cover, the contents simply moved with the pressure.
The contractor sued the customer – who had household insurance cover for legal matters. The solicitor called me in to produce a report (Civil Procedure Rules) CPR Part 35. I had no difficulty in condemning the whole project for a multitude of reasons, the manhole cover not being the most serious. The customer counterclaimed and won full removal of the works and the cost of replacement plus my fees and the solicitors. Contractor lost £12,000.00.
Recessed manhole cover with individual foundations
This was a strange project, carried out by builders. The area of paving in total was around sixty square metres of a slate material, with each individual slab laid over an individual bed of wet sharp sand mortar mix. Although the mortar was fairly strong, there was no bonding agent used e.g. SBR, and none of the slabs had adhered to their laying bed. The foundations were MOT Type 1 with a geotextile membrane underneath.
As a result of each slab being laid separately, not of the ‘pads’ were fixed to the foundations, and many were ‘mobile’ as individual ‘biscuits’ of mortar. The customer had taken all of the slabs up and stacked them elsewhere on site, as the area could not be traversed by foot, with so many loose slabs.
The manhole covers – there were four in total – had been set by the builder to correct levels, but were merely placed on the MOT Type 1, and not fixed with any mortar. Because the mortar biscuits and their slabs were mobile, the metal covers were not fixed to the ground, with voids under the slabs as may be seen in the photograph.
The customer sued the builder, who had to pay to have the whole project started again, using the existing/original slabs. The builder entered no defence at all.
Hunt the manhole cover!
Another project, this time one of a number of existing covers in the rear garden of a detached house. Instead of lifting or raising the covers and changing them for recessed types able to take the paving slabs as infills, the landscaper did not – for whatever reason – decide to carry out this essential part of the project in the correct order of events.
The original covers were set at the correct level taking into account the house damp proof course, and should have been replaced at their original level. The landscaper had been tasked with creating a single level paved area to match the same height as the internal floors i.e. an invisible single level flooring with indoor and outdoor ‘floors’ being set at the same level.
The works clearly breached Building Regulations in respect of damp proof membranes, but for this article, I am dealing only with the issue of the manhole cover.
How he proposed to overcome this situation I have no idea. He became so disheartened by the problems and lack of progress, he left the site, abandoned his tools and was never seen again.
The customers sued for the whole amount paid to date and pursued the landscaper for damages and costs including my fees. I never heard the outcome, although I know the clients had insurance provided solicitors.
Spot the trip hazard!
The final example featured in a Local Authority school for children with learning difficulties. A new build area was designed for ball activities, and was the only ‘soft’ element in an otherwise structural building extension to the school.
The Main Contractor was the County Council, who subcontracted a Building Company to carry out the main build. They, in turn, sub-contracted the soft works i.e. artificial turf play area to a specialist company.
The play area turned out to be a disaster, with undulating areas, complete with several trip hazards in the shape of recessed manhole covers, which manifested within three weeks of laying.
The Building Company created the play area as far as grading and supplying and laying the MOT Type 1 sub-base, leaving the specialist artificial lawn company to supply and lay the final laying bed and carry out the installation works.
The result was settlement across the play area, which left the manhole covers higher than the median lawn areas, creating trip hazards that rendered the whole area unsafe to use – especially for ball games, which was the primary reason for the installation in the first place.
The Main Contractor refused to accept the project. The Building Contractor refused to pay the specialist lawn company and they, in turn, sued the Building Company (for several thousands of pounds).
The Building Company commissioned a site inspection and detailed survey to defend the case. I duly provided a report which condemned, without equivocation, the artificial lawn.
The case went to Court, with the Council refusal to accept the job, the Builder refusing to accept the job and my report condemning the job – and still the case was lost! The Builder was ordered to pay the A.G. Company in full!
The reason the Judge gave for this otherwise bizarre finding, was that the Building Company had supplied and laid the foundations i.e. the MOT Type 1 sub-base. As the A.G. firm claimed that the fault was with settlement in the foundations, they were not liable for the problem and denied all responsibility.
All of which goes to show, that all we can do as Consultants is to provide our Statements and Reports, after which we should walk away and not be concerned about the outcome of a dispute. We can only do our job…………..