Building works specification

[IanRubie]

I have had a block paving driveway installed, part of the installation was three manhole covers. I have managed to bend two of the covers which has surprised me because I asked for heavy duty covers and the specification of works lists heavy duty covers.

I have spoken to the driveway installer and he has said I have to deal with the supplier of the covers. This was the first annoyance because as far as I am concerned it is his job to deal with the supplier, my contract was with him. Anyway, as luck would have it he gave me the suppliers website where it lists the covers as light \ medium duty. Is that wording enough for me to initiate a small claims proceeding to recover the cost of getting someone to install heavy duty covers should the installer turn difficult?

At no point were the loading specified as numbers, just as I wanted heavy duty.

To my mind the fact heavy duty was specified and light \ medium duty was supplied is enough but what do you think?

Thanks

Ian

[bobtail4x4]

your contract is with the builder not the cover manufacturer,

looks like he supplied foot traffic or back garden spec not traffic spec.

[IanRubie]

Thanks. I am aware that my contact is with the builder but his lack of interest might have actually benefited me. Without him giving me the manufacturers details I would not have known that the covers supplied are specified as light \ medium duty rather than the heavy I requested, and the builder detailed in his quote and specification of works.

The question is, is that difference in wording enough for a claim should he fail to put things right? Does the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 come into it or is it a breach of contract not to have supplied what was specified?

[Mart-1]

IanRubie said:

Thanks. I am aware that my contact is with the builder but his lack of interest might have actually benefited me. Without him giving me the manufacturers details I would not have known that the covers supplied are specified as light \ medium duty rather than the heavy I requested, and the builder detailed in his quote and specification of works.

The question is, is that difference in wording enough for a claim should he fail to put things right? Does the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 come into it or is it a breach of contract not to have supplied what was specified?

I'm not a legal bod, but deal with construction contracts and errant builders from time to time. The products the builder selected need to be 'fit for purpose' if he has been responsible for specifying them. You have a written specification for 'heavy duty' covers as you requested, which he has failed to provide, and the paving is for a driveway where manholes suitable to take the loading of vehicles is required - I assume he knew you intended to park cars there?

Personally, i'd write to advise him of your intentions to make a claim through small claims court if he fails to replace them with correct covers at his cost (you need to provide written warning of intent X days before issuing a claim from memory when I last did it) and explain that the specification was for heavy duty covers which he has failed to provide, and that he has to use materials and products that are 'fit for purpose'

Does the website state that their covers are suitable for vehicle traffic? Even if they do, as the previous poster noted, your contract is with him, not the cover supplier

I can't imagine that the builder would risk a successful claim against him for the cost of 2-3 covers, and the threat of a claim tends to focus people's attention

I am used to hearing all the lies and excuses under the sun from builders, so don't be put off by any technical mumbo jumbo excuses or blarney - they all try it on

Good luck

[IanRubie]

Thanks, the more I look into this the more I am learning. I now think the covers were of acceptable quality specification but they might not have performed to specification.

What actually bent the covers was a tail lift mounted forklift delivering turf. Before he came on the drive I asked the operator how heavy it was. His reply was 3.2T including the load. Thinking I had heavy duty covers I thought 3.2T spread over 3 wheels (single rear wheel and two wide spaced front wheels) would be fine. I have no idea what the individual wheel loading was. I have now discovered that the covers are specified as 10t gross laden vehicle weight and 2.5t slow moving wheel load. This is fine for the use I described to the builder so I think he is off the hook from a specification point of view. What I need to find out now is the wheel loading on the fork lift to see if the covers performed as specified.

[TooMany2cvs]

IanRubie said:

What actually bent the covers was a tail lift mounted forklift delivering turf. Before he came on the drive I asked the operator how heavy it was. His reply was 3.2T including the load. Thinking I had heavy duty covers I thought 3.2T spread over 3 wheels (single rear wheel and two wide spaced front wheels) would be fine. I have no idea what the individual wheel loading was. I have now discovered that the covers are specified as 10t gross laden vehicle weight and 2.5t slow moving wheel load.

I'd find out if that "2.5t slow moving wheel load" refers to a slow moving wheel carrying 2.5t, or a slow moving wheel from a 2.5t vehicle.

2.5t on a single wheel would be very substantial for domestic use - pretty much a back pair of wheels of a laden 7.5t truck.

But if it's a single wheel of a slow-moving 2.5t vehicle, that's a bit near the mark for domestic, and the front of the forklift would be a solid chunk over that.

The definitions of the classes here suggest that forklifts are regarded as even heavier, though - probably because so much of the load is concentrated on one end.
http://www.colliercatchpole.co.uk/products/civils-...

[Mart-1]

For what it's worth, the type of wheel on fork lifts makes a significant difference to the dynamic loading on floors - solid wheels and inflated tyres are very different

[herewego]

What's the replacement cost?

[speedking31]

The forklift operator should have risk assessed the route and if he deemed the covers to be insufficient then he should have placed plates or boards over them to reduce the load they saw. Not for you to know how much load your covers can take and what the load applied by a delivery vehicle is.

[IanRubie]

TooMany2cvs said:

I'd find out if that "2.5t slow moving wheel load" refers to a slow moving wheel carrying 2.5t, or a slow moving wheel from a 2.5t vehicle.

Looks like it means a slow moving wheel carrying 2.5t.

Mart-1 said:

For what it's worth, the type of wheel on fork lifts makes a significant difference to the dynamic loading on floors - solid wheels and inflated tyres are very different

Thanks, the fork lift had pneumatic tyres.

herewego said:

What's the replacement cost?

The same spec that are currently fitted cost £40 each plus whatever labour is involved in removing the frame if that is damaged and reseating the blocks in the new cover. I initially thought the covers were underspecified, the next ones up are about £150 + fitting each.

speedking31 said:

The forklift operator should have risk assessed the route and if he deemed the covers to be insufficient then he should have placed plates or boards over them to reduce the load they saw. Not for you to know how much load your covers can take and what the load applied by a delivery vehicle is.

He asked if it would be OK. After checking the weight with him and not realising what I now know I said yes.

Looks like it was down to me

[herewego]

So if it's just the covers they can't be more than £20 ea. in which case you could just order a couple, tip the blocks out, pop them in the new covers and move on.

[Collectingbrass]

Who was the fork truck operator employed by, you or the driveway contractor? If you, then you do not have a claim against the drive way contractor. you may have a claim against the contractor who employed the fork truck operator but this may be convuluted and not worth the hassle.

If teh drive way contractor also did your lawn then it is his problem as he should have been aware the man hole lids would not support the wheel load of the fork truck.

[IanRubie]

The fork lift driver was employed by the people doing the lawn, these were not the same people who did the drive.

I am just going to put it down as lesson learnt and replace the covers. The lesson is a 10T cover can only carry 2.5T if the load is moving and even less than 2.5T if the wheels are solid.

[speedking31]

Collectingbrass said:

Who was the fork truck operator employed by, you or the driveway contractor? If you, then you do not have a claim against the drive way contractor.

The OP asked for heavy duty covers to be installed in a driveway. Later a vehicle drives over the covers and they are damaged. The OP discovers that medium duty covers had been installed.

How does he not have a claim against the installation contractor, irrespective of the vehicle ownership etc.?

[IanRubie]

I was hoping that the difference in wording was sufficient to have a claim against the driveway installer but I don't think it is.

2.5T per normal wheel is considered heavy duty for driveway use. It is only light \ medium duty when in the context of something like an industrial estate.

[speedking31]

IanRubie said:

The lesson is a 10T cover can only carry 2.5T if the load is moving and even less than 2.5T if the wheels are solid.

This is not correct. BS EN 124 is the relevant standard. A 10T cover would be designated as class B125, i.e. subjected to a test load of 125 kN = 12.5T. That is the test load applied to a single cover, nothing to do with the vehicle load or how that force is transmitted. Certainly not assumed to be divided by 4.

[IanRubie]

In the link TooMany2CVS gave

http://www.colliercatchpole.co.uk/products/civils-...

it says you are correct for ductile but these covers are galvanised and are AAA rated rather than B125. That link says 2T but the manufacturer of the covers states 2.5T.

[a boardman]

if you are replacing why not look at the recessed covers where you can put the blocks in the lids to hide the cover.

don't know how much extra work involved.

[IanRubie]

Thanks, these are recessed covers with blocks in the lid.