TDR SHEDS & LANDSCAPING LTD, Poor Quality Dispute, TDR Sheds & Landscaping instructed to install gravel driveway. Overestimated amount of - Disputes Register
Login Create an account
TDR SHEDS & LANDSCAPING LTD
Ref: 2487
Filed: 31/01/2024

Accused Company:

TDR SHEDS & LANDSCAPING LTD

File a Dispute against this company

Company number: gb-15004045
Website: m.facebook.com/tdrshedslandscaping

25 NORDELPH CORNER, HARDINGHAM, NORWICH, ENGLAND, NR9 4ES
United Kingdom

Allegation: Poor Quality



Value: GBP 7,475.00


Dispute details:

Gravel driveway installation.

TDR Sheds & Landscaping instructed to install gravel driveway.

Overestimated amount of gravel used, left approx. 10 tonnes on site. Several vehicles stuck in gravel due to poor sub base and excessive gravel laid. TDR came back to remove some gravel from the surface shortly after the installation, admitting they overestimated and made a mistake.

Also left me with 20+ wooden sleepers they asked me to order before telling me they couldn’t actually install them, along with the bags of post crete to suit.

I requested TDR send me some photographs of the sub base and explained I was still having issues using the driveway.

TDR and their company director proceeded to block me on all possible social media and communication apps such as WhatsApp etc.

It is also apparent the social media marketing by use of images of my driveway have now also been removed from their social media account.

Attempts to resolve dispute:

Tried to contact, explained I would like it put right or partial refund of the above figure.

Response to accusation (by accused):

I feel very confused by receiving this claim but I am happy to enter into discussions and assist with some of the points raised. With regards to some of the points raised:- volume of gravel - it was discussed with the customer that the gravel would be arriving on 16 tonne lorry loads. It was discussed with customer that there could be some left over during a verbal conversation due to the nature of the delivery. Customer stated this was ok as he could make use of it elsewhere. Plus also the customer purchased the gravel directly with the gravel company. Several vehicles stuck in gravel due to poor sub base and excessive gravel laid. The customer requested to lay Type 1 sub base only where vehicles would be driving. TDR does not accept the sub base is of poor quality having completed similar works in the past with no issues. TDR returned to site on 4th November at customer request TDR proceeded to use the digger to even out any deep areas of gravel and customer was on site during this time. The customer’s van was used to ensure any deep areas had been rectified and customer was satisfied at this time. 20+ wooden sleepers - customer asked me to order sleepers and associated post Crete. The sleepers couldn’t be installed due to existing concrete foundations in the area requested by the customer that they were intended to be installed. Customer asked TDR not to install them as it would mean interfering with the existing foundations and customer was on a deadline for works to be completed. Customer had discussed with TDR about keeping the sleepers and post Crete for future raised beds on the property. photographs of the sub base as customer still having issues - TDR had sent photographs and a video to customer of sub base being installed on 2nd November to which the customer replied ‘spot on that’. TDR does not agree with the value of the claim of £7475. The customer paid directly for Type 1 and gravel deliveries with the independent delivery company so he purchased the material. I cannot see how I can refund something I didn’t purchase and supply. I purely recommended the company that we normally use. TDR was not involved with this payment of £4478.16. Therefore TDR feels this needs to taken into consideration meaning TDR is willing to discuss a partial refund based in the balance of £2996.84.


Counter Response (by complainant):

It is difficult to understand why TDR is confused by the escalation of the matter having blocked all means of communication, coupled with the fact the marketing by use of images of disputed work was also removed from social media prior to this dispute, this clearly highlights an understanding of the matter at hand and also clearly indicating a sense of liability. The above figure is based on machine hire for 1 week, excess gravel (and removal of), labour, fuel and the postcrete/sleepers purchased, a full breakdown of my workings out can be obtained via email if required and are believed to be more generous in favour of TDR than they could be. Please email me if these are required. The aggregates and aggregate delivery company were instructed directly by TDR and all communications were between them, i was invoiced directly for the material by the supplier under the instruction of TDR. The sheer volume of gravel that has been left on site is unreasonable to use elsewhere and will need to be removed at cost. In regards to the specification of the sub-base, I took advice from TDR who I believe should be competent in specifying appropriate materials and methods and followed their guidance with the most "cost effective" design. Under no circumstances should any competent tradesperson install based on unqualified requests versus approved methods. The sleeper issue arrived after TDR stated they would need to install edging to one part of the driveway despite me not wanting it, to ensure a satisfactory job, cash was paid to TDR to supply the materials only to be told less than 24hrs later they were unable to install them in the expected timeframe due to an oversight, leaving me with the materials I do not require - no offer of a refund on the materials was given. Several independent tradespeople have been instructed to examine the driveway and submit quotations to rectify should TDR be unwilling to put right their work. The cheapest of the three quotes I have received is £4405 a copy can be obtained via email if required. I believe this figure to be an appropriate sum of partial refund and will be a baseline figure I seek to recover via small claims should this not reach a reasonable resolution. Please respond with your partial refund offer. Please note, the excess materials left on site can be recovered if accounted for at full value in the refund offer.




Complainant:

David Crowley

Diss , United Kingdom