NFS Screeding Ltd, Company Registration No. 8945777 (Need for Screed) - **Judgment debt paid**

[BankFodder]

Yes, send them a note of correction. Also, I would have thought that a few days was a bit longer than 3 days.

[MrPengu1n]

thanks, will action that now...

 

ok, have resent giving 5 days:

 

===================

Dear [name],

 

Following my email to you on 28^th November, I stated that I would give you until the end of the day on Thursday 1^st December 2023 to make your comments and any proposals.

 

That date was incorrect.

 

To clarify, I am inviting you to make your comments and any proposals by the end of day Tuesday 6^th  December 2022.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Mr P

===================

 

 

I received a reply!

 

The reply is pasted below, I'll go through and add my comments to it in a subsequent post:

 

====================

This email was just about to come to you then you send another harassing and bullying time line email.

 

Why did you not disclose to me the hard fact that you had recently removed the Marley Tiles, original DPM and original screed? 

 

Had I been advised about this scenario, which you did no declare to me,  I would not have suggested a DPM and bonded screed installation given the dampness issue appears not to be a solution for this floor build up requirement. 

 

In short you withheld this detail from me when I asked you if there was any DPM under the slab. You said you were not sure, but in fact according to M&M you removed the original DPM when removing the old screed and tiles. Had you disclosed this fact to me in the first instance I would not have suggested the specification which you agreed to, which in any case you confirmed your instruction to proceed to me after sending the price to go ahead with the specification I offered you, which you confirmed to in a message.

 

Further, there are a number of fundamental technical inaccuracies in M&M’s analysis. One example is that moisture testing of modified screeds cannot be analysed by electrical resistance meters, this method can only be used on traditional screed which has no additives other than sand, cement and water. So this statement is wrong and highly misleading. The saturated screed on the party wall has to be down to a third party underlying problem, the screed installed will have been fully dry within 8 days on installation.

 

Given the overall outline of M&M’s report, and the other technical parameters of historical excess moisture problems, and the substrate / party wall dampness issues which you failed to declare to me at my first site meeting, and the written confirmation of these historic issues and your removal of the tiles and original screed and dpm, and your written instruction to go ahead with the specification which you agreed with me, this mitigates me from any prior problems within the existing substrate and party wall. 

 

Had you declared this to me, I would not have taken the job on in the first instance. I did offer you  to carry out remedial works on the 15^th of November…which you refused. 

 

Given you had not declared the previous historic issues confirmed in M&M’s recent report dated 22/11/22, I would have declined to carry out any remedial works given it is clear that the substrate has other moisture issues, probably from moisture ingress from the party wall. 

 

2. I’ve taken advice on the unacceptable harassment and treating emails you have been sending to me and I am therefore formerly request you stop making these inaccurate and untrue claims. The fundamental issue is that you did not declare to me the historical issues with the floor and dampness issue in the party wall, you failed to declare and explain the historical issues with the substrate.

 

3. For reference to M&M : 

 

 - The incorrect moisture test has been applied which invalidates the claim made by M&M - electrical resistance moisture meters can only be used on standard sand cement screed, with no additives other than sand, cement & water. The only way to take the correct moisture reading from a modified screed is to test a sample of screed using the correct equipment know as a Carbide Bomb Test. 

 

- The comment in the M&M report which refers to moisture saturation along the left hand party wall is most likely to be the

underlying historical moisture issue. This suggests moisture ingress from an issue within the party wall, the screed would not cause this excessive amount of moisture given the 704 additive having been added to the mix design. 

 

-  The BS reference below is only applicable to standard sand cement screeds, therefore these parameters do to not apply to modified screed designs and this statement is therefore invalid. 

====================

 

Pasting below the reply with my comments as bullets:

 

===================

This email was just about to come to you then you send another harassing and bullying time line email.

 

• I disagree with his perception of the tone of the emails I have sent to him.

 

 

Why did you not disclose to me the hard fact that you had recently removed the Marley Tiles, original DPM and original screed? 

 

Had I been advised about this scenario, which you did no declare to me,  I would not have suggested a DPM and bonded screed installation given the dampness issue appears not to be a solution for this floor build up requirement. 

 

• This was shared, I advised him of what I had done to get the floor to the stage it was at for it to have a new screed laid.
• He did ask me when he visited to quote for the job – are there any damp issues, to which I replied, I’ve never seen any damp.

 

In short you withheld this detail from me when I asked you if there was any DPM under the slab. You said you were not sure, but in fact according to M&M you removed the original DPM when removing the old screed and tiles. Had you disclosed this fact to me in the first instance I would not have suggested the specification which you agreed to, which in any case you confirmed your instruction to proceed to me after sending the price to go ahead with the specification I offered you, which you confirmed to in a message.

 

• I advised him specifically that there was no DPM under the slab when he came to quote for the job.  There were still parts of the old screed on the floor which I had to still remove and tidy up.  There is a threshold between the hallway and kitchen when a cross section of ‘original’ floor in the kitchen can be seen.  I used this as a point of reference to show him where the original floor height was.  On this section or original floor the painted DPM on the old screed can be seen.
• It seems he is trying absolve himself of any responsibility by making false statements in terms of disclosures.
• In terms of agreeing to a specification, the quote was a message that read “to supply and install the bonding agent and screed to the ground floor area…”.  At the time of agreeing to proceed, I had no idea what specific materials would be used or how they would be laid.

 

Further, there are a number of fundamental technical inaccuracies in M&M’s analysis. One example is that moisture testing of modified screeds cannot be analysed by electrical resistance meters, this method can only be used on traditional screed which has no additives other than sand, cement and water. So this statement is wrong and highly misleading. The saturated screed on the party wall has to be down to a third party underlying problem, the screed installed will have been fully dry within 8 days on installation.

 

• I spoke to another screeding company who are preparing a quote for me today, I shared a copy of the report with them also for reference as to the current situation.  They provided a quite and also noted in their email to me that it's quite feasible that a polymer-modified screed cement will give a false positive reading for damp using a hygrometer, but nevertheless the entire system used by the previous screeder, is not fit for purpose and the assessor has covered all aspects of the issues.
• NFS themselves never performed any tests prior to carrying out any work
• The statement he has made about there being a ‘third party underlying problem’ has no basis.  He has already said that the moisture test is incorrect and now is claiming there is an existing issue present when he has performed no tests himself.  It can’t be both an incorrect reading a valid reading?

 

Given the overall outline of M&M’s report, and the other technical parameters of historical excess moisture problems, and the substrate / party wall dampness issues which you failed to declare to me at my first site meeting, and the written confirmation of these historic issues and your removal of the tiles and original screed and dpm, and your written instruction to go ahead with the specification which you agreed with me, this mitigates me from any prior problems within the existing substrate and party wall. 

 

• There is no evidence of historical excess moisture problems
• NFS did not perform any onsite tests prior to commencing work other than using a laser level and eyeballing the floor
• NFS were fully aware that they were screeding on to a slab with no existing DPM
• He is trying to manoeuvre to absolve himself of any responsibility

 

Had you declared this to me, I would not have taken the job on in the first instance. I did offer you  to carry out remedial works on the 15^th of November…which you refused. 

 

• This is a nonsense, all material facts were declared.  But alas he did proceed with the works!

 

Given you had not declared the previous historic issues confirmed in M&M’s recent report dated 22/11/22, I would have declined to carry out any remedial works given it is clear that the substrate has other moisture issues, probably from moisture ingress from the party wall. 

• He is focused very much on the moisture test result which he claims is not a valid test, which feels like a paradox.
• I get the sense he is attempting to claim that the job was only a bad one due to certain factors not being disclosed to him, which were.
• There is no moisture ingress through the party wall to be clear, there are no signs of damp on the floor or walls.

 

2. I’ve taken advice on the unacceptable harassment and treating emails you have been sending to me and I am therefore formerly request you stop making these inaccurate and untrue claims. The fundamental issue is that you did not declare to me the historical issues with the floor and dampness issue in the party wall, you failed to declare and explain the historical issues with the substrate.

 

• There were not historical issues apparent to report.
• All material facts were disclosed in terms of the state of the floor.
• As a customer I trusted his judgement and industry knowledge to install the correct floor solution.

 

3. For reference to M&M : 

 

 - The incorrect moisture test has been applied which invalidates the claim made by M&M - electrical resistance moisture meters can only be used on standard sand cement screed, with no additives other than sand, cement & water. The only way to take the correct moisture reading from a modified screed is to test a sample of screed using the correct equipment know as a Carbide Bomb Test. 

 

• On the point of the moisture test, should I query this with the surveyor for comment?
• I could also query with MAPEI to ask them their opinion on moisture testing

 

- The comment in the M&M report which refers to moisture saturation along the left hand party wall is most likely to be the underlying historical moisture issue. This suggests moisture ingress from an issue within the party wall, the screed would not cause this excessive amount of moisture given the 704 additive having been added to the mix design. 

 

-  The BS reference below is only applicable to standard sand cement screeds, therefore these parameters do to not apply to modified screed designs and this statement is therefore invalid. 

 

• I’ve been in contact with 3 screeding companies who collectively cannot fathom the use the DPM product and screed laid by NFS.  Yes the screed was modified but not modified adequately.  Refering to his previous claim that the MAPESCREED 704 data sheet claims that it can go as low as 10mm is a falsehood.
• I’m assuming there may be a BS standard for modified screeds

 

====================

[MrPengu1n]

any thoughts/comments on what my next steps should be?

[BankFodder]

Sorry, I've been a bit preoccupied with some domestic things.

I'm sure you appreciate that the technicalities that you are referring to are outside our experience and not the kind of thing which we would advise on anyway.

If you are sure that you can make a case to support your position then the next step will be to send a letter of claim giving 14 days and then to sue.

You have to be clear as to the sum for which you are claiming.

Also, I can foresee that this is the kind of case where a joint expert will have to be appointed. This means that you both agree on an independent survey which produces a report which will then be put to the judge and it is likely that the judge will accept the conclusion arrived at in the report.
If the report favours you then after that it would simply be a matter of arguing over the cost of implementing the reports recommendations. If the report favours the outside then you lose and you will have to pay the costs incurred by the other side which will be minimal because it will be a small claim. I'm assuming that the whole thing will come in at less than £10,000.

If you want to proceed then draft a letter of claim.
Post it here for us to have a look.

 

[MrPengu1n]

Thank you! Of course, thankful of the guidance and certainly appreciate the support!

 

I've asked the original surveyor to comment on the remarks made by NFS.  If it transpires they have written a report without proper research (example being the test they performed) in to the matter, what does that mean for me (other than having a report that is of not much use)?

 

I'm reaching out to some other surveyors to who may be a bit more 'specialist' in this area.  Would it be detrimental to my position if I sought a 2nd report - a 2nd opinion! Would this be reclaimable if successful when a case is brought (I'm assuming the first report wouldn't be?).

 

My intention is to press on as I strongly believe that a professional who is diligent in their field would conclude the job performed in not of any reasonable standard - not just from my biased opinion but that of other screeding companies.

 

Should things go south and a claim is not ruled in my favour,  what would minimal costs consist of?  What type of fees etc?  I don't' what to be landed with solicitors fees from the other party...

 

The claim would be under £5,000 in total.

 

[MrPengu1n]

Is there template available for the 'letter before claim'?

 

[dx100uk]

No.

See other court claims threads in this same forum yours is in.

That will give you the format.

 

Dx

[BankFodder]

And please post a draft here so that we can have a look.

Keep it brief and a minimum of detail.
 

 

[MrPengu1n]

I've created the below - appreciate any comments/suggestions/edits and guidance:

 

==========

[DATE]

 

Dear [NAME] (director NFS Screeding Ltd),

 

Following my formal letter of complaint to you on 5^th November 2022, you have not proposed a suitable solution to correct the defective floor screed you have laid on 5^th October 2022.

 

In addition, you have not addressed the damage caused by NFS by way of staining to my Astro turf lawn which occurred during your visit to my property on 5^th October 2022.

 

I have given you reasonable time and opportunity to address and resolve these issues.

 

I am therefore writing to you now to advise that in 14 days from the date of this letter [DATE], I will proceed and submit a claim in the county court to claim the cost of removing the defective floor screed you have laid and having a suitable flooring solution installed by a competent professional.

 

The expected cost of this claim will be:

 

£2,119.86 – removal or floor screed and liquid DPM including tool hire

£294 – skip hire (6 yard skip)

£1,689.17 – application of new flooring solution

Total – 4,101.03 (includes VAT)

 

I attached a copy of a surveyor’s report from Martin & Martin in respect of the screed that you have laid confirming the installation is unsuitable and must be removed and replaced and the reasons for this therein.

 

I attach a quotation from Screed Works in respect of the cost of removing the floor screed solution you have laid and application of a suitable solution.

 

I refer you to www.stevenageskiphire.com in respect of their published costs for hiring a 6 yard skip.

 

If I do not receive from you in the next 14 days a response setting out a suitable proposal and acceptable timeline address the defective floor screed you have laid then I will proceed with my claim without any further correspondence to you.

 

Please note, any solution you propose will be subject to independent third-party supervision as to its suitability with any works subsequently undertaken by you also being subject to independent third-party inspection.  This would all be at your cost.

 

Sincerely

 

M P

==========

[BankFodder]

Did you not pay anything for reports so far?

[MrPengu1n]

I have an invoice to pay, £150 (inc VAT) for the report form M&M.  Would I be able to claim interest on that?

 

(on a side note I had another company come to my house yesterday to inspect for the purpose of quotation, he was scratching his head as to why NFS installed what they did how they did)

 

The quote from Screed Works is the only one I have at present that is a 'full quote' and a different company who did provide a price withdrew that on the basis that they can't fully assess things until the floor is out so would only provide a price for that, which is aligned to the price that Screed Works  provided for that part of the job.

 

[BankFodder]

You can claim any expenses including report expenses and interest on them.

You should refer to that in your letter.

You need to get something in writing from this new company. Head scratching doesn't quite cut it

[MrPengu1n]

I'm waiting the estimate from the new company as an interested party

 

[MrPengu1n]

After the usual intake of festive excess, I've updated the letter before claim below to include the cost of the initial surveyor report, plus - appreciate any comments/suggestions/edits and guidance: or confirmation its good to go!

 

Now that the postal service seems to be settled I think a 1st class recorded delivery should makes its way to them in a few days.

 

==========

[DATE]

 

Dear [NAME] (director NFS Screeding Ltd),

 

Following my formal letter of complaint to you on 5^th November 2022, you have not proposed a suitable solution to correct the defective floor screed you have laid on 5^th October 2022.

 

In addition, you have not addressed the damage caused by NFS by way of staining to my Astro turf lawn which occurred during your visit to my property on 5^th October 2022.

 

I have given you reasonable time and opportunity to address and resolve these issues.

 

I am therefore writing to you now to advise that in 14 days from the date of this letter [DATE], I will proceed and submit a claim in the county court to claim the cost of removing the defective floor screed you have laid and having a suitable flooring solution installed by a competent professional.

 

The expected cost of this claim will be:

 

• £2,119.86 – removal or floor screed and liquid DPM including tool hire
• £294 – skip hire (6 yard skip)
• £1,689.17 – application of new flooring solution
• £150  - surveyors report from Martin and Martin, dated 22nd November 2022
• Interest on cost of surveyors reports from Martin and Martin dated 22nd November, to be calculated daily at 8%.

Total – 4,101.03 (includes VAT), plus interest as noted above.

 

I attached a copy of a surveyor’s report from Martin & Martin in respect of the screed that you have laid confirming the installation is unsuitable and must be removed and replaced and the reasons for this therein.

 

I attach a quotation from Screed Works in respect of the cost of removing the floor screed solution you have laid and application of a suitable solution.

 

I refer you to www.stevenageskiphire.com in respect of their published costs for hiring a 6 yard skip.

 

If I do not receive from you in the next 14 days a response setting out a suitable proposal and acceptable timeline address the defective floor screed you have laid then I will proceed with my claim without any further correspondence to you.

 

Please note, any solution you propose will be subject to independent third-party supervision as to its suitability with any works subsequently undertaken by you also being subject to independent third-party inspection.  This would all be at your cost.

 

Sincerely

 

M P

==========

 

 

[BankFodder]

Looks fine.

[MrPengu1n]

Thanks, will post and send via email at the same time.

 

If I receive any responses I will share them.

 

Would my next step be to draft my particulars of claim?

 

I managed to catch today's post and so have set the LBC via email also.

[BankFodder]

Yes, keep us updated of course. And also you're right. Start preparing the claim so that it is ready to click off on day 15 .

 

Put up a draft of your particulars here

 

 

[gavino76]

Im also a bit confused about the whole installation,

 

cement boards are usually fitted first, UFH fitted to boards, and then covered with 2 coats of latex smoothing compound. Floor covering on top.

 

I'll be honest I didn't read the entire post so maybe I missed something.

 

To me, screed is sand and cement. Latex smoothing compound (often called self leveling)  is often mistakenly called screed also. 

 

I'm just putting my 2 pence worth in

 

As a floorlayer I would never use anything from wickes and if I did I would be making sure it was properly mixed and applied, i.e mixed a whisk on a drill, then applied by notched trowel to ensure adequate coverage according to manufacturer, and then spread with a short hair roller.

 

Whatever their argument they haven't used any method of damp test. It's a fail.

 

If you use Facebook there is also a group called UK flooring industry, you can join it and I'm quite sure you'll get precise advice.

 

As for the specialist inspection you mentioned, you'll need an independent flooring inspector such as 

 

www.sid-bourne.com Independent flooring inspector.

 

Good luck

[MrPengu1n]

I've been rummaging for an example of some POCs to use as a starter for 10, but can't seem to locate any or a template. 

 

Could anyone please copy and paste me an example set to this thread?

[BankFodder]

There are no templates. How can there be when the facts of every case is different.

Draft what you think represents your claim in as few words as possible and post it here.

There forget you don't need to put all the details down because they are fully aware

[MrPengu1n]

Draft POCs below along with some comments added post script:

 

====================

1.      Claimant Mr Penguin

2.      Defendant NFS Screeding Ltd

3.      Claimant appointed defendant to install a screed floor to a ground floor area of the claimants home.

4.      The claimant paid the defendant for the works.

5.      The screed flooring solution installed by the defendant has been realised to be defective and/or incorrectly installed by way of:

a.      The defendant did not complete an adequate site survey prior to commencing any works

b.      The defendant incorrectly installed a liquid damp proof membrane

c.      The defendant incorrectly installed a sand a cementous based screed floor

6.      The defendant made false representations as to the suitability of the screed flooring to be installed including installation of a liquid damp proof membrane, prior to installation.

7.      The defendant has been given reasonable opportunity to address and rectify the defective floor screeding but has not done so

8.      The claimant is seeking the cost of removal of the screed floor installed by the defendant

9.      The claimant is seeking the cost of a correctly installed screed floor

10.   The claimant is seeking the cost of associated costs for bringing this claim including interest, calculated daily at 8%

 

====================

 

Point 5 refers to my both my assessment and that deduced by the surveyors reports (plus all the other anecdotal comments by interested parties.  I realised that I can only rely on the non-interest party comments per the surveyors report.

 

Point 6 refers to the concerns I raised to NFS prior to them coming regarding the subfloor and a subsequent phone conversation we had about the DPM and the screed.

Point 7 refers to my letters/correspondence to NFS.

 

Can I/should I make comment about some of the content of NFS correspondence to me where they have literally lied?  I acknowledge that in a situation where its one word against another then only presentable facts would be considered (i.e. the surveyors report and any subsequent joint expert report) but as NFS’ only way out of this is to claim that I either withheld or didn’t share information with them, which they have stated in their correspondence to me – I feel its worth calling them out on it, before they use it as a defence (plus I can’t stand liars)?

 

Mr P

[BankFodder]

Firstly, this is more like a witness statement than a particulars of claim. 

 

Secondly, do you know if this is going to fit into the word limit?

 

Thirdly, if it needs notes underneath to explain it to us then it means that it isn't properly explained to a judge or to the defendant.

 

 

 

[MrPengu1n]

Could you give some direction on what the POC should look like as I've no idea - all I've done in this draft it to, as succinctly as I could, lay out the facts and events.

 

I can certainly reduce the verbiage to be more direct as I hadn't considered any character limit - or is that what you mean by witness statement in that there is too much detail?

 

The notes were just to show where the points in the POC had come from for the readers in this forum and not intended to added further details for the reader for POCs.  

[BankFodder]

How about this?

 

Quote

The claimant entered into a contract with the defendant on XXX date reference number XXX to carry out the application of floor screed on the claimant's property. The contract price was £XXX.
The contracted work was not completed to an acceptable standard. The claimant has obtained independent reports which agree that the work is substandard and which make it clear that the only way forward is to undo the work completely and to reinstall the floor screed in a proper manner.
The claimant has kept the defendant fully informed and supplied them with copies of all documents and reports but the defendant has declined to engage on this matter.
The defendant is fully aware of all issues and the basis of the dispute.

The claimant claims £XXX being the cost of removing the defendants for screed and replacing it with screed work carried out to a proper standard as expected in the original contract.
The claimant also seeks reimbursement of £XXX in respect of reports – (and £XXX additional expenses incurred) what additional expenses are there? Plus the costs of this action.

 

Have a look through and see if there is anything wrong, if there is anything missing.

 

If you are happy with it then I would say that you should use this but please post up a final draft

[MrPengu1n]

Thank you!

 

Update draft POC below 

 

===================

The claimant entered into a contract with the defendant on 5^th October 2022, invoice reference number 56879, to carry out the application of floor screed in the claimant's property. The contract price was £900.

The contracted work was not completed to an acceptable standard and was in breach of the defendants contractual obligations. The claimant has obtained independent reports which agree that the work is substandard and which make it clear that the only way forward is to undo the work completely and to reinstall the floor screed in a proper manner.

The claimant has kept the defendant fully informed and supplied them with copies of all documents and reports but the defendant has declined to engage on this matter.
The defendant is fully aware of all issues and the basis of the dispute.

The claimant claims £4101.02 being the cost of removing the defendants floor screed and replacing it with screed work carried out to a proper standard as expected in the original contract.

The claimant also seeks reimbursement of £180 in respect of reports, the costs of this action, plus interest on these costs.

 

====================

Edited January 3, 2023 by BankFodder
edits in red