Reviews Worth Reading

Watford Gardener | Ground Crew Services – Diabolical

Landscape Gardener Worth Avoiding

I used Ground Crew Services in October 2018 to erect a basic wooden shed in my garden but what followed was a nightmare that ended with me suing Mr Shehan Karunaratne for a full refund plus the cost of a replacement shed.

If you’re looking for a landscape gardener in Watford, Ground Crew Services is one company you’d do well to avoid.

The owner who is a Sri Lankan guy by the name of Shehan Karunaratne comes across as friendly and genuine but behind the smile is a deceitful and exceptionally dishonest individual.

Despite describing himself as a landscape gardener with seventeen years experience, he had no clue how to erect a garden shed and was unable to follow clearly written, basic instructions. What I ended up with can only be described as a shocking mess that wasn’t fit for purpose.

The only services Ground Crew Services Watford should be offering is rubbish removal and garden clearance although having seen what a liar Mr Karunaratne is, I wouldn’t even trust him with that.

I was put in touch with Ground Crew Services Watford by the manager of Lawsons Building Merchants in Burnt Oak. Having explained that I needed to extend the existing foundation because the new shed was considerably larger than what I currently had, I asked if he knew anyone I could use.

He told me Mr Karunaratne had done some work for them in the past and also said it would be cheaper to use him to erect the shed than Albany Sheds. Albany were the manufacturer/supplier.

During his initial visit Mr Karunaratne of Ground Crew Services Watford gave me a price to extend the foundation and to construct the shed.

In the days that followed I dug a two foot trench around the existing foundation and filled it with hardcore so all he needed to do was fill it in with cement.

He turned up the following week with two young labourers and whilst leaving my house a short while later, I saw the three of them trying to assemble a brand new cement mixer.

As I drove away I wondered whether they had ever laid a foundation before and could only hope they were the right people for the job. When I recounted this incident in court documentation the defendant claimed the cement mixer wasn’t new. He said he simply dismantled it and put it back into the box each time after using it to save space on his van. It was one of the most ridiculous comments I had ever heard.

Taken from the defendant’s defense document

large white van with open back — Ground Crew Services Watford

Watford “Landscaper” What a Joke

Having extended the foundation, Ground Crew Services Watford returned the following day to erect the shed.

There were several panels plus a roof that needed to be screwed together using the bolts provided. Before they even started I was told the base of the shed was the wrong size.

Having called Albany Sheds who were the manufacturer, they said the base comes in two sections. They told me to download the assembly instructions which I did and having passed them to Mr Karunaratne, was now feeling extremely apprehensive.

As someone who’s never been great at assembling things I noted how simple the instructions were. They literally went through every step of the construction of the shed from start to finish. The language really was as simple as could be. It was impossible not to erect it correctly or so you would have thought.

Ground Crew Services which was Mr Karunaratne and two or sometimes three employees made an absolute mess of it. Yet he claimed numerous times in court documentation that he was a very experienced landscape gardener.

Once erected I was told the shed floor wasn’t very strong. Mr Karunaratne recommended laying plywood to reinforce it. Standing just inside the door he bounced up and down to show me how much movement there was.

Being jet lagged after having just returned from a long haul night flight it didn’t occur to me why that was. I was surprised considering this was a heavy duty shed but agreed to the plywood and asked him to fit it.

It took Ground Crew Services Watford the best part of three days to complete the job from start to finish.

After they had left I found the shed door wouldn’t close which was probably why they didn’t bother fitting the handle. I also realised why the floor had been bouncy and it wasn’t because it was “thin”.

Lawsons Building Merchants had recommended I put five risers beneath the shed to raise it off the foundation. Only four had been used and had been spaced so far apart that the floor wasn’t adequately supported.

Needless to say when walking on sections between the risers it dipped and you don’t need to be a structural engineer to work out why that was.

Following a day of torrential rain I discovered the roof was leaking and water was running down the back panel. The floor just inside the entrance was also saturated because the strip of wood screwed to the front of the roof (known as a barge board) hadn’t been fitted correctly.

When it rained water ran through the gap at the back of the barge board and in through the door that couldn’t be closed properly.

“Filler strips” which had been provided to fill the space beneath the overhang of the roof hadn’t been used either although they wouldn’t have been effective anyway because the entire overhang was at the front of the shed. In the instructions is said “ensure there is an equal overhang all the way around”.

large wooden shed — Arrow above the roof points to the “barge board” that hadn’t been fitted correctly. The two up arrows indicate the space under roof that hadn’t been filled using filler strips. Three down arrows pointing towards risers that had been used beneath the shed.

My suspicions had now been confirmed. Not only had Ground Crew Services Watford who claimed to be experienced landscape gardeners never erected a shed before but they also lacked common sense.

door of a wooden shed ajar — Door left ajar at the end of the job. Although supplied with a handle it was nowhere to be found.

Excessively wide gap at the front because the entire overhang of the roof was at the front.

Having asked a builder for his opinion on the construction of the shed, he told me in no uncertain terms it was a complete disaster and not fit for purpose.

In addition to what I already knew, he said it hadn’t been put up straight and the two front panels that had been bolted together were not correctly aligned. Furthermore instead of being fixed together using the bolts provided, Ground Crew Services Watford had used regular screws which were totally unsuitable.

He went on to say the way the roof had been put in place was a joke which I already knew.

front of wooden shed showing crooked panels — Looking just beyond the door you’ll see the two front panels are not correctly aligned which is part of the reason why the door wouldn’t close

two shed panels with a gap between them — Instead of using the solid bolts provided to fix the two front panels together regular screws were used but were not strong enough to secure the two panels together. The roof which came in two sections had not been bolted together at all.

The photos below show the roof felt as it was applied by Ground Crew Services Watford and how it was done when the replacement shed was erected by the manufacturer Albany Sheds.

Roof Felt (left) Fitted by Ground Crew Services of Watford

The shed hadn’t even been positioned correctly on the foundation which had been extended sufficiently to allow enough space to walk around the back. It had instead been placed too far back and two railway sleepers had then been placed on top of the section of foundation that was now visible at the front.

This wasn’t ideal because water that accumulated underneath had nowhere to go. Having removed them a short while later the underneath of both sleepers was saturated and full of mold.

lower front section of a wooden shed — Two sleepers positioned side by side were placed on the foundation at the front of the shed.

lower front section of a large wooden shed — Two sleepers at the front of the shed were full of mould. Filler strips that had been supplied to cover the join between the two front panels but had not been used.

A further sleeper had been placed along one side of the foundation. Having removed it I found not only did Ground Crew Services not know how to erect a shed but they also didn’t know how to lay a foundation.

In the following photo the section of foundation that was extended can be clearly seen. Instead of using wooden planks to contain the cement, an untreated length of wood plus two railway sleepers had been used instead.

The wood that was used on the right side had even been incorporated into the foundation (between arrows A and B). The two wooden sleepers at the front were well and truly cemented in place (arrow C). Worse still, the extended section of the foundation wasn’t even straight.

concrete foundation with arrows pointing to certain sections

lower front section of a wooden shed on a concrete foundation

side on view of a large wooden shed — A sleeper had been used to hide the wood that had been incorporated into the foundation. The shed had been placed too far back which left an ugly section of the foundation exposed at the front. To hide it railway sleepers had been placed on top

Within days of them leaving my property I asked Mr Karunaratne to return. I was furious and told him the shed had to be replaced and he would be paying.

Having paid £1300 for the shed, £550 for Ground Crew Services Watford to erect it and almost £600 for additional materials that weren’t needed, I wasn’t happy.

Mr Karunaratne wanted to dismantle the shed and re-erect it but I refused to allow him to do that. He eventually agreed to pay for a replacement although reluctantly but said he couldn’t pay until he finished his next job.

He took no responsibility at all for the shoddy workmanship and blamed everything entirely on his two employees. His exact words were “bloody gypsies, I should never have left them alone”.

Having quoted this in evidence used as the court hearing Mr Karunaratne denied making the comment and said they were experienced landscapers who had worked with him for the past three years.

He then said they were never left alone except for when he went to buy materials (which was true). He also stated that whenever he did leave them I asked them to move soil around my garden and to cut down branches from surrounding trees.

This claim was even more absurd than him claiming he boxed up the cement mixer after using it to save space on his van. As a keen gardener I have a beautiful garden and a series of photos taken over the last ten years proved to the court this was more lies.

It was difficult to comprehend how someone could be stupid enough to tell so many lies in court documentation. Most of them were so absurd and ridiculous it was difficult not to laugh.

As well as stating in one paragraph there were three people working with him he then stated there were four. He really expected the court to believe that it took four or even five (including himself) “experienced landscapers” to extend a small foundation and erect a shed. Yet even between five of them (even though there were actually three including him) they still couldn’t do it properly.

Furthermore, considering their apparent experience and the fact they had worked for him for the past three years, he didn’t trust them enough to leave them alone.

The guys were in fact two young foreign labourers who were constantly being directed by Mr Karunaratne. As you can see from the point above that was taken from the defendant’s defense, he refers to them as “workers”.

Ground Crew Services | Deceitful Dishonest Untrustworthy

Over the next six months there was always an excuse why Mr Karunaratne couldn’t pay for the replacement shed. He even sent me a screenshot of his bank account which showed a zero balance. Considering he had no money he managed to find £150 to file a counterclaim against me which needless to say was dismissed by the court.

The counterclaim was based solely on information he had been given by the manager of Lawsons Building Merchant Burnt Oak. I was however able to prove through the use of email correspondence that what he had been told was completely untrue.

In court the judge fully supported my case against the defendant and agreed the behaviour of the manager at Lawsons was totally unprofessional and unacceptable.

Not only was I dealing with a defendant who was a liar but the matter was made worse by lies told by this manager. His behaviour led to the counterclaim which was dismissed by the court so the defendant wasted his time and £150.

I won the case and received all of my money back plus court fees and miscellaneous expenses. By that time a replacement shed had been purchased from another supplier who stocked Albany Sheds. This time it was erected by Albany Sheds who did a great job

The office manager at Lawsons had initially asked me if I needed someone to erect the shed despite the fact (unknown to me at the time) that Albany Sheds were able to do it.

He even said it would probably be cheaper for me to get someone than to use them which absolutely wasn’t the case. Had he been honest in the first place none of this would have happened.

Here’s a copy of the conversation that took place via text message between the manager of Lawsons Building Merchants and the defendant;

Taken from evidence using in my court case against Ground Crew Services Watford

two men constructing a wooden garden shed — Replacement shed being erected by Albany Sheds. Job completed in two hours, it took Ground Crew Services the best part of two days.

Some of the other ridiculous allegations made by Mr Karunaratne of Ground Crew Services Watford included that I insisted they work in the rain, the job be completed in four days when in fact it was completed in three, that the two foot trench I dug and filled with hardcore for the new section of foundation wasn’t deep enough so they had to remove the hardcore in order to dig down a further three inches.

I later discovered it wasn’t necessary to dig down at all to lay a foundation for a shed.

During the hearing when I told the judge the defendant was totally oblivious as to why the shed floor was so “bouncy”, Mr Karunaratne responded by saying it was me who had told him where to place the risers.

Were that to be the case which it most certainly wasn’t, as someone with seventeen years experience as a landscape gardener (which is what he told the judge) and who was working with two, three or even four experienced landscapers depending on what paragraph of his defense you read, you would have thought they would have explained that all five risers need to be evenly spaced out.

He even made reference to an alleged conversation in which I apparently told him I’d had an extension built but dismissed the builders because I wasn’t happy with the work.

More photos confirmed the only extension was there when I purchased the house in 1998.

With regards to the shed door not closing, Mr Karunaratne said the position of the hinges needed to be adjusted very slightly. Not only were they perfectly aligned with each other but the door was already fixed into a front panel when the shed arrived.

When the judge asked him about the leaking roof he said it was something that could easily have been put right. The roof just needed to be moved a few inches.

unassembled front panel of a wooden shed — The defendant said the hinges supporting the door needed to be realigned yet the door was already fixed in place when the shed arrived.

Everything that came out of this man’s mouth was a lie. He even messaged me the day before the hearing to say he would be attending with a barrister who would be representing him.

He turned up alone to the hearing without having written a witness statement which irritated the judge. I was then asked whether I wanted the hearing to proceed.

My main concern regarding winning this case was that I denied the defendant the opportunity to put the work right. British law does state that a tradesperson must be given this opportunity.

The judge however who stated he had considerable experience in the building trade said that having looked at the photos and seen all the evidence, felt it was completely acceptable for me to deny Ground Crew Services Watford that opportunity.

Look Elsewhere for a Landscape Gardener

Mr Karunaratne turned up to a British Court of Law in the belief that he could fool a judge into believing his absurd and ridiculous lies.

There were times during the hearing when I even felt sorry for him because he just wasn’t able to tell the truth.

I had a huge amount of photographic evidence plus copies of WhatsApp conversations that had taken place between us. The fact he even allowed this matter to go to court and even filed a counterclaim against me ,defies belief.

The following photos show the replacement shed being erected by people who really knew what they were doing. It also shows just how straightforward the construction of the shed was. It also cost considerably less than what I paid Ground Crew Services Watford and no additional materials were needed.

two men erecting a wooden garden shed — Replacement shed being erected by Albany Sheds.

roof just going on a wooden garden shed — The roof came in two sections and needed to be placed on the erected shed with an equal overhang all the way around. When fitted by Ground Crew Services of Watford the entire overhang was at the front

the same garden shed in two images side by side — The shed as constructed by Ground Crew Services Watford and then by Albany Sheds

Checkatrade | No Thanks!

Having blogged about my horrendous experience with The Window Centre Harrow who I had the misfortune of finding on Checkatrade, I feel it’s worth explaining exactly how these trade recommendation websites work. I also want to share my experience of using them over the last few years.

Despite their assurances about members being screened and vetted to ensure they’re reliable and trustworthy and that work will be carried out to the highest standards, I’ve rarely found that to be the case.

Before contacting someone I have always read reviews and only used people with the highest scores. Sadly in the vast majority of cases it has made little difference.

Prior to using The Window Centre Harrow I compared their products and services to several other companies but kept coming back to them because of all their positive reviews. Convinced they were a trustworthy and reliable company I spent just over £10,000. It was one of the worse decisions I have ever made.

Two years later having sued them to get my money back, I received a full refund plus compensation. They settled with me two weeks before the hearing.

Checkatrade along with other similar companies always appear at the top of search results so it’s difficult to ignore them when looking online for a tradesperson.

Reviews written by previous customers are almost always positive and the reason for that as I have now discovered, is because negative reviews are rarely published.

Having written a critical review on MyBuilder about someone who made a complete mess of building a brick wall on my driveway, I was told my ‘complaint’ would be held on file. The person at Checkatrade told me they would be happy to act as a mediator to resolve the dispute between myself and The Window Centre Harrow.

The advantage of using a trade recommendation website is that it should give you a good insight into the standard of someone’s work which is great, but only if all reviews are published.

The other factor to be aware of is that you can’t be certain whether a review is genuine. Unlike the feedback system on eBay, on many but not all of these trade recommendation websites it’s possible for anyone to leave a review. That includes people who have not had work carried out by the tradesperson.

Checkatrade, Trust a Trader, My Builder and many others simply act as a go-between to enable you to find someone who’s willing and able to do the job. It’s worth remembering that members pay a significant amount of money to be included in these registers.

In order for trade recommendation websites to be successful they need to retain tradespeople who are registered with them. Therefore the last thing they want to be doing is publishing too many negative reviews.

Being told members are screened and vetted sounds very reassuring. As part of the application process a telephone interview is carried out, accreditations and qualifications are inspected and records are looked at to ensure the tradesperson doesn’t have a county court judgement against them.

The one thing that’s missing however which seems to be the most important is a visual inspection of their work. The reason for that is because it’s just not feasible.

Whilst negative reviews written by dissatisfied customers may be monitored and held on file, how many need to be received before a membership is terminated?

More importantly, should we as potential customers not be entitled to see these reviews before deciding to employ someone?

Leaving feedback on Checkatrade and Which Trusted Traders could not be easier. On both of these trade recommendation websites a review can be left by anyone irrespective of whether work has been carried out or not.

On My Builder and Trust a Trader a connection between the two parties must first be established but it’s really not difficult to get around that.

The process for completing reviews is very similar irrespective of which site you use. It begins with you giving a score out of 10 for timekeeping, reliability and the standard of the work. You’re then given the option to leave a short comment.

Once submitted an automated response is received which includes a link to confirm the review is genuine.

Whenever I’ve left a positive review it has been published immediately. When I’ve left a review with a low score it has always been followed up with a call from someone who wants to discuss the matter further.

Out of three negative reviews that I’ve written just one was published. From my own personal experience I can say with some degree of certainty that the process certainly has the potential to be exploited for personal gain.

Reviews are powerful and influential and in many cases, will be the deciding factor on whether someone uses a tradesperson or not. For that reason it goes without saying that the more reviews someone has, the more chance there is of them attracting new business.

With no foolproof system in place to prevent non genuine reviews from slipping through the net, there’s a good chance the skills or expertise of the person you choose may not live up to your expectations.

There’s something else that always intrigued me when looking at reviews particularly on Checkatrade. Although someone had been scored, either no free-text comment had been left or there was just a few brief words like “all fine” or “arrived on time no problems.”

Having employed a plumber from Checkatrade I believe I may have discovered why that is. Whilst paying him for the work he asked me to leave feedback and passed me his iPad which was open on his Checkatrade page.

Having taken well over two hours to replace a radiator during which time he had a long conversation with his bank about his mortgage, I wasn’t over keen on leaving a glowing review.

I told him I would do it later which clearly irritated him. He then asked whether there was a problem with the work. I’m sure most people who found themselves in the same situation would feel uncomfortable writing an average review under the watch of the tradesperson. To avoid confrontation they would probably just complete the scoring section and possibly may add a vague comment.

Regarding the number of reviews a person has, it’s important to be aware that not everyone leaves feedback especially if their experience hasn’t been positive.

Unlike eBay the number of comments are rarely proportionate to the amount of work that has been carried out. Using The Window Centre Harrow as an example, they’ve been with Checkatrade since 2013 and over five years have accumulated 196 reviews.

They state on their website they have completed more than 16,000 installations since 1993 which equates to 640 a year. If accurate that means over the last five years they would have carried out approximately 3,200 installation.

Of course only a very small number of those would have come through Checkatrade. It does demonstrate however that even when calculating all the reviews I could find online for this company, it’s a drop in the ocean when compared to the actual number of jobs they have carried out.

The bricklayer who I used from MyBuilder had well over one hundred positive reviews yet a week into building a wall on my driveway I asked him to leave.

Not only did he miscalculate the number of bricks required for the job three times which meant I had to pay for two additional deliveries, but the wall wasn’t built as I had asked.

As well as being four bricks higher, the piers were rectangular instead of square and on one side of the driveway the wall wasn’t even straight. When I addressed that with him he insisted it was my neighbour’s driveway that wasn’t straight!

two rectangular shaped piers piers in a brick wall

Regarding the shape of the piers he didn’t see what the problem was and having said it would be difficult to find rectangular shaped pier caps, he sent me a link to a company who supplied them.

He’d also used a litre of washing up liquid when mixing the cement instead of the correct product which is plasticiser. This practice is well known within the trade but is not considered to be acceptable because the soap weakens the mortar.

He hadn’t even used his own washing up liquid and instead used mine! Ironically a litre of fairy liquid is almost the same price as a litre of plasticiser.

Having found another bricklayer to build a new wall from scratch I discovered the footings were not deep enough and the way the bricks had been laid was completely incorrect.

Second time around and the wall was built exactly as I had asked it to be and I didn’t find the builder on a trades recommendation website.

corner flower bed on front driveway with brick wall behind

Having left a negative review which wasn’t published, I subsequently found this photo on his Checkatrade page. Clearly he only knew how to build rectangular shaped piers.

Still not having learnt my lesson, in March 2017 I used a tiler once again from Checkatrade who had nothing but positive reviews.

Having spent a considerable amount of money on Italian porcelain tiles I was slightly nervous to say the least. Although the end result was okay, he had struggled to cut some of the tiles so there were a few uneven edges which were mostly camouflaged by grout.

Six months later and I started noticing a few loose tiles. Unable to get in touch with him I asked another tiler for advice. After a long discussion about the quality of the work I reluctantly decided to have the tiles removed and to start over from scratch.

Once the first tile had been removed many others came away with little or no effort. When I saw how they had been stuck on I was really quite shocked.

These large 60 x 60 centimetre tiles which weighed four and a half kilos each, had been stuck on using a method known as dot and dab.

Here’s what a leading tile manufacturer says about this practice

Despite porcelain being more delicate than ceramic and prone to cracking or chipping, most of the tiles came off with minimal damage and almost no effort.

It was only a matter of time before one would have fallen away and in doing so would have caused serious damage. I dread to think what would have happened had someone been underneath at the time.

dot-and-dab-tiling — Dot and dab, a method of tiling totally unsuitable for tiles of this size and weight

Despite having at least four negative experiences with trade recommendation websites I still find myself looking at them whenever I need to find a tradesperson.

It’s important to remember that although these websites make assurances that all tradespeople are screened and vetted before being allowed to be part of the register, the thoroughness of that procedure varies greatly from one company to the next.

Once someone has been approved, further checks are rarely ever carried out. Here’s what Get Safe Online say about trade recommendation websites;

“Many trades recommendation websites are genuine and carry out due diligence before making a listing.

On some sites however little or no proof of experience, expertise or qualifications is required from the tradesperson or company. Instead all that is needed is the payment of a fee.”