A homeowner whose £10,000 artificial lawn was left looking like ‘Teletubbyland’ by builders has been awarded damages following a row over a mole invasion.
Val Starbuck from Wroxall, Isle of Wight, said her garden was virtually unusable’ after she hired Kositoes to lay down her new 100 m2 turf.
The 64 year old was originally ‘delighted’ with the firm’s handiwork, however dips started to appear on the lawn just one week after the lawn was installed.
While a mole was the culprit for the original lumps, the standard of work carried out by the firm meant the surface would have eventually ‘lost its ‘trueness’ anyway, a small claims court heard.
Ms Starbuck said she has now been left with a ‘dangerous’ garden that ‘gives way underneath you’ and it is still ‘worse than ever’.
She took the company’s director, Robert Briggs, to court, and was awarded £8,000 for the project that was ‘not carried out to a high standard as promised’.
The court heard Ms Starbuck – who represented herself – paid Kositoes £10,000 for her lawn which was completed in July 2021.
Although she was initially happy with their work, lumps began to emerge due to a mole issue.
Ms Starbuck said pest control had visited her home to ‘eradicate’ the issue, whilst Kositoes revisited on a few occasions.
However nothing was resolved and parts of the garden started sinking.
She argued the mole would not have caused as much damage had the work been carried out to a ‘proper standard’ – which Mr Briggs said was ‘totally incorrect’.
Mr Briggs contented that his client had signed the satisfaction note and paid the bill in full.
He also told the court that the damage was not Kositoes’ responsibility and argued his employees had attempted to resolve the issue on several occasions.
The court heard from expert witness, James Firth, who has 40 years’ experience in the landscape industry and inspected the back garden.
He said it ‘presented well’ but the depth was ‘too shallow’ which meant it had sunk and there were ‘constructional inadequacies’.
Even if the mole had not come into the garden, the surface would have eventually lost its ‘trueness’ anyway, he said.
While not obligatory, Mr Firth said it is generally considered good practice for artificial lawn to have membrane laid underneath, but this had not been done by Kositoes.
He said this would have made it ‘more difficult’ for the mole to get through, to which Mr Briggs asked: ‘Are you aware moles can dig through concrete?’
Summing up proceedings, Deputy District Judge Palacio said the mole’s presence prompted Ms Starbuck to investigate and find that the ‘whole project had not been carried out to a high standard as promised’.
She agreed that had works been done to the required standard, ‘it was more likely than not’ that the mole problem might not have arisen or the damage been as bad as it was.
She ruled in favour of Ms Starbuck, awarding her £8,000 plus additional costs.
A counter claim from Mr Briggs to be recompensed for remedial works was dismissed.
Speaking afterwards, Ms Starbuck, revealed the garden was still ‘worse than ever’ despite the conclusion of court proceedings.
‘I haven’t been able to use large parts of the garden because it’s far too dangerous, it’s dangerous, it just gives way underneath you,’ she said.
‘They just didn’t do it properly at all. It’s just a mess, it’s all falling apart. It looks a bit like Teletubbyland.’
She said while the mole had ‘started the process’ the sub-base layer ‘wasn’t done properly’ and led to further deterioration.
‘It’s been a mess from the start,’ she quipped.
‘It has taken nearly three years – it’s been a long, hard slog. It’s been quite an ordeal for me.’
‘I just don’t want anybody else to have to go through what I’ve had to go through.’
Clarifying whether the court case concluding had offered her closure, she said: ‘Not at all.
‘What I now have to do is get all this rubbish taken away and start again with someone else.’
has approached Kotisoes for comment.