Failure to complete work in an unworkman like manner - Part 2

So in this part we'll look start to look at how Artur intended to lay bricks on the foundations that were incorrectly laid. 
Artur's appointed brick layers had done ~1 day of laying bricks before leaving site and not returning.  I suspect they realise the foundations where in the wrong place as outlines in Part 1 of this and decided this was a job they did not want to be involved in.  But this was not until they had laid some bricks which actually overhang the foundations as shown in the photo below.  I think they thought that back filling around the bricks as they went would mean this would not be spotted.  But once inspection pits were dug it became clear what had happened.
Where these bricks are the wall would be 1m high so have a significant downward pressure and would have failed after a very short period of time.

All the information in this post was provided as part of the court case.

Failure to complete work in an unworkman like manner - Part 1

I didn't know a lot about foundations until I had to work with Artur.  All the following was provided during the court case.  To be fair to Artur, personally he did not actually do any work on site - he had got his "team" to do the work, but lets have a look at the first part of the failings - the spread of the foundations.  I found a good web site Paving Expert for information on foundations

Paving Expert says

Any footing should be at least 100mm wider on each edge than the thickness of the intended brickwork. So, for a 225mm thick wall, we will typically pour a 450mm wide footing. For load-bearing walls, the strip footing may be 600mm wide. The footing is typically 150mm thick, though this may be reduced to 100mm for smaller walls on good ground, or increased for heavier walls on bad ground.

What did I get?  The foundation was not even laid where the wall would go let alone provide a "spread" to support the wall.

Artur's Fails To Deliver Again

Of course its to be expected.  Artur Machula has yet again failed to do what the court ordered and has not paid the agreed £500.  Did he forget, well no.  As you can see below we had a conversation about it on the preceding Friday over text.  We had exchanged details outside the court room including account details and Artur's new mobile number.  I expected the "oh sorry I lost the details" story so sent the text on Friday to ensure he had the details.  

By Tuesday I get a "I will pay on Saturday".  We all know how this is going to end right?

That's right, Artur did not pay so new proceedings in the post to the Court and £110 is added to Artur's outstanding costs.

Application to Vary Order

On the 5th Feb an Application to Vary Order was heard at Birmingham County Court. Artur had requested to pay just £100/month of the £12633.42 remaining on C4QZ9F36.  The judge ruled that he must pay £500/month from the 10th March 2018.

How to Complain About Editorial Content

As the very first blog article states, this blog has been created as a piece of journalism.  No trained journalist has been involved and the blog is in no way associated with the Independent Press Standards Office (IPSO); however the IPSO Editors Code of Practice rules seem a good set of rules as they govern many national newspapers both on and offline. 

Note that actions in relation to the discovery of information for legal proceedings against Artur Macula or the recovery of money from Artur Macula are not covered by this Editors Code of Practice . 

IPSO Editors Code of Practice provides a method of complaint.  This blog will attempt to follow the same process and rules.  Simply e-mail the site stating:

• The IPSO ECoP Clause you are complaining under
• Your complaint

Where complaining under Clause 1,2 or 10 please provide:

• URL to the content
• Extracts of the content deemed inaccurate
• Evidence of accuracy

Any complaint received will then be responded to within 28 days.  Where a complaint is upheld a public apology will be made on the web site and content changed.