Bath Spa painter says 'told you so'

Painting subcontractor EJ Manning has dived into the Bath Spa dispute with the damning claim that it told all parties the paint to be used in the pools was not up to the job.
The Radstock-based specialist has been caught in the crossfire between main contractor Mowlem, client Bath & North East Somerset Council and architect Sir Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners as they argue about problems with the paintwork flaking in the £26m spa's pools.
Manning also insists it is still owed money - a claim that Mowlem denies.
A Manning source told CJ the firm is owed a "substantial amount" and is adamant that the firm informed all involved that the specified paint would not work. "We knew the paint would not work and we told the architect and council words to that effect. We also warned the paint manufacturer that the paint would not work as it had never been used in pools before. Nobody listened to us and we had to call in the council's agent when the paint started to have problems," he said.
The feud between Mowlem and the client reached boiling point last week after the council released to the press one page of a 36-page report into the paint problems. The full report is available only under close supervision at the council's offices - and cannot be directly quoted.
The executive summary of the report, compiled by STATS for the council, puts the problems down to:
n The use of improperly applied, unspecified and/or approved and/or incompatible repair and filler/render materials.
n Inadequately prepared substrate surfaces.
n Application of paint in cold conditions and/or on to cold surfaces.
n The use of multiple thin layer coating techniques.
n Contamination of the paint surfaces between layers.
The report criticises paint manufacturer RIW for supplying "inappropriate advice" for the paint's application. RIW refused to comment when approached by CJ.
Mowlem was infuriated by the council's action and subsequently released two other pages of the report. A spokesman said: "While it [the report] was keen to focus on a number of references to localised workmanship issues, the summary of the report released by the council fails to highlight many far more important points relating to the suitability of the paint that was specified by the architect."
Grimshaw also refused to comment when approached by CJ.
Mowlem also stated that it had "long believed that the substitute paint chosen by the council to achieve a cost saving was doomed from the start and that the primary problems arose from the nature of the paint itself and its unique specification for use in a swimming pool environment".
The contractor, which was not asked to contribute to the report and was issued its own copy a month after it was completed, added that it was "disappointed the report did not include any recommendations on how the situation might be resolved".
One Mowlem source told CJ: "It is worrying us that we have had such difficulty accessing the report due to it being legally privileged. This can only mean that the council is considering using it as legal evidence."