{"id":873481,"date":"2025-09-16T21:12:54","date_gmt":"2025-09-17T02:12:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2025\/09\/16\/mace-launches-fire-damper-claim-over-primark-mega-store-job\/"},"modified":"2025-09-16T21:12:54","modified_gmt":"2025-09-17T02:12:54","slug":"mace-launches-fire-damper-claim-over-primark-mega-store-job","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2025\/09\/16\/mace-launches-fire-damper-claim-over-primark-mega-store-job\/","title":{"rendered":"Mace launches fire damper claim over Primark mega-store job"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\"Primark_Birmingham.webp\"<\/p>\n

\n

Mace is suing Mitie for \u00a35m for allegedly installing fire dampers incorrectly at the world\u2019s largest retail store.<\/p>\n

Mace<\/a> was hired by Primark to deliver shell, core and fit-out at its Guinness World Record-holding mega-store<\/a> on Birmingham\u2019s High Street in 2017.<\/p>\n

The contractor employed Mitie as a subcontractor to install and commission the mechanical and ventilation systems at the store.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

However, in court documents seen by Construction News<\/em>, Mace alleges there are problems with the 132 dampers \u2500 valves that prevent the spread of fire and smoke through ducts \u2500 outlined in the contract issue drawings it gave to Mitie.<\/p>\n

It argues Mitie failed to install the dampers in accordance with industry standards and building regulations, or with reasonable skill and care, and claims Mitie undertook liability for reasonable costs of repair, renewal or reinstatement of the dampers through a collateral warranty.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Alleged problems include missing dampers, incorrect fixing joints, dampers not tested in the right direction, and all 62 dampers on protected escape routes not being smoke rated (see box, below, for summary of issues).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mace also says Mitie \u201cfailed to provide the required operation and maintenance (O&M) documentation concerning the fire dampers\u201d, with no schedule of the types of fire dampers used or as-built drawings of where they were located or should be accessed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMitie\u2019s O&M documentation only referred to one of the three types of damper used on the project. This was the least used damper in the building, with only four of those dampers having been identified on site,\u201d Mace says.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The claimant says fire dampers at the flagship Primark store will now need \u201cwholesale remedial works\u201d ,which will need to be programmed around the store\u2019s \u201coperational restrictions\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mace says the cost of remedial works to fire dampers will be \u201cin the region of \u00a34m\u201d but added that a detailed price is not yet possible as the works are not yet fully specified.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It said Mitie also owes it around \u00a3110,000 for the cost of surveying the fire dampers, a further \u00a31m\u00a0 <\/span>in wasted management time as well as any reimbursement to Primark should store closure be required to carry out the works.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mitie has yet to file a defence against the claim.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Mace said there have been \u201cother issues that have been in dispute between the parties\u201d relating to Mitie\u2019s work at the site, but said its claim is solely about fire dampers and ductwork, and does not seek to amend an adjudication decision from May relating to smoke extract systems.<\/p>\n

\n

In full: Mace\u2019s claims about the 132 dampers specified on contract drawings<\/h3>\n