Failed Adhesive, where do i stand?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

 

 

Thanks for the advice and taking time out to explain in detail.....This is why I love this forum!

 

I have spoken to Citizens advice who have opened a case themselves and also with Trading Standards.

 

They advised that whether its a private or trade sale, the fact that the item is 'not fit for purpose', there is a claim to be made as a consumer. They went on to explain that the failure of adhesion has lead to "consequential loss" which is also a legal claim under the Consumer act. They also believe that in offering a refund and to send me 7 new tubs of adhesive (I have this in writing) is as good as admission of fault.

 

They helped me word an initial letter which I have sent and now is a waiting game.

 

Could you please post a copy of that letter, edited to remove any personal details and those of the sales outlet.

[timps]

 

 

Thanks for the advice and taking time out to explain in detail.....This is why I love this forum!

 

I have spoken to Citizens advice who have opened a case themselves and also with Trading Standards.

 

They advised that whether its a private or trade sale, the fact that the item is 'not fit for purpose', there is a claim to be made as a consumer. They went on to explain that the failure of adhesion has lead to "consequential loss" which is also a legal claim under the Consumer act. They also believe that in offering a refund and to send me 7 new tubs of adhesive (I have this in writing) is as good as admission of fault.

 

They helped me word an initial letter which I have sent and now is a waiting game.

Does the letter offering a refund have ‘without prejudice’ written on it?

 

Even if it doesn’t if it’s a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute it can be interpreted as being without prejudice regardless. It is basically to stop any attempt to settle before court proceedings being used against the parties involved so there is an actual chance of settlement before proceedings begin.

 

Therefore, it doesn’t really matter if they have put it at the top of letter or verbally given it because the court will work out what was really going on and ignore the presence or absence of the without prejudice term as appropriate. My opinion would be that it’s a genuine attempt to settle not an admission of guilt, although that’s free internet advice and worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

It does however, give an indication that they want to settle rather than tell you to go away it’s not our fault which means keep pushing they probably know it was out of date and will offer something to settle rather than fight.

 

Remember it's a big game of poker, keep writing, keep pushing, but be prepared to settle for less if you don't want to go all the way to court.

[Remimax]

The walls had a mist coat on them to seal them. On the "preparation" details on the tub the instructions mentioned using a sealer on porous surfaces.

 

Can I also add that I've had cornice fitted in 7 properties, its been fitted on fresh plaster, plaster sealed with Unibond, plaster sealed with a mist coat, over painted walls and even over tiles, I have never seen an adhesive fail to bond as long as the surface was prepared appropriately.

what does a" mist coat" entail ?

[digger]

Watered down paint used to seal bare plaster.

[Cosd]

Offer up the batch codes to the manufacturer and get the manufacturer to confirm when those products were created and what their shelf life is (in writing).

 

.

That's one of my points.

When I called Evo Stick they asked for the batch number. They explained it's either like etched on the lid or on a sticker; all 7 runs have neither. So there is no batch number. They als said these adhesives have a 2 year shelf life.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Cosd

[Mungler]

That's one of my points.

When I called Evo Stick they asked for the batch number. They explained it's either like etched on the lid or on a sticker; all 7 runs have neither. So there is no batch number. They als said these adhesives have a 2 year shelf life.

 

Send them photos of all aspects of the tubs.

 

Say they were covered in dust.

 

If you have it in writing from them that essentially says the product may fail and isn't recommended for sale after +2 years from manufacture then the next bit you want in writing from them is that those tubs are +2 years from manufacture.

 

If they can't tell you from the photos then the next step will be to ask them how their distribution works and if they can tell when that branch was last supplied with that product and in what quantities.

[Cosd]

Send them photos of all aspects of the tubs.

 

Say they were covered in dust.

 

If you have it in writing from them that essentially says the product may fail and isn't recommended for sale after +2 years from manufacture then the next bit you want in writing from them is that those tubs are +2 years from manufacture.

 

If they can't tell you from the photos then the next step will be to ask them how their distribution works and if they can tell when that branch was last supplied with that product and in what quantities.

This is one of the tubs with the dust as it was when I bought them. Water marks are mine

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by Cosd

[panoma1]

That's one of my points.

When I called Evo Stick they asked for the batch number. They explained it's either like etched on the lid or on a sticker; all 7 runs have neither. So there is no batch number. They als said these adhesives have a 2 year shelf life.

One or two with batch numbers missing is questionable........all seven missing is deliberate!.........

[sportsbob]

Are the etched batch numbers under the dust?

[Mungler]

That looks like an old product line - the new tubs are blue?

 

http://www.supremeplumb.com/cgi-bin/DMdatabase.cgi?action=/Shop/STX_Products/Decorating_Adhesives_And_Sealants_Adhesives.txt&item=00065

 

Ask Evo stick when they changed tub colouring.

 

I bet that is super old stock. Maybe they didn't introduce batch numbers until more recently?

 

The data sheet is here and says 2 years shelf life http://www.bostik.co.uk/diy/product/evo-stik/Coving-Ceiling-Tile-Adhesive/47/technicalData

 

The plot thickens....

.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Mungler

[sportsbob]

I googled how to fix plaster cornice and non of the expert opinions I read said to use such an adhesive, most of them said to use artex or plaster and the instructions for the product used say "8. Heavy mouldings made of plaster bonded to a ceiling (eg ceiling roses) should also be mechanically fixed as their weight may be too great for the ceiling to hold." so a possible grey area regarding the suitability of the product used.

[Cosd]

Are the etched batch numbers under the dust?

 

Evo Stick confirmed they use one of two batch numbering methods, etched on lid or printed stickers, these have neither

I googled how to fix plaster cornice and non of the expert opinions I read said to use such an adhesive, most of them said to use artex or plaster and the instructions for the product used say "8. Heavy mouldings made of plaster bonded to a ceiling (eg ceiling roses) should also be mechanically fixed as their weight may be too great for the ceiling to hold." so a possible grey area regarding the suitability of the product used.

 

The plaster cornice came from an established company, and they advised what to use, ie a branded ready mix plaster adhesive. the mechanical fixing is screws into the ceiling and batons until the adhesive sets. Screws can be left in but once the adhesive is cured it's the adhesive which holds them in place, the screws are just to hold whilst they cure. No need to remove ceiling screws once cured.

 

Mine are mechanically fixed also.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Cosd

[sportsbob]

The lid in the photo is covered in sufficient dust to cover an etched batch code

[Cosd]

The lid in the photo is covered in sufficient dust to cover an etched batch code

 

3 of the tubs and lids were in the skip, these have been washed down and checked, there are no batch numbers.

I'm reluctant to wash the rest down to check until I provide them with the evidence so to speak.

[Cosd]

That looks like an old product line - the new tubs are blue?

 

http://www.supremeplumb.com/cgi-bin/DMdatabase.cgi?action=/Shop/STX_Products/Decorating_Adhesives_And_Sealants_Adhesives.txt&item=00065

 

Ask Evo stick when they changed tub colouring.

 

I bet that is super old stock. Maybe they didn't introduce batch numbers until more recently?

 

The data sheet is here and says 2 years shelf life http://www.bostik.co.uk/diy/product/evo-stik/Coving-Ceiling-Tile-Adhesive/47/technicalData

 

The plot thickens....

.

 

 

the plot certainly does thicken.

 

I just called Evo Stick again asking if this particular adhesive is still being made, and their technical department confirmed it is current.

I went on to ask about the batch ID so i can check the age of a tub, and he advised its a dot matrix inscribe on the lid. i explained it wasn't there and that his colleague told me there was also a sticky label system as well.

This guy explained that the sticky labels were stopped some years ago. I asked if he could tell me when they were stopped but he didn't have that at hand, but reiterated that it would have been a number of years ago, certainly more than two.

He asked that I send an email and they would come back to me with dates but they would need to check on a different system to that what he used.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

That looks like an old product line - the new tubs are blue?

 

http://www.supremeplumb.com/cgi-bin/DMdatabase.cgi?action=/Shop/STX_Products/Decorating_Adhesives_And_Sealants_Adhesives.txt&item=00065

 

Ask Evo stick when they changed tub colouring.

 

I bet that is super old stock. Maybe they didn't introduce batch numbers until more recently?

 

The data sheet is here and says 2 years shelf life http://www.bostik.co.uk/diy/product/evo-stik/Coving-Ceiling-Tile-Adhesive/47/technicalData

 

The plot thickens....

.

 

 

Shame the adhesive didn't!

[sportsbob]

I know this could seem I am being obstructive but I am trying to prepare you for what you might come across as things develope .You may need to demonstrate the goods "do not conform to contract" in so much as they "are not of merchantable quality" and to do this you will need evidence to say the product was out of date or it was the correct product for the job, the cornice supplier`s generic recommendation is not sufficient.

 

I believe that "not fit for purpose" to be a weak and flawed approach as the purpose is clearly defined on the instructions as suitable for polystyrene and paper covered ceiling tiles and roses with a small mention regarding plaster coving saying you may also need to use additional fixings.

 

Hope you get my drift here.

Edited March 2, 2017 by sportsbob

[Cosd]

I know this could seem I am being obstructive but I am trying to prepare you for what you might come across as things develope .You may need to demonstrate the goods "do not conform to contract" in so much as they "are not of merchantable quality" and to do this you will need evidence to say the product was out of date or it was the correct product for the job, the cornice supplier`s generic recommendation is not sufficient.

 

I believe that "not fit for purpose" to be a weak and flawed approach as the purpose is clearly defined on the instructions as suitable for polystyrene and paper covered ceiling tiles and roses with a small mention regarding plaster coving saying you may also need to use additional fixings.

 

Hope you get my drift here.

 

Polystyrene mention is actually for "polystyrene tiles", plus in the technical download there is a section in the installation guide specifically for "heavy mouldings made of plaster".

 

Anyway, I don't doubt they will try whatever they can to wriggle out of it. Like I said, I'm not an expert but I'm not new on having coving fitted; This is an adhesive failure for certain, whether they accept it is another matter.

[Remimax]

think you'll have a hard time winning this one as i can see em coming back with failure to bond due to the" surface prep."

priming is out of there control.

i always thought priming for this type of job would require PVA or SBR.

hope you get a result as selling old stock is out of order.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Remimax

[sportsbob]

That`s what I think, old stock is the best one as it would be hard to argue that is was of "merchatable quality" if it were out of date but I also suspect the best that can be expected is product replaced and that I would almost consider as discretionary. As there is no etched date then it is fair to assume the sticker system should be in use and as the sticker system was phased out over two years ago then the removing of the sticker is irrelevant because it must be out of date.

Edited March 2, 2017 by sportsbob

[timps]

The caveat is proof but if it can be proved that the stock as supplied was past its shelf date then they are liable. If the manufacturer will not guarantee the product will work as it should after 2 years, then the product is of no use to anyone. Absolutely no discretion at all they have sold a faulty product and as such are liable. It matters not what the final use was it wouldn’t work for the use it was sold therefore they owe for the product to be replaced. If the product was also used for the purpose it was designed, then they are also liable for the damage it has caused.

 

Was it used for the purpose it was designed is a valid argument however they state in their technical literature.

 

Uses
• For paper wrapped and polystyrene coving.
• For polystyrene tiles.
• For plaster, and decorative plaster mouldings eg.
ceiling roses

 

Decorative Plaster mouldings cover plaster cornice so trying to argue that it should not be used in this case is not going to be a very strong legal argument at all.

 

Workmanship again as I stated before is a valid argument, however taking the technical literature

 

8. Heavy mouldings made of plaster bonded to a ceiling
(eg ceiling roses) should also be mechanically fixed as
their weight may be too great for the ceiling to hold.

 

The issues with the above are:-

1) they haven’t specified ‘Heavy’ are the covings in question heavy or not and how would the contractor know what ‘heavy’ is.

2) the word ‘should’ is used not ‘must’ there is a legal difference and the number and type of fixings isn’t listed, is one screw enough?

3) the potential failure implied is that the ceiling may fail not that the bond will fail.

If the screws are to solely hold the coving in place why bother using the adhesive the adhesive must provide some purpose?

 

If this was in date, then the supplier would contact the manufacturer who then would send a technical expert on their behalf (area sales rep who drew the short straw) he/she would produce a report that would blame everything but the product. As I said earlier this becomes a technical battle that can be won or lost and I have been involved in many to know the outcome is never certain so settling before court is always the best option if you can.

 

In this case the product was used for the purpose described in the technical literature and was supplied faulty. For the expert to argue no liability exists they would have to say that the shelf life did not play any part in the failure whatsoever, that is a tall order and the manufacturer is never going to go on record to say otherwise due to their own future liability.

 

Arguing that some other factor is the sole cause of failure when the product is out of date is not a strong argument so puts them in the mindset to offer some sort of settlement or contribution. The product was never guaranteed to work even if done properly due to the shelf life this means some degree of liability.

 

I have won a case just recently where a levelling compound manufacturer paid for all technical costs and replacement of the total floor due to a faulty product. As I have been involved in numerous cases like this I do know liability exists on faulty trade products if you can make the case.

The hardest part is proving the product is faulty, in this case its easy if it can be proved it’s beyond the shelf life.

There are no guarantees of success but if you can prove out of date then you have a big stick to help.

 

 

 

 

[Cosd]

The caveat is proof but if it can be proved that the stock as supplied was past its shelf date then they are liable. If the manufacturer will not guarantee the product will work as it should after 2 years, then the product is of no use to anyone. Absolutely no discretion at all they have sold a faulty product and as such are liable. It matters not what the final use was it wouldnt work for the use it was sold therefore they owe for the product to be replaced. If the product was also used for the purpose it was designed, then they are also liable for the damage it has caused.

 

Was it used for the purpose it was designed is a valid argument however they state in their technical literature.

 

Uses

For paper wrapped and polystyrene coving.

For polystyrene tiles.

For plaster, and decorative plaster mouldings eg.

ceiling roses

 

Decorative Plaster mouldings cover plaster cornice so trying to argue that it should not be used in this case is not going to be a very strong legal argument at all.

 

Workmanship again as I stated before is a valid argument, however taking the technical literature

 

8. Heavy mouldings made of plaster bonded to a ceiling

(eg ceiling roses) should also be mechanically fixed as

their weight may be too great for the ceiling to hold.

 

The issues with the above are:-

1) they havent specified Heavy are the covings in question heavy or not and how would the contractor know what heavy is.

2) the word should is used not must there is a legal difference and the number and type of fixings isnt listed, is one screw enough?

3) the potential failure implied is that the ceiling may fail not that the bond will fail.

If the screws are to solely hold the coving in place why bother using the adhesive the adhesive must provide some purpose?

 

If this was in date, then the supplier would contact the manufacturer who then would send a technical expert on their behalf (area sales rep who drew the short straw) he/she would produce a report that would blame everything but the product. As I said earlier this becomes a technical battle that can be won or lost and I have been involved in many to know the outcome is never certain so settling before court is always the best option if you can.

 

In this case the product was used for the purpose described in the technical literature and was supplied faulty. For the expert to argue no liability exists they would have to say that the shelf life did not play any part in the failure whatsoever, that is a tall order and the manufacturer is never going to go on record to say otherwise due to their own future liability.

 

Arguing that some other factor is the sole cause of failure when the product is out of date is not a strong argument so puts them in the mindset to offer some sort of settlement or contribution. The product was never guaranteed to work even if done properly due to the shelf life this means some degree of liability.

 

I have won a case just recently where a levelling compound manufacturer paid for all technical costs and replacement of the total floor due to a faulty product. As I have been involved in numerous cases like this I do know liability exists on faulty trade products if you can make the case.

The hardest part is proving the product is faulty, in this case its easy if it can be proved its beyond the shelf life.

There are no guarantees of success but if you can prove out of date then you have a big stick to help.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for this, some very useful information.

Selco sent me an email yesterday forwarding an email from Evo Stick with a load of questions around method, wall conditions, room temperature, photos and samples of the adhesive.

 

I've gone through their technical instructions and their website and the method used here is by the book so to speak.

 

They have avoided replying anything about the age of the products sold to me, so I'm just going to have to wait till Monday to speak with Citizens advice on how to respond again, whether to answer all their questions again or to reiterate my question around the age of the products sold. It seems from what you have written that this could all hinge on the product proven as out of date.

 

I still haven't had a response from ES regards when they stopped using Printed sticky labels.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Cosd

[vampire]

I have won a case just recently where a levelling compound manufacturer paid for all technical costs and replacement of the total floor due to a faulty product. As I have been involved in numerous cases like this I do know liability exists on faulty trade products if you can make the case.

 

The hardest part is proving the product is faulty, in this case its easy if it can be proved it’s beyond the shelf life.

There are no guarantees of success but if you can prove out of date then you have a big stick to help.

 

The above post is part of Timps last post.

 

I have just had a visit to site from a levelling compound company after a deep base compound still stinks like drains after being laid for 5 weeks,they have agreed to supply a 2 part epoxy to seal it.

Edited March 4, 2017 by vampire