After a customer’s dog threw up over new engineered wood flooring, things
quickly spiralled out of control. Richard Renouf has the story…

‘THEY’RE threatening to take us to the cleaners!’ I couldn’t help but smile – the caller was the administrator from a cleaning and refurbishment company, so she was ‘the cleaners’!

The company had undertaken the restoration (as they referred to it) of an engineered wood floor. It only had a three millimetre surface veneer and so the work had required great care to avoid sanding through to the lower layers.

A new lacquer had been applied and the floor looked as good as new. The customer was not only delighted with the work, but having it completed in time for Christmas was an added bonus.

It seems the customer’s dog wasn’t so happy. A couple of months later it threw up over the flooring. The customer hastily cleaned up and rushed the dog to the vet for a check-up, leaving the mop propped against the kitchen worktop with the wet mop head directly on the flooring.

When the panic subsided and the mop was moved, the flooring was blackened and marked. The happy customer turned into an angry one, intent on getting a new floor from the company, and supported by their partner who was determined to ‘get justice’.

In the ensuing weeks the flooring was inspected by the company’s chief technician and someone from the technical department of the lacquer manufacturer.

There were actually several marks, including one that had corresponding drip marks down the wall and the staining was ingressing from the concealed ends of the boards, so were clearly unrelated. Where the mop had been standing coincided with joints in the flooring, an area where moisture ingress is likely no matter how well finished the individual boards are.

None of the marks could be removed using proprietary cleaners.

So now it was my turn. I visited the customer’s home to inspect the flooring and to ask some more questions. There were two that were answered vaguely, and where one partner contradicted the other: ‘How long was the mop left on the flooring?’ and ‘What was being used to clean and mop the contamination?’

The answers were vague. It seemed likely the cleaning materials had been researched online and could have been vinegar, bleach, or pretty much anything else. The mop had been left on the floor for at least the time it took to take the dog to the vet and back for the check-up, but it could have been overnight or even longer. It wasn’t long before one of the pair left so I was only talking with the more assertive one who was now able to make bold statements without fear of eing undermined.

When I spoke to the refurbishers after my visit I reminded them of several things that had become obscured during the dispute. Firstly, the original floor was not new and was in need of refinishing. Therefore the customer was in the same position they had been in when they agreed to have work done. The suggestion that the customer was entitled to a brand new floor was absurd and would not be supported if this was claimed in the courts. The most the customer was likely to receive was a refund of the refurbishment cost, and that only if the claim was successful.

Secondly, the issue arose from an incident that would be covered by household insurance and so the customer had a ‘get out’ when the retailer stood their ground.

Thirdly, the marked areas were not the areas which had originally been contaminated but were where the mop had been left standing or water had dripped down the walls. It would be hard for the customer to suggest the finish was faulty when it had withstood the vomit and come up fresh and new in this area.

Finally I pointed out that it was not necessary for them to prove what the cause of the marks was. The evidence clearly showed the work had been done to a high standard and was successful, and the only marks were due to the customer’s negligence and the onus would be on the consumer if they decided to pursue a claim.
www.richard-renouf.com
Richard Renouf is an independent