It’s better to take the time before specifying to ensure the job is right, says Richard Renouf. It only needs one unforeseen issue to escalate costs and take away more than just the profit from a contract.

THREE years ago, a company of flooring contractors agreed to supply some surface stripper and dressing as a ‘gesture of goodwill’ to settle a client’s complaint. Now they’ve suggested their offer was in full and final settlement and therefore the client cannot raise a more serious complaint now.

Before we consider the legal issues, let me tell you more about the flooring. It was a well-known brand of LVT, but the budget variant that seems to be available to anyone, especially the new-build sector.

The flooring was laid on two levels, the upper floor being timber-based panels that were overlaid with plywood and the lower floor being a screed, but with ceramic floor tiles. The ceramic tiles weren’t taken up but simply skimmed over with primer and smoothing compound – at least, I found evidence of primer in some rooms but not all.

The original complaint included a small number of lifting tiles and some surface damage.

The resolution appeared to have been adequate for three years when the contractor received an email from the consumer that the tiles were lifting in lots of areas. The contractor replied firmly that the matter had been settled and therefore was closed.

During my inspection, at the client’s cost, I did the usual (for me) tests for moisture using a variety of moisture meters and all of them showed beyond doubt that the subfloor on the ground floor was not adequately dry and I found softened adhesive, lifting tiles and even issues with the ceramic tiles and grout underneath the flooring.

I also found the plywood on the first floor had not been fixed correctly and with the high moisture levels in the property at the time of the build, the plywood had moved causing the feather finish to crack and the boards to warp and form areas which ‘popped’ and creaked underfoot.

The contractor maintained that the matter was closed and that it was unreasonable to raise issues so long after fitting. The client is pursuing a claim on the basis that what was settled was not the issue that is now present.

Another contractor installed sheet vinyl into the common areas and stairs of three blocks in a housing association. These had been built on the site of a former school but were new. Towards the end of a year after handover, a snagging list was prepared by the housing association and it included serious bubbling and unevenness in the vinyl flooring.

The moisture levels underneath the vinyl were very high and when I lifted the vinyl in an out-of-the-way corner the smoothing compound had completely blown and was crumbling. This explained the crunchy noise emanating underfoot when walking around the properties.

The contract specified the one-year period for any and all defects to be notified, so in this case the contractor knew that action had to be taken.

In a commercial contract the contract terms can put a time limit on complaints. Both parties are considered to be ‘trading in the course of their business’ and so should be aware of the contract terms and the possibility of issues arising during the lifetime of the flooring. This, however, is not the case when a business contracts with a ‘consumer’ – a person who is not contracting as a business and so is covered by the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. In such a contract, actions can be brought up to six years after the contract is fulfilled and sometimes, for example when there is a product guarantee, for an even longer period.

I’m visiting a site next week where no flooring has been installed as yet. It is an old factory unit with a hardwood floor set on joists inset into a concrete screed. The flooring clears the screed by no more than 10 mm and as the area is more than 1500 square metres, there is not adequate ventilation in the airspace and so I believe any impervious flooring will lead to increased moisture levels in the wood and, as a result, unwelcome movement and possibly decay in the floorboards.
A helpful supplier has agreed to provide two sample areas of the proposed flooring, each 20sq m in size and I’ll be doing a ‘before’ moisture check and then, after a month or so, an ‘after’ to see if my predictions are correct.

The outcome will be one of three options: Go ahead, go ahead but at the client’s risk, or don’t go ahead (which would leave the client the only option of sanding and polishing the floorboards – this has been done in another area, and they look great, but the client wants a soft floor to reduce noise).

It’s better to take the time before specifying to ensure the job is right. It only needs one unforeseen issue to escalate costs and take away more than just the profit from a contract.
www.richard-renouf.com
Richard Renouf is an independent flooring consultant