SCS advice

ItsMyJob

Last June we purchased laminate flooring for our kitchen, hall, toilet and living room from SCS. SCS also gave us the phone number of a fitter and a price to fit the laminate. These fitters are self employed but SCS told us we should use them for this job. Fast forward a few months and the laminate has started lifting at the joints, two boards have pretty much come apart and various other issues with it.

We reported these issues to SCS and they immediately blamed a manufacturing fault and sent out one of their inspectors. He was at the house for maybe five minutes before he turned around, blamed the manufacturer and said SCS are not at fault and that will be the last we hear off them. 

The next day we received an email off the manufacturer explaining that SCS has past the matter onto them because it was a manufacturer issue and so they needed to send out an independent Investigator to see the issue for himself.

Low and behold the Investigator found a lot of problems with the fitting. I've included the report below.

"On inspection I was shown a lounge, kitchen / diner, w/c and hallway floors. The customer is complaining of the flooring showing a springing 

floor, proud edges, lifting joints and joint shear in various areas of the installation, there are some reports of crackling in places too. The flooring is reported as getting worse with time. 

All of the problems pointed out by the customer were not present from day one, this makes it unlikely that the problems are the result of a production fault with the machining of the joints as these would have been likely have been spotted from day one by the installer, or reported by 

the customer soon after installation. The customer reports the problems appearing after around the first 7-10 days of use, since then the flooring 

has continued to deteriorate, this strongly suggests local conditions may be a factor. 

Much of the damage is consistent with compression type damage to the flooring. The peeking joints, springing and localised proud edges are all entirely consistent with restrictions to the perimeter of this floating floor system as found. 

After a brief check around this installation I found the flooring touching the perimeter in many areas as shown in the photos below, I found the 

flooring tight up to the skirting boards behind the beading in several key areas. There is clear evidence of excessive pressure and tension in the flooring from the restrictions found as the flooring is springing at the joints excessively in some areas, this has caused some limited joint shear 

and lifting joints as a result. 

The sub-floor level in places could be presenting a problem in some areas especially in the kitchen area where the flooring has sheared along at least two planks (4mm). this is clearly outside tolerance for flatness as set-out by the manufacturer’s instructions for laying the laminate flooring, this should have been highlighted by the installer and appropriate measures offer / taken to resolve these particular problems before 

continuing to lay the flooring, this unevenness is contributing to the problems found in this case and will require remedial work to resolve. 

An EMC check was carried out, this is recorded above, the flooring falls well within expectation of this test regarding RH% of the room against 

MC% of the flooring, this therefore concludes that the flooring is within its normal range, therefore the expansion gaps fitted should equally be within their normal expectation however, the flooring is restricted and tight in many key areas, this installation is not large enough to expect the flooring to fill the required expansion gaps even though some doorways do not have expansion breaks, this therefore suggests that insufficient expansion allowance was left from the outset. The doorplate between the hallway and kitchen area appear bonded to the flooring which will 

result in this plate offering no expansion allowance across any of the downstairs area as a result. The flooring was found touching the skirting boards behind the beading in several areas and at doorframes, some of the skirting boards are been twisted from the stress of this flooring pushing against them. 

This claim has arisen as a result of insufficient expansion gaps at the perimeter of this installation and an uneven sub-floor.

There is very little rectification work possible with this installation, the compression damage will cause damage to many / most parts of this installation. I would 

recommend this installation be replaced rather than repaired. This is not the result of a production fault with the flooring.

That is the report in full. We were advised to give SCS two weeks from his visit before asking for a copy of his report. They stalled, stalled and stalled some more until we threatened legal action because they have no right to withhold this report from us.

Their initial email back to us regarding this report reads as below

Good afternoon,

 Following the recent inspection by the manufacturer of your laminate flooring, we have now received and reviewed the report and its findings and advise the following.

The report confirms there are no manufacturing defects. We regret any disappointment you feel, but given the information contained in the report, we are unfortunately not pursue this any further. Please see below from the inspectors report, this indicates that the issues raised are of no fault of the manufactures.

 ‘Please see the attached inspection report from the independent inspector for ?.

Based on this report we do not feel the problems with this floor are due to a manufacturing fault, the inspector has confirmed the floor is suffering from restricted expansion and an uneven sub floor.

This has caused compression damage to a large percentage of the boards.

In view of the above I regret we have to reject this claim.’

 We are disputing this because we have had laminate throughout the house for years with zero problems. 

SCS just yesterday arranged for the fitter to remove and replace two laminate boards that have sheered along their joints. We refused this because as the report states this will not fix the problem. We have also lost our 10 year warranty on the laminate because the bad fitting has damaged it.

SCS are saying our claim is against the fitter alon. They supplied his name, number and the price when we paid for the laminate so surely they are liable as they told us who to use.

Sorry for the long drawn out post but I'm trying to include as much information as possible. Has anyone been in this position before and are we right in saying SCS are culpable?

MattMattMattUK

ItsMyJob said:

Last June we purchased laminate flooring for our kitchen, hall, toilet and living room from SCS. SCS also gave us the phone number of a fitter and a price to fit the laminate. These fitters are self employed but SCS told us we should use them for this job. Fast forward a few months and the laminate has started lifting at the joints, two boards have pretty much come apart and various other issues with it.

We reported these issues to SCS and they immediately blamed a manufacturing fault and sent out one of their inspectors. He was at the house for maybe five minutes before he turned around, blamed the manufacturer and said SCS are not at fault and that will be the last we hear off them. 

The next day we received an email off the manufacturer explaining that SCS has past the matter onto them because it was a manufacturer issue and so they needed to send out an independent Investigator to see the issue for himself.

Low and behold the Investigator found a lot of problems with the fitting. I've included the report below.

"On inspection I was shown a lounge, kitchen / diner, w/c and hallway floors. The customer is complaining of the flooring showing a springing 

floor, proud edges, lifting joints and joint shear in various areas of the installation, there are some reports of crackling in places too. The flooring is reported as getting worse with time. 

All of the problems pointed out by the customer were not present from day one, this makes it unlikely that the problems are the result of a production fault with the machining of the joints as these would have been likely have been spotted from day one by the installer, or reported by 

the customer soon after installation. The customer reports the problems appearing after around the first 7-10 days of use, since then the flooring 

has continued to deteriorate, this strongly suggests local conditions may be a factor. 

Much of the damage is consistent with compression type damage to the flooring. The peeking joints, springing and localised proud edges are all entirely consistent with restrictions to the perimeter of this floating floor system as found. 

After a brief check around this installation I found the flooring touching the perimeter in many areas as shown in the photos below, I found the 

flooring tight up to the skirting boards behind the beading in several key areas. There is clear evidence of excessive pressure and tension in the flooring from the restrictions found as the flooring is springing at the joints excessively in some areas, this has caused some limited joint shear 

and lifting joints as a result. 

The sub-floor level in places could be presenting a problem in some areas especially in the kitchen area where the flooring has sheared along at least two planks (4mm). this is clearly outside tolerance for flatness as set-out by the manufacturer’s instructions for laying the laminate flooring, this should have been highlighted by the installer and appropriate measures offer / taken to resolve these particular problems before 

continuing to lay the flooring, this unevenness is contributing to the problems found in this case and will require remedial work to resolve. 

An EMC check was carried out, this is recorded above, the flooring falls well within expectation of this test regarding RH% of the room against 

MC% of the flooring, this therefore concludes that the flooring is within its normal range, therefore the expansion gaps fitted should equally be within their normal expectation however, the flooring is restricted and tight in many key areas, this installation is not large enough to expect the flooring to fill the required expansion gaps even though some doorways do not have expansion breaks, this therefore suggests that insufficient expansion allowance was left from the outset. The doorplate between the hallway and kitchen area appear bonded to the flooring which will 

result in this plate offering no expansion allowance across any of the downstairs area as a result. The flooring was found touching the skirting boards behind the beading in several areas and at doorframes, some of the skirting boards are been twisted from the stress of this flooring pushing against them. 

This claim has arisen as a result of insufficient expansion gaps at the perimeter of this installation and an uneven sub-floor.

There is very little rectification work possible with this installation, the compression damage will cause damage to many / most parts of this installation. I would 

recommend this installation be replaced rather than repaired. This is not the result of a production fault with the flooring.

That is the report in full. We were advised to give SCS two weeks from his visit before asking for a copy of his report. They stalled, stalled and stalled some more until we threatened legal action because they have no right to withhold this report from us.

Their initial email back to us regarding this report reads as below

Good afternoon,

 Following the recent inspection by the manufacturer of your laminate flooring, we have now received and reviewed the report and its findings and advise the following.

The report confirms there are no manufacturing defects. We regret any disappointment you feel, but given the information contained in the report, we are unfortunately not pursue this any further. Please see below from the inspectors report, this indicates that the issues raised are of no fault of the manufactures.

 ‘Please see the attached inspection report from the independent inspector for ?.

Based on this report we do not feel the problems with this floor are due to a manufacturing fault, the inspector has confirmed the floor is suffering from restricted expansion and an uneven sub floor.

This has caused compression damage to a large percentage of the boards.

In view of the above I regret we have to reject this claim.’

 We are disputing this because we have had laminate throughout the house for years with zero problems. 

SCS just yesterday arranged for the fitter to remove and replace two laminate boards that have sheered along their joints. We refused this because as the report states this will not fix the problem. We have also lost our 10 year warranty on the laminate because the bad fitting has damaged it.

SCS are saying our claim is against the fitter alon. They supplied his name, number and the price when we paid for the laminate so surely they are liable as they told us who to use.

Sorry for the long drawn out post but I'm trying to include as much information as possible. Has anyone been in this position before and are we right in saying SCS are culpable?

Who was your contract with for the fitting, who did you pay and how did you pay them? SCS having suggested who you use as a fitter does not make them liable.

Aylesbury_Duck

Sounds like your complaint is with the fitter if you paid them separately, although I have a vague memory of a kitchen problem where it was felt that the retailer held some responsibility because they recommended and steered the customer to a specific fitter.  Something about the fitter being an agent of the retailer, perhaps? Maybe someone else will have a view on that. 

mattyprice4004

Yep, this is a fitting issue - there should be an 8-10mm perimeter gap (and any doorway should have this split too) to allow expansion. 
I've just been through this fitting my own laminate, and at every phase of the install it was made crystal clear that this gap is NOT optional and needs to be there. 

ItsMyJob

I just wanted to update this post very quickly. SCS have been found culpable for the fitting of the laminate. They provided us with the fitters name, number and a quote for the work.

This meant that they had entered a verbal contract with us and we are now in the process of recoving our money.

This is just a heads-up for anyone else who is or might find themselves in the same position. It took us a long time to resolve but we got there in the end.

JJ_Egan

What route are you using to recover money and who found SCS culpable.

ItsMyJob

JJ_Egan said:

What route are you using to recover money and who found SCS culpable.

We spoke to a solicitor who helped us draft a letter and escalated the problem to their head office due to being ignored by the store we went to. We also had citizens advice involved 

ItsMyJob

Just to add that in the letter we had ser them a date we expected this matter resolved to our satisfaction. If it wasn't we would proceed with a small claims application to recover our money.

jweb2k

Sounds like you've paid and received solicitor's above, and have sent a letter based on that?
If that's the stage you're at, you may find SCS Head Office and their legal team have a different view.