Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:07 pm
by ehfer
Have any other contractors had issues with Marshalls Coach House paving slabs (specifically 'Heathland' colour)? Client liked the sample (grey-green), but now, when wet, they are a shiny pale grey with odd buff highlights (fine when dry). Is it something to do with the advertised 'Teflon coating', I wonder?
I've taken this up with Marshalls, but they are stonewalling. Are they usually so uncooperative?
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:35 am
by Tony McC
Have you got any photies we could look at?
To be fair to Marshalls, they are usually pretty good at dealing with product issues. Have you approached them as a customer, as a regular contractor or one of the blesséd Register contractors?
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:58 pm
by ehfer
Yes, I have taken and sent several to Marshalls. They just ask for more. I'll have to get one of my children to post/attach them on here for me!
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:31 am
by Tony McC
Or you can email themn to me and I'll glue them to the board
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:52 pm
by Tony McC
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:32 pm
by lutonlagerlout
looks a tidy job
is it efflorescence?
have they been sealed? the water seems to be beading on them?
LLL
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:28 pm
by ehfer
It's not efflorescence; they are apparently supplied 'Teflon coated', which I suspect may be the problem. The top and centre photos (of unlaid slabs) shows the difference between the dry/uncoated underneath and the wet/coated top surface.
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:28 am
by Tony McC
It's difficult to judge using photies. It's one of those issues where you really do need to see the flags at first hand to get a true sense of how the coating is affecting the appearance.
From what I can see in the photies provided, there's nothing all that unusual. The coating prevents the natural colour showing in the damp, but I can understand the manufacturer arguing that such an effect is intended and is part of the alleged 'appeal', whereas some folk would find it plasticky and unnatural.
It would be hard to counter the manufacturer's case. Clients, and contractors, are assumed to have familiarised themselves with the appearance of a paving product *in all weather conditions* prior to purchase and/or installation. This may seem harsh, but it is only fair: we shouldn't expect manufacturers, distributors, or even contractors, to accept liability just because the end user decides it's not turned out quite as they'd imagined. Obviously, if there are problems with poor installation or poor product resulting in an undesirable appearance, that's a different matter, but you have to be able to show that the appearance which is the subject of the complaint is radically different to that shown in promotional and advertising materials.
From those photies above, it's very had to make such a claim, I'm afraid. I have half a suspicion that the coating is a bit more 'generous' than usual, but that's not to say that such generosity is inherently a problem.
