-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Posts posted by DESAMAX
-
-
22 hours ago, DESAMAX said:
Sorry for the confusion, I have added time and date trail, Im waiting on contractors who fitted the floor to put us in touch with flooring inspector.
An update to where we are at....
Thu 25/07/2019 15:47
Hello Desamax
Please find attached a copy of the Independent Inspection report.
As you will see from the report, the inspection has confirmed that this issue is not a manufacturing fault with the flooring.
Please let me explain that during the manufacturing process, this wood is essentially cooked in a large oven for 28 days to cure the wood.
During this process, any traces of woodworm would be removed.
It would not be possible for any of our products to enter your property containing any traces of live woodworm.
Due to this, the only way for the woodworm to enter the wood would be from an external source.
Although all of our wood does come with a warranty, this warranty is to cover manufacturing defects only.
As the report has confirmed this is not a manufacturing defect, this issue would not be covered.
I appreciate this may not be the outcome you had hoped for.
Kind Regards, DWF
Although this appears to address the manufacturing issue, it doesn't seem to make any comment at all on how the material was stored before it was supplied to you and installed. Their report specifically mentions storage and makes it clear that it is not possible to ascertain the storage conditions.
In my view this is an important point because the process of sterilising the wood might well kill off any woodworm infestation which was already present that would not be able to prevent any subsequent infestation.QuoteTue 06/08/2019 11:32Dear DWFIn response to your recent comments and your inspection report.I must stress that we have had oak flooring for many years prior to having to replace because of ingress from a burst pipe in 2014.There has never been any evidence of woodworm anywhere in my home until this recent episode.The main infested part is on a concrete subfloor. We can only assume that the parasites were present in the wood prior to delivery giving the time frame that it has taken for the infestation to break out.You have also overlooked the main problem of the planks drying out on many of edges causing the wood to die. You may recall we reported the flooring had not been properly sealed this we noticed when fitting was complete.This is a clear issue with the finish of the product as it is drying out in many areas.On further close examination its starting to break up.The flooring is not fit for the purpose or indeed has not lasted an reasonable amount of time.The Antique Oak flooring is not of satisfactory quality. the flooring is drying out on edges of fitted planks. This is leading the planks to break up.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes it an implied term of the contract I have with Direct wood flooring that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.
As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the product for less than 6 years and a previous attempt at repair or replacement has also failed, I am within my statutory rights to ask for it to be replaced at no further cost to me.Kind RegardsDesamaxQuoteTue 06/08/2019 16:39Hello Desamax
Thank you for your email.
Please be assured that we have taken your complaint seriously.
We have raised an inspection that has come back as no manufacturing fault.
As I have advised, the planks are treated with chemicals to rid any wood worm and then baked at 200 degrees for 28 days. It would be impossible for any Lavea to be alive or dormant after this process.
As a company we stand by the inspection report which has come back as no manufacturing fault. If you do have wood worm, this must have come from another source in the house.
With reference to the edges of the boards drying out, with this being an oiled floor, the floor will need to reoiled periodically, depending on usage and foot fall. The lighter edges of the boards are sap which are part of the product.
Although the inspection has come back as no manufacturing fault, simply as a goodwill gesture, we have a number of options available to resolve the complaint, see below:
-
A partial refund of £100.00
-
10% discount off a future order
-
Oil to reseal the floor.
Please let me know if any of the above options are suitable for you and I will make the necessary arrangements.
Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon.
Kind Regards, DWF
This message appears to repeat the earlier message that the material has been properly treated but once again it doesn't address how it has been stored since then.
Fri 09/08/2019 14:55
Dear dwf
We are taking advice, and for your information we are in the process of instructing our own independent flooring expert. Who we will be using as an expert witness for our claim.
Kind regards
Desamax
Fri 08/20109/9 15:58
Thank you for your email.
If you wish to forward us a copy of your report once you have received this, we can then discuss the outcome further.
Kind Regards, DWF
Direct Wood Flooring
-
-
An update to where we are at....
Hello Desamax
Please find attached a copy of the Independent Inspection report.
As you will see from the report, the inspection has confirmed that this issue is not a manufacturing fault with the flooring.
Please let me explain that during the manufacturing process, this wood is essentially cooked in a large oven for 28 days to cure the wood.
During this process, any traces of woodworm would be removed.
It would not be possible for any of our products to enter your property containing any traces of live woodworm.
Due to this, the only way for the woodworm to enter the wood would be from an external source.
Although all of our wood does come with a warranty, this warranty is to cover manufacturing defects only.
As the report has confirmed this is not a manufacturing defect, this issue would not be covered.
I appreciate this may not be the outcome you had hoped for.
Kind Regards, DWF
Dear DWFIn response to your recent comments and your inspection report.I must stress that we have had oak flooring for many years prior to having to replace because of ingress from a burst pipe in 2014.There has never been any evidence of woodworm anywhere in my home until this recent episode.The main infested part is on a concrete subfloor. We can only assume that the parasites were present in the wood prior to delivery giving the time frame that it has taken for the infestation to break out.You have also overlooked the main problem of the planks drying out on many of edges causing the wood to die. You may recall we reported the flooring had not been properly sealed this we noticed when fitting was complete.This is a clear issue with the finish of the product as it is drying out in many areas.On further close examination its starting to break up.The flooring is not fit for the purpose or indeed has not lasted an reasonable amount of time.The Antique Oak flooring is not of satisfactory quality. the flooring is drying out on edges of fitted planks. This is leading the planks to break up.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes it an implied term of the contract I have with Direct wood flooring that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.
As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the product for less than 6 years and a previous attempt at repair or replacement has also failed, I am within my statutory rights to ask for it to be replaced at no further cost to me.Kind RegardsDesamaxHello Desamax
Thank you for your email.
Please be assured that we have taken your complaint seriously.
We have raised an inspection that has come back as no manufacturing fault.
As I have advised, the planks are treated with chemicals to rid any wood worm and then baked at 200 degrees for 28 days. It would be impossible for any Lavea to be alive or dormant after this process.
As a company we stand by the inspection report which has come back as no manufacturing fault. If you do have wood worm, this must have come from another source in the house.
With reference to the edges of the boards drying out, with this being an oiled floor, the floor will need to reoiled periodically, depending on usage and foot fall. The lighter edges of the boards are sap which are part of the product.
Although the inspection has come back as no manufacturing fault, simply as a goodwill gesture, we have a number of options available to resolve the complaint, see below:
-
A partial refund of £100.00
-
10% discount off a future order
-
Oil to reseal the floor.
Please let me know if any of the above options are suitable for you and I will make the necessary arrangements.
Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon.
Kind Regards, DWF
Dear dwf
We are taking advice, and for your information we are in the process of instructing our own independent flooring expert. Who we will be using as an expert witness for our claim.
Kind regards
Desamax
Thank you for your email.
If you wish to forward us a copy of your report once you have received this, we can then discuss the outcome further.
Kind Regards, DWF
Direct Wood Flooring
-
-
Thanks Bank Fodder, The cost of the flooring in 2014 was £1707.00 thats without fitting ect i believe fitting/ripping out took 3-4 days we had new skirting fitted as well as paint work.
-
HI
The insurance contractor under our instructions ordered and paid for the flooring, i will contact insurance co and independent inspections (who we know work for the DWF) for advicethanks.
@BankFodder Thanks ill look into finding an expert
I attach the DWF independent report
-
Hi
we had to replace our oak flooring in 2014 because of ingress from a burst pipe.
This was done via an insurance claim.
We went back to our original supplier and asked the insurance contractor to order a similar floor to the one we had.
The contractor fitted it professionally.
After a few days we gently wiped the flooring and noticed the oil had dissolved, we reported this to DWF who sent a contractor to re oil the whole floor.
Over the years we noticed the planks were getting lighter mainly on the edges.
Then this year wood worm appeared mainly on planks over a concrete subfloor.
We reported this again to DWF who said the flooring was treated and heated before coming to the uk and all parasites would have been killed.
They sent an “Independent” floor specialist to inspect.
The chap said to us as we had had wood flooring for almost 20 yrs with no sign of woodworm anywhere it could have got contaminated in storage but DWF would never admit to this. On inspection of the drying out planks it was noticed the wood had dried and is about to break up.
We have maintained the flooring. But it has not lasted and now needs replacing.
DWF say their “Independent inspector” say it’s not a manufactures defect either the woodworm or the drying of the wood.
I have ask for replacement under consumer law, they have point blanked refused.
Can anyone tell me my options
thanks.
-
Thanks,
I have been in contact with lease advisory service who I have another phone appointment with late next week. The freeholder company’s solicitor sent the s45 at the 11th hour it arrived via special delivery one the deadline day.
I hope in their haste they might have made an error,
i attach the referred part of the notice below.
Before I respond to ask for evidence on how their valuer came to his valuation, I would also have liked to ask if the signature was signed by an authorised natural person, and their position in the company,
Once this has been clarified I will consider my counter offer.
I hope I make sense?
thanks.
-
The s45 admits my claim to an statutory extend lease, they don’t agreed with the premium offered.
They have counter our offer with one 110% higher than ours.
-
Slight up date, i have received a s45 counter notice (admitting claim)
This has not been signed by a natural person, its signed ** **** real estates ltd, in pen.
Would this be classes as a valid notice?
Thanks again
-
Thanks for the response
Their request is only to asks for the evidence that we served the notice upon the Management co who was named on our lease along with the previous Freeholder.( we sent them a copy via 1st class mail) We carried out an online land registry search and the recent freeholders name is souly listed, that's who we served the notice to. We don't want them to throw a spanner in the works over this. We note the solicitors are NOT shall we say leaseholder friendly by their reviews, maybe we should have got proof of posting.
By the solicitor also demanding 10% we hope this means they recognize that we qualify. We are armed with recent outcomes of other leaseholders outcomes on our development that show the cost to be between 6-8k to extend the lease. On receipt of their counter offer we will instruct a expert solicitor. If the offer is too high we will have to instruct a lease extension specialist. If we get it for under 9k we would have made a substantial saving on cost
-
Hi we have issued a Sec42 notice (taken from a template) on our freeholder, who’s address we obtained from the land registry,
Who were solely listed as the freeholder..We have received a response dated 28 days later requested further information . The information requested is for evidence that our S42 was served on the Man co, we did send them a copy by first class Mail on the same day as the notice.
We note, mainly the bold part ....
“ Once the notice has been submitted, a strict timetable comes into effect:
(i) The date of submission is considered to be the “Valuation Date”. So, however long the process takes, only the value of the lease extension on the valuation date will be considered as relevant to this application. It also freezes the length of the lease for assessing the premium. This fixed date is very important for leaseholders who want to avoid being on the wrong side of the 80 Year Rule. As long as you have submitted your application before the 80 Year deadline, you are safe.
*(ii) The landlord may request further information, which they must do within 21 days of receipt of the Tenant’s Notice. The leaseholder must respond to this request within 21 days.*
(iii) The landlord now has 2 months to respond with his own offer. This is known as the “Landlord’s Counter Notice” or “Section 45 Notice”. The landlord’s response might be:
(a) To deny that you qualify. This is unlikely to happen if proper checks are carried out prior to the application.
(b) If they recognise that you qualify, they can demand a deposit of 10% of your offer or £250, whichever is the greater. Remember that the leaseholder is liable for their own and also the landlord’s reasonable valuation and conveyancing costs (but not for the hearing or any negotiations). The landlord may then submit their counter offer. If their offer is unacceptable, your valuation surveyor can respond to it and negotiate on your behalf.”
As the freeholder request for information was past the 21 day timeline, are we within our rights to ignore this request, and just send the deposit?
we are currently looking to appoint a lease extension expert to take on our case, as it seems more complex than we first thought.
But we have to respond soon and would like some advice.
Thanks in anticipation
-
On 28/03/2019 at 10:00, ericsbrother said:
as said, if it is a fire escape then you cant use it as a common entrance. The freeholder can terminate the lease if you misuse safety equipment and you dont have a nice landlord so make sure of your fcats before you decide to takeaction
It’s now not an exit of any description as it been blocked off as described above. We now have no means of escape over that part of the building, although we have doors leading onto it. We ultimately would like to know If the wording in our lease allows us access to escape this way.
Thanks for your kind help and advice.
-
4K pa is just the Management fees charge. We are meeting and are all looking and seeking advice. So we can prepare to move forward on this. We are in a mixed use building so our rights are limited. This forum is a great source of advice.
Thanks.
-
We are not looking to use the roof for any recreational use, our expectations are we would only like it as a means of exit/ entrance as needed. . The freeholder has blocked the stairs with OSB board and also boarded up the back door. We hope our lease confirms this use.
Thanks
-
This report is a good read even if you just read the recommendations at the end.
Commhold works in Scotland, in fact leasehold is only practiced mainly in England and Wales.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/1468/report-files/146802.htm
-
Thanks
There is a hardware shop below the flat roof.
As far as we know the access has been used since the extension was build mid 70s
The only barrier is a rail type, poles set into concrete blocks that make a pathway to the stairs down to the back Mews.
Thanks again.
Quote -
Please sign and share this petition to have leasehold abolished
Hope it ok to post on here, please delete if against any rules.
-
Hi can someone advise us we are 3 studio flats that have back doors onto a flat roof area that lead to a metal staircase down to ground level. Our freeholder has boarded the staircase up because of trespassers. And now say we have no right to set foot on the roof, a couple of years ago we were issued a key each to the back door that had a fire exit sign on, the sign has been removed. Our lease stats” the right for the lessees for the purpose only of getting to and leaving the premises to use the common landinyand stairways entrance halls footpaths forecourts and any common road way and access area comprises in the building.” We have contacted the fire risk assessment company they told us a rear fire exit was not required.
do we have grounds to contest the FH over this our right of way over this roof?
thanks
-
Thanks for the response, we have checked companies house records and can't see any links to the two Management companies. Our Man co is also our FH under a separate company. We have receipts/ invoices from the company that carried out the works, it's just itemised as if they carried out the work. Its obvious they instruct contractors then send our Man co the bill as if they did the job. Their website clearly shows them as Facilities and Management co. So they must get some commision.
-
Hi we have found that our Management co who we pay 4K a yr to manage our building, Often use another Management co not affiliated to us to organise maintenance on our block. It seem that we are paying two Management Companies for our maintenance work.
1. ours who we pay an annual fee to.
2. The Management company they instruct to carry out the maintenance.
All we see is the invoice for the jobs from company 2.
Is this normal or legal?
thanks.
-
Thanks for you input,
in your opinion, if i went to small claims, I could get paid out (if proven) dating back to 1994 ? and maybe interest.
-
its a long long story,
the FH never maintained out building, gutters collapsed, communal windows rotted, external pipes leaked and were blocked, we had leaks, among many other issues the FH dragged out all correspondence.
The FH earns commission on the building insurance, on top of 4.5k pa man fee, and other admin fees he chooses to charge.
we were very lucky to have a grant issued by the lottery fund to revamp the front external part of the building this cost leaseholders 5% of the cost to paid to the council.
This put the external parts back in a good condition, the FH issued a 1k bill on top of the management fees for his non existence roll in this.
I have brought all the issues up with other leaseholders to no avail.
I fact i want to either claim the overcharged payments back and move.
THts if i can claim the whole amount, or i might stay for a couple of years and deduct the amount from future charges and the go.
hence my question
-
the strange this is, it add up to 104% only i have been over paying its a block of six small flats above two shops.
there are other overcharging issues, but the other leaseholders dont want to know, as they are BTLs Its the freeholder / MAN co who are the same,
thanks
-
Since 1994 I have been charged 40% of the building insurance premium, last year when disputing something else i obtained my lease and noticed my contribution to the building insurance was in fact 36%. i have asked for reimbursement, they refused.
thanks
-
can someone please confirm to me how far back i can claim for being overcharged by my landlord, on the annual insurance premium on my leasehold flat?
I have discovered that they have been overcharging me 4% of the premium since 1994. this equates to almost 5k
Thanks.
L V claim against defect under guarantee to initial reinstatement, they now want it classed as new subsidence claim
in Insurance/Assurance Companies (Not Car Insurance)
Posted