Important Consideration: Synthetic Teak Decking Warranties

[ylop]

If you want some advice, very much fwiw, and of course fell free to ignore:

You missed, "think very carefully before arriving in a peaceful forum with the purpose of promoting your brand, either directly or surreptitiously"

 

[jointventureII]

Where did the website link to hobiecat's company come from?

I've read (first post, first lines) that he / she is a profesional in the industry but didn't see any website referenced?

Ps I'm not asking for it to be posted, but unsure as to how we've gone from forum posts to websites

 

[jfm]

Well I will try again to promote a discussion

Transparency in Product Marketing:

My company clearly distinguishes between material supply, fabrication, and installation. We are transparent in specifying who is accountable for each step in the process. Images of completed decks are shown as part of the marketing, but we clearly state that installation is handled separately, which means that consumers should understand that our warranty only covers the deck, not installation. Fitters check the deck before installation and hi res pictures are sent to the customer.

A Customer Dispute Scenario:

In cases where a customer reports a branded deck material that wasn’t made or installed by an authorised agent, the issue of accountability becomes apparent. If something goes wrong, it’s often unclear who is responsible for the warranty—material supplier, deckmaker, or installer—because some brands don't make all this clear.

Consumer Protection Law:

Under consumer protection law, I believe that the warranty and product images/websites should align to avoid misleading customers. A customer who sees completed decks on a website but later finds out that fabrication/installation is not covered could feel misled. This lack of clarity I understand could be considered a potential breach of consumer rights.

I believe a clear explanation of who is responsible for each part of the process, from material to installation, is necessary for all companies in this industry. Transparency can help avoid confusion and better manage customer expectations. Does that help?

Garbage imho. You're like "Can we all talk about what I want to talk about, not what you guys want to say!" You haven't answered the hypocrisy charges in post 35. We are all grown up enough to understand the difference between Dulux/Amtico and the painter/floor-fitter, thanks, and suggesting otherwise zillions of times borders on patronising.

 

[jfm]

Where did the website link to hobiecat's company come from?

I've read (first post, first lines) that he / she is a profesional in the industry but didn't see any website referenced?

Ps I'm not asking for it to be posted, but unsure as to how we've gone from forum posts to websites

His signature = marineflooring.co.uk. The link is broken but if you type it in you get his website.

 

[ylop]

Is your USP really "we are clearer what we aren't responsible for, than our competitors"? Even if you were saying "we warrant the full installation" it has minimal perceived value because:
- consumers don't expect product failure
- consumers don't expect that if there is a problem that credible suppliers will wash their hands of them regardless of the wording of a warranty
- 6 years is not that long for a deck (and you will only warrant the original buyer)
- for a small company everyone knows if you have a systemic fault you will be out of business and unable to honor warranties

What the customer wants is a beautiful deck, what you are promising them is clarity on who to blame if they don't get that! You may well be right that a deck buyer wants one point of contact responsible for the whole job - but that's not what you are offering is it?

 

[KevinV]

Where did the website link to hobiecat's company come from?

I've read (first post, first lines) that he / she is a profesional in the industry but didn't see any website referenced?

Ps I'm not asking for it to be posted, but unsure as to how we've gone from forum posts to websites

 

[jfm]

Is your USP really "we are clearer what we aren't responsible for, than our competitors"? Even if you were saying "we warrant the full installation" it has minimal perceived value because:
- consumers don't expect product failure
- consumers don't expect that if there is a problem that credible suppliers will wash their hands of them regardless of the wording of a warranty
- 6 years is not that long for a deck (and you will only warrant the original buyer)
- for a small company everyone knows if you have a systemic fault you will be out of business and unable to honor warranties

What the customer wants is a beautiful deck, what you are promising them is clarity on who to blame if they don't get that! You may well be right that a deck buyer wants one point of contact responsible for the whole job - but that's not what you are offering is it?

Very well said. A warranty from a company with less net worth than many folks have lost down the back of the sofa. Hmmm....

 

[Tranona]

Well I will try again to promote a discussion

Transparency in Product Marketing:

My company clearly distinguishes between material supply, fabrication, and installation. We are transparent in specifying who is accountable for each step in the process. Images of completed decks are shown as part of the marketing, but we clearly state that installation is handled separately, which means that consumers should understand that our warranty only covers the deck, not installation. Fitters check the deck before installation and hi res pictures are sent to the customer.

A Customer Dispute Scenario:

In cases where a customer reports a branded deck material that wasn’t made or installed by an authorised agent, the issue of accountability becomes apparent. If something goes wrong, it’s often unclear who is responsible for the warranty—material supplier, deckmaker, or installer—because some brands don't make all this clear.

Consumer Protection Law:

Under consumer protection law, I believe that the warranty and product images/websites should align to avoid misleading customers. A customer who sees completed decks on a website but later finds out that fabrication/installation is not covered could feel misled. This lack of clarity I understand could be considered a potential breach of consumer rights.

I believe a clear explanation of who is responsible for each part of the process, from material to installation, is necessary for all companies in this industry. Transparency can help avoid confusion and better manage customer expectations. Does that help?

Sorry, but absolutely the wrong way to go about starting a discussion.

This is a user not a trade forum. Many members have a lot of experience of buying boats and associated products including the ones you sell. What usually prompts a discussion amongst USERS is one of 2 things - first "I like the look of a product, anybody have experience of it?" or "I have bought a product which I think is defective - anybody had similar experience and was there a resolution?"

Coming on here as a seller and slagging off your competitors because you claim they don't behave fairly whereas you do (but don't actually seem to be any different) is not a starting point for a discussion among users.

Consumer law does not specify how sellers should present their products nor word their warranties. Advertising Standards would investigate any complaints about misrepresentations in advertising - although I don't see anything that is remotely near misrepresentation in what I have looked at. The CRA reflects consumer expectations and how to seek remedy if they believe they have not been met. Warranties are part of the contract between buyer and seller and should of course been made clear at the point the contract was made.

There is nothing to stop you and your installers making sure that your warranty is clear (although yours as pointed out is not really in that category as it stands) and that buyers formally agree to it before accepting your quotation, but doubt that will stop disputes as almost by definition rights under CRA are greater than under a limited warranty.

 

[hobiecat]

1. Consumer Rights Act (CRA) Expectations:
   • The CRA emphasizes that goods must match their description and meet reasonable expectations. If consumers believe the imagery of completed decks implies comprehensive coverage under the warranty, they could argue their expectations were not met.
   • A seller’s obligation is not just to provide clear warranties but also to ensure that marketing materials align with those warranties to avoid misleading impressions.

In summary, while the law doesn’t dictate specific wording or presentation, it does demand clarity and fairness.

 

[47GC]

Very well said. A warranty from a company with less net worth than many folks have lost down the back of the sofa. Hmmm....

 

[stranded]

1. Consumer Rights Act (CRA) Expectations:
   • The CRA emphasizes that goods must match their description and meet reasonable expectations. If consumers believe the imagery of completed decks implies comprehensive coverage under the warranty, they could argue their expectations were not met.
   • A seller’s obligation is not just to provide clear warranties but also to ensure that marketing materials align with those warranties to avoid misleading impressions.

In summary, while the law doesn’t dictate specific wording or presentation, it does demand clarity and fairness.

Do you really still think this is an argument you are going to win?

 

[jointventureII]

OK, in which case yes that makes this whole saga quite obvious as to the motives!

I'll leave it at that

 

[Hurricane]

For example, the Tek-Dek warranty document you shared outlines material coverage but specifies that the distributor, FMD, handles the warranty rather than Tek-Dek directly. This highlights the importance of clear communication, as end users may not always understand who provides guarantees or resolves issues when multiple parties (brands, distributors, and installers) are involved.

I think you have that wrong - might be worth checking your facts about FMD and who they actually are.

 

[PaulRainbow]

They say a picture is worth a thousands words

 

[hobiecat]

I think you have that wrong - might be worth checking your facts about FMD and who they actually are.

I took it from the document on the thread

 

[Tranona]

1. Consumer Rights Act (CRA) Expectations:
   • The CRA emphasizes that goods must match their description and meet reasonable expectations. If consumers believe the imagery of completed decks implies comprehensive coverage under the warranty, they could argue their expectations were not met.
   • A seller’s obligation is not just to provide clear warranties but also to ensure that marketing materials align with those warranties to avoid misleading impressions.

In summary, while the law doesn’t dictate specific wording or presentation, it does demand clarity and fairness.

I have not seen anything in your competitors' literature that would not met that requirement.

All we have is your assertion that is the case without providing any evidence.

Stop digging.

 

[Seastoke]

I took it from the document on the thread

I am sure I read that you said you don’t fit your product, I also read that you said that you check the installers personally .

 

[hobiecat]

I am sure I read that you said you don’t fit your product, I also read that you said that you check the installers personally .

We use contractor fitters to fit our decking panels that are checked. We also sell the raw material under a different brand name so there is no confusion and deckmakers can self cert their own deck warranty. As I said earlier I prefer not to promote our business here.

 

[hobiecat]

I have not seen anything in your competitors' literature that would not met that requirement.

All we have is your assertion that is the case without providing any evidence.

Stop digging.

I have not seen anything in your competitors' literature that would not met that requirement.

All we have is your assertion that is the case without providing any evidence.

Stop digging.

Its not difficult to compare product warranties of the brands with their product websites and decide if a customer might think the fitted decks might be guaranteed as opposed to a piece of pvc material that is not even welded into a deck shape. Well here is the two leading brands for you to make a judgement if there is any discrepency....... Do you still think it meets CRA expectations and that the website marketing matches the product material warranty?????Material Guarantee Registration | Flexiteek Global and https://www.permateek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Permateek-Product-Warranty-2021.pdf

 

[jfm]

We also sell the raw material under a different brand name so there is no confusion

This is a comedy show!

As I said earlier I prefer not to promote our business here.

You're doing pretty well on that score.