Important Consideration: Synthetic Teak Decking Warranties

[hobiecat]

Can I have my cigar

 

[jfm]

First of all, even though you use inverted commas, you are not quoting the law. You are perhaps quoting some commentary on the law, perhaps copy/pasted from some website. I only deal with the actual law, not what some guy might have written on the internet. I even gave you a link to the law.

You clearly cannot read law. For example: "...because it specifically makes marketing materials a key part of the contract." - No, it absolutely does not do that. You clearly have no clue how to read law.

Your sentence " If a warranty is part of the marketing material, the goods must meet those representations" is just garbage. 0/10.

But to the main point, not one single word you have written proves (or even hints) that you are correct in your assertion we are arguing about, namely your assertion that CRA imposes the obligation "marketing materials must accurately reflect what the warranty covers" . Cigar ready, but not being sent yet.

 

[hobiecat]

beautifulmarinefloors.co.uk is rated "Average" with 3.4 / 5 on Trustpilot

What an extraordinary thread.

The Op does not seem to grasp the responsibilities of running a business. You are the supplier and whatever goes wrong in the eyes of the law ( CRA) you are responsible. If you claim of your supplier for faulty good etc that is down to you and why you have a margin in the deal to cover both profit and overhead - and one overhead can and is reworks.

I have had something very similar with a wrapped boat. Wrap failed rapidly. The wrap warranty is for the wrap not install and the required lift and labour to fix it was then that of the wrap company who stood by their name.

I assume the poster is seeking to drum up business but given his seeming denial of the CRA in this post and indeed the horific reviews on line I might suggest he stops digging. He now has another "rare" issue to deal with that I suspect wont end well.

The final coup de grace being to call JFM a troll!

Popcorn time.

Lets put this in perspective. We believe we are the only ones with a trustpilot accout. We have been making decks since it all started. People only seem to put reveiws on there if they are unhappy and we have 2 bad reveiws. We welcome transparency

 

[petem]

First of all, even though you use inverted commas, you are not quoting the law. You are perhaps quoting some commentary on the law,

Gen AI I suspect.

 

[hobiecat]

First of all, even though you use inverted commas, you are not quoting the law. You are perhaps quoting some commentary on the law, perhaps copy/pasted from some website. I only deal with the actual law, not what some guy might have written on the internet. I even gave you a link to the law.

You clearly cannot read law. For example: "...because it specifically makes marketing materials a key part of the contract." - No, it absolutely does not do that. You clearly have no clue how to read law.

Your sentence " If a warranty is part of the marketing material, the goods must meet those representations" is just garbage. 0/10.

But to the main point, not one single word you have written proves (or even hints) that you are correct in your assertion we are arguing about, namely your assertion that CRA imposes the obligation "marketing materials must accurately reflect what the warranty covers" . Cigar ready, but not being sent yet.

If a company markets fully fitted decks but limits the warranty to raw materials without clearly communicating this limitation, it risks breaching:

Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sections 50, 11, and 62.
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Regulations 5, 6, and 3(4).
These laws are designed to protect consumers from misleading or unfair practices and ensure transparency in commercial communications.

Shall I send the address to send the cigar.....

 

[petem]

If a company markets fully fitted decks but limits the warranty to raw materials without clearly communicating this limitation, it risks breaching:

Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sections 50, 11, and 62.
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Regulations 5, 6, and 3(4).
These laws are designed to protect consumers from misleading or unfair practices and ensure transparency in commercial communications.

Shall I send the address to send the cigar.....

Chat GPT or Copilot? Either way, Gen AI makes a very poor lawyer.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Why not try the Advertising Standards Authority, fat chance there.

 

[MapisM]

Shall I send the address to send the cigar.....

You actually deserve it (sort of), but for the perseverance, rather than anything else.
In your boots, I'd quietly stop doing what you shouldn't do when in a hole.

 

[Hurricane]

Have you tried hand sanding the decking with 60 grit to see if the discolouration is just on the surface?

Unfortunately, that won't work.
In fact I have recently been using 40 grit which works better than 60 grit - 40 grit brings out the "wood grain" effect.
All the synthetic teak that I've seen lightens a little when you sand it - noticeable when repairing areas but within a few weeks (not months) it will set back to the final colour.
Apart from that, if sanding did work, you wouldn't expect to have to sand it regularly - just to keep the colour.
Flexiteek "kind of" bleaches in the sun - Trakmark (Tek-Dek) doesn't.

 

[Seastoke]

Lets put this in perspective. We believe we are the only ones with a trustpilot accout. We have been making decks since it all started. People only seem to put reveiws on there if they are unhappy and we have 2 bad reveiws. We welcome transparency
[/
Transparency, I think people can see right through you.

 

[ylop]

If Dulux used pictures of decorated rooms, they could include them with permission from decorators.

Have you been on the Dulux website? I think there are at least 850 different rooms shown if my maths is right:
Ideas | Dulux | Dulux

I’m not sure they need any permission from the decorator.

However, the website must clarify that Dulux sells paint, not decorating services.

I couldn’t find such a clarification on the dulux site. Do you think Akzonobel have got this wrong too?

Without such clarification, consumers might wrongly assume Dulux is a painting and decorating company, which they are not.

Are your customers really that thick?

There is no expectation in law for you to explain the bleeding obvious to customers. If it’s not obvious to your customer whether you sell tins of paint or the services required to apply paint to walls I don’t think it will be the warranty which is your business downfall. The same is probably true for decks. If a customer is unclear if your sell strips of decking, panels of those strips prefabricated to suit particular installations or the actual installation of those panels you are not going to confuse customers. It’s not the warranty which is confusing, it’s the service offered.

 

[ari]

That statement is absolutely incorrect as a matter of law. CRA2015 imposes no such obligation whatsoever (nor should it, to any logical thinking person).

As for the rest of your post, we already know all of that, thanks. We aren't stupid.

You are wrong I am afraid. Check your legal facts

Oh my...

 

[hobiecat]

You actually deserve it (sort of), but for the perseverance, rather than anything else.
In your boots, I'd quietly stop doing what you shouldn't do when in a hole.

Have you been on the Dulux website? I think there are at least 850 different rooms shown if my maths is right:
Ideas | Dulux | Dulux

I’m not sure they need any permission from the decorator.

I couldn’t find such a clarification on the dulux site. Do you think Akzonobel have got this wrong too?

Are your customers really that thick?

There is no expectation in law for you to explain the bleeding obvious to customers. If it’s not obvious to your customer whether you sell tins of paint or the services required to apply paint to walls I don’t think it will be the warranty which is your business downfall. The same is probably true for decks. If a customer is unclear if your sell strips of decking, panels of those strips prefabricated to suit particular installations or the actual installation of those panels you are not going to confuse customers. It’s not the warranty which is confusing, it’s the service offered.

Thank you for yor response. I both agree and disagree with you....... many decking brands have loads of pictures of fitted decks and cannot provide a warranty for this. I dont think they are thick. That is why it is an issue. While the warranty itself is a significant factor in any legal dispute, clarity in the service being provided is equally important. Misleading marketing—especially when it suggests a more comprehensive service than what is offered—can result in legal consequences under consumer protection law. If the service offering is unclear (e.g., whether you’re selling just materials or offering full installation), the real issue might be the potential for confusion, and the law holds businesses accountable for that, not just the warranty itself

 

[Tranona]

Thank you for yor response. I both agree and disagree with you....... many decking brands have loads of pictures of fitted decks and cannot provide a warranty for this. I dont think they are thick. That is why it is an issue. While the warranty itself is a significant factor in any legal dispute, clarity in the service being provided is equally important. Misleading marketing—especially when it suggests a more comprehensive service than what is offered—can result in legal consequences under consumer protection law. If the service offering is unclear (e.g., whether you’re selling just materials or offering full installation), the real issue might be the potential for confusion, and the law holds businesses accountable for that, not just the warranty itself

This is all conjecture and personal opinion and you have presented no evidence in support. There is no compulsion to provide a "warranty" in any particular form. You seem to misunderstand consumer law. Warranties are almost always less than what the consumer has a right to expect. There is just no connection between marketing materials and warranties except that if the warranty statement is in the material it must be accurate - and all the examples are.

I really do not know why you persist in seeing this as an issue. The way decking material makers advertise their products is no different from any other manufacturer of materials that are normally sold to consumers following further processing by a third party. It is the firm that sells to the consumer that is responsible for the product.

BTW I suspect you are unaware that some of the people who are contributing to this thread are real experts in this field as well as being boat owners. The 2 are probably connected as the expertise may well be the reason why they can afford to own and run boats.

 

[hobiecat]

This

This is all conjecture and personal opinion and you have presented no evidence in support. There is no compulsion to provide a "warranty" in any particular form. You seem to misunderstand consumer law. Warranties are almost always less than what the consumer has a right to expect. There is just no connection between marketing materials and warranties except that if the warranty statement is in the material it must be accurate - and all the examples are.

I really do not know why you persist in seeing this as an issue. The way decking material makers advertise their products is no different from any other manufacturer of materials that are normally sold to consumers following further processing by a third party. It is the firm that sells to the consumer that is responsible for the product.

BTW I suspect you are unaware that some of the people who are contributing to this thread are real experts in this field as well as being boat owners. The 2 are probably connected as the expertise may well be the reason why they can afford to own and run boats.

While it is true that a company is not legally required to provide a warranty, if a warranty is mentioned in marketing materials, it must be accurately described. Furthermore, representations in marketing can set expectations for performance or quality. I don't think the representations always match the warranty. Do you?

 

[jrudge]

Stop digging

 

[Tranona]

While it is true that a company is not legally required to provide a warranty, if a warranty is mentioned in marketing materials, it must be accurately described. Furthermore, representations in marketing can set expectations for performance or quality. I don't think the representations always match the warranty. Do you?

So you are finally agreeing that the warranty descriptions in marketing literature are accurate? The ones that have been linked to here are all accurate. Do you have examples that are not accurate?

Like just about all the other respondents here I do not see anything misleading about the way this product is marketed and advertised by the major players. It seems that this idea of misrepresentation is a figment of your imagination as you have failed to provide any evidence of examples. The words you use such a "I think" give the game away.

As several of us have advised - stop digging. Every time you post something you lose a little bit more credibility - and there was not much to start with.

 

[Seastoke]

There must be someone one here who has used the company , to say if they are happy or not. I can’t believe he is proud of being on trustpilot when the reviews are shocking.

 

[JOHNPEET]

There must be someone one here who has used the company , to say if they are happy or not. I can’t believe he is proud of being on trustpilot when the reviews are shocking.

Seems like as a result of this thread, the number of possible future customers for this company are very likely to be fewer than there would have been otherwise !

 

[jfm]

If a company markets fully fitted decks but limits the warranty to raw materials without clearly communicating this limitation, it risks breaching:

Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sections 50, 11, and 62.
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Regulations 5, 6, and 3(4).
These laws are designed to protect consumers from misleading or unfair practices and ensure transparency in commercial communications.

Shall I send the address to send the cigar.....

Wasting time here, so going to keep this brief

CRA ss 11, 50, 62 are not ever capable of being breached by anyone, as matter of simple English. So that deals with those three - no cigar.

CPUTR2008 is a different bit of law - it's 2nd ary legislation made under powers contained in ECA1972, not powers in CRA2015 or its predecessor - whereas the cigar challenge explicitly in its terms relates to CRA2015. But no worries, I'll turn a blind eye to you moving the goalposts.

To remind you of the challenge, because you seem to have forgotten, it is whether CRA2015 (or, following the goalpost move, CPUTR2008) impose an obligation "marketing materials must accurately reflect what the warranty covers" (your words).

Unlike the CRA stuff, the paras you quote from CPUTR2008 impose obligations on traders so they are capable of being breached, punishable by a fine and in extremis 2 yrs prison. Whoopy-doo that means you're in with a chance! Alas, no cigar, because the obligations imposed do not include the obligation "marketing materials must accurately reflect what the warranty covers." If I've missed where they do, feel free to quote the precise words that I'm not seeing.

I'm kinda bored of all this, as is everyone I expect. So unless there's a significant new post, I'm checking out.