Disgraceful mis-selling of foam fillers

[kurnal]

What can we do as an industry to highlight the dangers of the misuse of expanding foam gap fillers?

I found one particular product in use during the care home refurbishment and warned the project manager to check the products  BS 476 test certificate to ensure that it was being used in an appropriate way. He contacted the manufacturer and the "technical manager" gave the following assurance:

"Just to confirm that our **** foam is fine to use in gaps up to 100 mm. Anything over this the foams properties wont be the same".

I was not happy with this and so checked the detail of the certificate. From this it was clear that the product could not be used on its own to fill gaps greater than about 20 mm.

The foam had been tested on a gap of 50 mm but only in conjunction with mineral fibre wadding which remained in place when the test report stated that the foam fell away. The 50mm sample under test only passed because of the mineral fibre wadding. I could find no record of any tests of the foam in larger gaps.

Surely this is mis-selling but I know it is very widespread. Will it take a disaster to change the way in which this product is marketed?

[Davo]

Prof

There appears to be no clear way to tell the good guys from the bad
I'm amazed you actually got the cert

Have had a butchers at a well known product info on line, not clear if there is an upper limit.
on their stuff.
I've noticed also there is no industry standard colour to define 30 and 60 mins, I tend to recommend pink cos it lookes nicer, especially when you don't trim off the knobbly excess


davo

[Midland Retty]

This is a problem not only with expanding foam, but many other products and services in the industry.

So how far do you go with it? Where do you stop?

The burden is upon the RP to ensure as far as reasonably practicable that the products and services provided by third parties is suitable.

How many times are we told that whether we employ someone to cut down a tree in our back garden, or buy a car, or employ a builder you have do some homework to ensure the products or services you are paying for are up to standard and fit for purpose.

So this raises several questions:-

1) Was this deliberate mis selling or did someone at the foam supplier make a mistake? is there a culture of deliberately misleading customers in this sector of the industry? did the project manager get it wrong and trying to blame the supplier for sending the wrong stuff?

2) Why did you have to intervene and advise the Project Manager to approach the manufacturer for clarification on the spec? Shouldn't they have their whits about them and done it themselves and check it was suitable before use?

3) Is simply phoning up the supplier good enough anyway? or should the Project Manager have asked to see test certs before proceeding as you did?

Im playing devils advocate, and realise that in the real world everyone is very busy, things get missed there isn't always the time to double check things, and many argue you shouldn't have to double check.

But we live in a world of litigation and mitigation, and humans who make shed loads of mistakes, so Im afraid you do have to double check everything.

I dare say Kurnal this what your client employed you to do - ie; pick up on mistakes like this and monitor what is being installed etc

To my mind in this instance both the project manager and supplier is at fault, luckily you picked up on it and rectified the problem.

If I came across a similar situation I would make the suppliers of the foam aware we were given duff info over the phone, and hopefully this would be addressed by retraining the offending member of staff.

So there is no simple answer. I think each and every one of us on the forum would always advise RPs to be wary of this sort of thing, but as regards taking forward any form of action against the suppliers there needs to be evidence, and thats where things start getting complex for the reasons I discussed above!

[David Rooney]

I agree with all the above except that to my mind if you buy a tin of hole filling foam filler then you should quite reasonably be expecting the product to do what it says - fill holes.

If there are limitations they should be clearly advertised/ advised on the product.

To my mind it's a firm exploiting the naivety of the average purchaser who as said above doesn't have time to check the specification of every nut and bolt used on a job.

They are taking the "buyer beware" mantra and using it to full advantage......


 

[Clevelandfire 3]

Midland Id normally agree with you and for the most part do accept what you are saying. But this is a can of foam not a fire alarm system. So you'd reasonably expect to do what it says on the tin as Dave Rooney says.

[kurnal]

The technical managers response was by email. So we have it in writing.

[Wiz]

This might be a case for your local Trading Standards office. They can sometimes be surprisingly effective if the matter is something that one of its officers finds interesting. I think some of them  try to focus only on general public consumer issues rather than more business orientated (expecting the business to use the legal system to resolve problems after they have happened) or try to avoid those matters that are too technical. Whether they do something about a complaint might also depend on just how busy they are at that time.
However, if everyone told Trading Standards about all examples of mis-selling or untrue descriptions and they investigated the claims, then maybe it wouldn't be so prevalent (to the benefit of all)

[Midland Retty]

I take your points but this isn't DIY, the foam isn't for decoration it is being used to perform a fundemental and important job and this is where contractors need to be on the ball and check.

[Mike Buckley]

The other side of the probelm is although the project manager etc may have the best of intentions the money counters come along and decide that as foam B is cheaper than foam A they will buy foam B. Unless you are quick you have little time to do the research and correct the problem.

Yes I did have a financial director whole only saw the £ signs.

[SeaBass]

A couple of years ago I helped to organise a CPD seminar at which one of the speakers, who was on the committee of the ASFP, roundly condemned expanding foams, both the pink and yellow varieties, as being little better than draft excluders.  That said, these products are widely used in France as a fire stopping materials, mind you so is rolled up fibre glass insulation and old newspapers. 

[Wiz]

I take your points but this isn't DIY, the foam isn't for decoration it is being used to perform a fundemental and important job and this is where contractors need to be on the ball and check.

I was talking about the mis-selling.

It is not only DIYers that can be mis-sold.

Just because you are a professional installer doesn't mean that you have the facilities or time to carry out your own tests to check the performance of every product you use. Nor do installers always have the time or money to take legal action regarding the non-performance. This allows the 'liars' to carry on mis-selling.

If it says XYZ on the can, it should be able to do XYZ. If it doesn't, maybe Trading Standards need to know about. They should then use taxpayer's money to take appropriate action. Surely that is what they are there for?

[kurnal]

Thats half the trouble Dr Wiz.

On the tin it just says its fire resisting gap filler capable of up to 2 hours fire protection.  It refers you to the data sheet which makes very little reference to the degree of fire resistance achieved, this just says it can be used to fill gaps up to 50mm. However the data sheet does not describe the necessary method  or that other products are needed in addition to the foam to fill 50mm gaps sucessfully.
It is necessary to download and carefully read the BS476 test report to understand this. And most builders are unlikely to do that.

This document explains how on the 50mm gap two thirds of the way through the test the foam fell out and burned but the rockwool which had been also stuffed in to the gap first before the test held good. Therefore the combined products were given a two hour test certificate. The manufacturers then claim that the foam can give up to 2 hours fire resistance so everybody who buys it naturally expects that. Thats a potential trades description matter in my opinion.

But then when the most diligent customer emails the manufacturers tech department  he receives an email  in reply saying yes it will be fine on gaps up to 100mm. That goes well beyond trades descriptions into false claims in my opinion. 

[Wiz]

Prof. K, give your local Trading Standards office a call and see if they show any interest in following it up. Big towns have their own Trading Standards offices but smaller ones are normally covered by the County Council team.

The only chance of ever clamping down on things like this is for fine upstanding citizens such as yourself to give the authorities a chance to act.

p.s. I'm assuming you are fine and upstanding since I'm presuming you have a licence to sell intoxicating liquer in the Banter Bar of this forum in your role as a proper Bar Steward!

[kurnal]

No Dr Wiz I do not have a licence. My position as an absolute bar steward means that I  fall outside the reach of  the licensing laws until such time that I am caught. But of course  I do not sell alcohol, I steal money from people and then give them a drink to make them feel better. Charitable to a fault.

[Midland Retty]

I take your points but this isn't DIY, the foam isn't for decoration it is being used to perform a fundemental and important job and this is where contractors need to be on the ball and check.

I was talking about the mis-selling.

It is not only DIYers that can be mis-sold.

Just because you are a professional installer doesn't mean that you have the facilities or time to carry out your own tests to check the performance of every product you use. Nor do installers always have the time or money to take legal action regarding the non-performance. This allows the 'liars' to carry on mis-selling.

If it says XYZ on the can, it should be able to do XYZ. If it doesn't, maybe Trading Standards need to know about. They should then use taxpayer's money to take appropriate action. Surely that is what they are there for?

I have to disagree. But alas I can't be bothered Dr Wiz to explain why as it would take us way of topic an take lots of space.

Since Kurnal now tell us that the instructions on the test report are very misleading it puts a different slant on things, and I would agree with that in this instance the supplier is wholly at fault and thus a call to Trading Standards is indeed required.