Beware of Warning Labels!

Remember Millie? She had a problem with Kelloggs.  Well a little time before that her mother had a problem with Lakeland Plastics.

Laura purchased their “Blitz that Mould” mould and algae stain killer to tackle the mouldy patches around her house. Upon reading the label on the front & back she duly made sure the rooms were well ventilated and tested on an inconspicuous area (as advised). Upon finding no adverse reactions she continued spraying the affected areas, returning 30 minutes later to see amazing results!

She decided to spray the damp patch inside her wardrobe which is an alcove in the bedroom with a door on (so not a standalone piece of furniture). The damp patch was on the sloping ceiling part so after checking the instructions again, she opened the windows and lightly sprayed the black area. She returned 30 minutes later and the spray had stained her clothing (which she did not remove prior to spraying as the label did not stipulate it was unsuitable for fabrics) – in total the spray ruined 4 jackets, 3 shirts, 1 cardigan and a top! Ummm!

Beware the warnings!

She re-read the labels which merely stated it was not to be used on enamel, marble, aluminium wood and granite, it did not mention anywhere that it should be kept away from fabrics or that it contained bleach – only “Contains: Less than 5% Anionic Surfactants, Sodium Hydroxide, Sodium Hypochlorite” – which means very little to the general public.

 

So, step forth The Complaining Cow. I wrote up the above and added in that Under the Sale of Goods and Services Act the product was not fit for purpose, not of satisfactory quality and misleading which also falls under the Consumer Regulations 2008. (Misleading omissions Part 2 Prohibitions). Ah you didn’t know that one did you? Always do your research to throw everything you can at them – there’s another tip to the other 20! 🙂

Photos were sent with the email with a breakdown of the costs of the damaged clothes totalling £365 and photos.

Off went the email and Laura got quite a speedy response back. They wanted her to ‘phone her. HATE that. So off went another email saying No! Everything in writing, always. Eileen came back asking for Laura to return the bottle. Now, you have to be careful here too, what if it gets lost in the post? What if they test it and say it’s ok when clearly it wasn’t? You ask for them to pay postage and you tell them that you are keeping some in case you need to do your own tests if you take the matter further, that’s what you do.

Well, she got an email back saying that the product had actually been recalled and it now has a warning about a bleaching action. She offered £400. My guess was that their insurance kicks in at £500 so we tried to up it. Asked for a further £100 and got £50. So not a bad result. I have to say they were pretty good in the way they dealt with the matter. But why is it that all the high pay out complaints I do are for other people?!

 

This entry was posted in Complaining, Complaints gaining redress, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *