Long overdue changes to BS 5385

[Old Mod]

What did you do? Over board, replace or tank?

They were all overboarded with 4mm wedi and mechanically fixed.

 

[hmtiling]

BAL board advert anyway.
Very thinly disguised.
I like Dave Wilson, heck I even like BAL - but funny how market forces drive British Standards isn't it?
Or is it my cynical imagination

My thoughts exactly

 

[One Day]

My thoughts exactly

Just irritates me that it's so dressed up.
Like a cheap advertorial on the daily mail!

 

[Old Mod]

Just irritates me that it's so dressed up.
Like a cheap advertorial on the daily mail!

Did you see the tweet about the adhesive failures and the TTA independent tests Mark?

 

[One Day]

Did you see the tweet about the adhesive failures and the TTA independent tests Mark?

No! Do tell...

 

[Old Mod]

TTA TESTS AGAINST NON-CONFORMING PRODUCTS - Tilezine - http://www.tilezine.co.uk/tta-tests-non-conforming-products/

 

[One Day]

TTA TESTS AGAINST NON-CONFORMING PRODUCTS - Tilezine - http://www.tilezine.co.uk/tta-tests-non-conforming-products/

I think I can guess what (and who) is really driving this.
Answers on a postcard please?

 

[Dumbo]

Maybe the non complying adhesive company should sponsor the tta that will improve the quality.

 

[Dumbo]

Mind you who the hell are british standards any way . My guess the fact they are british standards would suggest they have been appointed so are probably getting some of our tax money . Then they come up with these standards and take the stance of we know something you dont know . But if you pay severall hundred pounds we will tell you . But its not even law. most of it they should be pushing for them to be incorporated into building regs so at least when we stand in front of a customer saying you should do this we would have a bit more credability.

 

[hmtiling]

TTA TESTS AGAINST NON-CONFORMING PRODUCTS - Tilezine - http://www.tilezine.co.uk/tta-tests-non-conforming-products/

Why are they not obliged to state which adhesive isn't meeting standards they advertise!?

 

[One Day]

Why are they not obliged to state which adhesive isn't meeting standards they advertise!?

Bluff and bluster?
Potential liabilities?

 

[Old Mod]

Why are they not obliged to state which adhesive isn't meeting standards they advertise!?

Well it makes you wonder where they stand in the eyes of the law tbh H!
If for instance one of us was to lay a £50k floor
And it was a catastrophic failure, and the adhesive used was the unmentioned one in the article, where would the tta stand?
Cos the adhesive company has not been named, you would go back to them and in true adhesive company style, they’d blame us, unless we could prove different. However as the tta have that information and they haven’t divulged it, does that make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud? I think they’d be on dodgy ground tbh. But what do I know?

 

[One Day]

Well it makes you wonder where they stand in the eyes of the law tbh H!
If for instance one of us was to lay a £50k floor
And it was a catastrophic failure, and the adhesive used was the unmentioned one in the article, where would the tta stand?
Cos the adhesive company has not been named, you would go back to them and in true adhesive company style, they’d blame us, unless we could prove different. However as the tta have that information and they haven’t divulged it, does that make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud? I think they’d be on dodgy ground tbh. But what do I know?

 

[Dumbo]

Well it makes you wonder where they stand in the eyes of the law tbh H!
If for instance one of us was to lay a £50k floor
And it was a catastrophic failure, and the adhesive used was the unmentioned one in the article, where would the tta stand?
Cos the adhesive company has not been named, you would go back to them and in true adhesive company style, they’d blame us, unless we could prove different. However as the tta have that information and they haven’t divulged it, does that make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud? I think they’d be on dodgy ground tbh. But what do I know?

They probably cant say because as you say the adhesive company are disputing this and are blaming the test laboratory claiming the reason its failed is because they have taken it out of the packet and used it .

 

[One Day]

Well it makes you wonder where they stand in the eyes of the law tbh H!
If for instance one of us was to lay a £50k floor
And it was a catastrophic failure, and the adhesive used was the unmentioned one in the article, where would the tta stand?
Cos the adhesive company has not been named, you would go back to them and in true adhesive company style, they’d blame us, unless we could prove different. However as the tta have that information and they haven’t divulged it, does that make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud? I think they’d be on dodgy ground tbh. But what do I know?

So, the tile association have full knowledge that there is potentially problematic adhesive being used out here by unwitting people (could be me, or anyone in here) and they don't share that knowledge?
Say you had evidence that Ford focus cars were faulty and rather than publish that info, you just had a quiet word with Ford (who probably pay you a lot of money each year) would you share guilt if there are accidents by unwitting focus drivers??