Long overdue changes to BS 5385

[Bill]

The article about the adhesive states that one of the four tested failed........ So, it could be a member of the TTA and that would really put a spanner in the works.

 

[Dumbo]

If this the motor industry there would be a product recall

 

[Old Mod]

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??

But I’m not a governing body, I’m joe blogs!
If I were the Car Ombudsman, yes I’d expect to be culpable. Of course I would, is it not job as an independent overseer of cars to protect the general public as well as the industry?

 

[Old Mod]

The article about the adhesive states that one of the four tested failed........ So, it could be a member of the TTA and that would really put a spanner in the works.

Those results would probably have never come to light Tom, been dealt with in House.

 

[One Day]

Well I'm the dog with the bone now. I want to know why they aren't releasing those results.
Without showing teeth and consequences - i.e. release of info or loss of TTA membership (if they are members) then not only is EN 12004 a waste of time as guidance, but the TTA is also a waste of time.

This discussion is really not over...!

 

[Bill]

Those results would probably have never come to light Tom, been dealt with in House.

The results still haven't come to light though as the 'independent' tester and TTA haven't named the manufacturer - I reckon a whole load of litigation is about to begin if they continue down this route.

Everyone knows the TTA are sponsored.

 

[Italy]

from the biogel technical sheet in English
turns out to be a S / 1.
who wants to bet € 10 that is kerakoll the producer?
if you know kerakoll sellers, try to ask if they have received news from kerakoll.
the article speaks only of non-conforming
not of failures

 

[Old Mod]

I think in the best interests of not only the forum and the individuals that have contributed to this discussion, it has now been moved out of the public domain and in to the Arms

 

[One Day]

Agree Marc, shame we have to be so guarded.
Criticism (even constructive) of TTA = potential litigious tantrums?

 

[Old Mod]

Especially when company names are being banded about haha

 

[One Day]

21st July 2018 at 9:27 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Whilst I applaud the investigation and welcome anything which drives up industry standards, please explain exactly why you would fail to publish the details of the non-conforming product/s?
There are likely many tilers – some of whom will be your members – who quite rightly will be concerned by the possibility of having specified and used non-conforming product/s.
Surely you have a duty of care to publish this information for two main reasons?
1) To help tilers to avoid specifying and using non-conforming products, and
2) To give weight to the use of EN 12004 and teeth to The Tile Association who to quote you in the article: “….are the Association that represents the entire industry.”

 

[Bill]

I asked a qestion too after a few sherberts last night.

 

[Dumbo]

Most adhesive manufactures claim that their adhesive conforms to the relevant part of bs5980. I havent noticed but how many of these companies are kite marked . If you have to fit safety glass it must carry the kite mark and not just say it conforms . I think if somebody c2 te s1 it should be tested by bs and then company should gain the kite mark for that product .

 

[Ajax123]

What I find odd is the article seems to suggest that manufacturing to a British standard is mandatory or that the standards are statute. Neither suggestion is correct. If you make the claim that a materials meet the necessary standards then you generally need to demonstrate compliance but it's not the law. There are hundreds of building materials that are not made to a British standard. From a purely legalistic point of view I find the article confusing at best. It levels veiled threats makes inaccurate claims and assertions and is misleading in true sensationalist journalistic style.

 

[One Day]

Agreed Alan. Good points. The whole association has an air of stuffy superiority about it. I've tried for years to engage in dialogue with key board members. You know what though? Cutting to the chase and niceties aside now... They're chicken. They refuse to debate properly and instead treat tilers as if we are the peasants and they, the barons.