This problem comes from a consumer out West and I share it with you because it is highly likely a lot of you are going to be faced with this problem selling a product like this.

The carpet is a very heavy shag consisting of two types of yarn, one very thick, spun staple yarn and one thin, BCF frieze type of yarn. The complaint was the carpet losing it’s appearance, the thick yarn becoming fuzzy and stringy on the end and the tips of this same yarn blossoming.

The consumer, at our request, sent us a cd with several pictures on it, a sample of unused carpet, several affected tufts, the manufacturers warranty and the independent inspectors report. Initially looking at the unused carpet sample it was obvious the thick, staple yarn was blossoming at the tips “out of the box.” When slight pressure was exerted on the tip of the yarn the plies started to separate and blossom-open up or come apart - this is an inherent problem with the product. Individual fiber was also extending from the tips of the yarn and slipping out. When yarn tufts were taken from the carpet and examined there was virtually no latex penetration and very little latex encapsulation. Latex penetration holds the fibers in the yarn and latex encapsulation holds the yarn in the carpet. These are finishing deficiencies and a manufacturing defect.

The inspector said the carpet was not defective and that the vacuum cleaner was causing the problem because it had a beater bar and brush. In one respect he was correct, the vacuum cleaner was causing a problem but he failed to look closer at the product and he didn’t heed the information he read in the warranty the consumer gave him a copy of.

Here’s where this gets interesting. This product has a 10 year appearance and texture retention warranty covering the loss of yarn twist from foot traffic if properly maintained. The photos of the carpet show that it has been immaculately kept and there has been nothing but normal foot traffic. The loss of appearance and untwisting of the yarn was specifically what the consumer was complaining about. The warranty states what type of vacuum cleaner to use and how often the carpet should be vacuumed and cleaned. The consumer was using the exact type vacuum prescribed by the manufacturer. In fact, the instructions from the manufacturer are that the vacuum head should be adjusted so that it pulls the head along slightly into the carpet. If this is done with this carpet the vacuum cleaner is going to cause fuzzing, blossoming and fraying of the yarn tips. So following the manufacturers care instructions with this product actually causes the problem. The inspector, who was shown the warranties and care instructions by the consumer wrote that the vacuum cleaner should be a vacuum head only - no beater bar and brush. This contradicts the manufacturers instructions for care necessary to keep the warranty in force.

Our conclusion was that the carpet is defective as a result of inherent yarn tip blossoming and compromised finishing, both manufacturing defects. The conditions being experienced by the consumer are covered under a 10 year limited manufacturing defects warranty and a 10 year limited texture retention warranty. In addition, it is impossible to follow the manufacturers vacuuming instructions without causing an appearance and texture change in this product.

This is a very difficult product. In my opinion there are design, construction and engineering flaws that someone overlooked and warranties that specifically cover the complaint concerns that were ignored. Simply subjecting this particular type of carpet to traffic and vacuuming will create a problem which is inherently built into this product. We looked at the same style of product from other manufacturers and found they too experience the same problems. This product is an accident waiting to happen.

I can’t believe that more of you are not experiencing complaints with this type of product. This is a unique carpet, very chic and California-esque that would be perceived as being very high quality and costly, which it is. However, this product, as presently constructed is almost guaranteed to generate claims. By the way, the inspector said the product was not defective and blamed the problem on the consumer. The mill, in turn, sent a letter declining the claim, apparently they didn’t read their warranty either. The court, when the consumer takes the dealer and manufacturer there, after seeing a proper evaluation of the problem causes and copies of the warranty, is going to hang them both out to dry.