Home ] Appearance Retention Reports ] Browning Reports ] Cleaning Errors Reports ] Color Loss Reports ] Delamination Reports ] Design Flaws Reports ] Double Stick Reports ] Fading Reports ] Fuzzing Reports ] Installation Reports ] Latex Problems Reports ] Lines, Bands, & Streaks Reports ] Maintenance Reports ] Matting & Crushing Reports ] Pooling Reports ] Shedding Reports ] Side Match Reports ] Specification Reports ] Thickness & Weight Reports ] Upholstery Reports ] Water Damage Reports ] Yarn Slippage Reports ] Yellowing Reports ]


BNC  Vs Staple ] Cable Yarn that Can Cleaned ] Design Flaw Olefin & Nylon ] [ LKQ ] Price Comparison between Old and New Carpet ] Over Sold Protection on Commercial ] Over Sold 3rd Generation Nylon ] Wear Problem Carpet Over Sold ]


Home ]

 

THE CARPET

MANUFACTURER: Image Carpets, Inc.
NUMBER on BACKING: Not Applicable
ROLL & INVOICE NUMBERS: Not Given
STYLE NAME & NUMBER:
COLOR NAME & NUMBER: Not Given
FIBER: Polyester
ID METHOD: Chemical & Burn
FIBER COLOR: White
CONSTRUCTION: Conventional Tuft
YARN STYLE: Saxony
SQUARE YARDAGE: 118.6
BACK SYSTEM: ActionBac
PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene
SECONDARY BACKING: Polypropylene

INSTALLATION STATISTICS
DEALER: Not Given
INSTALLER: Not Given
TYPE LOCATION: Residential
DATE INSTALLED: 2001
METHOD: Stretch-In
CUSHION: 7/16 Inch Rebond
SUBFLOOR: Concrete Slab
AREA INSTALLED: Livingroom, Familyroom, Hallway, & Bedrooms

USE & MAINTENANCE STATISTICS AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION

LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Not Determined
ADULTS: 2 - CHILDREN: 0 - PET(S): 0
DO THEY SMOKE?
SPOTTING AGENTS: Unknown
TEMPERATURE: 73.2F - 22.8 C RH 37%
VACUUM TYPE: Upright
VACUUM FREQUENCY: Weekly & More
ENTRY-MATS: Yes
SOIL: Slightly Soiled
HEATING TYPE: Forced Air Gas
COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric
CLEANING: Never Been Cleaned

GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
This dwelling is in the Mojave Desert approximately one mile north of the Highway 14.
SITE CONDITIONS
The dwelling is an owner-occupied, freestanding, single-story house located in a subdivision with other similar houses. Furnishings were neat and orderly at the time of the inspection.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR
According to the claimant, one year ago water-damage necessitated the replacement of their then one-year-old carpet. The general contractor supplied a new carpet and hired the installers to lay it. During the installation, there were disagreements about seam locations. Approximately six months afterwards, the carpet seemed to be ‘wearing out’. In addition, it did not recover from indentations made by furniture. Wear patterns were more noticeable compared to the previous carpet. Finally, they report that there has been excessive shedding. The claimant’s theory is that the carpet is not of the same kind and quality of his previous carpet and that the carpet and its installation are defective.

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR
Looking at the livingroom and family room, the areas most frequently traveled appeared darker; yarns were crushed and pile directions were not the same as in the non-affected areas. Brushing the carpet did not raise the nap nor change the pile distortions. Rubbing the carpet did not make excessive fuzz. The yarns had no slippage, no significant loss of twist or tips blooming.
Most seams were immediately noticeable, but there were no gaps or yarn-slippage in the seam. There were two main panels in the familyroom and a six-inch wide fill-in piece parallel with the door to the attached garage. The seam between the two main panels appeared to be depressed. However, there was a parallel cushion seam found within two inches of this carpet seam. Panel widths were eight feet nine & half inches and 11 feet six inches. There was a one-inch gap between the cushion panels.
The latex of the carpet did not appear to be sparse or brittle. Tuft bind of the faceyarns did not appear to be weak. Untwisting yarns that were pulled free from the carpet did not reveal a lack of retention of twist.
ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING
The pile direction tests were done with an ordinary piece of paper and a writing pen. This test is common or ordinary to most inspections and in this case, the test had recognizable results.
An ultra-violet light was used to draw a reflection from substances with fluorescent dyes. Yellow reflections will come from most urine stains while blue or lavender reflections will come from inappropriate detergents. Seaming adhesives in most but not all cases will have a reflection but the results of this test revealed that there were no reflections.
Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Delmhorst Moisture Sensor that would indicate the presence of moisture locked-up in the same compounds mentioned above, but there were no moisture readings either.
A test using Baby Oil was used to determine if fluorochemical soil protectant was present. The results of this test revealed that the oil did not beaded on the yarn indicated no fluorochemical present.
A test using baby oil was used to determine if fluorochemical soil protectant was present. The results of this test revealed that the oil did not bead on the yarns.

THE ISSUE
The questions that I have been asked to address are:
1. Is the carpet defective?
2. Are there flaws in the installation?
3. Is the carpet in question of the same ‘Like-Kind & Quality as the previous carpet?
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
CRI is The Carpet and Rug Institute of Dalton, Georgia. It is a national trade association representing the carpet and rug industry. Their membership makes-up 95% of all the carpet made in the United States. Their publications include standards for residential and commercial installations, areas of responsibility for manufacturers, dealers, and installers, and a manual for making claims with a carpet producer. The accepted standards for this installation would be the CRI105-1995 and the manufacturer’s installation specifications.

INDUSTRY STANDARDS & DEFINITIONS
According to the CRI105, it says this about seam locations:
Cushion is to be installed in the longest continuous lengths possible. The cushion seams should not be installed directly under the carpet seams. Generally, they should be placed at right angles to the carpet seams. When this is not practical, shift the cushion so that seams are at least 6 inches (150 mm) to one side of the carpet seams.

THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS
Is the carpet defective?
The carpet in question might have one flaw with respect to fluorochemical protection, depending upon its specifications. Most but not all residential carpets have a fluorochemical protection. This one appears not to have a fluorochemical protection. Fluorochemical can be added to the carpet after the installation.
Shedding is normal for staple filaments and generally lasts for approximately six months after the installation. Although there are reports of excessive shedding, testing did not indicate a problem. Fuzzing is a similar problem where filaments stay attached to the carpet; however, it was not found either. If shedding or fuzzing were issues, then there would be suspicions of problems in the latex and the latex was found to be of an average or above average quality compared to most carpets in the market place.
Are there flaws in the installation?
The installation has errors. Among these are improper power stretching and sealing of the seams. Although these two items are required by the CRI105 standards, it is very common to find that they are not done in most residential installations.
Placing a cushion seam under a carpet seam is not a common error. Given that it was found in the livingroom, it would likely be found throughout the installation. CRI105 standards require that cushion seams run perpendicular to carpet seams or when it is necessary to run the cushion in the same direction and should be at least six inches away from carpet seams. However, this problem can be fixed by replacing a significant portion of the cushion to comply with standards.
Finally, the six-inch fill-in piece next to the garage door appears to be the result of poor planning. CRI105 standards require that a drawing be made and be agreed upon before the installation begins. Reportedly, this did not happen. Given the lack of seam sealer and the cushion lay out problem, unless there is a replacement panel suitable for replacement, there may be no way to fix this problem.
Is the carpet in question of the same ‘Like-Kind & Quality as the previous carpet?
Polyester is like nylon in that it is a soft synthetic fiber. In addition, the new carpet appears to be of the same if not better quality of the previous. However, Polyester in not of the same ‘Kind’ as Nylon. Polyester is the second least resilient of all yarns; nylon is the most resilient of synthetics. This would account for the darkened areas. In addition, the crushing problem would be related to the shading and/or pile direction distortions. The claimant’s wear problem is due to crushing inherent in the nature of polyester. In addition, polyester loses its crimp created in manufacturing; thus, it looks less bulky with time compared to nylon. Thus, this too would gives polyester carpet a ‘worn look’ significantly before nylon would take on this appearance.
There again, polyester does have advantages over nylon. It is naturally stain resistant and will not lose this characteristic. Its colors are often more vibrant and it does not fade like nylon.
CONCLUSION
Based upon background information, observations, and field-testing done at the time of the inspection, it is the inspector’s professional opinion that:
1. The carpet in question is not defective.
2. The installation has repairable errors.
3. The carpet in question is like the previous and is of the same quality, but is not the same kind.