Bad House Keeper Sues Cleaner

This report was commissioned by the cleaner.

TYPE OF INSTALLATION:    Residential
ADULTS: 1    CHILDREN: 3    PETS: 3
TYPE OF PET(s):
TEMPERATURE at the time of inspection 67.5°.F - 19.7° C.
RELATIVE HUMIDITY: at the time of inspection    32%
PROBLEM REPORTED
The claimant has reported an appearance problem.
CONDITION DOCUMENTED
The carpet has a variety of soiled and stained areas.
THE REPORT
Geographical Background Information
This free standing house is located in a residential neighborhood. It is located just west of downtown Los Angeles approximately seven and one half miles from the Pacific Ocean.
THE CLAIM HISTORY
According to the claimant, she moved into this dwelling on September 17, 1993. The house was purchased from a bank who had put in new carpet prior to the claimant’s moving in. The dealer that sold the carpet is reportedly no longer in business.
The claimant was reported as being particular about condition of the carpet. For example, it is a house rule to take off one’s shoes before walking across the carpet.
This appearance problems reportedly started after the carpet was cleaned by the commissioner. This cleaning was performed on October 27, 1993. The reason for the cleaning was reportedly due to a soiling and a urine problem. The soiling problem was reportedly the result of work done by an alarm company. This same alarm company reportedly left a large bleach stain in the back downstairs bedroom.
The claimant reports that the appearance problem occurred approximately three weeks after the cleaning. Also the urine stain was not completely eliminated. No odor was noted according to the claimant. According to the commissioner the carpet was recleaned on 11/1/93, 11/12/93, and 3/15/94.
The condition of the carpet was not to the claimant’s expectations at the time of the inspection.
The Claimant reported that one of her sons has used Resolve® on some of the spot problems in the upstairs-bedroom..
OBSERVATIONS
The down stairs was not closely observed. Two bedrooms and the office were the only ones carpeted on this level. A portion of the carpet was not observable due to clothing and other items that were laying on the carpet.
The stairwell and upstairs boy’s bedroom are the most affected areas in terms of their appearance. The claimant said that she held her son responsible for most of the problems in this room. The upstairs boy’s-bedroom-carpet had some dark spots. These spots were globular, with irregular edges, and were about three inches in diameter. Other smaller spots and stains were noticed in this room.

Some small yellow dots were noticed in the master’s bedroom next to the love seat. These stains were drop sized and were reported by the claimant to be urine from one of the pets. Various red stains were noticed in the upstairs.
The carpet had the appearance of matting and some fuzzing at the tips in the traffic lanes. This condition was particularly noticed in the stairwell and the upstairs-landing.
There were fewer problems noticed in the front-downstairs-bedroom. The back downstairs-bedroom had a large stain that was lighter than the surrounding carpet. The claimant acknowledged that this was the area that she reported was “bleached” by the Alarm Company.
The office was dark and appeared matted in the traffic lanes. No tests were done in this room. The claimant pointed out no special problems other than the general appearance problems also in this room.
TESTING
Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Delmhorst Moisture Sensor. All moisture readings were very dry and there was no odor noticed. This includes the yellow spots in the master bedroom.
An ultra-violet light was shone throughout the installation. This tool draws a yellow reflection from most urine stains and a blue or lavender reflection from detergents with optical brightening agents. Many small lavender stains were found in the master bedroom and the up-stairs’ boy’s bedroom. The small yellow stain reflect yellow as well as a larger stain close to the one next to a baby crib.
Numerous pH tests were taken using a pHep + Pen by Hanna®. This device is accurate to ± 0.1 and was calibrated with a laboratory testing solution immediately before these tests were made. All tests were made using distilled water. The test results were as follows:
Soiled Areas    8.0    8.6    8.8     8.9    9.8    Ave. 8.82
Urine areas    6.1    5.9    5.2     5.4    5.6    Ave. 5.64
Non-effective Areas    8.9    8.4    8.1     7.9    7.6    Ave. 8.18
More distilled water was applied to surrounding areas in an attempt to make foam from agitating the wet yarn. None was made in the non soiled areas. In the soiled areas in the up-stairs boy’s bedroom, foam was generated with distilled water. Next, a feel test was made by feeling the wet yarn. The carpet was slippery.
A DuPont® Stain Resist Test was performed. Tests revealed that this had some stain resistance in areas next to the base boards. It had less resistance in the traffic lanes.
THE ISSUE
The question that I have been asked to address is: what caused the appearance of this carpet to diminish so rapidly since the last cleaning?
DISCUSSION
A diminishing appearance after a cleaning is nearly always related to soil re-accumulating back onto the surface. This issue is almost sure to vary depending upon the color of the carpet, the type of yarn the fibers are made of, the type of protectant that have been applied, and the amount of soil that has settled on the carpet.
The color white is the worst possible choice in this case, because of conditions like resoiling, three boys and three pets. The fiber which is nylon, is not too bad a choice. These factors are not uncommon. They are in most expert opinions, normal circumstances as well.

The real issues therefore should be this:
1. Whose confront zones are we going to accept?
2. Has the cleaning company and commissioner broken any rules?
3. Did the claimant do extraordinary things to accelerate resoiling? Have they broken any rules?
THE RULES
The Standard for Carpet Cleaning S001-1994 is published by the INSTITUTE OF INSPECTIONS, CLEANING and RESTORATION CERTIFICATION at the recommendation of the FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. These service standards are for professional cleaning and are recognized by nearly all carpet mills and carpet cleaning associations. Resoiling is unacceptable and too rapid when a carpet stays wet for longer than 24 hour after cleaning. The standard for carpet cleaning S001-1991 states in section 5 page 13 “The cleaning job is not complete until provisions are made to return carpet to its intended use within 1-24 hours. Failure of the professional to implement drying procedures could result in a variety of after-cleaning problems such as: rapid resoiling, odor, microorganism development, and ultimately, lamination and dye problems."
On page 3 the CLEANING STANDARDS there is instruction for consumers that says
“3. Immediate Spotting - Most spots can be removed easily if the excess is lifted or blotted and treated immediately by carpet owners with plain water, or with spotters containing mild (pH range of 5 to 9), dilute detergents that do not leave residue. If ignored those spots, or components thereof, may bond with fiber dye sites, forming permanent stains. Immediate spotting is an essential responsibility for home and business owners/managers.”
On page 4 this instruction is also given to consumers:
“1. Cleaning Frequency - Installed residential carpet exposed to routine use should be programmed for cleaning at least annually. Carpet that is subjected to extreme soiling or heavy use, particularly high traffic areas, or carpet installed in homes occupied by persons with allergy or respirator problems requires greater cleaning frequency. Carpet in low traffic areas, such as formal living rooms, dining rooms, etc., needs less frequent cleaning.
Consumers must not wait until carpet looks soiled before cleaning. Experts agree that clean carpet contributes not only to the overall aesthetics of a structure, but it plays a significant role in the healthful state of the overall environment in which people work, live and spend the majority of their time.”
On page 7 the responsibilities for cleaner says this:
3. What Should Consumers Expect from a Professional Cleaning Job?
On page 8 is says this:
            j. Every effort must be made to physically remove as much soil as possible from carpet during cleaning. Further, technicians must take steps to leave fibers as residue free as possible to prevent accelerated resoiling.
According to the IICRC S001 - 1994 - STANDARD PRACTICE FOR ON-LOCATION CLEANING OF INSTALLED TEXTILE FLOOR COVERING MATERIALS.
The procedure for the STEAM CLEANING METHOD are as follows:
7.0 STEAM CLEANING (HOT WATER EXTRACTION) METHOD: The “steam” cleaning method can be used on virtually any natural or synthetic carpet.
Proper use includes:
7.1 Dry Vacuuming (ref. Section E, point 1, p.9) - Removal of particle soil buildup is essential prior to cleaning agent application.
7.2 Soil Suspension (ref. Section E, point E, point 2, p. 10):
7.3 Chemical Action (ref. Section E, point 2, a, p. 11): - Chemical action may be accomplished in one of two ways:
7.4 Pre-Conditioning - In heavy soiling situations, a pre-conditioner that may contain solvents for emulsifying oily soils must be applied to entry, pivot and high traffic areas prior to the application of the steam cleaning method. For stain-resist carpet, this pre-conditioner must be anionic, non-ionic or combinations thereof, and have a pH of 10 or less. For wool carpet this pre-conditioner must range in pH from 5.5 to 8. Dilute pre-conditioners containing dry solvent additives must not contribute appreciable quantities of VOC’s (volatile organic compounds) to air within the structure.
Pre-conditions may be applied through hand-pump, electric, or venturi feed sprayers. Product manufacturer’s directions relating to the quantity of pre-conditioning agent applied to a specified number of square feet of carpet must be followed.
7.5 Cleaning Agent Application - In normal soiling situations ( or following pre-conditioning), dilute, nonionic or combination “rinse” or cleaning detergents should be applied to the carpet during the injection phase of hot water extraction cleaning. This is essential for suspending soils in non-preconditioned areas.
7.6 Heating or Temperature (ref. Section E, point 2, b, p. 11) - Under normal circumstances both pre-conditioners and “rinse” detergent solutions may be increased in temperature - (mixed hot) to increase detergent activity. Additional activity relating to temperature is achieved during the soil extraction phase that follows.
7.7 Agitation (ref. Section E, point 2, c, p. 11) - Pre-conditioner application, where required, must be followed with uniform cleaning agent distribution using hand brushing, or mechanical brush action (employing reel or rotary agitation equipment) To provide quality cleaning and proper lubrication of carpet yarns. During agitation, products manufacturers’ recommended dilation rates and application quantities (gallons of cleaning solution per square feet cleaned) must be observed. Additional agitation may be achieved during the extraction phase using higher solution pressures.
7.8 Time (ref. Section E, point 2, d, p. 11) Pre-conditioners, when used, must remain in heavily soiled areas for 5-10 minutes, in order for uniform soil suspension to be accomplished. The use of a water-based pre-conditioning agents in heavily soiled entry and traffic areas also may prolong drying slightly.
7.9 Soil Extraction (ref. Section E, point 3, p. 12) - Once pre-conditioner application and agitation is accomplished in heavily soiled areas, suspended soil must be flushed from carpet yarns using hot water injection/extraction equipment. Multiple passes may be required to fully flush suspended soil from the base of yarns, and if so, follow-up extraction-only passes with floor tools are required to reduce moisture levels and minimize drying time. The quantity of solution injected must be compatible with the vacuum's extraction capability in order to avoid overwetting. Solution temperatures should be as high as possible for maximum activation of cleaning agents, resulting in minimum chemical use. Carpet construction, dye fastness and other considerations must be considered. High temperature extraction (130°F./54°C. plus on the carpet) also may contribute to the removal or control of biocontaminants. All extracted solutions must be disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations.
7.10 Nap Setting (ref. Section E, point 4, p, 12) Nap setting or grooming must be accomplished following “steam” cleaning for optimum appearance. In all cases, nap setting must be accomplished for uniform distribution of post-cleaning treatments.
7.11 Drying (ref. Section E, point 5, p. 13) - Complete drying will be accomplished within 1-24 hours (depending on soiling conditions and ambient humidity). When multiple pass cleaning is required on heavily soiled carpet, and especially when post-cleaning additives are applied to carpet following “steam” cleaning, longer unassisted drying times (12-24 hours) may be anticipated. Therefore, technicians must consider procedures to expedite drying and thus to avoid problems associated with overwetting. Overwriting, or prolonged drying, may result from operator error.
DISCUSSION
Since the arrival of newer Soil And Stain Resistant Carpets, consumers have been selecting lighter shades for residential use. Problems like this one therefore are not uncommon. However, it is not the responsibility of the inspector to decide comfort zones for other people.
It is the responsibility of the inspector to do tests and quote rules. It is also his responsibility to try to make a conclusion based upon these two technicalities with the help of the background information and geographical and environmental conditions.
A cleaner is at fault in resoiling when he leaves a carpet too wet. This Standard is determined by a 24 hour drying time. The commissioner is reported to have achieved that goal.
Next, the cleaner is to minimize residue on the carpet. Some residues are soil attracting in and of themselves, while others remove soil retardant from the yarn. The Standard for the cleaner set by all four producers of Stain-Resist nylon is 10.0. The pH of this carpet in non soiled areas was 8.2 on the average. Also, there was no excessive residue found from the residue test such as was the case in photograph number six. The Stain-Resist Test is inconclusive, since we do not know who made the face yarn. DuPont’s and Monsanto’s nylon 6.6 does very well under this test. Nylon 6 by Allied and BASF perform substantially less.
According to the Standards it is the responsibly of the consumer to clean at least annually and more often with high use situations. This claimant has good rules for good maintenance, however with an office in the home, three boys,(one who exceptionally is responsible for some of the problems), three pets, (one which had an alleged urine problem), and the Southern California Pollution Fall Out that we are famous for in this part of the country, all living on a white carpet, many experts would probably say that this is a situation that requires frequent cleaning.
Next, the Standards point out that consumer spotting agent should be between and pH of 5 to 9. If the pH shown in picture six is from the consumer Resolve®, then it to does not conform with the Cleaning Standards.
It has been over one year since the first cleaning by the commissioner. Based upon an over all condition of residue check and pH reading it is hard to tell what chemicals were used and whether or not they might have affected the carpet in such a way as to cause to resoil or suffer a loss of soiling resistance. According to the commissioner there is also no record of chemicals used. It is clear that there is a difference in the ability to absorb a stain in the traffic lanes and along the edges of the walls based upon the MASTER SERIES® STAIN RESIST TEST.
Based upon the testing for residue and pH found in the up-stairs-boy’s-bedroom there is a soil attracting residue from detergent causing the dark spots to occur. If this detergent residue is in fact from the Resolve® the claimant reported using, then it is too alkaline and soil attracting. Also some of the samples used for the stain resist test came from this area.
One reason for the cleaning was for the urine. However according to the Dupont Chemical Company and other industry experts, urine can cause irreversible damage to nylon dyes and nylon itself. Based upon the claimant’s background information, the pH testing, and the ultra-violet light test this appears to be ‘old urine’. It is not reasonable to expect it to come out of the carpet.
The claimant believes that the stain and soil resistance is missing from the carpet. She feels that the commissioner is responsible for this condition. However, without documentation from a manufacturer, it can not be determined what kind of protectant was on the carpet at the time of installation. Also, the differences between Nylon 6 and Nylon 6.6 could account for the results on the STAIN RESIST TEST. Nylon 6 would more easily stain.
Based upon the background information, it took only one month to resoil due to an installation of an alarm system. It has been approximately nine months since the last cleaning.
CONCLUSION
1. This carpet has resoiled at a rate that is within normal industry standard.
2. The removal of the urine is not a reasonable expectation from the cleaning.
3. The loss of stain resistance and soil resistance is inconclusive. This is based upon the lack of documentation on what kind of protectants should or was in the carpet and the cleaner choice in detergents.
RECOMMENDATIONS
According to the cleaning test in picture 7, this carpet can be cleaned. It is suggested that some attempt be made to find the fiber producer and follow their guidelines for maintenance.