SupaGlazing

Two years of ongoing issues and false promises has led me to this – email sent to Supaglazing – but I am not expecting any resolution from them! I write to you to inform you of my overwhelming dissatisfaction with both the quality of the installation of my double glazed windows and the appalling level of service provided. In June 2012, our windows were installed (contract ref – 51xxx0) and initially we were delighted (after the snagging was completed). We had received courteous service, no pressure selling and a great price. However, shortly after the installation, it became apparent that their were issues with the sealant around the exterior of the windows. Feeling confident, we contacted Supaglazing and an “engineer” was sent out to carry out remedial works. This involved patching over the areas, where the silicone sealant had de-bonded from the window frames – all 11 windows. The “engineer” proceeded to patch over and use a saliva covered finger to smooth off the patch job. Of course, this was never going to be a long term solution and the areas patched over simply pealed away. This technique, did not provide sufficient sealant in the gaps to provide a long term solution and of course did not resolve the issue as to why the sealant had not bonded successfully to the window frames. So, as expected the same issue arose yet again – and another engineer was sent out. This time the engineer offered to put beading around the window frames (on the exterior). Furthermore, I could see daylight from the inside of my daughter”s bedroom – where the exterior sealant had failed and the internal decorators caulk had shrunk. I did not agree to ugly large upvc beading being installed for two primary reasons; firstly we did not like the look of this large ugly beading and secondly and most importantly – this does not resolve the issues and would not provide a guaranteed weather tight seal. So, again, the “engineer” carried out a patch job! So, yes you guessed it, the same issue arose again and an “engineer” attended our property to make an assessment. Again we were offered beading, and I highlighted my concerns – that this did not resolve the issue and that other installers of upvc windows did not have to use this method to achieve a satisfactory seal and furthermore, this was never agreed at the initial contract stage. After a lengthy discussion, the “engineer” stated that the sealant required removal and replacing for all 11 windows and that expanding foam should be used to reduce the gap behind the sealant. This was subsequently carried out, resulting in aesthetically ugly looking seals (as can be seen in the photos enclosed) but what I was told would be a functional seal and thus prevent the previous problems we had experienced. So here we are in 2014 – some two years on and yes, the seal has failed again, with me being able to see light around the frame from the inside of our en-suite window. On checking the other windows, the sealant has failed. Of course I called Supaglazing and was told that they would send out an “engineer” – but it would be around four weeks later (this has been the general theme/time delay for sending out an engineer throughout my after-sales experience). The date was agreed as 4th June 2014 and my views with regards to a long terms solution to the issue were expressed along with a complete list of the history to date. I even recall suggesting that the sealant manufacturer Soudal were invited so that the matter could be resolved – I was informed, in no uncertain terms that this was not something Supaglazing would do! The 4th June arrived and we received a phone call stating that as the weather was drizzly, the “engineer” would not be attending. After some protest and an explanation that our expectations were not simply for an “engineer” to arrive and patch over the sealant, but to make a full and thorough assessment, so as to provide a plan to resolve the matter in the long term – an “engineer” attended. The “engineer” examined some of the windows and the sealant and explained that he had been on the team which attended and removed the old sealant and used the expanding foam (visit 3). He agreed that the issue required a better sealant or application process and would complete his paper-work which would be in the office the following day. The following day arrived and no call from Supaglazing. We made contact and were promised a call back after explaining the situation (which even I am now bored of constantly repeating it). Of course no call was received. So here we are over a week on from the latest “engineer”s” visit – with no solution proposed, no contact and sealant which does not seal! In the meantime, I have spoken to Soudal – the sealant manufacturer (as used by the Supaglazing engineer who attended our property) and the very helpful technical services department informed me of the following (with regards to Silirub N (the silicone used by Supaglazing: This is not a contractor grade silicone and is the cheapest available (although technically fit-for purpose) An alternative sealant would be recommended for this application The usual reasons as to why the situation above occurs are: Not enough sealant used to allow for the natural movement which occurs within such joints and expansion as a result of heating and cooling – thus causing de-bonding at the weakest point of adhesion. Poor cleaning of the substrate to which the sealant is applied hence the sealant adheres to any substance on the surface of the substrate and as such the overall joint adhesion is only as strong as the bond between the contaminant and the substrate to which the sealant is meant to bond (probably a surface coating/contaminant as a result of the window frame manufacturing process, which has not been removed prior to application of the sealant) Supaglazing are not direct customers and as such they would need to escalate the matter via the third party from whom they purchase the product, in order to arrange for a site visit from the manufacturer (Soudal) if required. I have enclosed copies of the technical data sheets for Soudal”s Sillirub N – for your reference/instructions on correct application. Please note that while I accept that the work/product does not necessarily need to be perfect, I do have an anticipation that as supposed “experts in their field”, the quality of the product an installation will be of a better standard than that which I could provide/achieve and furthermore, comply with the sale of goods act – “of satisfactory quality” and “fit for purpose” – clearly that is not currently the case. Furthermore, I accept that some times companies do not always get things as right as they would have liked to have done – but it is about how these issues are rectified and so far Supaglazing have shown nothing other than contempt for me and the issues, since they received payment for the job! Naturally, this is a wholly unsatisfactory situation (which is not going to improve by itself – and given that we are two years into a 10 year guarantee, is shocking!) and I am frustrated and disappointing with the contact (or lack of) I have had with Supaglazing. Furthermore, I feel that the matter can not continue in this manner and needs resolving immediately. As such I give Supaglazing 7 days to resolve the matter (given this has been going on for two years now – I feel that this is more than reasonable). Should Supaglazing fail to respond/resolve the matter, then I will have no alternative than to contact my credit card company (which I used to place the deposit for the goods/services provided by Supaglazing) with a view to placing a claim under Section 75 or Charge-back, in order to fund a third party contractor to conduct the remedial works required as well as the consequential loss I have suffered as a result of the last two years. Yours Faithfully,