 |  |
Commercial Cash Flow
By Fred Geyen
October 13, 2010
Print / Reprints /
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin | Share More
PLEASE GO TO:http://www.janiservu.com/ for similar articles and coupons!
Advantage Cleaning Services Offers Soot Removal In Arkport, N.Y. 14807!!
Warranty? What warranty?
Both you and your clients may have uttered those very words.
Have you seen these types of statements in commercial carpet cleaning and maintenance instructions?
•
"The carpet mill does not recommend the use of any type of bonnet or rotary shampoo cleaning method."
•
"The use of bonnet or rotary methods may void all warranties."
•
"Improper cleaning methods will void the warranty."
You will find these types of statements or variations of them in almost every commercial carpet mill''s cleaning instructions and repeated in the actual warranty given to end users.
Do you need to pay attention to the warranty, or can it be disregarded? Why are the mills targeting specific cleaning methods?
The inside scoop
For an inside look, we asked carpet mill cleaning maintenance managers the significance of the warranty statements about rotary machines — such as those employed in bonnet cleaning — and what led to it.
Please note that spray and extraction style rotary machines are not the object of the warranty.
The people I had conversations with represent a large share of the commercial carpet market, and we are thankful for their insight.
I spoke with Jason Long and Dale Perry from Mohawk; Carey Mitchell and Cindy Sayre from Shaw'' Mark French from InterfaceFlor; Pam Arthur from Beaulieu; John Garger from Tandus; and Jim Burnett from J&J. Others I contacted were not immediately available but did indicate they wanted to get the word out on the proper understanding of commercial carpet warranties. All of these mentioned do not necessarily endorse all aspects of this article.
Why did the mills feel it was necessary to put this wording in the warranties? What problems were they seeing?
The mills each have areas of higher concern and do not agree on everything, but following is a paraphrased compilation of conversations with them.
Warranty concerns
The largest concerns centered on operator errors and machine styles on three fronts.
The first is "improper use of pads." This included using dirty pads, overly aggressive pads (such as nylon bonnets), pads not intended for carpet and pads or bonnets that were too dry or used too long in one area, causing distortion.
The second is the use of improperly formulated products that can actually add to resoil rates.
The third is not scheduling the carpet for hot water extraction.
In the cleaning instructions, the mills post a schedule of how to clean and a recommended frequency for the cleanings. They list the method or methods they approve, from low moisture to interim to hot water extraction. They often include specifications for vacuuming.
No matter which method of interim cleaning or how good the product, companies are failing to schedule hot water extraction at the recommended intervals. This would fit into "improper maintenance" and could potentially void the mill warranty.
"Where is this going?" you ask. "Will I have to pay for carpet replacement if the mills deny a claim because I used a rotary or bonnet style machine?"
It might, as we do seem to have plenty of lawyers in our country looking for work.
Each mill will rightly head in its own direction on this point, because every situation will be significantly different from one another.
Could a customer, after being denied a claim because they hired us and we did it "wrong", ask us to pay for new carpet?
Perhaps. A rule or warranty is what it is, even if you disagree with it. There is always a possible penalty if you do not follow the warranty instructions.
Testing results
On February 18, Society of Cleaning and Restoration Technicians (SCRT) Ohio chapter President Tom Sherman sponsored a session called Commercial Conundrum II, led by Mark Violand of Violand Flooring Inspections Inc. in Uniontown, Ohio.
The goal was to address this very warranty issue in a hands-on way. The plan was to simulate the damage — if any — caused by rotary/bonnet and other machines on new Plexiglas sheets and document the outcome.
I was there, and was one of many who assisted documenting what Violand was doing. Most results were predictable, as we knew any brushes on the dual cylindrical machines, pile lifters and vacuums would scratch the glass to some extent.
We wanted to identify the different levels of damage by each machine, pad and brush.
As expected, dirty pads caused more damage then clean pads and, by design, aggressive brushes cause more scratches than softer ones.
There was one outcome that surprised everyone — we all thought that when spraying the sheets with a cleaner, the wet surface with cleaner would provide a protective lubrication to the Plexiglas surface.
Wrong. The worst area of scratching happened with a pre-spray followed with a "used pad" on a rotary style machine. The answer to just why this happened will, I am sure, be examined in the next couple months.
For now, pay attention to the mill warranties out there, and let''s all look for practical, positive methods of cleaning carpet that are accepted by mills and effective for our customers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Geyen is president of the Geyen Group (www.geyengroup.com). His background includes commercial product sales and program development for residential, commercial and disaster restoration with ServiceMaster. He has a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED-AP) designation and is on the board of directors with the LMCCA. Geyen can be contacted at (612) 799-5111.
