Hi -

Recently I refurbished my concrete garage floor. Scrubbed and acid-etched it, applied epoxy primer and 4 coats of epoxy paint for a lovely deep colour. Then finally applied a transparent protective topcoat, which went horribly wrong. The topcoat was supposed to be "smooth satin finish with excellent flow”, but it was actually quite viscous and didn't flow or settle well. Even worse, it didn't dry transparent, but with a cloudy white effect - the floor looks like a glazed doughnut.

All materials were highest quality major brand and all bought retail on-line from same UK supplier (nearly £400). I am now in discussion with the supplier about this, and working through the predictable excuses ("you can't have mixed it properly", "no-one else has complained" etc). I am absolutely confident that it was correctly mixed and applied, using scrupulously clean tools etc. I had successfully applied 5 previous coats, this wasn't my first rodeo.

The topcoat has set hard, and can't be removed. My only option is to paint over it all again, and this will probably need two coats of epoxy paint to reinstate the deep, rich colour. The materials for that will be around £100. I am hoping that the supplier will provide this additional paint without charge, and if so I'm happy to settle. If they won't offer a reasonable solution, then I will buy the necessary paint from another supplier and pursue it through the small claims procedure).

What I'm not sure about is the basis for the court claim, should that be necessary. The supplied topcoat was materially defective, but I can't realistically return it for a refund because it's stuck to the floor. Also a simple refund of one can of topcoat sealant would only be about £40, leaving me well out of pocket. So I think this is maybe a "consequential damages" situation, or a tort?

Would I pursue that in the ordinary way by reference to Consumer Rights Act 2015, or is a different model of claim necessary? Grateful for any advice, and especially for links to relevant information.

Thanks

When did you purchase the paint ?

How long after purchase did you use the paint ?

On the paint tins, what does it say about where the paint can be used and what preparation is required ?

I think the retailer is entitled to see evidence that the paint has not performed as it should have, if the paint is suitable for the job it was used for. I think you should take pictures and email them to the retailer, with an explanation of preparation before paint used, the square footage/meters covered and how much paint you used. Depending on how long ago you bought the paint, you might have to accept the retailer taking any unused paint and them sending it off to a lab to be inspected.

Others will know a lot more on consumer law. I know from reading that you get a lot of compaints about paint quality and retailers often will not provide more paint. They will want unused paint sent off to be tested in a lab, because they might have a batch that has a problem and it needs to be dealt with properly. If they supplied more paint, the same issue might be repeated.

Hi UncleB -

Firstly, I'm very pleased to say that the supplier has today agreed to provide the necessary paint without charge after reviewing the photos, video and notes which I sent to them.

The paint was freshly purchased for this project, and used within a week of supply. The purpose, preparation and application was exactly in line with the manufacturer's recommendations. There was no unused material remaining, but I offered to provide samples of the cured product and/or a site visit for expert inspection and testing.

I agree that it was reasonable for the supplier to ask these questions. I was half expecting it to become a small claims battle, but after seeing the evidence they responded very professionally. If it's okay to "name and praise" I will post a final comment later when it's all finished.

Dulux?

there is case law on this, someone bought paint for doing out the inside of a yacht and the paint was defective so they sued for the cost of repainting professionally. The paint co denied any liability but then said they will accept liability for the cos of the paint but the court decided that charging for a complete repaint was not unreasonable and the paint co were liable essentially without limit