< continued from home page >

Cembrit Blunn's (now known as Cembrit) expert at the trial attempted to place the slates failings on poor workmanship. This was not accepted by Mr Justice Kitchin who exonerated Apex’s workmanship. He further observed “there can be no doubt that a significant number of slates have lifted at Aberfeldy and Greenhithe”.

To date, in an ongoing programme, 58 homes on the Aberfeldy Estate have been re-roofed out of 154. There are 283 homes at Greenhithe that are also in the process of being surveyed for re-roofing.

During the legal process it became apparent that a roofing contractor cannot easily step aside from any dispute concerning the quality of the product he has installed, even if specified by an Architect or Developer.

The contractual chain is such that even if the Roofing Contractor fixed the slate against his best advice to the customer it can be still his responsibility should the manufacturer not honour the guarantee. This was particularly difficult with Cembrit Blunn (now known as Cembrit) because of the scale of the problem and the nature of their guarantee, which offers only to replace the slates. The labour and scaffold costs to strip and re-slate are not automatically included.

Apex for many years were members of the NFRC which now has many associate members including large manufacturers like Cembrit Blunn (now known as Cembrit). We left this organisation because of its compromised position of trying to represent its members against manufacturers all of which are associate members.

The NFRC’s Technical Officer Phil Jarrett has been aware of the Zeeland defect since early 2004 and admitted this as a witness in High Court. Mark Fisher (Cembrit Blunn (now known as Cembrit) MD) had informed Mr Jarrett of this problem describing the poor quality of the back coating in the Czech factory which now makes the slates. However, the NFRC’s Technical Officer did not think this worth informing his membership of. (Was this because they served on the same NFRC slate and tile committee ?) This is the same committee that advises on British Standards. Therefore it is no surprise to learn that the MOAT Document, a European Standard/Test, has been dropped from subsequent revised British Standards because of its reference to curling slates and its statement that “more than a 3mm curl is unacceptable”. A substantial amount of slates at both Aberfeldy and Greenhithe have exceeded this parameter.

The BBA’s lack of interest in this issue can be gauged by the fact they did not test the Zeeland Slate until February 2005, despite being advised of its problems in 2003. We are sure most roofing contractors would look at BBA accreditation as a badge of quality and meaning fit for purpose. Our own experience of this body was one of intransigence from the outset. They were given the Stanger report in 2004 but refused to test the slate. Furthermore they refused to comment on the report itself citing client confidentiality. This we considered less than helpful from such an august body and indicative of where their loyalties might lie.

In 2005 we came into possession of an internal memo between Karl Jorgensen (Executive Vice President of Dansk Eternit) who were the owners of the Czech factory producing the Zeeland Slate and Mark Fisher where the admission was made that the Stanger report was difficult to disagree with. Due to the lack of support from the NFRC and BBA Apex showed the letter to Countryside and Crest Nicholson in an attempt to head off litigation from both parties. When Dansk Eternit realised we had a copy of the letter it successfully sued us alleging Breach of Confidence and Infringement of Copyright.

The identity of the person who had provided us with the letter was sought by Dansk Eternit. We gave undertakings not to circulate the letter further pending judgment or further order but declined to identify the source. We also defended our position on the grounds that the use made of the letter was justified to counter false statements made in an earlier letter written by Dansk Eternit’s solicitors to parties including Countryside and Crest Nicholson.

Their solicitors denial in that letter concerning the quality of their product was strange as they had already admitted as early as June 2004 to us and to another Roofing Contractor and to Mr Jarrett that there were production difficulties with the coating process. The company settled in full with that Roofing Contractor and other claims too. This makes it even more unbelievable that they chose to fight our claim with an identical problem.

Apex are a company of over thirty years standing and has worked with most of the major contractors and developers. It has completed prestigious contracts including re-slating sections of the Tower of London and the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. In this dispute all we have sought to do is leave customers with sound roofs but unfortunately this has involved trying to get Cembrit Blunn (now known as Cembrit) to honour their warranty. As a loyal Zeeland customer over several years who have spent somewhere in the region of £2m on the product we are still somewhat surprised at how this loyalty has been repaid.

Despite our High Court victory the legal process continues with the argument now concentrating on damages and costs which looks likely to continue well into 2008.