In February 2003 we quoted competitively for a reasonably large carcassing enquiry from a long-standing, valued customer. Our quote was £3,650 and we lost the order by over £700 – 20% out on a competitive quotation.

Alarm bells rang, especially when we heard to whom we’d lost it, so a decision was taken to follow it closely. In early March the site manager confirmed that the timber had been delivered and agreed that we could visit to inspect it. Armed with a camera we visited the site and were instantly suspicious of the whole batch. Both widths were marked with the same stamp, which looked strange, and the timber appeared to be very wet. It was also poorly sawn and full of large knots, shakes and splits, while stamped ‘dry’ and to grade C16.

We contacted BM TRADA Certification, the grading authority which had supposedly assessed whoever had marked the timber. It was very concerned by the information and a site visit was arranged for the next morning. A list of objectives was agreed in advance, including verifying the pedigree of the marks and visually reassessing the grading as stamped on the timber.

The site visit involved assessment of 30 joists and this confirmed our suspicions. While it was not within the scope of the main objectives, the final report stated that the preservative used on the timber did not appear to be a pressure treatment and was more likely to have been a dip. Worse was to come.

Bogus stamp

The grading stamp used the old TRADA logo, indicating that the grader or merchant involved had not been checked for over two years. In fact, the grading stamp had a number relating to a company which had left the scheme in 2002. So the stamp was either on some old graded material or was invalid.

The on-site test results showed that 20 out of 30 pieces failed on moisture content, with some pieces measured at 28%mc. The acceptable limit for strength grading failure is 10% and the batch exceeded this as well. As the BM TRADA report stated, “…the representative parcel of timber…has been inappropriately marked and…fails to meet the requirements for ‘dry’ C16 timber…”

We approached our local Trading Standards office which contacted the building inspector, under a duty of care, who condemned all of the material, including some already fixed. The contractor had to remove the timber and arrange replacement of all the joists, causing severe delay and added costs.

Cumbersome process

Our dealings with Trading Standards were long- winded and complex, even though the materials were purchased and delivered within one borough (if more than one is involved, all their Trading Standards office become involved). Lengthy meetings took place, including written statements and all evidence was handed over.

A raid was then arranged on the premises of the merchant involved, with BM TRADA acting as the Trading Standards professional witness. A substantial quantity of similar material was confiscated.

Over the following months we continued to press for a decision on how the matter would be dealt with. We thought it could potentially be taken as a criminal action on the same level as imitation aircraft parts, with the potential for loss of life or severe damage.

We were warned that the outcome was likely to merely be a censure and caution of the company, together with forfeiture of the goods. We and BM TRADA pressed strongly for court proceedings, but the final result ended as predicted. However, on December 8, 2003 the timber merchant ceased trading.

What did we gain? Was it all worth it? Would we do it again?

This episode almost destroyed our relationship with a valued customer and, while we are now recovering our position, it had a serious effect on the amount of business we did with them during 2003. The amount of management time taken up in this action was also immense and stressful. However, we have to consider our reputation and that of our suppliers.

We did do it again, with another valued customer, where a competitor supplied C16 material and then sent a labourer to site and had it all restamped C24! Yet again, with excellent back-up from BM TRADA, a serious breach of grading was exposed. This just leaves one last point: if we can find two instances in eight months, how many others are there and why aren’t more people doing something about it?