Home
FAQ
Search
Register
Log inDCCAS GARMENT ALERT #1 – PIK/CARLOPIK KNITTED TOP WITH BLACK PLASTIC TRIM
TCS Textile Consultancy Forum :: General Textile and Clothing Issues :: Consumer Textile Problem Forum :: Dry Cleaning Complaints Forum
Page 1 of 1•
DCCAS GARMENT ALERT #1 – PIK/CARLOPIK KNITTED TOP WITH BLACK PLASTIC TRIM
by Admin on Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:25 am
DCCAS GARMENT ALERT SERVICE
All DCCAS Garment Alerts will be posted on the DCCAS Dry Cleaning Complaints Arbitration web site at www.drycleaningcomplaints.com.
GARMENT ALERT #1 – PIK/CARLOPIK KNITTED TOP WITH BLACK PLASTIC TRIM
Lady’s light grey and blue trimmed Pik/Carlopik knitted top with diamante and black plastic trim.
GARMENT LABELLING
• Designer/Manufacturer: Pik/Carlopik
• Fibre Content Labelling: 97% viscose/3% spandex
• Care Labelling: Professional Dry Clean Only
• Size Labelling: 42
• Country of Origin: China
GARMENT PROBLEM
The garment is labelled as Professional Dry Clean Only (P) and the black plastic trim attached around the collar dissolves in perchlorethylene dry cleaning solvent. During the course of dry cleaning the garment according to the requirements of the attached care labelling, the garment’s plastic trim becomes badly damaged and causes the garment to become severely stained. In turn, the dissolved plastic trim can then cause damage and dark staining in all the other garments that have been dry cleaned in the same load.
RESPONSIBILITY
This plastic trimmed garment is clearly incorrectly labelled as dry cleanable in perchlorethylene solvent and the manufacturer or Australian importer/fashion agent is clearly responsible for any damage caused to the garment itself or any other garments that have been dry cleaned in the same load. DCCAS is currently assisting a dry cleaner who dry cleaned this garment as part of a large load in which all the items have now become severely damaged and made unserviceable by the dissolving black plastic trim.
APPROPRIATE ACTION
This black plastic trimmed garment should NOT be dry cleaned in perchlorethylene under any circumstances at all. If it has been dry cleaned and then become damaged, the manufacturer is responsible, customer should be referred to IFI/DLI TABS-332 Plastic Trim Dissolves in Dry Cleaning or this garment alert, either in the National or on-line and the customer encouraged to return the garment to the original retail outlet for full redress for her loss. If any other garments have been damaged in the same load, then the Australian agent for Carlopik should be contacted and a formal claim made for their loss. They are now aware of this problem with the black plastic trim.
Steven Pyott
B.Sc., M.Sc., CText A.T.I., Grad.Cert.Ed., Adv.Dip.Ed.
Consulting Chartered Textile Technologist
DRY CLEANING COMPLAINTS ARBITRATION SERVICES
All DCCAS Garment Alerts will be posted on the DCCAS Dry Cleaning Complaints Arbitration web site at www.drycleaningcomplaints.com.
GARMENT ALERT #1 – PIK/CARLOPIK KNITTED TOP WITH BLACK PLASTIC TRIM
Lady’s light grey and blue trimmed Pik/Carlopik knitted top with diamante and black plastic trim.
GARMENT LABELLING
• Designer/Manufacturer: Pik/Carlopik
• Fibre Content Labelling: 97% viscose/3% spandex
• Care Labelling: Professional Dry Clean Only
• Size Labelling: 42
• Country of Origin: China
GARMENT PROBLEM
The garment is labelled as Professional Dry Clean Only (P) and the black plastic trim attached around the collar dissolves in perchlorethylene dry cleaning solvent. During the course of dry cleaning the garment according to the requirements of the attached care labelling, the garment’s plastic trim becomes badly damaged and causes the garment to become severely stained. In turn, the dissolved plastic trim can then cause damage and dark staining in all the other garments that have been dry cleaned in the same load.
RESPONSIBILITY
This plastic trimmed garment is clearly incorrectly labelled as dry cleanable in perchlorethylene solvent and the manufacturer or Australian importer/fashion agent is clearly responsible for any damage caused to the garment itself or any other garments that have been dry cleaned in the same load. DCCAS is currently assisting a dry cleaner who dry cleaned this garment as part of a large load in which all the items have now become severely damaged and made unserviceable by the dissolving black plastic trim.
APPROPRIATE ACTION
This black plastic trimmed garment should NOT be dry cleaned in perchlorethylene under any circumstances at all. If it has been dry cleaned and then become damaged, the manufacturer is responsible, customer should be referred to IFI/DLI TABS-332 Plastic Trim Dissolves in Dry Cleaning or this garment alert, either in the National or on-line and the customer encouraged to return the garment to the original retail outlet for full redress for her loss. If any other garments have been damaged in the same load, then the Australian agent for Carlopik should be contacted and a formal claim made for their loss. They are now aware of this problem with the black plastic trim.
Steven Pyott
B.Sc., M.Sc., CText A.T.I., Grad.Cert.Ed., Adv.Dip.Ed.
Consulting Chartered Textile Technologist
DRY CLEANING COMPLAINTS ARBITRATION SERVICES
Agent for Carlopik
by stevep21 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 am
The agent for Carlopik in Australia is New Twist Pty Ltd, 19 Ralph Street, Alexandria, NSW 2015. Their legal advisors in Brisbane are currently negotiating a settlement in the case where their garment damaged twenty two items in a dry cleaning load.
Incorrectly Care Labelled Black Plastic Trimmed Pik/Carlopik Kniitted Top
by stevep21 on Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:41 am
I've just been informed by my client that New Twist Pty Ltd, the importers of the Pik/Carlopik incorrectly care labelled garment, have now fully settled the claim made by him to the full amount of almost $4000.00.
This covers the replacement costs of twenty two garments and furnishings that were damaged during the dry cleaning process by this garment, plus all the costs of technical services provided by DCCAS, including advice and representation, the preparation of technical reports and correspondence.
The negotiations with the solicitors acting for New Twist Pty Ltd were very tortuous. Initially, they only offered 30% of the total damages claim, which was approximately $900, plus the $450.00 technical costs, in settlement. In response we had to draft a technically complex letter rejecting their flawed rationale for offering such a low settlement which increased technical costs by a further $200.00
Then they increased their offer to approximately $1600 plus technical costs which was rejected. Next they increased this to the full amount of the original claim for replacing all the damaged textile items, which was approximately $3300.00, but no technical costs were to be included this time, and this was rejected. Next, they increased their offer to include the initial technical costs of $450.00 but not the further $200.00, and this was rejected.
Finally, this afternoon, they settled for the full amount that was being claimed which was approximately $4000, which was a very good result for the the dry cleaner and his twenty two customers. Unfortunately, these protracted negotiations have incurred further legal representation costs for the dry cleaner which were not part of this final settlement.
Cheers,
Steve
This covers the replacement costs of twenty two garments and furnishings that were damaged during the dry cleaning process by this garment, plus all the costs of technical services provided by DCCAS, including advice and representation, the preparation of technical reports and correspondence.
The negotiations with the solicitors acting for New Twist Pty Ltd were very tortuous. Initially, they only offered 30% of the total damages claim, which was approximately $900, plus the $450.00 technical costs, in settlement. In response we had to draft a technically complex letter rejecting their flawed rationale for offering such a low settlement which increased technical costs by a further $200.00
Then they increased their offer to approximately $1600 plus technical costs which was rejected. Next they increased this to the full amount of the original claim for replacing all the damaged textile items, which was approximately $3300.00, but no technical costs were to be included this time, and this was rejected. Next, they increased their offer to include the initial technical costs of $450.00 but not the further $200.00, and this was rejected.
Finally, this afternoon, they settled for the full amount that was being claimed which was approximately $4000, which was a very good result for the the dry cleaner and his twenty two customers. Unfortunately, these protracted negotiations have incurred further legal representation costs for the dry cleaner which were not part of this final settlement.
Cheers,
Steve