QUOTE(Frankoi @ Aug 28 2017, 01:19 PM)
i have gotten a written reply and i am not happy. now i do not know if this is information that i can make public?
i any case the material is made in malaysia and is NOT as i was told Alucobond. i am only one small kichimiao ... other buyers should query the case, there is only so much 1 buyer can do.
irrespective of any certification i am asking if YTL themselves are satisfied with the product. If i get a response i will have to again consider if it can be made public.
i do not mind lowyat making me known to YTL if that is required to publish their reply here.
The developer is obviously satisfied with the acp else they would not have ordered.
QUOTE(Frankoi @ Aug 28 2017, 01:23 PM)
"The question then, is who is at fault and who should pay.
Bannermans principal lawyer David Bannerman said a “stream of liability” would need to be worked through – from importers and subcontractors through to architects and certifiers.
There is only a two-year statutory warranty on non-compliant aluminium cladding for buildings in contracts entered into after February 2012, and a seven-year timeline for those contracted before that date.
“For those who have missed the warranty period there are other more difficult legal avenues to pursue,” said Mr Bannerman.
“Nobody knew about it until the last few years.”"
https://www.domain.com.au/news/the-bad-stuf...0170823-gy2ug1/if this case is one of those problematic products being used YTL should fire test the product in a respectable countries lab and respond accordingly.
any legal case is easier to pursue earlier than later. (i am merely suggesting that if there be a need for one)
above article is sydney based
Normally developer obtained approval from architect and consultant before purchase. as long as it complied to prevailing bye law and regulations, developer liability is limited.
This post has been edited by icemanfx: Aug 28 2017, 02:13 PM