Jump to content
Find Professionals    Deals    Get Quotations   Portfolios

Icon Interior

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Icon Interior

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

519 profile views
  1. Dear readers, We are writing to clarify on the above unpleasant incident put forth by forummer Axel C (AC). And, we are taking this opportunity to explain our side of the situation. AC engaged our former designer Clive Lim (whom has left in 2013) to renovate his resale maisonette in 2012. The unit was handed over in Jan 2013. In Aug 2013, AC contacted Wayne Chan to complain signs of leaking on his dining room ceiling which is directly underneath the 2nd floor common bathroom. Subsequently, Wayne followed up with 3 inspections that were arranged between Sep and Oct. During the 1st inspection, there was a leakage test by sealing up the floor trap and then flooding the entire common bathroom floor for a week without switching on the air-con. This was to test if there was a leak caused by waterproofing in common bathroom. Results in Pic 1 and Pic 2 below. (Pic 1: leaked ceiling wiped dry before leakage test.) One week later. (Pic 2: Ceiling became dry after leakage test.) After 1st leakage test, we proceeded with a 2nd test. This time, we left the air-con on and wiped all water in common bathroom and stop the use in 2nd storey common bathroom to confirm if the leak was caused by the concealed air-con piping. When we returned to inspect on the 2nd test done, we discovered that the ceiling was wet while the aircon was running hence we strongly suspect that the leak likely came from the air-con piping. Wayne explained to AC that a leaked ceiling could be due to several factors and from this result revealed that there was high chance that the aircon piping was the cause of the leakage. But AC is still not convinced and insisted we do a 3rd test. For the 3rd test, we engaged our waterproofing specialist to do a site survey on the leak. While waiting for the report (attachment 1), Wayne suggested to AC to conduct a joint inspection with AC’s air-con installer, along with our carpenter who would aid in the dismantling of the wardrobe to access the air-con piping concealed behind the wardrobe. While we regretted that there were lapse in timely reply by Wayne to AC, and with the carpenter car broke down on the day of appointment, it was never our intention to shun responsibility on our part. This occurred during the year-end peak period which cancellations in appointments were unforeseen. (Attachment 1: Investigation report from our waterproofing specialist which states the possibilities that had caused the leak.) Being unsatisfied with the cancellation of appointments and growing impatient from waiting, AC demanded for a monetary compensation to rectify the leak by a third party contractor. A quotation by the third-party contractor was sent to us stating an amount of $17,387.45, which we felt was ridiculously overpriced. And by this point of time, the waterproofing results had been concluded and Wayne had tried to explain our situation to AC and requested him to allow us to arrange for rectification works to be done by us. However, we were rejected and were repeatedly demanded to compensate him the monies to engage the third-party contractor. (Attachment 2, Pg 1 to 3) As per attachment 2, the quotation submitted by AC was from a third-party contractor who specialized in customizing wooden furniture (Attachment 3) and the amount of $17,387.45 was only for re-doing one common bathroom. This quote was deemed heavily overpriced and we felt that the 3rd party contractor who specialized in customizing wooden furniture would NOT be familiar with solving waterproofing issues. And we decided to attend the claim by AC to settle the claim in SG Small claim court as the amount of $17,387.45 was deemed unreasonable. (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 1/3) (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 2/3) (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 3/3) (Attachment 3: A screenshot of third-party contractor’s website stating their specialization in custom-made furniture.) In Jan 2014, AC proceeded to file a claim in SG court of $17,387.45 against us for this leak issue. In Mar 2014, SG Small Claim Court issued us to compensate AC a total amount of $6,000.00 (instead of the exorbitant $17.387.45) to hack a common bathroom floor and redo the waterproofing membrane. We duly paid the $6000.00 hoping that owner AC can proceed quickly to engage his own specialist for the hacking and waterproofing works so his family can be relieved of this inconvenience without delay. We regret for AC and his family to encounter the leaking problem even though the results proved that the leaking was very likely due to the concealed air-con piping, but having to live through the inconvenience and hassle, we hoped AC could quickly resolved the problem for his unit after receiving our compensation. In Aug 2014, Wayne received another call from AC, this time, on a leak spotted along his corridor parquet floor. We were curious how another leak should occur just inches away when there should be rectification works done after receiving the $6000 we paid to AC after the court case in Mar 2014. Please refer to Attachment 4 and 5 for the new leak area at kitchen ceiling and the map of #2 leak area from #1 leak area. (Attachment 4, Photo of ceiling highlighting new and old leaking area.) (Attachment 5, Floor plan illustrating location of old and new leaking area.) Wayne then made an appointment with our waterproofing specialist to do a site inspection on this 2nd leak. During that inspection, to our non surprise, we saw that the common bathroom floor did not look like it has been changed and that was almost 6 months after our compensation to AC. While keeping our suspicion, we called up our tile supplier to check if there were any orders placed for the same bathroom floor tiles and delivered to AC’s home for the past 1 year, the answer was no. Valid that AC could have ordered other tiles from other supplier, we further checked with HDB HQ to see if anyone had applied for permit to hack AC’s unit within the past 1 year. HDB officer replied then that no other hacking permits applied for AC’s unit since our application in 2012. (Question: So what did AC do with the $6,000.00 compensation paid to him at the first trial that was meant for him to hack, re-lay the waterproofing and changing the concealed aircon piping connector in his bathroom floor?) After assessing the premises, our waterproofing specialist’s recommended that leak #2 had possibly come from the same source as leak #1. At that point, we suspected that AC did not carry out hacking to relay waterproofing which should include the changing of concealed aircon piping connector, but instead engaged his own waterproofing specialist to do a PU injection (costing approx $500 market rate) to stop leak #1. We were convinced that AC did not proceed with proper rectification works after receiving the $6000.00 from us but instead engaged a non proper rectification work which could have led to the 2nd leak. With this reason, we decided not to honor any responsibility for leak #2, and informed AC that we maintained that the waterproofing warranty for his unit had expired based on the contract agreement signed in 2012. In Sep 2014, AC filed a claim at SG Small Claim Tribunal against us for the second leak for an amount of $4,758.60 to rectify the issue due to new leak that appeared within the warranty period. According to AC’s submitted report (Attachment 6 ) done by his newly engaged waterproofing specialist, leak #2 surfaced more than 12months ago which put leak #2 into the same time frame as leak #1. (Attachment 6, AC’s self-engaged waterproofing specialist’s report that puts the leak #2 into the same time frame as leak #1.) Question: -According to AC’s water proofing report (Attachment 6), both leaks occurred around the same time (12 months ago) and located inches apart around the same area, why was leak #2 not spotted or mentioned by AC during the first claim against us? - Is there a kind of detector can test how long has the water leakage surfaced as claimed by AC’s water proofing specialist? In view of this questionable report submitted by AC, we decided to defend fully against the claim by AC. (First photo, shows the leak occurring over a period of 7 months.) (Second photo, shows the leak that was claimed to be occurring over a period of 12months.) Further cross examination of photos of the common bathroom floor tiles which were taken before and after the first claim, revealed that that the flooring in the bathroom that was supposed to be rectified but had remained unchanged. (Photo of the common toilet floor that were taken before first claim.) (Photo of the common toilet floor that were taken after first claim.) On 2nd Jan 2015, SG Small Tribunal Court dismissed AC’s second claim against us due to insufficient and dubious evidence that leak #2 was caused by our waterproofing. As the law in Singapore does not require a follow-up report from the claimant on how they utilize a successful claim, it is at the sole discretion of the claimant on how they utilize their compensation which could possibly include engaging less effective methods of rectification at cheaper prices, or simply not doing anything at all. In conclusion, we will not discuss AC’s purpose and integrity from these 2 claims. But we hope all of you will come to understand the full picture of this incident.
  2. Dear readers, We are writing to clarify on the above unpleasant incident put forth by forummer Axel C (AC). And, we are taking this opportunity to explain our side of the situation. AC engaged our former designer Clive Lim (whom has left in 2013) to renovate his resale maisonette in 2012. The unit was handed over in Jan 2013. In Aug 2013, AC contacted Wayne Chan to complain signs of leaking on his dining room ceiling which is directly underneath the 2nd floor common bathroom. Subsequently, Wayne followed up with 3 inspections that were arranged between Sep and Oct. During the 1st inspection, there was a leakage test by sealing up the floor trap and then flooding the entire common bathroom floor for a week without switching on the air-con. This was to test if there was a leak caused by waterproofing in common bathroom. Results in Pic 1 and Pic 2 below. (Pic 1: leaked ceiling wiped dry before leakage test.) One week later. (Pic 2: Ceiling became dry after leakage test.) After 1st leakage test, we proceeded with a 2nd test. This time, we left the air-con on and wiped all water in common bathroom and stop the use in 2nd storey common bathroom to confirm if the leak was caused by the concealed air-con piping. When we returned to inspect on the 2nd test done, we discovered that the ceiling was wet while the aircon was running hence we strongly suspect that the leak likely came from the air-con piping. Wayne explained to AC that a leaked ceiling could be due to several factors and from this result revealed that there was high chance that the aircon piping was the cause of the leakage. But AC is still not convinced and insisted we do a 3rd test. For the 3rd test, we engaged our waterproofing specialist to do a site survey on the leak. While waiting for the report (attachment 1), Wayne suggested to AC to conduct a joint inspection with AC’s air-con installer, along with our carpenter who would aid in the dismantling of the wardrobe to access the air-con piping concealed behind the wardrobe. While we regretted that there were lapse in timely reply by Wayne to AC, and with the carpenter car broke down on the day of appointment, it was never our intention to shun responsibility on our part. This occurred during the year-end peak period which cancellations in appointments were unforeseen. (Attachment 1: Investigation report from our waterproofing specialist which states the possibilities that had caused the leak.) Being unsatisfied with the cancellation of appointments and growing impatient from waiting, AC demanded for a monetary compensation to rectify the leak by a third party contractor. A quotation by the third-party contractor was sent to us stating an amount of $17,387.45, which we felt was ridiculously overpriced. And by this point of time, the waterproofing results had been concluded and Wayne had tried to explain our situation to AC and requested him to allow us to arrange for rectification works to be done by us. However, we were rejected and were repeatedly demanded to compensate him the monies to engage the third-party contractor. (Attachment 2, Pg 1 to 3) As per attachment 2, the quotation submitted by AC was from a third-party contractor who specialized in customizing wooden furniture (Attachment 3) and the amount of $17,387.45 was only for re-doing one common bathroom. This quote was deemed heavily overpriced and we felt that the 3rd party contractor who specialized in customizing wooden furniture would NOT be familiar with solving waterproofing issues. And we decided to attend the claim by AC to settle the claim in SG Small claim court as the amount of $17,387.45 was deemed unreasonable. (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 1/3) (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 2/3) (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 3/3) (Attachment 3: A screenshot of third-party contractor’s website stating their specialization in custom-made furniture.) In Jan 2014, AC proceeded to file a claim in SG court of $17,387.45 against us for this leak issue. In Mar 2014, SG Small Claim Court issued us to compensate AC a total amount of $6,000.00 (instead of the exorbitant $17.387.45) to hack a common bathroom floor and redo the waterproofing membrane. We duly paid the $6000.00 hoping that owner AC can proceed quickly to engage his own specialist for the hacking and waterproofing works so his family can be relieved of this inconvenience without delay. We regret for AC and his family to encounter the leaking problem even though the results proved that the leaking was very likely due to the concealed air-con piping, but having to live through the inconvenience and hassle, we hoped AC could quickly resolved the problem for his unit after receiving our compensation. In Aug 2014, Wayne received another call from AC, this time, on a leak spotted along his corridor parquet floor. We were curious how another leak should occur just inches away when there should be rectification works done after receiving the $6000 we paid to AC after the court case in Mar 2014. Please refer to Attachment 4 and 5 for the new leak area at kitchen ceiling and the map of #2 leak area from #1 leak area. (Attachment 4, Photo of ceiling highlighting new and old leaking area.) (Attachment 5, Floor plan illustrating location of old and new leaking area.) Wayne then made an appointment with our waterproofing specialist to do a site inspection on this 2nd leak. During that inspection, to our non surprise, we saw that the common bathroom floor did not look like it has been changed and that was almost 6 months after our compensation to AC. While keeping our suspicion, we called up our tile supplier to check if there were any orders placed for the same bathroom floor tiles and delivered to AC’s home for the past 1 year, the answer was no. Valid that AC could have ordered other tiles from other supplier, we further checked with HDB HQ to see if anyone had applied for permit to hack AC’s unit within the past 1 year. HDB officer replied then that no other hacking permits applied for AC’s unit since our application in 2012. (Question: So what did AC do with the $6,000.00 compensation paid to him at the first trial that was meant for him to hack, re-lay the waterproofing and changing the concealed aircon piping connector in his bathroom floor?) After assessing the premises, our waterproofing specialist’s recommended that leak #2 had possibly come from the same source as leak #1. At that point, we suspected that AC did not carry out hacking to relay waterproofing which should include the changing of concealed aircon piping connector, but instead engaged his own waterproofing specialist to do a PU injection (costing approx $500 market rate) to stop leak #1. We were convinced that AC did not proceed with proper rectification works after receiving the $6000.00 from us but instead engaged a non proper rectification work which could have led to the 2nd leak. With this reason, we decided not to honor any responsibility for leak #2, and informed AC that we maintained that the waterproofing warranty for his unit had expired based on the contract agreement signed in 2012. In Sep 2014, AC filed a claim at SG Small Claim Tribunal against us for the second leak for an amount of $4,758.60 to rectify the issue due to new leak that appeared within the warranty period. According to AC’s submitted report (Attachment 6 ) done by his newly engaged waterproofing specialist, leak #2 surfaced more than 12months ago which put leak #2 into the same time frame as leak #1. (Attachment 6, AC’s self-engaged waterproofing specialist’s report that puts the leak #2 into the same time frame as leak #1.) Question: -According to AC’s water proofing report (Attachment 6), both leaks occurred around the same time (12 months ago) and located inches apart around the same area, why was leak #2 not spotted or mentioned by AC during the first claim against us? - Is there a kind of detector can test how long has the water leakage surfaced as claimed by AC’s water proofing specialist? In view of this questionable report submitted by AC, we decided to defend fully against the claim by AC. (First photo, shows the leak occurring over a period of 7 months.) (Second photo, shows the leak that was claimed to be occurring over a period of 12months.) Further cross examination of photos of the common bathroom floor tiles which were taken before and after the first claim, revealed that that the flooring in the bathroom that was supposed to be rectified but had remained unchanged. (Photo of the common toilet floor that were taken before first claim.) (Photo of the common toilet floor that were taken after first claim.) On 2nd Jan 2015, SG Small Tribunal Court dismissed AC’s second claim against us due to insufficient and dubious evidence that leak #2 was caused by our waterproofing. As the law in Singapore does not require a follow-up report from the claimant on how they utilize a successful claim, it is at the sole discretion of the claimant on how they utilize their compensation which could possibly include engaging less effective methods of rectification at cheaper prices, or simply not doing anything at all. In conclusion, we will not discuss AC’s purpose and integrity from these 2 claims. But we hope all of you will come to understand the full picture of this incident.
  3. Dear readers, We are writing to clarify on the above unpleasant incident put forth by forummer Axel C (AC). And, we are taking this opportunity to explain our side of the situation. AC engaged our former designer Clive Lim (whom has left in 2013) to renovate his resale maisonette in 2012. The unit was handed over in Jan 2013. In Aug 2013, AC contacted Wayne Chan to complain signs of leaking on his dining room ceiling which is directly underneath the 2nd floor common bathroom. Subsequently, Wayne followed up with 3 inspections that were arranged between Sep and Oct. During the 1st inspection, there was a leakage test by sealing up the floor trap and then flooding the entire common bathroom floor for a week without switching on the air-con. This was to test if there was a leak caused by waterproofing in common bathroom. Results in Pic 1 and Pic 2 below. (Pic 1: leaked ceiling wiped dry before leakage test.) One week later. (Pic 2: Ceiling became dry after leakage test.) After 1st leakage test, we proceeded with a 2nd test. This time, we left the air-con on and wiped all water in common bathroom and stop the use in 2nd storey common bathroom to confirm if the leak was caused by the concealed air-con piping. When we returned to inspect on the 2nd test done, we discovered that the ceiling was wet while the aircon was running hence we strongly suspect that the leak likely came from the air-con piping. Wayne explained to AC that a leaked ceiling could be due to several factors and from this result revealed that there was high chance that the aircon piping was the cause of the leakage. But AC is still not convinced and insisted we do a 3rd test. For the 3rd test, we engaged our waterproofing specialist to do a site survey on the leak. While waiting for the report (attachment 1), Wayne suggested to AC to conduct a joint inspection with AC’s air-con installer, along with our carpenter who would aid in the dismantling of the wardrobe to access the air-con piping concealed behind the wardrobe. While we regretted that there were lapse in timely reply by Wayne to AC, and with the carpenter car broke down on the day of appointment, it was never our intention to shun responsibility on our part. This occurred during the year-end peak period which cancellations in appointments were unforeseen. (Attachment 1: Investigation report from our waterproofing specialist which states the possibilities that had caused the leak.) Being unsatisfied with the cancellation of appointments and growing impatient from waiting, AC demanded for a monetary compensation to rectify the leak by a third party contractor. A quotation by the third-party contractor was sent to us stating an amount of $17,387.45, which we felt was ridiculously overpriced. And by this point of time, the waterproofing results had been concluded and Wayne had tried to explain our situation to AC and requested him to allow us to arrange for rectification works to be done by us. However, we were rejected and were repeatedly demanded to compensate him the monies to engage the third-party contractor. (Attachment 2, Pg 1 to 3) As per attachment 2, the quotation submitted by AC was from a third-party contractor who specialized in customizing wooden furniture (Attachment 3) and the amount of $17,387.45 was only for re-doing one common bathroom. This quote was deemed heavily overpriced and we felt that the 3rd party contractor who specialized in customizing wooden furniture would NOT be familiar with solving waterproofing issues. And we decided to attend the claim by AC to settle the claim in SG Small claim court as the amount of $17,387.45 was deemed unreasonable. (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 1/3) (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 2/3) (Attachment 2: Quotation from AC’s contractor for repair work, page 3/3) (Attachment 3: A screenshot of third-party contractor’s website stating their specialization in custom-made furniture.) In Jan 2014, AC proceeded to file a claim in SG court of $17,387.45 against us for this leak issue. In Mar 2014, SG Small Claim Court issued us to compensate AC a total amount of $6,000.00 (instead of the exorbitant $17.387.45) to hack a common bathroom floor and redo the waterproofing membrane. We duly paid the $6000.00 hoping that owner AC can proceed quickly to engage his own specialist for the hacking and waterproofing works so his family can be relieved of this inconvenience without delay. We regret for AC and his family to encounter the leaking problem even though the results proved that the leaking was very likely due to the concealed air-con piping, but having to live through the inconvenience and hassle, we hoped AC could quickly resolved the problem for his unit after receiving our compensation. In Aug 2014, Wayne received another call from AC, this time, on a leak spotted along his corridor parquet floor. We were curious how another leak should occur just inches away when there should be rectification works done after receiving the $6000 we paid to AC after the court case in Mar 2014. Please refer to Attachment 4 and 5 for the new leak area at kitchen ceiling and the map of #2 leak area from #1 leak area. (Attachment 4, Photo of ceiling highlighting new and old leaking area.) (Attachment 5, Floor plan illustrating location of old and new leaking area.) Wayne then made an appointment with our waterproofing specialist to do a site inspection on this 2nd leak. During that inspection, to our non surprise, we saw that the common bathroom floor did not look like it has been changed and that was almost 6 months after our compensation to AC. While keeping our suspicion, we called up our tile supplier to check if there were any orders placed for the same bathroom floor tiles and delivered to AC’s home for the past 1 year, the answer was no. Valid that AC could have ordered other tiles from other supplier, we further checked with HDB HQ to see if anyone had applied for permit to hack AC’s unit within the past 1 year. HDB officer replied then that no other hacking permits applied for AC’s unit since our application in 2012. (Question: So what did AC do with the $6,000.00 compensation paid to him at the first trial that was meant for him to hack, re-lay the waterproofing and changing the concealed aircon piping connector in his bathroom floor?) After assessing the premises, our waterproofing specialist’s recommended that leak #2 had possibly come from the same source as leak #1. At that point, we suspected that AC did not carry out hacking to relay waterproofing which should include the changing of concealed aircon piping connector, but instead engaged his own waterproofing specialist to do a PU injection (costing approx $500 market rate) to stop leak #1. We were convinced that AC did not proceed with proper rectification works after receiving the $6000.00 from us but instead engaged a non proper rectification work which could have led to the 2nd leak. With this reason, we decided not to honor any responsibility for leak #2, and informed AC that we maintained that the waterproofing warranty for his unit had expired based on the contract agreement signed in 2012. In Sep 2014, AC filed a claim at SG Small Claim Tribunal against us for the second leak for an amount of $4,758.60 to rectify the issue due to new leak that appeared within the warranty period. According to AC’s submitted report (Attachment 6 ) done by his newly engaged waterproofing specialist, leak #2 surfaced more than 12months ago which put leak #2 into the same time frame as leak #1. (Attachment 6, AC’s self-engaged waterproofing specialist’s report that puts the leak #2 into the same time frame as leak #1.) Question: -According to AC’s water proofing report (Attachment 6), both leaks occurred around the same time (12 months ago) and located inches apart around the same area, why was leak #2 not spotted or mentioned by AC during the first claim against us? - Is there a kind of detector can test how long has the water leakage surfaced as claimed by AC’s water proofing specialist? In view of this questionable report submitted by AC, we decided to defend fully against the claim by AC. (First photo, shows the leak occurring over a period of 7 months.) (Second photo, shows the leak that was claimed to be occurring over a period of 12months.) Further cross examination of photos of the common bathroom floor tiles which were taken before and after the first claim, revealed that that the flooring in the bathroom that was supposed to be rectified but had remained unchanged. (Photo of the common toilet floor that were taken before first claim.) (Photo of the common toilet floor that were taken after first claim.) On 2nd Jan 2015, SG Small Tribunal Court dismissed AC’s second claim against us due to insufficient and dubious evidence that leak #2 was caused by our waterproofing. As the law in Singapore does not require a follow-up report from the claimant on how they utilize a successful claim, it is at the sole discretion of the claimant on how they utilize their compensation which could possibly include engaging less effective methods of rectification at cheaper prices, or simply not doing anything at all. In conclusion, we will not discuss AC’s purpose and integrity from these 2 claims. But we hope all of you will come to understand the full picture of this incident.
  4. Icon Interior

    2nd post

    photos re-edited for posting
×