ICON INTERIOR DESIGN (441 MACPHERSON ROAD)
Poor Workmanship & Follow-up
From RenoTalk forum, I have read many homeowners’ experiences in renovation and some can be quite daunting. I would like to also share my personal experience with Icon Interior Design (at 441 Macpherson Road) on its workmanship (in terms of waterproofing) and follow-up services. The person that I have liaised with is the sole proprietor, Wayne Chan as the Project Manager, Clive that handled my renovation has left the company. To keep to the facts of the case, the following is a brief summary of the claim which I have submitted to Small Claims Tribunal, Singapore on 22 January 2014.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Icon Interior Design was engaged to do renovation works to an executive masionette at (my address). The renovation was completed in September 2012. In less than a year, water seepage was found on the false ceiling of the dining area on the ground floor. Water was leaking from the common toilet just above the affected area.
Icon was first contacted in August 2013 to look into the leakage, i.e. determining the cause and carry out the necessary rectification. However, over the course of more than 3 months, the following were noted:
1. Icon has failed to take responsibility for the defect. It has been a push-the-blame process. An example would be claiming
that the defect was due to the aircon piping.
2. There were frequent changes of appointments and often at the last minute. Excuses given include the contractor’s van
has broken down.
3. Icon was not able to provide satisfactory follow-up, i.e. to determine the cause of the leakage and carry out rectification
work. (Till the day of hearing, the findings were still inconclusive)
4. Did not respond to the 2-week deadline given after a letter was issued by Consumer Association of Singapore (C.A.S.E) was
delivered.
Icon has been informed of the possible actions that I will be taking, which includes engaging a 3rd party to do the rectification work and all charges will be claimed against Icon. I have asked for quotations from (name of a 3rd party contractor).
On 10 December 2013, I have requested for Icon to reimburse a sum of $17387.45, so that rectification work can commence. Icon has initially intended to reimburse by claiming against its sub-contractor. Failing to do so, Icon has refused to reimburse me the amount and thus missing the 2-week deadline set by C.A.S.E.
On 13 January 2014, a letter of demand was issued to Icon by (name of a law firm), giving Icon one week to respond, Again Icon did not respond, neither to the letter issued by C.A.S.E or the letter of demand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All content mentioned in the preceding section of this post are the exact points submitted to Small Claims, supported by evidences such as whatapps messages. The tribunal was in favour of the claimant and has ordered Icon Interior Design to pay the claimant a sum of $6000. To bring a case to Small Claims, the maximum sum that can be ordered is $10,000. Although it was only a fraction of what I have asked for, I felt that I have fought for my rights, as a consumer. The case was finally closed in March 2014, after 7 months of tussle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Icon Interior Design was engaged to do renovation works to an executive masionette at (my address). The renovation was completed in September 2012. In less than a year, water seepage was found on the false ceiling of the dining area on the ground floor. Water was leaking from the common toilet just above the affected area.
Icon was first contacted in August 2013 to look into the leakage, i.e. determining the cause and carry out the necessary rectification. However, over the course of more than 3 months, the following were noted:
1. Icon has failed to take responsibility for the defect. It has been a push-the-blame process. An example would be claiming
that the defect was due to the aircon piping.
2. There were frequent changes of appointments and often at the last minute. Excuses given include the contractor’s van
has broken down.
3. Icon was not able to provide satisfactory follow-up, i.e. to determine the cause of the leakage and carry out rectification
work. (Till the day of hearing, the findings were still inconclusive)
4. Did not respond to the 2-week deadline given after a letter was issued by Consumer Association of Singapore (C.A.S.E) was
delivered.
Icon has been informed of the possible actions that I will be taking, which includes engaging a 3rd party to do the rectification work and all charges will be claimed against Icon. I have asked for quotations from (name of a 3rd party contractor).
On 10 December 2013, I have requested for Icon to reimburse a sum of $17387.45, so that rectification work can commence. Icon has initially intended to reimburse by claiming against its sub-contractor. Failing to do so, Icon has refused to reimburse me the amount and thus missing the 2-week deadline set by C.A.S.E.
On 13 January 2014, a letter of demand was issued to Icon by (name of a law firm), giving Icon one week to respond, Again Icon did not respond, neither to the letter issued by C.A.S.E or the letter of demand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All content mentioned in the preceding section of this post are the exact points submitted to Small Claims, supported by evidences such as whatapps messages. The tribunal was in favour of the claimant and has ordered Icon Interior Design to pay the claimant a sum of $6000. To bring a case to Small Claims, the maximum sum that can be ordered is $10,000. Although it was only a fraction of what I have asked for, I felt that I have fought for my rights, as a consumer. The case was finally closed in March 2014, after 7 months of tussle.
Moving forward to August 2014, another seepage was found on the false ceiling in the kitchen (a different area from earlier case). The water was leaking from the master bedroom toilet through the floor and wall. As a result, my parquet flooring was damaged. Icon was informed and they came on 12 September. Rectification work is massive as it involves chemical injection, removal of the kitchen cabinet (to access the leakage area) and replacement of affected parquet flooring and new kitchen cabinet.
On 16 September, I have asked for the follow-up action and expected date of rectification. However, the sole proprietor has dismissed its liability by quoting the warranty period of 15 months for waterproofing works. This has only come after the inspection and knowing the work involved.
For now, I plan to file another case with Small Claims based on poor workmanship and damage of property. The leakage did not happen over one night. Look at the pictures carefully, the metal structure that holds the false ceiling has turned rusty and stalagmite-like structures were formed. It takes time for these to happen and the leakage could have taken place way back. Not forgetting there was already a record of poor workmanship.
Icon was entrusted with the full renovation of the entire house at $77,500. Two toilets (out of three) are leaking and causing me problems. This speaks a lot about its workmanship. I am crossing my finger that the third toilet will not start to leak. As for its follow-up services, I will leave it to the reader to interpret.
In this post, I have put up pictures of the leakage but not the legal documents. Anyone who is caught in such a situation, you are most welcomed to message me. I hope I could be of some help. I would also appreciate suggestions or advice on how to resolve the issue.
On 16 September, I have asked for the follow-up action and expected date of rectification. However, the sole proprietor has dismissed its liability by quoting the warranty period of 15 months for waterproofing works. This has only come after the inspection and knowing the work involved.
For now, I plan to file another case with Small Claims based on poor workmanship and damage of property. The leakage did not happen over one night. Look at the pictures carefully, the metal structure that holds the false ceiling has turned rusty and stalagmite-like structures were formed. It takes time for these to happen and the leakage could have taken place way back. Not forgetting there was already a record of poor workmanship.
Icon was entrusted with the full renovation of the entire house at $77,500. Two toilets (out of three) are leaking and causing me problems. This speaks a lot about its workmanship. I am crossing my finger that the third toilet will not start to leak. As for its follow-up services, I will leave it to the reader to interpret.
In this post, I have put up pictures of the leakage but not the legal documents. Anyone who is caught in such a situation, you are most welcomed to message me. I hope I could be of some help. I would also appreciate suggestions or advice on how to resolve the issue.