What standards are you following Dunlop Flooring?
Do not allow anyone from Dunlop Flooring into your home without a witness. Based on my experience, the handling of product 830406 was unsafe and unprofessional. I purchased these Luxury Vinyl Planks, which gapped and shrank across multiple properties.
The first assessor, a Territory Sales Representative, confirmed in front of a witness that the flooring was defective. He declined an opportunity to inspect my other affected properties, stating he was satisfied that the product from the same batches was defective.
A second assessment was scheduled, and 3 representatives arrived instead of the 2 advised, including the Technical Manager and State Sales Manager. Despite the first assessor’s conclusion, the second visit produced a very different outcome. During this visit, an adhesive sample was collected in a urine specimen jar and handled without gloves and used scrapers. A removed plank was reinstalled using adhesive from a jar labelled “Three Threes Apple Sauce”. SafeWork NSW has issued a regulatory response in relation to this matter.
The Technical Manager stated the adhesive sample would be sent to “Nexus Laboratory” for FTIR testing. No laboratory report or FTIR results were provided in the final report. I’ve been unable to identify any laboratory by that name.
The Technical Manager’s report contradicted the first assessment and attributed the issue to installation. It relied on an installation guide dated 17 August 2020, which does not appear in the public domain, unlike other editions. No compatibility testing between the mandated hard-set adhesive and product 830406 was done as confirmed by Dunlop Flooring, and repeated requests for dimensional stability reports were not fulfilled.
Separately, the Retail Partner advised in writing that the issue was product-related, directly contradicting the Technical Manager’s conclusions. The Territory Sales Representative identified a defective product, the Technical Manager attributed the issue to installation, and the Retail Partner acknowledged a product fault.
Attempts to escalate the matter locally and to leadership within Victoria PLC, did not lead to a resolution raising serious questions about oversight and accountability. Formal reports have been shared with Regulators, including FOI records.
The handling of this matter raises serious concerns about accountability and whether product 830406 met reasonable expectations under Australian Consumer Law.
Response in relation to feedback provided below by Victoria Carpets - thank you for your offer to assist. However, this matter has already been escalated extensively across multiple levels within the organisation without resolution.
Initially, the issue was raised with the Managing Director of Dunlop Flooring, where my concerns were not addressed. It was then escalated further to the Global CEO of Victoria PLC via the Company Secretary. After more than 10 weeks, I received a response from the Head of Risk which was dismissive and did not adequately address the concerns raised.
In parallel, I repeatedly requested that Investor Relations table my submission with the Chair and other members of the Board. Unfortunately, these requests were not actioned.
Given the lack of meaningful engagement at all levels, I have proceeded with external escalation and the sharing of my experience.

Resposta de Victoria Carpets






