Roger D. Coley, Attorney at Law

December 18, 2015Dear Revdex.com Representative;In response to the Revdex.com letter of 12/10/in reference to Revdex.com complaint # [redacted] , Henry Company product support department was first made aware of this issue on 11/23/via e-mail by the consumer with e-mail exchanges through 11/24/at which time we opened investigation file # [redacted] This matter was concluded on 12/17/via resolution letter which was sent via U.SMail to the consumer outlining the results of our investigation and explaining the reason for our claim denial.Respectfully,Ralph P.Product Support Department

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The response
from the Henry Company in regards to the delamination of the *** *** EZ
Flow Underlayment/Leveler over a sound concrete surface may be summarized ” in
the following terms: the underlayment proved
effective for a “number of years of service” and accordingly met merchantability
standards; the underlayment material and/or components of the underlayment is subject
to cracks or delamination due to moisture and shifting of the substrate, i.e., basement
concrete flatwork; and lastly, the published warranty is for one year and one
year only*** ***
EZ Flow Underlayment was represented to me by the distributor, ***, Incas
a product that would create a smooth defect free surface that was not subject
to limited use specifications as described by the Henry Company in their response dated 12/16/2015. And nowhere on the container, a five-gallon pail, was there any cautionary or preemptive statements in regard to how the product was used by me. While I
can easily understand that any expectation that the underlayment was not warranted against cracking is
unreasonable, but there is no reason to accept such an explanation on delamination when the
material does not bond to the substrate.
Cracking and lack of bonding are absolutely different and cannot be
given the same deference. The concrete substrate
remains in excellent condition after two decades of settlementAnd had the
Henry Company physical inspected the problem, this would have become obviousThe Henry Company
claims that moisture would impair functionality of the product. Yet, any vinyl, ceramic, carpet, laminate, or
hardwood flooring would not be a bar to moisture penetration. This would require a waterproof membrane, and which no carpet or tile would provides. If moisture is a problem in adhesion to a substrate, i.e., the installation of this underlayment in an
area of a home which is by virtue of its location, i.e., a below grade basement,
should have clearly come with a preemptive and cautionary notice that the
product is not suitable for a basement installation If anything, carpet and tile would only serve
to aggravate the problem by adding cost in terms of replacing materials and
additional laborI find the
Henry Company’s reliance on its one year warranty for a product considered to
be permanent and forever durable ludicrous.
How would any individual or contractor purchase a concrete product such
as this without a complete and detailed list of do’s and do not’s?
In consideration of the
above, I ask that the Henry Company reimburse me for material necessary to
correct the company’s negligence by not providing any cautionary statement to
the consumer in regards to its prohibition against below grade installations
Thank you and my Best Regards,
Leon M***

December 18, 2015Dear Revdex.com Representative;In response to the Revdex.com letter of 12/10/15 in reference to Revdex.com complaint #[redacted], Henry Company product support department was first made aware of this issue on 11/23/15 via e-mail by the consumer with e-mail exchanges through 11/24/15 at which time we...

opened investigation file # [redacted]. This matter was concluded on 12/17/15 via resolution letter which was sent via U.S. Mail to the consumer outlining the results of our investigation and explaining the reason for our claim denial.Respectfully,Ralph P.Product Support Department

September 8, 2014Dear [redacted]:This letter is in response to your letter of August 31, 2015 concerning Claimant's use of Henry HE 200 E-Z Stir Asphalt Filler/Sealer for a driveway application.Henry Company is always concerned when someone experiences anything other than complete satisfaction with...

one of our products. Following standard procedure, we have researched the referenced complaint pertaining to application of the Henry product. Based on a careful review of the available information, we have determined that the most likely cause of the tracking of the material was overapplication in excess of manufacturer's recommendations.As a result, the condition Complainant experienced is not a result of defective product for which Henry can accept responsibility. Nonetheless, Henry made a goodwill offer of a full refund or credit to Complainant on August 26, 2015. Henry's offer was accepted on September 4, 2015. See attached refund form signed by Complainant.Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Henry Product Support at ###-###-####.Respectfully,Chuck E.Product Support Department