In response to coverage last week on the J-Frame dispute, Red Stag Timber describes as dubious the announcement that the Commerce Commission had “insufficient evidence” that J-Frame samples used in a decay trial had a different treatment penetration pattern to J-Frame in the marketplace. The company says the Commission was provided with a plethora of credible independent lab tests, yet put weight on those of an outlier lab that has since closed its timber testing service.
Red Stag does however welcome the Commission’s fresh investigation into J-Frame’s continued labelling incorporating the term ‘H1.2’, a label commonly recognised in New Zealand as signifying compliance with the timber treatment standard NZS3640, which the Commission last year concluded J-Frame did not meet.
Designers use ‘H1.2’ to specify that the framing used must be treated to comply NZS3640, says Red Stag group CEO Marty Verry. “However, builders see the ‘H1.2’ incorporated within the current J-Frame labelling and continue to believe it can be used where H1.2 is specified on plans.
“In fact, they are inadvertently substituting an alternative solution, which renders the building non-compliant with the consented plans. We look forward to the Commission finally policing this area properly, because this tricky labelling is certainly misleading the market in our view.”
We are also calling on the Commission to stop Juken promoting misleading media, including publicity last week that “Juken New Zealand has been exonerated by the Commerce Commission over allegations that its J-Frame product had failed timber treatment standards”. That is not the case at all, as the Commission notified Juken last year that it considered J-Frame met neither NZS3640 nor the LVL treatment standard AS/NZS1604.4.
Source: Red Stag Timber
Share this Post
