Trim damage angers the customer
The International Standard for textile care labelling (ISO 3758) states that the care label applies to all components including trims. So in a garment labelled for drycleaning, buttons should not shatter or be damaged by abrasion when the garment is tumbled for 20 minutes in the machine’s metal cage. Beading should stay attached. Plastic trims should not soften in perc where this solvent is indicated on the label.
But trim problems in drycleaning continue and customers get upset and complain when a trim fails to withstand cleaning.
It is worrying that the same problems keep recurring and there is no sign that designers, buyers and quality controllers are learning from past mistakes. In this constant battle, the angry owner of a garment with a faulty trim can help a cleaner, if he or she persists in complaining to the retailer. Usually the consumer’s purchase contract is with the retailer so the garment’s country of origin or the fact that the garment maker has gone bankrupt is irrelevant.
The retailer is responsible for buying stock carefully and ensuring that goods are fit for purpose and correctly labelled.
Providing the cleaner has followed the care label, a dye bleed or a bead that melts fails the merchantable quality test and a claim will be valid.
Many cleaners want to know where they stand if a problem with just one trim spoils other expensive garments. This is a special case and ultimately the responsibility lies with the maker of the garment that has caused the damage.
Leather trim bleed leaves ugly marks
Fault: This designer jacket was labelled for perc cleaning but came out of the machine with ugly dye bleeds alongside the dark brown trim at the cuffs.
Cause: Dying leather to be fully colourfast is difficult. Direct dyes are widely used, with little or no chemical bond onto the leather. To survive drycleaning the dyes need to be washed off thoroughly, then sealed with a resistant surface coating to minimise dye bleeds, at least sufficiently to avoid complaint. If this is not done, bleeds such as this will occur.
Responsibility: The garment maker and ultimately the tanner/dyer, are responsible for the bleed and the damage. It is usually possible to get a much better result than this.
Rectification: None.
Beads dissolve in perc and ruin dress
Fault: Although this beaded dress was labelled for perc drycleaning, the beading became sticky and misshapen. The garment front was covered in unsightly plastic patches.
Cause: These beads are almost certainly made from polystyrene and so are not suitable for cleaning in perc. The garment maker should have either used different beads or specified a less searching solvent on the care label.
Responsibility: The cleaner would only have been liable if the care label specified hydrocarbon and perc had been used. The garment maker is responsible for this damage. However, if the beads were sewn on by a seamstress in a boutique, rather than by the original maker, then the boutique would be responsible.
Rectification: None. The garment has been ruined.
Customer complains of missing beads
Fault: The customer said that several beads were missing after this dress had been cleaned. The gaps were obvious and many had loose threads dangling. Handling the beads that were still in place released many more.
Cause: The stitching that secured the beads has not been designed to withstand the mechanical action in the cleaning and drying process. The stitching has come loose in the solvent wash and the tumble dry completed the damage.
Responsibility: The garment maker should have made sure that the bead attachment threads were securely tied off to stop them coming undone.
Rectification: The missing beads will need replacing but before the garment can be cleaned, the rest of the beads must be attached more securely
Dye should have been colourfast
Fault: This evening dress, labelled F in a circle, came out of the cleaning machine with black dye runs from the scarf attached to the garment. The dye had bled onto a pink area so the marks were obvious.
Cause: When the black material was tested for its ability to withstand hydrocarbon, the dye became loose. Spotting with water and even alcohol also released dye from the print.
Responsibility: Some of the dye bleed has resulted from water or alcohol spills in normal use but some has occurred in cleaning. However, the garment maker should take responsibility for all the dye bleed. Expecting a garment to withstand an alcohol spill is reasonable.
International Standards would expect the dye to be colourfast to the solvent indicated on the care label and also to spotting with water (see ISO 3175 parts 1 and 3).
Rectification: None.
Beaded garment damages others in the load
Fault: This designer jacket was spoilt when a bead from another garment in the load became sticky and adhered to the jacket’s lining. Eventually, the specially woven monogrammed lining became torn, probably as a result of the sticky beading drying and snagging the lining material.
Cause: The pattern of damage found here points to beading from another garment softening and contaminating the rest of the load. Here it has damaged an irreplaceable part of this designer garment. The beading has been made from polystyrene and the load was cleaned in perc.
Responsibility: The beaded garment was labelled for perc cleaning so the maker should take responsibility for all the damage caused to other garments in the load. The cleaner is not to blame but is probably best placed to make a single compensation claim on the garment maker for the entire machine contents.
Rectification: There is no economic way by which the designer jacket can be returned to its undamaged state.
