LL: “it was discovered that the installer did not turn the raidant [radiant] heat on prior to the installation of the flooring”.
RESPONSE: The installer may or may not have turned it on – we didn’t specify either way. LL claimed that they were going to interview the installer, apparently they didn’t. Regardless, this point doesn’t get at the core issue – Lumber Liquidator’s advised and sold us the wrong product for the application (solid wood over radiant heat, with seasonal evaporative cooling).
LL: “moisture left in the slab will enter the flooring as soon as the heat is turned on.”
RESPONSE: Moisture was already in the wood from the summer moisture and evaporative cooling. The instability of the wood and the subsequent swelling and buckling from the summer moisture, prior to the heat being turned on the following autumn, was the first indication of the true problem – instability in the wood, and a poor application for this residence and region. Lumber Liquidators either doesn’t understand the true issue, or they’re trying to obfuscate the issue to avoid liability.
LL: “After review of the Durawood installation instructions which are included, there is no mention of floating a solid wood floor as an option.”
RESPONSE: See figure page 10 of the Durawood instructions (3/7/2011).
LL: “It appears in the photos that there is some sort of underlayment over the concrete but no mention of the 6ml poly sheeting that is required over concrete subfloors.”
RESPONSE: There is indeed a 6ml moisture barrier installed beneath the wood flooring. This was explained to Lumber Liquidators over the phone, twice, and is shown in the photo images that they requested.
LL: “Engineered wood flooring is the flooring of choice for radiant heat.”
RESPONSE: Exactly (nothing like having the defendant hand you the evidence). This is what Lumber Liquidators should have told us from day one.