Floored by this sticky problem

sealant against rising damp for a concrete floor from which a fireplace

had been removed. The rest of the floor had been sealed with epoxy

resin. At a cost of #30 a can, it was too big an outlay for a small

area.

The man in the St Andrews shop studied the label on the tin of

bitumen-based Tetratex Floor Waterproofer -- ''a new product'' -- and

was sure it would do the job at only #8, since it stated that ''it can

be used as a surface treatment on floors to prevent rising damp.''

I applied it to the area. The next day it was still sticky, but the

label said to give it time. ''Allow each coat to dry thoroughly before

subsequent coats.'' Three days later, if you'd walked over it, you would

have shed your shoes.

On the fifth sticky day I phoned Tetrosyl's marketing service at Bury.

The man didn't know much about the Floor Waterproofer but would take my

queries to the lab and phone back. He did -- to tell me that the product

didn't dry thoroughly, but would always be tacky.

Could I put a rubber-backed carpet on it? No, because it would stick

it to the floor and, anyway, it wasn't supposed to be used with rubber,

as the label on the tin warned. Could I scrape it off? Probably not. Was

there a solvent? No. ''You could try white spirit but it'll make a mess

and it may not work.'' My wife was on her knees scraping for 12 hours,

but all she succeeded in doing was losing her temper and scoring the

resin sealant that overlapped with the bitumen.

I phoned Tetrosyl again. The man said he would send me up a bag of

special cement which I was to mix with water and pour on the floor. It

would then form a thin film over the bitumen. I pointed out that the

floor wasn't level and that the liquid cement would run, making even

more of a mess.

Then the man in the DIY shop had a bright idea. What do the squads who

lay tar on the roads use to clean their machines? He phoned around for

the answer: toxic chemicals that couldn't be used in the home. The man

at Tetrosyl said he would ask his Scottish rep to ''take a look'' when

he came back from his foreign holiday the following week. I explained

that I couldn't wait any longer since I had two other rooms piled with

the furniture and my wife was about to cancel relatives coming to stay.

I went back to the DIY shop, which suggested using a solution of

UniBond to seal the bitumen in. It seemed to work, till I decided to

cover the mess with a coat of Tetratex floor paint. Then the bitumen

started to bleed through the paint.

An architect advised that the safest thing to do was to try to skim

off the surface of the floor with a Kango hammer, a powerful drilling

tool (hire charge #17 a day). Cost of breaking up and re-laying section

of floor: #100.

The Citizens' Advice Bureau is only a phone call away in an emergency.

''A product must be as described; that's the law,'' the person manning

the line explained. ''Provided you've used it under the proper

circumstances, the manufacturers are at fault. Normally this applies to

a wrongly-sized vest or something like that. But with a floor problem

it's not enough to get your money back for the paint: you'll want

damages.''

What could I do to get my #100 back? ''You should apply in the first

instance to the retailers concerned and ask them what they're going to

do about it. You could then write to the manufacturers. We can write you

a letter for free, but if the manufacturers dig in their heels and say

'take us to court', there's nothing we can do. The trades description

people in Glenrothes may be able to help you.''

Fife Regional Council has an excellent trading standards and consumer

protection department. An official explained over the phone: ''Our prime

interest is in the description of the product, if it's inaccurate, and

whether it's inaccurate to a criminal extent. If the manufacturers have

marked it in the way you describe, it sounds as if you would at least

have theoretical recourse against them. That would be in negligence,

which is much more difficult to prove if you actually take it to legal

proof. The contract claim under the Sale of Goods Act would be against

the supplier and theoretically he would then take action against his

supplier.''

The official has been to take away the remains of the tin of Floor

Waterproofer for analysis to see if it fulfils the promises on the

label. If it doesn't, there could be a prosecution under trading

standards legislation.

The chemistry of DIY, with all those shelves of new products, has

become too complex. Pick up a can: it tells you to apply the substance

in a well-ventilated room, but it doesn't list the chemical content that

can damage your health. Like myself, you may have to try other chemicals

to remove the product, thereby creating a toxic reaction or a fire

hazard for the future.

There is surely a case for a chemical information service (financed by

the industry), which you can phone to get advice about possible hazards.

The case for manufacturers being more responsive and sympathetic to

customers who are left to clean up their mess is an obvious one.

''Without prejudice'' the manufacturers instructed the DIY shop to

settle my bill for #1OO, which didn't include anything for the

inconvenice caused, since the new floor has taken a month to dry out and

a week to seal with epoxy resin.