View report page

7. SAMPLING - FABRICS (MISDESCRIPTION) ACT, 1913 - FABRICS (MISDESCRIPTION)
REGULATIONS. 1959.
Four samples were obtained and sent to the Retail Trading Standards Association at
Henley for testing for non-flammability in accordance with these Regulations. They were:
Nylon net material labelled "Flame Proof"
Fibreglass curtain material, of which the makers claim "It will not burn. "
Nylon net material labelled "Flare Free"
Nylon waist slip sold as "Flare Free"
The last mentioned was found to be unsatisfactory. I give below an extract from the
R.T. S. A. report on the garment:
"This garment was composed of three different fabrics, viz:
White lace outer layer, pink net inner layer and white locknit
waist fabric. These have been tested separately, in accordance
with B.S. 3120: 1959, with the following results:-
White locknit waist fabric:
There was insufficient fabric to carry out the full series of
tests as specified in British Standard 3120: 1959. Such tests as
were possible, however, indicate that the fabric complies with
the requirements of this standard.
Pink Net:
This fabric complies with the requirements of B. S. 1320: 1959,
performance requirements of materials for flameproof clothing.
White Lace:
When tested in accordance with B.S.3120: 1959 this fabric burnt
out completely, and therefore fails to comply with the requirements
of this standard.
The fabric has also been tested against B.S.3121: 1959,
performance requirements of fabrics described as of low flammability.
The fabric has a flame resistance rating of about 60
and therefore fails to comply with this standard.
This fabric, therefore, should not be described in any manner
which would imply a degree of the quality of non-inflammability
or safety from fire. Since the white lace forms a large and
important part of the garment, we consider that these conclusions
must also refer to the garment as a whole."
Information was passed totheL.C. C., in whose area the manufacturer of the garment
was situated, but, as the retailer had closed the business and left the Borough shortly
after the sample was taken, no further action was possible.
(40)