Profit from this advice
Curtains are a staple item in most households. As with all large upholstery items, a single mistake could leave the cleaner open to a very expensive claim particularly if the curtains are bespoke or hand made. However, with mindful cleaning and by providing the customer with information regarding the potential problems and managing their expectations, curtains can be one of the most profitable items that a cleaner can deal with.
It is always advisable at counter inspection that the cleaner provides a disclaimer specifically tailored for curtains to the owner. This waiver cannot renounce all blame for any damage that may occur, as this will not be admissible in court. However, it should at least contain vital information regarding the likelihood of relaxation shrinkage, possible loss of damaged fibres and/or shade changes as a result of sunlight damage. These are effects that cannot be foreseen and certainly cannot be prevented by the cleaner.
By far the most common issue is shrinkage. It is recognised in British standard BS 5867 part 1, that relaxation shrinkage (the release of the tension applied to the textile during the manufacturing stage) is an unavoidable occurrence .The standard does allow the curtain maker a 3% relaxation potential, which might seem excessive especially in floor to ceiling drop lengths. This potential change in dimension should be accounted for by use of either a Rufflette header, which is designed to allow the curtain to be progressively lowered, or a substantial hem that can be altered to absorb the majority of the loss in length. This allowance does not allow the cleaner to cause shrinkage by incorrect cleaning or misprocessing. Cleaners must follow the care label where present, using their experience and craft skill to ensure that they select a suitable process.
Beware if no label is present. The cleaner should discuss with the owner their recommendations for the best possible process and highlight the potential for failure due to lack of composition or care instruction. Any waiver should always be signed.
The dark side of sunlight
Fault: After cleaning the lining of these curtains exhibited a striped/discoloured appearance.
Cause: During hanging, the folds of the curtain allow for some areas of the textile to be hidden and some areas to be exposed to direct sunlight. In this instance, the lining of the curtains, which has been exposed to sunlight, has discoloured due to weakening of the dye to fibre bonds. The weakened dye has then been flushed away by the solvency power of the cleaning process.
Responsibility: There is nothing the cleaner could have done to prevent this issue from occurring. This is a common and inherent property of the textile stemming from conditions of use therefore no responsibility could be assigned.
Rectification: None is possible.
Silk curtains creased and cracked up
Fault: After cleaning these unlabelled, hand-made, silk curtains had shrunk and had evidence of fine creasing.
Cause: The cleaner opted to wet clean these silk curtains. The moisture and mechanical action of the wet process has caused crease cracking of the silk.
Responsibility: The cleaner made the wise choice of having the owner sign a disclaimer since they were unlabelled, however the owner had made them aware that the curtains were silk and the cleaner had clearly written this on the waiver. Had the curtains been drycleaned with good control of moisture within the system, this crease cracking would not have occurred. The cleaner is at fault here as they should be aware that crease cracking is a common occurrence when silk is wet cleaned.
Rectification: None is possible.
Loose dye runs amok among stripes
Fault: After drycleaning these curtains exhibited dye bleed from the coloured striped areas of the pattern.
Cause: Loose dye is the issue here. The cleaner has drycleaned the curtain on a standard perchloroethylene process as instructed by the care label. Loose dye from the coloured stripes has bled out onto the cream fabric during the solvent wash and extraction cycle.
Responsibility: The manufacturer is at fault here. The curtain was not able to withstand the process outlined by the care label. Perchloroethylene is the strongest solvent available to the drycleaner but is permitted by the label. Incorrect drying temperatures or finishing would not be able to cause this effect.
Rectification: None is possible.
Too much hanging below the hem
Fault: After drycleaning, the curtain fabric had shrunk resulting in excess lining being visible at the bottom hem.
Cause: Differential relaxation shrinkage. The curtains were cleaned as per the care label. The excess lining now hanging below the curtain indicates that the outer fabric of the curtain has shrunk by substantially more than the lining fabric.
Responsibility: The manufacturer is at fault here. Only the curtain maker can advise of the relaxation potential of a textile and allow for it during design. The cleaner could not have foreseen or avoided this outcome. The shrinkage in this instance was greater than the 3% allowed by the British Standard and as such, the curtains should be returned to the retailer. The manufacturer is advised to match the relaxation potential of both components.
Rectification: None is possible due to no Rufflette® header or adjustable hem.
Random spray makes its mark
Fault: After cleaning an odd spray pattern of discolouration was noted along the hemline of the curtains. The pattern had vertical gaps in the spray pattern consistent with the voids noted in the folds of a curtain during hanging.
Cause: Drycleaning is a full submersion process. Therefore, in the absence of any spot treatments this pattern cannot possibly be from the drycleaning process. Examination under UV light indicated a blue/white fluorescence, which is indicative of brightening agents. Since the pattern is consistent with that obtained during use, it is most likely that a spray of detergent, possibly from a carpet cleaner or similar, has resulted in the pattern seen here. The chemical nature of this has discoloured the lining.
Responsibility: The owner is at fault here for contaminating the curtain with an external detergent.
Rectification: None is possible. Any chemical application, which is not removed quickly from a textile, is likely to cause permanent damage/discolouration.
Honeycomb marks a bitter ending
Fault: After cleaning, the lining (and in some instances the curtain fabric) exhibited extensive areas of dark grey honeycomb-type marks. These marks were visible randomly across the lining.
Cause: During the extraction stages of the drycleaning cycle, particularly with high extraction and heavy items, the textile becomes moulded to the side of the cage/drum. The solvent/machinery here has been poorly maintained; the dirty solvent, which has been used for the cleaning, has been sucked through the textile during extraction. The curtain now acts like a filter resulting in the unsightly drum marks seen here where particulate soiling is now embedded into the fabric.
Responsibility: The cleaner is at fault here. It is essential that the cleaner performs regular maintenance checks. Had these checks been carried out this fault would not have occurred.
Rectification: None is possible. The dirt particles are pulled through the textile and become entrapped within the fibres. Although re-cleaning may reduce the appearance, it is unlikely to provide full removal.
Open and shut case of weakened textile
Fault: After cleaning this curtain exhibited a localised area of damage on the inner edge. The damage manifested as a patch of frayed material. No other signs of wear or tear were noted on the curtain.
Cause: The fraying seen here is too localised to be a result of the cleaning process with no evidence of any weave distortion on or around it, which would suggest snagging during processing. The location of the damage is consistent with that seen where both skin sebum (from handling the curtain during opening/closing) and possibly exaggeration by sunlight has resulted in a weakening of the textile. During cleaning, these weakened fibres are flushed away resulting in the frayed appearance seen here.
Responsibility: This is a result of wear and tear and conditions of use. Therefore, no responsibility can be attributed.
Rectification: None is needed.