The report, published in June, created a massive row in the batten sector after it indicated quality failings in some of John Brash’s competitors’ products, naming various imported batten suppliers and some high failure rates when their products were tested to batten standard BS 5534 (TTJ July 7/14).

A statement on www.jb-bestofbritish.co.uk said the company’s intention in publishing the report, carried out by the Wood Shop Consultancy, had always been to raise awareness of the quality issues surrounding graded battens.

"Well, we’ve certainly achieved that," it said. "Therefore, following discussions with the NFRC and in the spirit of our relationship as an assoicate member, we have now removed the report and associated content."

The company said it would be working closely with all parties through the NFRC and it has also supplied details of all product audits and results of internal and independent external test results to the NFRC.

The NFRC had called a special meeting of its roof batten focus group on July 17 to discuss the John Brash report as four of the companies and three suppliers named in the report were all members.

The NFRC declined to discuss the issue with TTJ following the meeting, saying it had been a "confidential" meeting. But it has issued a statement on its website.

The statement said the NFRC would only comment on reports where it and all of its batten associate members were fully involved in the report process and had entered freely into independent testing.

"NFRC is satisifed that all four of its batten associate members who currently produce graded battens to BS 5534 have the necessary quality assurance schemes in place, as carried out by credible third party accreditation bodies, and as such their products are deemed as fit for purpose," it said.

The NFRC said it remained committed to ensuring that all its associate members’ products met the required standards and would fully investigate any complaints that brought to its attention.

Objectors to the report cited several grievances, including the fact that John Brash had procured the samples and not the consultants and different sample packs had contained varying volumes of battens. One company named in the report had considered legal action.