In article , Andy Hall wrote:

Not if it gives a couple of years (or more, laminate looks crap but is
hard wearing) and it would have meant living in a '**** hole' for even
longer

What nutty logic. There is something very wrong with a scale of values
that suggests that putting down crappy flooring just for a couple of
years. Better to wait and buy something better. The problem is
really that people expect instant results and aren't willing to wait.

No. There is something less than ideal, yes. Wrong, no.

We moved into the house and had a choice of

a) old manky stained carpets that smelt of dogs and fags

b) bare floor boards with a small gale blowing up through the gaps,

c) get some cheap crap carpet

d) whack down some laminate

a was a non starter, c wasn't that appealing either as cost wise we were
looking crappy contract cord stuff and once you add in some underlay it's
not actually that cheap. Also, I'm crap at fitting carpet.

Given the choice of b or d we decided to blow 150 quid on flooring to
sort out the living room - that was some end of line laminate and two packs
of damaged underlay boards that we got cheap with some negotiating. For the
money it was well worth it IMHO. Of course, over 6 years later it's still
there (and wearing amazingly well).

Of course. However, that does not mean that the standard of the
results has to be compromised by poor purchasing decisions.


I think the results of my purchasing decisions were well worth the minimal
outlay. Certainly, if money wasn't an issue I would have chosen differently.
Now I've got the cash to replace it I probably will but it's not high up
the agenda at the moment as it's not *that* bad (and with the kids toys,
furniture and a large rug almost all hidden anyway).

Darren