"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent
wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds
like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states
that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my
fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it
is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that
it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause
that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court.
But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.

Why on earth isn't it worth pursuing with the contractor? He can
still challenge his credit card payment to start and it's $900, not $25
bucks.


I agree with disputing his credit card statement. I was talking about going
to court, sending this bozo demand letters, etc.

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:29:07 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court. But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.



No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles
right up to the ones that came up.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 05:39:19 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent
wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds
like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states
that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my
fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it
is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that
it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause
that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court.
But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.

Why on earth isn't it worth pursuing with the contractor? He can
still challenge his credit card payment to start and it's $900, not $25
bucks.


I agree with disputing his credit card statement. I was talking about going
to court, sending this bozo demand letters, etc.


I am going to dispute the credit card statement. I doubt that I'll
take it to court.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:40:56 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:06:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:54:41 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/6/2015 2:21 PM, dgk wrote:




The contractor says that this happens sometimes and that the contract
specifies that they aren't responsible for damage to nearby tiles,

I think you are screwed. Good chance they did cause some of the damage,
but it sounds like it was a poor job to start with. I know it is
expensive, but I'd consider doing the whole floor over again, but with a
different contractor.

Given the contract wording, I don't think you have a chance in court.

Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like

If it's not express, it's implied.

some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that the contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.

Of course there is a warranty and it's an issue. "Contractors must
perform their work, including the selection of materials, in a
workmanlike manner even when their contract does not cover this
requirement, a Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District
recently reaffirmed." But it's the law everywhere.
http://www.herzogcrebs.com/News-Info...kmanlike.shtml
This is just one of many urls on the subject. I don't know where dg
lives.

Palm Beach County Florida.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:36:14 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 06 Sep 2015 14:21:21 -0400, dgk
wrote:


The contractor says that this happens sometimes and that the contract
specifies that they aren't responsible for damage to nearby tiles, and

This is a problem, but morally and legally it's not necessarily the
deciding fact.

Morally, I've only read a couple replies so far, but I agree with
Trader, that it sounds like you're waiving damage they do directly, and
if you had ever thought that what he did would cause damage that is $500
more than the original job, you would never have agreed to let him do
the job. He named the value of the job as $1400, not you.

Also look up contract of adhesion. That's what you had, a contract
written by them, take it or leave it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

AIUI, contractually, you can waive negligence on the other party's part,
but you can't waive gross negligence. If they used the wrong product,
or applied it like no one else would do, I'll bet that is gross
negligence. Both legally and morally.

that if this type of thing happens it usually happens when the guys
are actually doing the work. The owner offered to repair the damage
for half price, around $700. But he also said that he couldn't
guarantee that the other kitchen tiles would stay in place and

Right. After he repairs them for 700, he'll do $2400 damage but be
willing to repair it for 1200.

suggested that it would be more cost effective to have someone redo
the kitchen tiles. There also aren't enough spares to replace all the
tiles that cracked.

Dang.

Some of my neighbors suggested laminate rather than put down
replacement tile. I think that's not a bad idea so I'm looking into
that.

On 09/07/2015 08:21 AM, Mayayana wrote:
I'm wary of the constant flow of new inventions that
may seem fancy and get marketed heavily, but won't
necessarily stand the test of time.


Me too! That's why I only use new products when they have the Mike
Holmes seal of approval.

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 05:39:19 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent
wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds
like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states
that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my
fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it
is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that
it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause
that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court.
But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.

Why on earth isn't it worth pursuing with the contractor? He can
still challenge his credit card payment to start and it's $900, not $25
bucks.


I agree with disputing his credit card statement. I was talking about going
to court, sending this bozo demand letters, etc.


I am going to dispute the credit card statement. I doubt that I'll
take it to court.

If the CC approach doesn't work, I'd take it to small claims.
You don't have anything to lose, except a small filing fee
and I'd say a reasonable chance of gaining $900.

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:29:07 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court. But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.



No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles
right up to the ones that came up.

I thought you said he injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles
that came up? That's the assumption that everyone here is working
on. If he didn't, then I'm at a loss as to how the adjacent ones
could suddenly violently pop out.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:21:18 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Number 1 likes it...
|
| http://makeitright.ca/products/appro...ter-ditra-heat

"Number 1"? I've never heard of whoever it is.
Should I have?

The job I need to fix has the heated pad. The
heat is poor and uneven. Tiles are coming loose.
Grout is cracking. As I said before, I didn't see
the job done, so I don't know whether it was
done properly, but just from looking at the pad
I can see that the tiles end up standing on little
mortar feet
Not true - the Ditra has a "fabric" back that gets boded to the flor
substrate with thinset. Then the waffle of the ditra gets filled with
thinset, and the tile is back-buttered with thindet and applied to the
filled ditra. Properlu installed, there is pretty close to a 100% bond
between the tile and the ditrs - every bit as good a bond as you get
with a notched trowel to concrete board.
. The floor as a sheet can't be very
strong, given the waffle design

Why cannot it be strong? You get full support on 50% of the tile area,
evenly disributed - guaranteed. (assuming you can follow
instructions)
Yet it's floating
as a sheet.
It is NOT floating as a sheet. It is firmly bonded to the subfloor by
a full contact thinset layer but with a small amount od "slip" built
in to "decouple" the tile from the subfloor so any shift in the
subfloor, within limits of course, is not transmitted to the tile,
causing either the tile ot grout joint to fracture.
And how could even a bad install
have affected the heat so much? I found that
when touching different areas the tiles varied
from cold to room temperature on a cold day.
If the wires are built in I'd expect the heating
function to be almost failsafe.

It was definitely not installed properly because a properly installed
ditra-heat system has the heating caple or tubing 100% embedded in the
thinset, which is thermally conductive and stable. Either the wrong
thinst was used or it was not properly installed. Properly installed,
a thermal imaging camera will show the location of the heating element
when turned on, but within minutes of turning off the power the entire
tile surface will show virtually the same temperature and finding the
cable would be a guessing game.

With concrete board the floor becomes
a single slab of mortar. I've also installed heating
wires between concrete board and tile, embedded
in thinset, and it worked well.

The selling points mentioned on that page are
not convincing. "Even if your house shifts, your
tiles won't". They're implying that a mortar bed
or thinset on concrete board install will crack, which
is not true.

It sure is true. I've seen many tile on concrete slabjobs where the
tile is cracked because the slab cracked. You see it in shopping malls
all the time. It happened in our old office building (second floor of
re-enforced concrete structure) and it has also happened in the
building we are in now (a single story concrete "pad" construction.

They also make a claim about being
waterproof. Waterproof is a main feature of tile.

Tile may be waterproof, but grout most definitely is not. Nor is
concrete.. Ditra and it's companion product Kerdi are used to make
100% waterproof tiuled shower enclosures, including the shower pan
It doesn't need a plastic pad underneath for that.
If water gets through it's going to do so around
the edges, under the basboard. A plastic waffle isn't
going to help that.

It sure does.

I don't say that I know it to be a bad method. I'm
just saying it's not time-tested.

It's been time tested in europe, where it has been used for forty
years.
It's a private (no
doubt patented) invention that logically has no
selling point that I can see, and raises questions
about the integrity/crack-resistance of the final slab.

It was developed by a german master tile setter to solve problems that
has arisen in the "old country" - where tiling is done by "masters"
not untrained workmen, and particularly after the advent of single
fired ceramic tile, which is about all you can buy today (double fired
ceramics dissapeared with the first oil crisis)

My suspicion is that, like many things, it's becoming
popular because it's quicker and easier than concrete
board.
It also is a lot thinner than concrete board, allowing you to install
a 3/8" thick tile without raising the floor level by more than 1/2
inch. Try that with concrete board!!!

I installed ceramic tile and hardwood plank floor on the same surface
with a match between the tile and hardwood that passes the quarter
test, and it was both the first tile job and the first hardwood job I
had attempted. The tile is in the front foyer over 3/4" plywood that
had a 1/4" offset in the biddle of it, so by using 2 different
thicknesses of Ditra I got a perfectly smooth and level surface, and a
guarantee that any moisture tracked in will NOT penetrate the grout
and get to the wooden subfloor.
I imagine lots of official people will also highly
recommend the new plastic plumbing hoses. They're
easier than soldering copper. Will they still be holding
in 20 years? There's really no way to know. I doubt
that's a consideration for most plumbers. It's legal. It's
easy. So they use it.

A lot to be said for PEX - and for copper - but that's a different
subject. Also a lot to be said for and against the newfangled yellow
plastic coated stainless steel flex gas line. I'm "old school" and
would not allow "gasfitters" to install it externally to connect my
natural gas grille. I ended up doing it myself with iron pipe and
calling in the gas company for an inspection when I was finished
There's already a problem with corrugate stainless
steel flexible gas hose. Lightning strikes blow holes in
it. Yet it's being used throughout houses. It's easy.
It's "high-tech".

I can (possibly) see it's use inside the building envelope, but
certainly not exposed.
The whole thing makes me curious
about what kind of lobbying happens between the makers
of these products and the state building commissions
who approve them.

I'm wary of the constant flow of new inventions that
may seem fancy and get marketed heavily, but won't
necessarily stand the test of time.

Copper pipe hasn't particularly stood the test of time either, but
that "newfangled" copper pipe (as it was surely referred to back in
the thirties and forties) has definitely been a great improvement over
galvanized waterpipe, and CPVC drain pipe has definitely proven to be
a better solution than either clay tile, cast iron, or Transite.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 05:39:19 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent
wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds
like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states
that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my
fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it
is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that
it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause
that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court.
But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.

Why on earth isn't it worth pursuing with the contractor? He can
still challenge his credit card payment to start and it's $900, not $25
bucks.


I agree with disputing his credit card statement. I was talking about going
to court, sending this bozo demand letters, etc.

The small claims court system is in place for exactly this kind of
dispute and costs you virtually nothing to pursue.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 09:04:46 -0400, dgk wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:29:07 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court. But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.



No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles
right up to the ones that came up.
He didn't apply any adhesive or sealer to the edges of, or below, the
tiles that popped? The popped tiles were a whole tile away from the
tiles he re-installed?

The general justification for not covering "damage to nearby tile"
has to do with the possibility of damagina the tile next to an already
damaged tile while removing it. "No guarantee we won't have to replace
up to 8 adjacent tiles to remove the single damaged tile in the middle
of your floor" makes sense. "no guarantee that undamaged tile may not
jump off the floor or crack within hours or days of us finished the
repair job" does not - unless they know they are doing something wrong
that has caused that kind of damage in the past.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 09:11:33 -0400, dgk wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:36:14 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 06 Sep 2015 14:21:21 -0400, dgk
wrote:


The contractor says that this happens sometimes and that the contract
specifies that they aren't responsible for damage to nearby tiles, and

This is a problem, but morally and legally it's not necessarily the
deciding fact.

Morally, I've only read a couple replies so far, but I agree with
Trader, that it sounds like you're waiving damage they do directly, and
if you had ever thought that what he did would cause damage that is $500
more than the original job, you would never have agreed to let him do
the job. He named the value of the job as $1400, not you.

Also look up contract of adhesion. That's what you had, a contract
written by them, take it or leave it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

AIUI, contractually, you can waive negligence on the other party's part,
but you can't waive gross negligence. If they used the wrong product,
or applied it like no one else would do, I'll bet that is gross
negligence. Both legally and morally.

that if this type of thing happens it usually happens when the guys
are actually doing the work. The owner offered to repair the damage
for half price, around $700. But he also said that he couldn't
guarantee that the other kitchen tiles would stay in place and

Right. After he repairs them for 700, he'll do $2400 damage but be
willing to repair it for 1200.

suggested that it would be more cost effective to have someone redo
the kitchen tiles. There also aren't enough spares to replace all the
tiles that cracked.

Dang.

Some of my neighbors suggested laminate rather than put down
replacement tile. I think that's not a bad idea so I'm looking into
that.
Whatever you do, don't put down "cheap" laminate and expect it to
stand up to heavy use or any exposure to moisture. I sure would not
put laminate directly onto a concrete slab in a humid location like
Palm Beach.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 09:25:54 -0400, Tommy Silva
wrote:

On 09/07/2015 08:21 AM, Mayayana wrote:
I'm wary of the constant flow of new inventions that
may seem fancy and get marketed heavily, but won't
necessarily stand the test of time.


Me too! That's why I only use new products when they have the Mike
Holmes seal of approval.
Anf Mike uses Schuter system products, including Ditra very
extensively in his projects.

| . The floor as a sheet can't be very
| strong, given the waffle design
|
| Why cannot it be strong? You get full support on 50% of the tile area,
| evenly disributed - guaranteed. (assuming you can follow
| instructions)

And what about the other 50%? It sounds like the
finished product would have a great deal of flex, since
the top of the waffles will have just a thin layer of
thinset, and the sheet itself is very flexible.


| It is NOT floating as a sheet. It is firmly bonded to the subfloor by
| a full contact thinset layer but with a small amount od "slip" built
| in to "decouple" the tile from the subfloor so any shift in the
| subfloor, within limits of course, is not transmitted to the tile,
| causing either the tile ot grout joint to fracture.

That doesn't make sense. I though the selling point
was that it floats. It can't be glued down and
also "decoupled". A small amount of slip built in?
Built in to what? Either it's stuck down with thinset
or it isn't. Concrete board, on the other hand, does
float. Your description doesn't make any sense
to me. You're describing a dense foam sheet preventing
cracks in grout and tile better than a sheet of concrete
board. (And as I said, the one job I've seen is already
showing problems in less than 6 months.)

| The selling points mentioned on that page are
| not convincing. "Even if your house shifts, your
| tiles won't". They're implying that a mortar bed
| or thinset on concrete board install will crack, which
| is not true.
|
| It sure is true. I've seen many tile on concrete slabjobs where the
| tile is cracked because the slab cracked. You see it in shopping malls
| all the time. It happened in our old office building (second floor of
| re-enforced concrete structure) and it has also happened in the
| building we are in now (a single story concrete "pad" construction.
|

I'm not talking about concrete slab. That's a different
situation. I'm talking about wood construction houses,
with plywood subfloor, where either a mortar bed or
concrete board are used. The OP does have a concrete
slab, but he hasn't mentioned anything about cracks.
The trouble he's having is with tiles coming up.

| They also make a claim about being
| waterproof. Waterproof is a main feature of tile.
|
| Tile may be waterproof, but grout most definitely is not.

Next time you step out of the shower, let yourself
drip a puddle and see if it runs down between the tiles,
soaking into the grout.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 12:09:42 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| . The floor as a sheet can't be very
| strong, given the waffle design
|
| Why cannot it be strong? You get full support on 50% of the tile area,
| evenly disributed - guaranteed. (assuming you can follow
| instructions)

And what about the other 50%? It sounds like the
finished product would have a great deal of flex, since
the top of the waffles will have just a thin layer of
thinset, and the sheet itself is very flexible.

You have obviously never used the product.

| It is NOT floating as a sheet. It is firmly bonded to the subfloor by
| a full contact thinset layer but with a small amount od "slip" built
| in to "decouple" the tile from the subfloor so any shift in the
| subfloor, within limits of course, is not transmitted to the tile,
| causing either the tile ot grout joint to fracture.

That doesn't make sense. I though the selling point
was that it floats

Not only have youi never used it you have not downloaded the
installation instructions to see how it is used.

. It can't be glued down and
also "decoupled". A small amount of slip built in?
Built in to what? Either it's stuck down with thinset
or it isn't.
Not onlky jhave you never used it or read the instructions, you have
obviously never even laid eyes on the product.
Concrete board, on the other hand, does
float.
It does? It is fastened down by both nails or screws AND thinset.,
with all joints taped and filled with thinset., and all joints need to
be properly staggered etc.
Your description doesn't make any sense
to me. You're describing a dense foam sheet preventing
cracks in grout and tile better than a sheet of concrete
board. (And as I said, the one job I've seen is already
showing problems in less than 6 months.)

It is not a foam product - as I said you've never seen the stuff - and
if it is failing in 6 months, it was not properly installed. If you
used concrete board the way you seem to think it is used it will fail
as well - every bit as soon.

| The selling points mentioned on that page are
| not convincing. "Even if your house shifts, your
| tiles won't". They're implying that a mortar bed
| or thinset on concrete board install will crack, which
| is not true.
|
| It sure is true. I've seen many tile on concrete slabjobs where the
| tile is cracked because the slab cracked. You see it in shopping malls
| all the time. It happened in our old office building (second floor of
| re-enforced concrete structure) and it has also happened in the
| building we are in now (a single story concrete "pad" construction.
|

I'm not talking about concrete slab. That's a different
situation. I'm talking about wood construction houses,
with plywood subfloor, where either a mortar bed or
concrete board are used. The OP does have a concrete
slab, but he hasn't mentioned anything about cracks.
The trouble he's having is with tiles coming up.

Ditra works even better on wood subfloors, with even more advantages
over cement board (which you would NOT use on a concrete slab,
generally speeking)

| They also make a claim about being
| waterproof. Waterproof is a main feature of tile.
|
| Tile may be waterproof, but grout most definitely is not.

Next time you step out of the shower, let yourself
drip a puddle and see if it runs down between the tiles,
soaking into the grout.

It definitely penetrates grout. That's why you need to seal grout.
That's why unsealed grout discolors and mildews.
ALL concrete products are pourous and none are waterproof. They may be
water resistant, butif you totally dehidrate a concrete product it
turns back to powder.

Why else do you need a water resistant or waterproof backer for tile
shower enclosures? Put tile on drywall, and the drywall turns to mud.

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:35:28 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:29:07 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court. But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.



No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles
right up to the ones that came up.

I thought you said he injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles
that came up? That's the assumption that everyone here is working
on. If he didn't, then I'm at a loss as to how the adjacent ones
could suddenly violently pop out.

Please don't include me in the "everyone here" assumption. I *never* thought that the contractor
(purposely) injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles. That is the reason I have been saying that
this may not be a warranty issue.

The warranty would cover the tiles he actually worked on and the contract exclusion would protect the contractor from being responsible for damage to nearby tiles. Now, I don't neccesarily feel that the "protection" clause is valid and that's the part I think that he should be fighting.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:21:18 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

My suspicion is that, like many things, it's becoming
popular because it's quicker and easier than concrete
board.

I imagine lots of official people will also highly
recommend the new plastic plumbing hoses. They're
easier than soldering copper. Will they still be holding
in 20 years? There's really no way to know.

Do you have experience with Ditra, seen it installed? Have you seen
PEX water lines installed? I think other than to just discredit new
modern products you have no experience with them.

Ditra is an excellent product. My PEX pipe is 20 years old and has
_never_ leaked.

dgk wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 05:39:19 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-4, taxed and spent
wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent
wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract?
Sounds like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under
the contract are not the ones he is currently having problems
with. In addition, according to the OP, the contract
specifically states that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes
them part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he
is doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my
fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping
up, it is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said
that it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was
clause that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby
tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are
adjacent to removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor
injected stuff under those now popped tiles, they are not adjacent
tiles to the work the contractor did, they are part of the work
the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in
court. But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.

Why on earth isn't it worth pursuing with the contractor? He can
still challenge his credit card payment to start and it's $900, not
$25 bucks.


I agree with disputing his credit card statement. I was talking
about going to court, sending this bozo demand letters, etc.


I am going to dispute the credit card statement. I doubt that I'll
take it to court.

I think you've made a wise choice . Not only did he overcharge you , but
IMO he deliberately caused other problems to try to bend you over some more
.. I've ran home repair/flooring install/light construction businesses in the
past , and never had to resort to this type of chicanery to make a decent
living . Quality work at a reasonable price will have people calling you ,
instead of screwing every one and never getting a call back . Some of my
former customers still call me , even though I've retired and moved away .

--
Snag

wrote:

The small claims court system is in place for exactly this kind of
dispute and costs you virtually nothing to pursue.

That depends upon where you live. In Florida, small claims handles up to a
$5000 claim the filing fee for which is $500.

On 9/7/2015 1:06 PM, wrote:

| Tile may be waterproof, but grout most definitely is not.

Next time you step out of the shower, let yourself
drip a puddle and see if it runs down between the tiles,
soaking into the grout.

It definitely penetrates grout. That's why you need to seal grout.
That's why unsealed grout discolors and mildews.
ALL concrete products are pourous and none are waterproof. They may be
water resistant, butif you totally dehidrate a concrete product it
turns back to powder.

Why else do you need a water resistant or waterproof backer for tile
shower enclosures? Put tile on drywall, and the drywall turns to mud.



The above is the reason I have epoxy grout in the bathrooms. Now there
are urethane grouts that can even be used outdoors or submerged.

On 9/7/2015 1:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:21:18 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:




I imagine lots of official people will also highly
recommend the new plastic plumbing hoses. They're
easier than soldering copper. Will they still be holding
in 20 years? There's really no way to know.

Do you have experience with Ditra, seen it installed? Have you seen
PEX water lines installed? I think other than to just discredit new
modern products you have no experience with them.

Ditra is an excellent product. My PEX pipe is 20 years old and has
_never_ leaked.


PEX has been used in Europe for 50 years.

On 9/7/2015 2:19 PM, dadiOH wrote:
wrote:

The small claims court system is in place for exactly this kind of
dispute and costs you virtually nothing to pursue.

That depends upon where you live. In Florida, small claims handles up to a
$5000 claim the filing fee for which is $500.



Wow, that is not so small. In CT it is $90 for a claim, $90 for a
counter claim. Of course, appeal to the Supreme Court is $250.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:19:11 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

wrote:

The small claims court system is in place for exactly this kind of
dispute and costs you virtually nothing to pursue.

That depends upon where you live. In Florida, small claims handles up to a
$5000 claim the filing fee for which is $500.


The saying is: "If it isn't documented it didn't happen." A judge
wants to deal with facts -- not accusation, speculation or emotions.

If going to small claims court, the OP needs to have his ducks in a
row.

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 1:14:09 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:35:28 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:29:07 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with.. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court.. But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.



No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles
right up to the ones that came up.

I thought you said he injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles
that came up? That's the assumption that everyone here is working
on. If he didn't, then I'm at a loss as to how the adjacent ones
could suddenly violently pop out.

Please don't include me in the "everyone here" assumption. I *never* thought that the contractor
(purposely) injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles. That is the reason I have been saying that
this may not be a warranty issue.


He did say this:

"The guys reset the tiles, using six of the spares to replace some of
the others that had cracked or been nicked over time. They injected
adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come
up."

If he didn't inject something under the tiles that suddenly
and violently popped up the next day, IDK what could account
for that happening.



The warranty would cover the tiles he actually worked on and the contract exclusion would protect the contractor from being responsible for damage to nearby tiles. Now, I don't neccesarily feel that the "protection" clause is valid and that's the part I think that he should be fighting.

I agree that the exclusion clause wouldn't count if he can show
that the contractor didn't know what he was doing, used the wrong
adhesive, etc. If he can show that, then it's gross negligence,
whether he can prove it or not, IDK.

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 2:19:20 PM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
wrote:

The small claims court system is in place for exactly this kind of
dispute and costs you virtually nothing to pursue.

That depends upon where you live. In Florida, small claims handles up to a
$5000 claim the filing fee for which is $500.

Not what I'm seeing.

http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/f...clerk_fees.pdf

For less than $100, it's $50
100 - 500, $85
500 - 2500, $175
2500 - 5000 $500

At least for that FL county. It's still hefty compared to every
other state I've seen. To have to risk another $175 to recover $500,
doesn't make much sense to me.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:11:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/7/2015 1:37 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 08:21:18 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:




I imagine lots of official people will also highly
recommend the new plastic plumbing hoses. They're
easier than soldering copper. Will they still be holding
in 20 years? There's really no way to know.

Do you have experience with Ditra, seen it installed? Have you seen
PEX water lines installed? I think other than to just discredit new
modern products you have no experience with them.

Ditra is an excellent product. My PEX pipe is 20 years old and has
_never_ leaked.


PEX has been used in Europe for 50 years.

..., Dittra has been around for more than a decade that I know of. When
I first saw it used I was very impressed.

The poster finds fault with Windows 10, too

| PEX has been used in Europe for 50 years.


If you're going to make claims there should be
backup links. Simply saying so means nothing.
At Wikipedia they say it's been used in radiant
heat since the 60s, but nothing about how long
it's been in general usage for water supply pipes.

They also mention some issues with connectors.
(There were also problems at one time with radiant
heat hoses bursting, but that may not have been
PEX.)

As with the Ditra, there seems to be a lot of
hearsay, but I haven't found anything like 40+
years worth of statistics. Wikipedia mentioned
that PEX is *expected* to last up to 50 years,
providing it's not exposed to UV, excessive heat,
or chemicals that might break it down. (And who
came up with the 50 year figure? They don't say.)
It's only warranteed for 25 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linked_polyethylene

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 16:21:05 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| PEX has been used in Europe for 50 years.


If you're going to make claims there should be
backup links. Simply saying so means nothing.
At Wikipedia they say it's been used in radiant
heat since the 60s, but nothing about how long
it's been in general usage for water supply pipes.

They also mention some issues with connectors.
(There were also problems at one time with radiant
heat hoses bursting, but that may not have been
PEX.)

As with the Ditra, there seems to be a lot of
hearsay, but I haven't found anything like 40+
years worth of statistics. Wikipedia mentioned
that PEX is *expected* to last up to 50 years,
providing it's not exposed to UV, excessive heat,
or chemicals that might break it down. (And who
came up with the 50 year figure? They don't say.)
It's only warranteed for 25 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linked_polyethylene


Try some research on PEX. Various kinds are used today underground for
natural gas lines from street to house gas meter, used in lawn
irrigation line only inches underground. All approved by local
building departments, in some localities. In the Mojave desert.

Use your old methods and then tell us the cost. Sure, PEX on a good
day can be exposed to UV for a short time, less than 30 days.

It aint "hearsay". Ed is correct about the 50 year use in Europe.

Prove him wrong.

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 22:14:41 -0400, dgk wrote:

Fair enough. Photos and the work map. I don't know that they did all
the tiles with the X in the map. EIther they were reset, or a hole was
put in the grout and adhesive was pumped in. I hope this link works
for all of you and not just me.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/276109...57657871631940

Looks like mastic adhesive . Post a top photo that may indicate the
size toothed trowel that was used. /\V/V\V/V\/ pattern. Howe wide are
the grooves?!

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:13:07 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

I am going to dispute the credit card statement. I doubt that I'll
take it to court.

I think you've made a wise choice . Not only did he overcharge you , but
IMO he deliberately caused other problems to try to bend you over some more
. I've ran home repair/flooring install/light construction businesses in the
past , and never had to resort to this type of chicanery to make a decent
living . Quality work at a reasonable price will have people calling you ,
instead of screwing every one and never getting a call back . Some of my
former customers still call me , even though I've retired and moved away .

+1

Some people sometimes ask for too much money for a job. Bubba, often
said: "do you want to work or do you want to get rich?"

"...are you hungry, yet?" Or are you binging selfish...?

On 9/7/2015 4:21 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| PEX has been used in Europe for 50 years.


If you're going to make claims there should be
backup links. Simply saying so means nothing.

If I take issue with a claim someone makes, I prefer to do myh own
investigation. I've seen the links many times so I'm not going to go
hunting. I had some pork on the smoker that is more important.



At Wikipedia they say it's been used in radiant
heat since the 60s, but nothing about how long
it's been in general usage for water supply pipes.

They also mention some issues with connectors.
(There were also problems at one time with radiant
heat hoses bursting, but that may not have been
PEX.)


Yes, there was a bad batch some years ago. Don't recall the details as
it does not affect me in any way so I'm not looking for that either.



As with the Ditra, there seems to be a lot of
hearsay, but I haven't found anything like 40+
years worth of statistics. Wikipedia mentioned
that PEX is *expected* to last up to 50 years,
providing it's not exposed to UV, excessive heat,
or chemicals that might break it down. (And who
came up with the 50 year figure? They don't say.)
It's only warranteed for 25 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linked_polyethylene



How long is copper warranted for? In all the years I've bought copper
tubing, I've never seen a warranty card to mail in.

Plastics, paint, pool liners, pumps, many other materials are subject to
testing for expected life time. It is usually accelerated with UV rays,
water spray, salt spray, or whatever would be normal exposure. It has
proven to be quite accurate.

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 3:23:47 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 1:14:09 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:35:28 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 21:29:07 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court. But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.



No, he did no work on the tiles that came up. He worked on the tiles
right up to the ones that came up.

I thought you said he injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles
that came up? That's the assumption that everyone here is working
on. If he didn't, then I'm at a loss as to how the adjacent ones
could suddenly violently pop out.

Please don't include me in the "everyone here" assumption. I *never* thought that the contractor
(purposely) injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles. That is the reason I have been saying that
this may not be a warranty issue.


He did say this:

"The guys reset the tiles, using six of the spares to replace some of
the others that had cracked or been nicked over time. They injected
adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come
up."

If he didn't inject something under the tiles that suddenly
and violently popped up the next day, IDK what could account
for that happening.


I believe that you are missing my point. No problem, I'll try to explain it
differently.

In my previous post I said "I never thought that the contractor
(purposely) injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles."

Note the word (purposely). That is key to my point. Here is how I imagine it
went down:

The contract covered a specific number of tiles that either needed to be
completely re-set (as in either re-glued or replaced with spares)as well as a
specific number of tiles that were to be fixed via the injection of adhesive.
I believe that that understanding of the situation fits the OP's words "they
injected adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come
up." The "completely re-set" and "contracted-for adhesive-injected" tiles
would be covered by the warranty. No problem there.

Now, in the process of injecting adhesive under the contracted-for tiles, the contractor also injected adhesive under near-by/adjacent tiles, let's say by accident. In any case, those are not the same "some other tiles" that had adhesive injected as part of the contract, therefore the contractor is claiming that he is not responsible for the damage to them.

In other words, let's say the contract says: "The 6 tiles in the 2nd row from the south wall will have adhesive injected under them." The next morning, the 6 tiles in the *1st* row from the wall all pop up. Since they were not covered by the contract and (supposedly) no adhesive was injected under them, the
contractor would (supposedly) not be responsible nor would they be covered by
the warranty.

Granted, I don't know if a clause like that would stand up in court. It almost gives the contractor carte blanche to *cause* damage to "near by tiles" to get more work. At a minimum, would he really not be responsible if he dropped a hammer on the way into the house and cracked a tile that was 20' from the actual job site? I would hope that that would not be the case.


The warranty would cover the tiles he actually worked on and the contract exclusion would protect the contractor from being responsible for damage to nearby tiles. Now, I don't necessarily feel that the "protection" clause is valid and that's the part I think that he should be fighting.

I agree that the exclusion clause wouldn't count if he can show
that the contractor didn't know what he was doing, used the wrong
adhesive, etc. If he can show that, then it's gross negligence,
whether he can prove it or not, IDK.

Absolutely. Can you imagine a contractor that comes to your house to install a
window on the second floor with a contract that includes a clause that says
"I'll warranty the new window for 2 years but I'm not responsible for damage
to any other windows." As he is putting his ladder up, he puts it through
your $10K bay window with the liquid crystal Switchable Privacy Glass.
"Whoops, sorry, not covered. Says so in the contract. Hey look, I'm a nice
guy so I'll repair it for $5K."

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 09:07:32 -0400, dgk
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 00:40:56 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:06:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:54:41 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/6/2015 2:21 PM, dgk wrote:




The contractor says that this happens sometimes and that the contract
specifies that they aren't responsible for damage to nearby tiles,

I think you are screwed. Good chance they did cause some of the damage,
but it sounds like it was a poor job to start with. I know it is
expensive, but I'd consider doing the whole floor over again, but with a
different contractor.

Given the contract wording, I don't think you have a chance in court.

Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like

If it's not express, it's implied.

some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that the contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.

Of course there is a warranty and it's an issue. "Contractors must
perform their work, including the selection of materials, in a
workmanlike manner even when their contract does not cover this
requirement, a Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District
recently reaffirmed." But it's the law everywhere.
http://www.herzogcrebs.com/News-Info...kmanlike.shtml
This is just one of many urls on the subject. I don't know where dg
lives.

Palm Beach County Florida.

If you'd put this in the OP, I woudl have included Florida in my search,
but now it's your turn!

--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 06 Sep 2015 22:14:41 -0400, dgk
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 14:41:06 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...

So? **** Happens or Bad Work?

I cannot imagine anything that would lift up adjacent tiles, the
sole
exception being something that expanded as it cured (like foam). If
the latter, it should not have been used...the only thing that
should be used to stick down floor tiles on a slab is either thinset
(cementatious) or mastic and, personally, I wouldn't use mastic.

What I do know is that you were screwed royally on the price...$900
to replace 12 tiles is ridiculous..

reading comprehension is just not your thing, is it?

So enlighten me, O Learned One. OP said 12 tiles were worked on and 6
of
the 12 were replaced. It is a ridiculous price, shouldn't take one man
more
than half a day even if he loafed most of the time.

It's not clear exactly how many were actually replaced, but I agree
with you that from the description, it doesn't sound like it was a lot.

Let's do some math.

"Around 20 tiles (9 1/2 " tiles) are now no longer attached to the
floor.(snip)
The owner offered to repair the damage for half price, around $700."

2 X $700 = $1400
$1400/(around 20) = around $70/tile before the discount (Wow!)

"The whole" (original) "job was just under $900." Can we assume no
discount?
None was mentioned.

(just under $900)/(around $70/tile) = just under, around 12.86 tiles
repaired
as the original job.

I think my math is correct, but I hope not. 900/(2*700/20)= 12.86

$70/tile for a repair job? As I said earlier...Wow!



I think this is a case that is screaming for the facts to be known.
Something is not right in the OP, even if we try to parse out the language.


Fair enough. Photos and the work map. I don't know that they did all
the tiles with the X in the map. EIther they were reset, or a hole was
put in the grout and adhesive was pumped in. I hope this link works
for all of you and not just me.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/276109...57657871631940

Wow. Save these pictures. If you cancel t he payment and the credit
card company backs you up, and he sues you, or if you sue him, you're
going to need a floor authority, a tile installation tradesman to
testify for you or at least write you and affidavit that he saw the
damage, or at least the pictures (I can see that the 2nd, 3rd, and maybe
the 4th row back are all uplifted ** and that the repairs were done
improperly and best if he knows what can make this sort of things
happen and can say what make s it happen and why it shouldn't have been
done that way.

The proof seems like it shoudl be in the pudding, in that it turned out
so bad, but judges want testimony or an affidavite from someone
experienced in the field. On letterhead stationery or maybe on their
invoice. But it can't just say, "Tiles dislodged during repair."
Everyone knows that. It has to say that the fault, the mistake, the
error is the original guys's failure to do the job correctly. It
shoudl take into consideration the original installation of the tiles
that got upplifted. Someone suggested it was all done wrong, but the
house is several years old.... I forget if the problem he created with
these new tiles is the same problem he was fixing on the tiles he was
fixing. If so, that's bad for you legally and morally. The counter
argument will be that I was there to fix N ties for this very problem,
and these new ones woudl have developed the same problem
eventually/soon.

Even though you only paid him 900, that doesn't mean you are limited to
that amount when you sue. What you are limited by is how much damage
he did. Someone can do a 10 dollar repair to a car and in doing so can
negligently set fire to a 30 thousand dollar car, and owe the owner
30,000. Businessmen have to consider this when they set their prices
and when they decide if they know how to do a job or not.

The contract you signed might be a problem, but I don't think it's
enough to make you lose the case.

**And in this case being uplifted isn't good.

If you can dislodge from one corner or in front of the closet, I'd
repair what I have there and use new tiles to make some corner, or edge,
or doorway out of a contrasting color or pattern. It's not likely but
maybe you can buy more tiles just like these.

And I'd go back to the real estate agent and tell her what a bad job he
did.


And can't you bring some of the adhesive to the guy writng the etter,
and won't any guy worth his salt konw what it is when he see it and
whetehr it was the wrong thing to use? Or is that bad for you? I
don't care if they did install it worng in the firrst place Maybe that
lessens your recovery but what this repairguy did was the proximate
cause of all your problems. Even if it had been installed wrong, you'd
been using it for years with ... no problem except the reason he was
there. Like I say, I don't know if that is related to your current
problem.

--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 7:58:02 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Note the word (purposely). That is key to my point. Here is how I imagine it
went down:

The contract covered a specific number of tiles that either needed to be
completely re-set (as in either re-glued or replaced with spares)as well as a
specific number of tiles that were to be fixed via the injection of adhesive.
I believe that that understanding of the situation fits the OP's words "they
injected adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come
up." The "completely re-set" and "contracted-for adhesive-injected" tiles
would be covered by the warranty. No problem there.


Now, in the process of injecting adhesive under the contracted-for tiles, the contractor also injected adhesive under near-by/adjacent tiles, let's say by accident. In any case, those are not the same "some other tiles" that had adhesive injected as part of the contract, therefore the contractor is claiming that he is not responsible for the damage to them.

It all depends on what the OP means by:

"The guys reset the tiles, using six of the spares to replace some of
the others that had cracked or been nicked over time. They injected
adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come
up."

You're taking that to mean that the other tiles were in a different
area, on their own. I and I think most others here took it to mean
that these were some of the adjacent tiles.

I have two reasons for thinking he meant adjacent tiles. One is
that with the loose tiles removed, it would be easy and logical
to inject adhesive under the adjacent tiles. How you inject adhesive
under other tiles somewhere else that aren't already loose isn't
clear to me. Second is that something caused these tiles to violently
pop a day later. Injecting something under them would explain it.
Absent that, how do you account for them suddenly popping?

I think we're in agreement on the rest of the issue, maybe the
OP will clarify this point.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 06:33:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I am going to dispute the credit card statement. I doubt that I'll
take it to court.

If the CC approach doesn't work, I'd take it to small claims.
You don't have anything to lose, except a small filing fee
and I'd say a reasonable chance of gaining $900.

True. It's strange to put the credit card company in the position of a
court. It really isn't their job to determine what the contract says.
I took a closer look at the contract and there is vary little said
about adjacent tiles. The only part that seems to apply is thatt they
are not responsible for glue leakage outside of the work area. Well,
by glue leakage I think of some glue coming up, not 25 tiles coming
up.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 11:36:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 05:39:19 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-4, taxed and spent wrote:
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:15:24 PM UTC-4, taxed and spent
wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/6/2015 8:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds
like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the
contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In
addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states
that
the
contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.


He said they added some adhesive to existing tiles. That makes them
part
of the new work. He is not giving any warranty on the work he is
doing,
but putting in an exception.

He is saying "I'll fix it, but if it goes to crap it is not my
fault"

yes, I don't think it was ADJACENT tiles that are now popping up, it
is
some
of the tiles the contractor did do SOMETHING to.

Are you saying the OP is wrong and/or lying? He specifically said that
it
was the "adjacent" tiles that were popping and that there was clause
that
said the contractor wasn't responsible for damage to "nearby tiles".

I am thinking the OP is talking about tiles popping that are adjacent to
removed/replaced tiles. But if the contractor injected stuff under those
now popped tiles, they are not adjacent tiles to the work the contractor
did, they are part of the work the contractor did.

I don't think this is worth pursuing with the contractor or in court.
But
it would be good to get to the bottom of it.

Why on earth isn't it worth pursuing with the contractor? He can
still challenge his credit card payment to start and it's $900, not $25
bucks.


I agree with disputing his credit card statement. I was talking about going
to court, sending this bozo demand letters, etc.

The small claims court system is in place for exactly this kind of
dispute and costs you virtually nothing to pursue.

And I will use it. I wrote in another answer that there is actually
very little in the contract about adjacent tiles.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:21:20 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:


And I will use it. I wrote in another answer that there is actually
very little in the contract about adjacent tiles.

I thought you previously posted that the contract says he's not
responsible for damage to adjacent tiles?

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 11:43:20 -0400, wrote:

Some of my neighbors suggested laminate rather than put down
replacement tile. I think that's not a bad idea so I'm looking into
that.
Whatever you do, don't put down "cheap" laminate and expect it to
stand up to heavy use or any exposure to moisture. I sure would not
put laminate directly onto a concrete slab in a humid location like
Palm Beach.

There does seem to be some debate on that topic. I would use a top
quality laminate since it's in a kitchen. What would be installed
between the concrete and the laminate?

One thing I read about laminate is that it is very easy to replace and
not very expensive to buy, so if there is a water leak and it gets
ruined, it's fairly easy to just pull it up and put new stuff down and
a contractor isn't needed. Is that true?

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 20:28:27 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 06 Sep 2015 22:14:41 -0400, dgk
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 14:41:06 -0700, "taxed and spent"
wrote:


"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...

So? **** Happens or Bad Work?

I cannot imagine anything that would lift up adjacent tiles, the
sole
exception being something that expanded as it cured (like foam). If
the latter, it should not have been used...the only thing that
should be used to stick down floor tiles on a slab is either thinset
(cementatious) or mastic and, personally, I wouldn't use mastic.

What I do know is that you were screwed royally on the price...$900
to replace 12 tiles is ridiculous..

reading comprehension is just not your thing, is it?

So enlighten me, O Learned One. OP said 12 tiles were worked on and 6
of
the 12 were replaced. It is a ridiculous price, shouldn't take one man
more
than half a day even if he loafed most of the time.

It's not clear exactly how many were actually replaced, but I agree
with you that from the description, it doesn't sound like it was a lot.

Let's do some math.

"Around 20 tiles (9 1/2 " tiles) are now no longer attached to the
floor.(snip)
The owner offered to repair the damage for half price, around $700."

2 X $700 = $1400
$1400/(around 20) = around $70/tile before the discount (Wow!)

"The whole" (original) "job was just under $900." Can we assume no
discount?
None was mentioned.

(just under $900)/(around $70/tile) = just under, around 12.86 tiles
repaired
as the original job.

I think my math is correct, but I hope not. 900/(2*700/20)= 12.86

$70/tile for a repair job? As I said earlier...Wow!



I think this is a case that is screaming for the facts to be known.
Something is not right in the OP, even if we try to parse out the language.


Fair enough. Photos and the work map. I don't know that they did all
the tiles with the X in the map. EIther they were reset, or a hole was
put in the grout and adhesive was pumped in. I hope this link works
for all of you and not just me.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/276109...57657871631940

Wow. Save these pictures. If you cancel t he payment and the credit
card company backs you up, and he sues you, or if you sue him, you're
going to need a floor authority, a tile installation tradesman to
testify for you or at least write you and affidavit that he saw the
damage, or at least the pictures (I can see that the 2nd, 3rd, and maybe
the 4th row back are all uplifted ** and that the repairs were done
improperly and best if he knows what can make this sort of things
happen and can say what make s it happen and why it shouldn't have been
done that way.

The proof seems like it shoudl be in the pudding, in that it turned out
so bad, but judges want testimony or an affidavite from someone
experienced in the field. On letterhead stationery or maybe on their
invoice. But it can't just say, "Tiles dislodged during repair."
Everyone knows that. It has to say that the fault, the mistake, the
error is the original guys's failure to do the job correctly. It
shoudl take into consideration the original installation of the tiles
that got upplifted. Someone suggested it was all done wrong, but the
house is several years old.... I forget if the problem he created with
these new tiles is the same problem he was fixing on the tiles he was
fixing. If so, that's bad for you legally and morally. The counter
argument will be that I was there to fix N ties for this very problem,
and these new ones woudl have developed the same problem
eventually/soon.

Even though you only paid him 900, that doesn't mean you are limited to
that amount when you sue. What you are limited by is how much damage
he did. Someone can do a 10 dollar repair to a car and in doing so can
negligently set fire to a 30 thousand dollar car, and owe the owner
30,000. Businessmen have to consider this when they set their prices
and when they decide if they know how to do a job or not.

The contract you signed might be a problem, but I don't think it's
enough to make you lose the case.

**And in this case being uplifted isn't good.

If you can dislodge from one corner or in front of the closet, I'd
repair what I have there and use new tiles to make some corner, or edge,
or doorway out of a contrasting color or pattern. It's not likely but
maybe you can buy more tiles just like these.

And I'd go back to the real estate agent and tell her what a bad job he
did.


And can't you bring some of the adhesive to the guy writng the etter,
and won't any guy worth his salt konw what it is when he see it and
whetehr it was the wrong thing to use? Or is that bad for you? I
don't care if they did install it worng in the firrst place Maybe that
lessens your recovery but what this repairguy did was the proximate
cause of all your problems. Even if it had been installed wrong, you'd
been using it for years with ... no problem except the reason he was
there. Like I say, I don't know if that is related to your current
problem.

Thanks. I don't think that it's worth trying to fix the current mess.
I don't have any of the adhesive. I don't think I even saw the stuff.
I was working in another room when most of this was being done.