On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


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

After posting, I see where yesterday OP posted this:

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

So, I guess your interpretation is correct. I'm baffled as to how
then these adjacent tiles could suddenly pop. My suspicion would
be that the subfloor is not sound, but OP says he thinks it's slab,
so I don't get it.

Actually, here's a question. Is the OP *sure* that he didn't inject
adhesive under the adjacent tiles? Unless he was watching, how would
he know? Seems logical to me that if contractor knows that there is
a problem with loose tiles, while he has ones out that are loose, he
would inject adhesive under any available spots on the adjacent ones.
That's what I would do.

Looking at those photos, maybe there is another angle to all this that
no one has brought up yet. This isn't one or two loose tiles, it's a
lot of them and a serious problem, indicative of a major underlying
problem of some kind. The contractor is supposed to be the
pro and the OP could argue that a competent pro would never have even
attempted to fix this because it was very unlikely it could be successfully
repaired short of full replacement. If I were a contractor and saw
something like that, I think I'd advise against it and if the customer
insisted I try to fix it anyway, then I'd get them to sign a disclaimer
acknowledging the high risk that it won't be successful.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
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.

Yes, and "on their own" could in fact mean "right next to" or "adjacent" to
the tiles that were contracted for. That would indeed be "a different area"
in terms of what was contracted for.

Let's try this example: Imagine two properties with adjacent lots. One
property is in East Bewildered, ME, the other property is in West
Bewildered, ME. 2 adjacent properties covered by different codes, laws,
rules. Now imagine 2 adjacent tiles. One covered by contract to be repaired
thus covered by a warranty, the other one nothing more than a "near by"
tile, thus excluded from the warranty and also specifically excluded by the
"responsibility clause". The towns have boundaries, the contract had
boundaries.

If we go all the back to the first post we see this:

"The contractor walked around the house hitting all the tiles with a
broomstick handle so he could tell the general state of the tiles. "

Once that was done, I imagine that there was an agreed upon set of tiles
that would be repaired, either by resetting, replacing or injecting. Any
other tiles, whether they are in the next row over from the contracted tiles
or in other room, would not be part of the contract. They might be near by,
they might be adjacent, they might be on another floor. Regardless of where
they are, they are indeed "on their own/in another area" in terms of the
contract.



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.

We are in 100% agreement here.

Absent that, how do you account for them suddenly popping?

I think that this is where we keep diverging. I must not be explaining
myself very well. I never said that nothing was injecting under the
popping tiles. I have repeatedly said, in various ways, that nothing was
*supposed* to have been injected under the popping tiles. I have no problem
imagining this happening:

The contractor tapped on Tile 1 and determined that it needed to be
injected. He then tapped on Tile 2 - an adjacent tile - and decided it
did not need to be injected. Tile 1 is included in the contract, Tile 2 is
not. He then injects adhesive under Tile 1 and it enters the gaps he found
by tapping. However, the adhesive also seeps under Tile 2, perhaps into very
small gaps - gaps so small that Tile 2 passed the tapping test. Overnight,
the adhesive expands to fill the gaps in Tile 1 (a good thing) but also
overfills the small gaps in Tile 2, popping it off the floor (a bad thing).

Tile 1 (contracted) is OK, so there is no warranty issue. Tile 2 (non-
contracted) pops, but is excluded from the contractor's responsibility by
the "near by tiles" clause.

So, yes, I am completely agreeing that there was adhesive "injected" under
Tile 2, but trying to point out that it wasn't done intentionally (or at
least not under contract) therefore excluded from the contractor's
responsibility.


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

We'll see...

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:36:52 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


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

After posting, I see where yesterday OP posted this:

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

So, I guess your interpretation is correct. I'm baffled as to how
then these adjacent tiles could suddenly pop. My suspicion would
be that the subfloor is not sound, but OP says he thinks it's slab,
so I don't get it.

Actually, here's a question. Is the OP *sure* that he didn't inject
adhesive under the adjacent tiles? Unless he was watching, how would
he know? Seems logical to me that if contractor knows that there is
a problem with loose tiles, while he has ones out that are loose, he
would inject adhesive under any available spots on the adjacent ones.
That's what I would do.

Looking at those photos, maybe there is another angle to all this that
no one has brought up yet. This isn't one or two loose tiles, it's a
lot of them and a serious problem, indicative of a major underlying
problem of some kind. The contractor is supposed to be the
pro and the OP could argue that a competent pro would never have even
attempted to fix this because it was very unlikely it could be successfully
repaired short of full replacement. If I were a contractor and saw
something like that, I think I'd advise against it and if the customer
insisted I try to fix it anyway, then I'd get them to sign a disclaimer
acknowledging the high risk that it won't be successful.

It looks like we responded at the same time. I think you now see how I interpreted the situation, so I guess we're good.

I'd love to hear the final outcome of this. Best case is the OP get's his
$900 back from the tile contractor and also gets some relief from the previous owners due to some disclosure law.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 9:15:46 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
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.

Yes, and "on their own" could in fact mean "right next to" or "adjacent" to
the tiles that were contracted for. That would indeed be "a different area"
in terms of what was contracted for.


But regardless, even if the ones that were injected were on their
own, then they *are* ones that were contracted for. The exclusion
of adjacent tiles would then be any tiles in that area that are
adjacent to the ones injected. In areas where tiles were loose,
removed, replaced, adjacent would be any tiles that were not removed,
replaced, injected, etc.


Let's try this example: Imagine two properties with adjacent lots. One
property is in East Bewildered, ME, the other property is in West
Bewildered, ME. 2 adjacent properties covered by different codes, laws,
rules. Now imagine 2 adjacent tiles. One covered by contract to be repaired
thus covered by a warranty, the other one nothing more than a "near by"
tile, thus excluded from the warranty and also specifically excluded by the
"responsibility clause". The towns have boundaries, the contract had
boundaries.

If we go all the back to the first post we see this:

"The contractor walked around the house hitting all the tiles with a
broomstick handle so he could tell the general state of the tiles. "

Once that was done, I imagine that there was an agreed upon set of tiles
that would be repaired, either by resetting, replacing or injecting. Any
other tiles, whether they are in the next row over from the contracted tiles
or in other room, would not be part of the contract. They might be near by,
they might be adjacent, they might be on another floor. Regardless of where
they are, they are indeed "on their own/in another area" in terms of the
contract.


But the ones that are adjacent to ones that were worked on in any
way would be subject to the exclusion.





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.

We are in 100% agreement here.

Absent that, how do you account for them suddenly popping?

I think that this is where we keep diverging. I must not be explaining
myself very well. I never said that nothing was injecting under the
popping tiles. I have repeatedly said, in various ways, that nothing was
*supposed* to have been injected under the popping tiles. I have no problem
imagining this happening:

The contractor tapped on Tile 1 and determined that it needed to be
injected. He then tapped on Tile 2 - an adjacent tile - and decided it
did not need to be injected. Tile 1 is included in the contract, Tile 2 is
not. He then injects adhesive under Tile 1 and it enters the gaps he found
by tapping. However, the adhesive also seeps under Tile 2, perhaps into very
small gaps - gaps so small that Tile 2 passed the tapping test. Overnight,
the adhesive expands to fill the gaps in Tile 1 (a good thing) but also
overfills the small gaps in Tile 2, popping it off the floor (a bad thing).

Tile 1 (contracted) is OK, so there is no warranty issue. Tile 2 (non-
contracted) pops, but is excluded from the contractor's responsibility by
the "near by tiles" clause.

Yes, that I agree with. If it was unintentionally seepage that caused
it. I guess one big problem would be the contractor can claim that
and unless the OP was watching, how would he know, how could he prove
it, etc.



So, yes, I am completely agreeing that there was adhesive "injected" under
Tile 2, but trying to point out that it wasn't done intentionally (or at
least not under contract) therefore excluded from the contractor's
responsibility.


K, I think this is what wasn't clear to me. I was only looking at
injecting as being done purposefully. If we include seepage, I agree.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:29:57 -0400, dgk wrote:

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?
It is true it can be quite easily removed. Removing damaged areas and
replacing just the damaged area is possible, but not necrssarily easy
- and it depends on the laminate. The expensive crap I installed in
my base,ent convinced me to use real hardwood in my living and dining
rooms. The laminate was a real bugger to install, and there are
several edge chips in a lightly used rec room / office area. Thinner
laminate is likely easier to install than the 14mm stuff I used but
won't stand up any better.

On 9/8/2015 8:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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?


At this point, everyone is confused I think we should put together a
group of 12 of us to visit the OP's house and see for ourselves. We'll
have the contractor meet us there. Just in case, we will also carry
some rope in case we find in favor of the homeowner so we can quickly
give justice.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/8/2015 8:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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?


At this point, everyone is confused I think we should put together a group
of 12 of us to visit the OP's house and see for ourselves. We'll have the
contractor meet us there. Just in case, we will also carry some rope in
case we find in favor of the homeowner so we can quickly give justice.

I am not going unless you get a bunch of the alt.food.barbecue people to
join us.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:55:16 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/8/2015 8:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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?


At this point, everyone is confused I think we should put together a
group of 12 of us to visit the OP's house and see for ourselves. We'll
have the contractor meet us there. Just in case, we will also carry
some rope in case we find in favor of the homeowner so we can quickly
give justice.

If there will be twelve of us going, how many spares will there be?

Will any members of this contingent be near-by and/or adjacent to another
member?

Will there be any substances injected under any member of the contingent?

If one member is injected and a near-by member cracks (or worse yet, pops) will that be covered under warranty?

dgk posted for all of us...



I moved into a 34 year old single floor home.I think it's a concrete
slab. I knew that some tile work needed to be done since the ceramic
tiles (9 1/2 " squares) were lifting off the floor in the hallway
entrance. I hired a local contractor that came recommended by the real
estate agent. The contractor walked around the house hitting all the
tiles with a broomstick handle so he could tell the general state of
the tiles.

Sometime in the past, work had been done in the same area. Twelve
tiles had been removed and replaced with different tiles to form a
diamond pattern by the entrance hallway. It looked really nice and
left some used spare tiles that were in the garage.

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. The whole job was just under $900, paid by credit card.

The next morning I walked through the kitchen, heard a CRACK, and over
a 10 second period watched as tiles adjacent to the repaired tiles
lifted up and one even cracked in half and jumped about 6" into the
air. Around 20 tiles (9 1/2 " tiles) are now no longer attached to the
floor.

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

I brought the tile that jumped into the air to a nearby tile store and
he says that he tile didn't have enough adhesive on it to begin with.
But the tile guys at Home Depot say that this should not have happened
and that the contractor injected too much adhesive under the tiles.

I'm a reasonable guy. If this was just something that does happen to
even experienced tile guys and it was just bad luck, then I allow the
payment to go through and don't cause a fuss. But if you folks think
that it was an error by the contractor, then I'll stop the charge and
complain to the state business people.

So? **** Happens or Bad Work?

My opinion is bad work. I would call the agent that made the recommendation
and complain. Emphasize that they made a bad referral and should be taken
off their list. Also tell the agent you are leary of their referrals. The
agent will probably be on the phone to the tile guy quickly; these referrals
are a life blood to contractors.

--
Tekkie

DerbyDad03 posted for all of us...



On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:55:16 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/8/2015 8:26 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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?


At this point, everyone is confused I think we should put together a
group of 12 of us to visit the OP's house and see for ourselves. We'll
have the contractor meet us there. Just in case, we will also carry
some rope in case we find in favor of the homeowner so we can quickly
give justice.

If there will be twelve of us going, how many spares will there be?

Will any members of this contingent be near-by and/or adjacent to another
member?

Will there be any substances injected under any member of the contingent?

If one member is injected and a near-by member cracks (or worse yet, pops) will that be covered under warranty?

Is it mobility "enhanced"? Monster & I can roll our chairs across it and
settle it in a minute. Please forward flight and lodging expenses portal to
portal plus per-diem "Monster Court"

--
Tekkie

posted for all of us...



On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:29:57 -0400, dgk wrote:

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?
It is true it can be quite easily removed. Removing damaged areas and
replacing just the damaged area is possible, but not necrssarily easy
- and it depends on the laminate. The expensive crap I installed in
my base,ent convinced me to use real hardwood in my living and dining
rooms. The laminate was a real bugger to install, and there are
several edge chips in a lightly used rec room / office area. Thinner
laminate is likely easier to install than the 14mm stuff I used but
won't stand up any better.

I wonder if the tile people leveled the surface? If they didn't then the
high spots cause this type of damage, which Ditra is an excellent product to
use in this instance.

--
Tekkie

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:35:15 -0400, dgk
wrote:


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.

The original adhesive is stuck to the orignal tiles, and whatever he
used is whatever is different and where he was working.

The same guy who testifies for you or writes you the affidavit can
problably tell what each is by looking at it.

I was working in another room when most of this was being done.


--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:19:47 -0400, dgk
wrote:

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.

His measure of damages is the cost to put it back the way it was before
he had this last repair. That alone could be more than 900. In fact
the contractor says it's 1400. But he's also entitled to the
benefit of his bargain that he paid 900 for, and if the new work that
was done was damaged, since the repair guy won't do it as a warranty
repair he's entitled to go somewhere else. In that case, it may cost
more to get the originally contracted work redone, if it needs to be
redone, than the orignal guy charged. No matter how you add it up,
his total damages, assuming he wins, would be what it takes to put the
tile back the way it was before the last repair, and to have the work
agreed to in the last repair completed by someone else.

Sometimes it costs more than the original price to get work redone.
Especially when a contractor bids less than competent people do because
he knows he's not very competent. (Being somewhat incompetent and
learning on the job is fine, if all it does is cost the contractor time,
without substantially inconveniencing who has hired him. But not if it
means finishing with an inferior job. )

True. It's strange to put the credit card company in the position of a
court.

They didn't want that role, but they needed to do it to keep customers
(after I guess one such company started doing it.)

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,

This is more detail than I saw you give before. Glue leakage is a lot
more limited than damage. If it had said not responsible for damage to
nearby tiles, some woudl have claimed that mean they could drop a tile
cutter on the floor and if breaks a tile, they're not resonsiible. Or
at least if he was chipping away at excess grout and broke the tile next
to it, they weren't responsible.

But glue leakage? That sounds like spilling glue on other tiles or
even the carpet next room.

Let's assume there was glue leakage and that they're not repsonsible for
that. Glue leakage is not glue expansion, or glue dislocation of
existing tiles. afa you've posted, there's notihing in the contract
saying they're not responsible for that.

It's something like a contract that said not repsonsible for
foul-smelling fumes the evening after the repair, and then someone in
the house passes out and dies from the fumes. They may not be
responsible for the fumes being there, or for foul smells, but they''re
not released from liabitlity for products that make poisonous fumes.

by glue leakage I think of some glue coming up, not 25 tiles coming
up.


--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 7 Sep 2015 13:13:07 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:


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 ,

Darn right. The guy who did my roof did a v. good job at a lower price
than most others charge and two years later, I called him to do other
work. His mother said he only did roofs. (His mother was his
secretary. I think he lived "at home" and worked out of their home. But
he had 3 other guys and a dump truck with him.

Plus I got his name from a neighbor and my friend got his name from me
afterwards.

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 .

Maybe you can come back for a few days!

--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:29:57 -0400, dgk
wrote:


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?

Only if you have spare matching tiles that you probably bought at the
same time.


--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:30:04 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:
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?

That all depends on your level of "handy man" skills.

Some folks don't need a contractor to build an entire house, others call a
licensed electrician to change a light switch.

It's not only the choice of the product that makes the difference, it's the
skill set/desire of the person wanting the job done.

When I bought my first house 30+ years ago I hired a plumber to swap out a
concrete utility sink for a fiberglass one. Since then I've remodeled the
laundry room and 2 bathrooms by myself. All three were gut jobs, including
jack hammering the concrete slab to get to the drains. Tile, vinyl, drywall,
subfloor, plumbing, you name it. I'm not bragging in any sense, just
emphasizing my point that it's not a matter of tile vs laminate, it's skill
sets, desire and learning ability that really matter.

Oh yeah...and finances too. At the time, I couldn't have afforded to have a
contractor do the work, so I read and learned and asked questions in this
very group.

On 9/9/2015 2:57 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

That all depends on your level of "handy man" skills.

Some folks don't need a contractor to build an entire house, others call a
licensed electrician to change a light switch.

It's not only the choice of the product that makes the difference, it's the
skill set/desire of the person wanting the job done.

When I bought my first house 30+ years ago I hired a plumber to swap out a
concrete utility sink for a fiberglass one. Since then I've remodeled the
laundry room and 2 bathrooms by myself. All three were gut jobs, including
jack hammering the concrete slab to get to the drains. Tile, vinyl, drywall,
subfloor, plumbing, you name it. I'm not bragging in any sense, just
emphasizing my point that it's not a matter of tile vs laminate, it's skill
sets, desire and learning ability that really matter.

Oh yeah...and finances too. At the time, I couldn't have afforded to have a
contractor do the work, so I read and learned and asked questions in this
very group.


When I bought my first house I was 20 and had minimal experience. I had
an electrician at work come over and add a couple of new circuits. He
not only put them in, he showed my how to do it. Now I can wire an
entire house.

I found it easier to learn how to fix thing instead of paying a
tradesman, though I have at times. Good to know your limits too.

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:47:27 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/9/2015 2:57 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

That all depends on your level of "handy man" skills.

Some folks don't need a contractor to build an entire house, others call a
licensed electrician to change a light switch.

It's not only the choice of the product that makes the difference, it's the
skill set/desire of the person wanting the job done.

When I bought my first house 30+ years ago I hired a plumber to swap out a
concrete utility sink for a fiberglass one. Since then I've remodeled the
laundry room and 2 bathrooms by myself. All three were gut jobs, including
jack hammering the concrete slab to get to the drains. Tile, vinyl, drywall,
subfloor, plumbing, you name it. I'm not bragging in any sense, just
emphasizing my point that it's not a matter of tile vs laminate, it's skill
sets, desire and learning ability that really matter.

Oh yeah...and finances too. At the time, I couldn't have afforded to have a
contractor do the work, so I read and learned and asked questions in this
very group.


When I bought my first house I was 20 and had minimal experience. I had
an electrician at work come over and add a couple of new circuits. He
not only put them in, he showed my how to do it. Now I can wire an
entire house.

I found it easier to learn how to fix thing instead of paying a
tradesman, though I have at times. Good to know your limits too.

Limits

I roofed my 8 x 10 shed but paid someone else to roof my house.

Some sage advice from Clint:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0

Right turn, Clyde.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

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?

Yea, I pretty much took them at their word that it was excluded. Then
I actually read it and it's just not there.

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

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?

Yea, I pretty much took them at their word that it was excluded. Then
I actually read it and it's just not there.

I am sure the judge will find your case fascinating.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:08:38 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:29:57 -0400, dgk wrote:

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?
It is true it can be quite easily removed. Removing damaged areas and
replacing just the damaged area is possible, but not necrssarily easy
- and it depends on the laminate. The expensive crap I installed in
my base,ent convinced me to use real hardwood in my living and dining
rooms. The laminate was a real bugger to install, and there are
several edge chips in a lightly used rec room / office area. Thinner
laminate is likely easier to install than the 14mm stuff I used but
won't stand up any better.

But not hardwood in the kitchen. And now more on the Real Estate agent
before I get back to the laminate. She got badmouthed here because I
said that she had recommended the tile repair company and I was wrong,
mostly because I was trying to be concise and partly because I was
just wrong.

The way it went down was that the inspector found tile issues and the
seller got an estimate from a tile company for $500 to repair it. They
asked (through the agent) that I defer having that done until after
the sale because the old lady who owned the house didn't want a big
mess. So they offered the $500 off the price. Being a nice guy, I said
ok.

When I moved in, there was a ton of stuff going on and I deferred
doing the tile until a month later when one of them actually started
coming up. I called in the company that had given the estimate, but
they said that too much damage had been done and now it would take
$900. Since I thought that the real estate agent had recommended that
company, I said ok.

The real estate agent is well known, respected, and lives within my
900 home community. She handles most of the house sales and is
thorough and apparently quite honest. I emailed her about the kitchen
two days ago and she immediately came by to see for herself.

The first thing she asked was why I used that company, and I said that
I thought she recommended them. No, that was the seller's choice and
she said that they overcharged me. She then sent around her preferred
tile guy.

He said that there just weren't enough spare tiles (three) to fix the
damage, which I sort of suspected. He didn't say that he thought that
the contractor screwed up, but did say that if he had done it the
kitchen would probably be fine. But, he also added that the tiles are
over 30 years old and I could probably expect more loose tiles over
the next 10 years.

I asked about laminate and he said that it's not a bad idea and that
many people use it in kitchens. It won't stand up to a real flood,
llike a dishwasher disaster, but it's pretty easy to replace if that
happens.

His estimated charge to remove the existing tiles (being careful to
save as many as possible for future use) is $2 per square foot, $2 psf
to install the laminate, and a $100 for the tile disposal fee. There's
some extra trimming and saddle stuff, so the whole estimate is around
$790.

The laminate is up to me, but he said that we'd need a moisture
barrier and that it will either come with the laminate or will need to
be bought separately. Either way, even the best laminate will be
cheaper than the labor. It seems like a reasonable deal.

So, please don't blame the agent or assume she got a kickback. I like
her and that isn't the case. And I'm sorry that I didn't get this all
in at the beinning, but that post was long enough and now look at this
one.

Anyway, let's speculate about why the seller asked me to defer having
them do the tile. I never had tile floors so didn't know about the
possible issues. One more thing. Two days ago, early morning, I saw a
fox across the street. During the day I went across to my neighbor,
who has a small dog that is often unleashed, to warn them about it.
During the conversation I mentioned the tiles exploding. The woman
told me that Ellie (the seller) had had problems with the tiles in the
hallway.

So, I can assume that the real reason that they asked me to defer
having the tiles done was because they suspected that there might be
complications. Still, the kitchen shouldn't have exploded.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 20:51:16 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:35:15 -0400, dgk
wrote:


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.

The original adhesive is stuck to the orignal tiles, and whatever he
used is whatever is different and where he was working.

The same guy who testifies for you or writes you the affidavit can
problably tell what each is by looking at it.

I was working in another room when most of this was being done.

Ah, but that means lifting up the repaired tiles. I'd really prefer to
avoid doing that.

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 11:55:38 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:29:57 -0400, dgk
wrote:


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?

Only if you have spare matching tiles that you probably bought at the
same time.

They aren't very expensive so I'll do that. Whether I can maintain
them so that they can be used down the line is a fair question. The
only real storage space is the garage and it isn't air conditioned and
this is Florida.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:30:04 AM UTC-4, dgk wrote:
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?

That all depends on your level of "handy man" skills.

Some folks don't need a contractor to build an entire house, others call a
licensed electrician to change a light switch.

It's not only the choice of the product that makes the difference, it's the
skill set/desire of the person wanting the job done.

When I bought my first house 30+ years ago I hired a plumber to swap out a
concrete utility sink for a fiberglass one. Since then I've remodeled the
laundry room and 2 bathrooms by myself. All three were gut jobs, including
jack hammering the concrete slab to get to the drains. Tile, vinyl, drywall,
subfloor, plumbing, you name it. I'm not bragging in any sense, just
emphasizing my point that it's not a matter of tile vs laminate, it's skill
sets, desire and learning ability that really matter.

Oh yeah...and finances too. At the time, I couldn't have afforded to have a
contractor do the work, so I read and learned and asked questions in this
very group.

Yes, what I've learned over 25 years of home ownership is that I'm
actually pretty good a learning/fixing things. The problem is that I
usually make my mistakes the first time through. After that I'm good,
but I've made the mistakes on my house.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:25:20 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

dgk posted for all of us...

...
complain to the state business people.

So? **** Happens or Bad Work?

My opinion is bad work. I would call the agent that made the recommendation
and complain. Emphasize that they made a bad referral and should be taken
off their list. Also tell the agent you are leary of their referrals. The
agent will probably be on the phone to the tile guy quickly; these referrals
are a life blood to contractors.

I just posted a (long) explanation of the beginning of the disaster
under a slightly different heading (something about Adjacent tiles
lift after repair work. More on the Agent).

The agent was pretty blameless. I thought she had recommended them but
she had just passed on an estimate that the sellers had received from
someone they used, as part of the sales process.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:36:49 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


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

After posting, I see where yesterday OP posted this:

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

So, I guess your interpretation is correct. I'm baffled as to how
then these adjacent tiles could suddenly pop. My suspicion would
be that the subfloor is not sound, but OP says he thinks it's slab,
so I don't get it.

Actually, here's a question. Is the OP *sure* that he didn't inject
adhesive under the adjacent tiles? Unless he was watching, how would
he know? Seems logical to me that if contractor knows that there is
a problem with loose tiles, while he has ones out that are loose, he
would inject adhesive under any available spots on the adjacent ones.
That's what I would do.

Looking at those photos, maybe there is another angle to all this that
no one has brought up yet. This isn't one or two loose tiles, it's a
lot of them and a serious problem, indicative of a major underlying
problem of some kind. The contractor is supposed to be the
pro and the OP could argue that a competent pro would never have even
attempted to fix this because it was very unlikely it could be successfully
repaired short of full replacement. If I were a contractor and saw
something like that, I think I'd advise against it and if the customer
insisted I try to fix it anyway, then I'd get them to sign a disclaimer
acknowledging the high risk that it won't be successful.

I posted a map that was supposed to be the work that was actually
done. It came right up to the start of the kitchen tiles but stopped
just before the ones that actually started lifting.

Even if warned, I don't know what I could have done but had the repair
attempted. Most of the house is those tiles, all connected. Actually,
in a way, I got lucky - at least so far. The tiles that blew up were
in the kitchen, and that can logically have a separate scheme from the
rest of the house. If it had blow up towards the dining room, or
towards the 2nd bedroom, or the tiles that head around the (carpeted)
living room, that would have been a real disaster. Tiles switching to
a different type of tile could be odd looking. I would probably have
had to redo the entire house.

But this way, we salvage a lot of tiles from the kitchen. That way, if
problems do creep up down the road, I'll have a lot of spares to deal
with it.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:09:02 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

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.

They drilled a hole into the grout between the tiles that weren't
being lifted and replaced, apparently the ones that sounded hollow
when hit with a broom handle. They injected something, I'm assuming an
adhesive, into those holes between the tiles. Then they somehow filled
the hole in the grout, I didn't see how. The last tiles they treated
like that were immediately adjacent to the ones that started
exploding.

I'm sorry, I thought that that was a standard way of getting adhesive
under tiles and figured that everyone knew about it. My guess is that
they simply injected too much adhesive and the sideways pressure was
more than the other tiles could take. But that must have been a lot of
adhesive.

The tiles that are immediately adjacent to the work area are actually
still on the floor so I can't tell if anything leaked under them.
They're raised but I want a pro to remove them because I want to save
as many as I can. Besides, it doesn't matter if adhesive leaked under
them. The pressure of the adhesive under the other tiles must have
been sufficient to push those tiles enough to break them loose.
Something sure did.

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:36:52 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


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

After posting, I see where yesterday OP posted this:

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

So, I guess your interpretation is correct. I'm baffled as to how
then these adjacent tiles could suddenly pop. My suspicion would
be that the subfloor is not sound, but OP says he thinks it's slab,
so I don't get it.

Actually, here's a question. Is the OP *sure* that he didn't inject
adhesive under the adjacent tiles? Unless he was watching, how would
he know? Seems logical to me that if contractor knows that there is
a problem with loose tiles, while he has ones out that are loose, he
would inject adhesive under any available spots on the adjacent ones.
That's what I would do.

Looking at those photos, maybe there is another angle to all this that
no one has brought up yet. This isn't one or two loose tiles, it's a
lot of them and a serious problem, indicative of a major underlying
problem of some kind. The contractor is supposed to be the
pro and the OP could argue that a competent pro would never have even
attempted to fix this because it was very unlikely it could be successfully
repaired short of full replacement. If I were a contractor and saw
something like that, I think I'd advise against it and if the customer
insisted I try to fix it anyway, then I'd get them to sign a disclaimer
acknowledging the high risk that it won't be successful.

It looks like we responded at the same time. I think you now see how I interpreted the situation, so I guess we're good.

I'd love to hear the final outcome of this. Best case is the OP get's his
$900 back from the tile contractor and also gets some relief from the previous owners due to some disclosure law.

Ah, disclosure law. I'll ask about that. In New York, the seller is
supposed to sign a document stating that they have disclosed all the
known issues. There is a $500 penalty, paid to the buyer at closing,
for failing to submit that document. Any lawyer who suggests signing
it rather than paying the $500 at closing would be sued for
malpractice.

When I sold my house, I did not sign the document and paid the $500.
It is simply part of the cost of selling the house.

But I'll check with the lawyer that I used to buy this Florida house.
I don't recall getting $500 in lieu of a disclosure document. Of
course, Florida might not have such a document at all.

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:08:38 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:29:57 -0400, dgk wrote:

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?
It is true it can be quite easily removed. Removing damaged areas and
replacing just the damaged area is possible, but not necrssarily easy
- and it depends on the laminate. The expensive crap I installed in
my base,ent convinced me to use real hardwood in my living and dining
rooms. The laminate was a real bugger to install, and there are
several edge chips in a lightly used rec room / office area. Thinner
laminate is likely easier to install than the 14mm stuff I used but
won't stand up any better.

But not hardwood in the kitchen. And now more on the Real Estate agent
before I get back to the laminate. She got badmouthed here because I
said that she had recommended the tile repair company and I was wrong,
mostly because I was trying to be concise and partly because I was
just wrong.

The way it went down was that the inspector found tile issues and the
seller got an estimate from a tile company for $500 to repair it. They
asked (through the agent) that I defer having that done until after
the sale because the old lady who owned the house didn't want a big
mess. So they offered the $500 off the price. Being a nice guy, I said
ok.

When I moved in, there was a ton of stuff going on and I deferred
doing the tile until a month later when one of them actually started
coming up. I called in the company that had given the estimate, but
they said that too much damage had been done and now it would take
$900. Since I thought that the real estate agent had recommended that
company, I said ok.

The real estate agent is well known, respected, and lives within my
900 home community. She handles most of the house sales and is
thorough and apparently quite honest. I emailed her about the kitchen
two days ago and she immediately came by to see for herself.

The first thing she asked was why I used that company, and I said that
I thought she recommended them. No, that was the seller's choice and
she said that they overcharged me. She then sent around her preferred
tile guy.

He said that there just weren't enough spare tiles (three) to fix the
damage, which I sort of suspected. He didn't say that he thought that
the contractor screwed up, but did say that if he had done it the
kitchen would probably be fine. But, he also added that the tiles are
over 30 years old and I could probably expect more loose tiles over
the next 10 years.

I asked about laminate and he said that it's not a bad idea and that
many people use it in kitchens. It won't stand up to a real flood,
llike a dishwasher disaster, but it's pretty easy to replace if that
happens.

His estimated charge to remove the existing tiles (being careful to
save as many as possible for future use) is $2 per square foot, $2 psf
to install the laminate, and a $100 for the tile disposal fee. There's
some extra trimming and saddle stuff, so the whole estimate is around
$790.

The laminate is up to me, but he said that we'd need a moisture
barrier and that it will either come with the laminate or will need to
be bought separately. Either way, even the best laminate will be
cheaper than the labor. It seems like a reasonable deal.

So, please don't blame the agent or assume she got a kickback. I like
her and that isn't the case. And I'm sorry that I didn't get this all
in at the beinning, but that post was long enough and now look at this
one.

Anyway, let's speculate about why the seller asked me to defer having
them do the tile. I never had tile floors so didn't know about the
possible issues. One more thing. Two days ago, early morning, I saw a
fox across the street. During the day I went across to my neighbor,
who has a small dog that is often unleashed, to warn them about it.
During the conversation I mentioned the tiles exploding. The woman
told me that Ellie (the seller) had had problems with the tiles in the
hallway.

So, I can assume that the real reason that they asked me to defer
having the tiles done was because they suspected that there might be
complications. Still, the kitchen shouldn't have exploded.

This has got to be the most ridiculous waste of a thread I have ever seen in
my life.

On 9/10/2015 12:58 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:08:38 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:29:57 -0400, dgk wrote:

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?
It is true it can be quite easily removed. Removing damaged areas and
replacing just the damaged area is possible, but not necrssarily easy
- and it depends on the laminate. The expensive crap I installed in
my base,ent convinced me to use real hardwood in my living and dining
rooms. The laminate was a real bugger to install, and there are
several edge chips in a lightly used rec room / office area. Thinner
laminate is likely easier to install than the 14mm stuff I used but
won't stand up any better.

But not hardwood in the kitchen. And now more on the Real Estate agent
before I get back to the laminate. She got badmouthed here because I
said that she had recommended the tile repair company and I was wrong,
mostly because I was trying to be concise and partly because I was
just wrong.

The way it went down was that the inspector found tile issues and the
seller got an estimate from a tile company for $500 to repair it. They
asked (through the agent) that I defer having that done until after
the sale because the old lady who owned the house didn't want a big
mess. So they offered the $500 off the price. Being a nice guy, I said
ok.

When I moved in, there was a ton of stuff going on and I deferred
doing the tile until a month later when one of them actually started
coming up. I called in the company that had given the estimate, but
they said that too much damage had been done and now it would take
$900. Since I thought that the real estate agent had recommended that
company, I said ok.

The real estate agent is well known, respected, and lives within my
900 home community. She handles most of the house sales and is
thorough and apparently quite honest. I emailed her about the kitchen
two days ago and she immediately came by to see for herself.

The first thing she asked was why I used that company, and I said that
I thought she recommended them. No, that was the seller's choice and
she said that they overcharged me. She then sent around her preferred
tile guy.

He said that there just weren't enough spare tiles (three) to fix the
damage, which I sort of suspected. He didn't say that he thought that
the contractor screwed up, but did say that if he had done it the
kitchen would probably be fine. But, he also added that the tiles are
over 30 years old and I could probably expect more loose tiles over
the next 10 years.

I asked about laminate and he said that it's not a bad idea and that
many people use it in kitchens. It won't stand up to a real flood,
llike a dishwasher disaster, but it's pretty easy to replace if that
happens.

His estimated charge to remove the existing tiles (being careful to
save as many as possible for future use) is $2 per square foot, $2 psf
to install the laminate, and a $100 for the tile disposal fee. There's
some extra trimming and saddle stuff, so the whole estimate is around
$790.

The laminate is up to me, but he said that we'd need a moisture
barrier and that it will either come with the laminate or will need to
be bought separately. Either way, even the best laminate will be
cheaper than the labor. It seems like a reasonable deal.

So, please don't blame the agent or assume she got a kickback. I like
her and that isn't the case. And I'm sorry that I didn't get this all
in at the beinning, but that post was long enough and now look at this
one.

Anyway, let's speculate about why the seller asked me to defer having
them do the tile. I never had tile floors so didn't know about the
possible issues. One more thing. Two days ago, early morning, I saw a
fox across the street. During the day I went across to my neighbor,
who has a small dog that is often unleashed, to warn them about it.
During the conversation I mentioned the tiles exploding. The woman
told me that Ellie (the seller) had had problems with the tiles in the
hallway.

So, I can assume that the real reason that they asked me to defer
having the tiles done was because they suspected that there might be
complications. Still, the kitchen shouldn't have exploded.

This has got to be the most ridiculous waste of a thread I have ever seen in
my life.



And so you full quoted?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:06:03 -0400, dgk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 20:51:16 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:35:15 -0400, dgk
wrote:


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.

The original adhesive is stuck to the orignal tiles, and whatever he
used is whatever is different and where he was working.

The same guy who testifies for you or writes you the affidavit can
problably tell what each is by looking at it.

I was working in another room when most of this was being done.

Ah, but that means lifting up the repaired tiles. I'd really prefer to
avoid doing that.

No it doesn't. The ones that popped up, including iiuc there are broken
ones, have plenty of the original adhesive on them. (Plus the floor
underneath the ones that popped up has adhesive) And they are probably
the very same ones that have some of the new injected stuff. The new
stuff might still be softer than the old stuff, or bubblier if it's
something that swells, or it might be in the valleys of the old
adhesive, or maybe there's some reason it would be at the edges of the
tile.


--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:57:20 -0400, dgk
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 06:20:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:36:52 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


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

After posting, I see where yesterday OP posted this:

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

So, I guess your interpretation is correct. I'm baffled as to how
then these adjacent tiles could suddenly pop. My suspicion would
be that the subfloor is not sound, but OP says he thinks it's slab,
so I don't get it.

Actually, here's a question. Is the OP *sure* that he didn't inject
adhesive under the adjacent tiles? Unless he was watching, how would
he know? Seems logical to me that if contractor knows that there is
a problem with loose tiles, while he has ones out that are loose, he
would inject adhesive under any available spots on the adjacent ones.
That's what I would do.

Looking at those photos, maybe there is another angle to all this that
no one has brought up yet. This isn't one or two loose tiles, it's a
lot of them and a serious problem, indicative of a major underlying
problem of some kind. The contractor is supposed to be the
pro and the OP could argue that a competent pro would never have even
attempted to fix this because it was very unlikely it could be successfully
repaired short of full replacement. If I were a contractor and saw
something like that, I think I'd advise against it and if the customer
insisted I try to fix it anyway, then I'd get them to sign a disclaimer
acknowledging the high risk that it won't be successful.

It looks like we responded at the same time. I think you now see how I interpreted the situation, so I guess we're good.

I'd love to hear the final outcome of this. Best case is the OP get's his
$900 back from the tile contractor and also gets some relief from the previous owners due to some disclosure law.

Ah, disclosure law. I'll ask about that. In New York, the seller is
supposed to sign a document stating that they have disclosed all the
known issues. There is a $500 penalty, paid to the buyer at closing,
for failing to submit that document. Any lawyer who suggests signing
it rather than paying the $500 at closing would be sued for
malpractice.

When I sold my house, I did not sign the document and paid the $500.
It is simply part of the cost of selling the house.

But I'll check with the lawyer that I used to buy this Florida house.
I don't recall getting $500 in lieu of a disclosure document. Of
course, Florida might not have such a document at all.

NYS and NYC have a lot of good laws you won't find other places. or
you'll find them but they were passed after NY did.

Certainly more than Maryland, but that's partly because Md. has a lot
fewer people, fewer complaints, fewer case decisions, fewer reasons to
improve the laws. Unless you're one who needed an improved law, then
the reason is very big.

--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher

taxed and spent posted for all of us...



"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:08:38 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:29:57 -0400, dgk wrote:

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?
It is true it can be quite easily removed. Removing damaged areas and
replacing just the damaged area is possible, but not necrssarily easy
- and it depends on the laminate. The expensive crap I installed in
my base,ent convinced me to use real hardwood in my living and dining
rooms. The laminate was a real bugger to install, and there are
several edge chips in a lightly used rec room / office area. Thinner
laminate is likely easier to install than the 14mm stuff I used but
won't stand up any better.

But not hardwood in the kitchen. And now more on the Real Estate agent
before I get back to the laminate. She got badmouthed here because I
said that she had recommended the tile repair company and I was wrong,
mostly because I was trying to be concise and partly because I was
just wrong.

The way it went down was that the inspector found tile issues and the
seller got an estimate from a tile company for $500 to repair it. They
asked (through the agent) that I defer having that done until after
the sale because the old lady who owned the house didn't want a big
mess. So they offered the $500 off the price. Being a nice guy, I said
ok.

When I moved in, there was a ton of stuff going on and I deferred
doing the tile until a month later when one of them actually started
coming up. I called in the company that had given the estimate, but
they said that too much damage had been done and now it would take
$900. Since I thought that the real estate agent had recommended that
company, I said ok.

The real estate agent is well known, respected, and lives within my
900 home community. She handles most of the house sales and is
thorough and apparently quite honest. I emailed her about the kitchen
two days ago and she immediately came by to see for herself.

The first thing she asked was why I used that company, and I said that
I thought she recommended them. No, that was the seller's choice and
she said that they overcharged me. She then sent around her preferred
tile guy.

He said that there just weren't enough spare tiles (three) to fix the
damage, which I sort of suspected. He didn't say that he thought that
the contractor screwed up, but did say that if he had done it the
kitchen would probably be fine. But, he also added that the tiles are
over 30 years old and I could probably expect more loose tiles over
the next 10 years.

I asked about laminate and he said that it's not a bad idea and that
many people use it in kitchens. It won't stand up to a real flood,
llike a dishwasher disaster, but it's pretty easy to replace if that
happens.

+1

--
Tekkie

dgk posted for all of us...



On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:25:20 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

dgk posted for all of us...

...
complain to the state business people.

So? **** Happens or Bad Work?

My opinion is bad work. I would call the agent that made the recommendation
and complain. Emphasize that they made a bad referral and should be taken
off their list. Also tell the agent you are leary of their referrals. The
agent will probably be on the phone to the tile guy quickly; these referrals
are a life blood to contractors.

I just posted a (long) explanation of the beginning of the disaster
under a slightly different heading (something about Adjacent tiles
lift after repair work. More on the Agent).

The agent was pretty blameless. I thought she had recommended them but
she had just passed on an estimate that the sellers had received from
someone they used, as part of the sales process.

Ya know, we don't care any more... You royally bleeped it up both in
transaction and posting, so just go away.

--
Tekkie

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:37:43 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:06:03 -0400, dgk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 20:51:16 -0400, micky
wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:35:15 -0400, dgk
wrote:


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.

The original adhesive is stuck to the orignal tiles, and whatever he
used is whatever is different and where he was working.

The same guy who testifies for you or writes you the affidavit can
problably tell what each is by looking at it.

I was working in another room when most of this was being done.

Ah, but that means lifting up the repaired tiles. I'd really prefer to
avoid doing that.

No it doesn't. The ones that popped up, including iiuc there are broken
ones, have plenty of the original adhesive on them. (Plus the floor
underneath the ones that popped up has adhesive) And they are probably
the very same ones that have some of the new injected stuff. The new
stuff might still be softer than the old stuff, or bubblier if it's
something that swells, or it might be in the valleys of the old
adhesive, or maybe there's some reason it would be at the edges of the
tile.
Ok, thanks.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:47:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 9/9/2015 2:57 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

That all depends on your level of "handy man" skills.

Some folks don't need a contractor to build an entire house, others call a
licensed electrician to change a light switch.

It's not only the choice of the product that makes the difference, it's the
skill set/desire of the person wanting the job done.

When I bought my first house 30+ years ago I hired a plumber to swap out a
concrete utility sink for a fiberglass one. Since then I've remodeled the
laundry room and 2 bathrooms by myself. All three were gut jobs, including
jack hammering the concrete slab to get to the drains. Tile, vinyl, drywall,
subfloor, plumbing, you name it. I'm not bragging in any sense, just
emphasizing my point that it's not a matter of tile vs laminate, it's skill
sets, desire and learning ability that really matter.

Oh yeah...and finances too. At the time, I couldn't have afforded to have a
contractor do the work, so I read and learned and asked questions in this
very group.


When I bought my first house I was 20 and had minimal experience. I had
an electrician at work come over and add a couple of new circuits. He
not only put them in, he showed my how to do it. Now I can wire an
entire house.

When I was 6, my grandfather replaced a wall switch for us and I
watched.

When I was 9, my father had died and my mother called an electrician
because a fuse kept blowing. He unplugged everything, replaced the
fuse, and went around the house plugging things back in until the fuse
blew again. I thought, "I could have done that!" I suspect my
mother thought the same thing.

Later we would repair things together. I'd tell her what to do and
she'd do it because she was still stronger than I.

I could probably wire a whole house now, but my dreams of that have
faded the older I get.


I found it easier to learn how to fix thing instead of paying a
tradesman,

It's often easier to do it oneself than just calling around and being
home when they come.

though I have at times. Good to know your limits too.

In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:09:20 -0400, dgk
wrote:



Yes, what I've learned over 25 years of home ownership is that I'm
actually pretty good a learning/fixing things. The problem is that I
usually make my mistakes the first time through. After that I'm good,
but I've made the mistakes on my house.

That's why I volunteer to do things for others. To learn on their
houses. Seriously, I've never tried something beyond my skills on
someone else's property, any little mistake I made I undid within a few
minutes.

It's the third time I do something that I'm likely to screw up.

On 9/13/2015 5:40 PM, micky wrote:


When I was 9, my father had died and my mother called an electrician
because a fuse kept blowing. He unplugged everything, replaced the
fuse, and went around the house plugging things back in until the fuse
blew again. I thought, "I could have done that!" I suspect my
mother thought the same thing.

It was a great learning experience though. It put you on the path to
independence.


I could probably wire a whole house now, but my dreams of that have
faded the older I get.


It's often easier to do it oneself than just calling around and being
home when they come.

I remodeled two bathrooms in the past year or so and I found it much
easier to write a check that to do most of the work. Arthritis has a
way of doing that. Fortunately, the guys doing the work are reasonably
priced. Ex son-in-law and his friend that does tile work. I paid half
what I'd pay a regular contractor.

In ,
dgk typed:

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

I haven't read the entire thread and all of the other responses etc.

But, by just looking at the photos, it looks to me that probably the whole
floor original tile job was defective -- maybe not enough adhesive, or
possibly moisture coming up through the concrete if it is a ground level
slab, or whatever. It looks like the other original tiles were already in
danger of coming up and when they replaced and re-attached or glued the new
tiles adjacent to the old ones, just the slightest amount of expansion or
contraction due to a temperature change or whatever caused the
already-defective original tiles to start popping up. Looks like you need
the whole floor to be re-done and that trying to only fix the tiles that you
knew were loose wasn't the solution that you needed..

I am not sure that I would have the heart to ask for all of my money back
from the contractor who did the fix, but maybe just a partial refund since
whatever he did didn't work -- probably due to the orignal floor tile job
being defective. By a partial refund, at least he wouldn't take a total hit
after spending time and money trying to fix your original problem. Maybe he
should have known that the other original tiles were also defectively
installed and may also start to pop up once the part that he fixed was done,
but I am not sure that he could have predicted that. He did spend time and
money and he showed up and did the job. I think it's just a problem with
the whole original floor tile job.

In ,
TomR typed:
In ,
dgk typed:

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

I haven't read the entire thread and all of the other responses etc.

But, by just looking at the photos, it looks to me that probably the
whole floor original tile job was defective -- maybe not enough
adhesive, or possibly moisture coming up through the concrete if it
is a ground level slab, or whatever. It looks like the other
original tiles were already in danger of coming up and when they
replaced and re-attached or glued the new tiles adjacent to the old
ones, just the slightest amount of expansion or contraction due to a
temperature change or whatever caused the already-defective original
tiles to start popping up. Looks like you need the whole floor to be
re-done and that trying to only fix the tiles that you knew were
loose wasn't the solution that you needed..
I am not sure that I would have the heart to ask for all of my money
back from the contractor who did the fix, but maybe just a partial
refund since whatever he did didn't work -- probably due to the
orignal floor tile job being defective. By a partial refund, at
least he wouldn't take a total hit after spending time and money
trying to fix your original problem. Maybe he should have known that
the other original tiles were also defectively installed and may also
start to pop up once the part that he fixed was done, but I am not
sure that he could have predicted that. He did spend time and money
and he showed up and did the job. I think it's just a problem with
the whole original floor tile job.

P.S. Is this a basement level of below grade level living space? The last
photo looks like the floor isn't level and the old thinset didn't adhere to
the concrete floor uderneath.