Tiling Job - Tiles not straight

Rosa_Damascena

Enough! How about we give Jeeps a break?

This thread reminds me of the good old days, when you could have a heated debate with a stranger in a pub. Ever so 2019 I know

Section62

Rosa_Damascena said:

Enough! How about we give Jeeps a break?

I think it would be a great idea if everyone was given a break - that includes not calling people pedants, or suggesting they need putting back in boxes.

What matters is helping people, which means facts and accuracy are important. 

People need advice on what they can realistically expect when they employ a trader, not some hypotheticals about how things should be.

Jeepers_Creepers

Section62 said:

No, I didn't know that. You should - it's shown in the OP's pen sketch, and is fundamental to this issue.

Yes, and that puzzled me.  But I didn't go jumping to conclusions that meant the walls were perfectly parallel. Perhaps the original tiler had expertise in the use of forced perspective, or some similar trick of the eye?

"Perfectly"? I said that? Correct - I didn't. No room is. It's a moot point. The OP's room is 'square' enough for a tiler to do this job without issue - as has been shown by the previous tiler - and to do so without the customer getting involved.

The comments made by stuart45 and Doozergirl's are apposite for the reasons given above.  In the absence of a specific instruction the trader will do the job in the way they think 'correct'. And 'correct' includes a whole-floor squint?! You are kidding, of course.

If you want it done in a specific way you need to 'communicate' that and then 'observe' to make sure the job is going ahead in the way you wanted it. Here we go again. The expectation that the customer actually has to 'communicate' "I want the tiles laid SQUARE to the room, please, and not partially rotated like a slippery carpet the dawg has just run across. Can you do that? I really REALLY don't want it squint, please, if you can avoid it". And then have to 'observe' that it is...?

The only 'argument' is you have convinced yourself the room was square, the OP's measurements (in at least one direction) suggest otherwise. As I said, pedantry. Is any room 'perfectly' square?! You are trying to use a fractional difference in one dimension to prove a point! When you know - you KNOW - the appalling inaccuracy by the tiler is an error, pure and simple - on 4 sides! And this is not the customer's fault for not noticing which you have implied it is. 


I'm completely with Doozergirl that it is better to deal with stuff before it becomes a problem, rather than deal with the consequences after. Take that a bit further, S62 - tell us it's actually the customers 'responsibility' or the customer is partially 'liable.' That is what you have implied. Are you going to state this as your belief? Of course you aren''t, becuase that would be very silly. But keep on implying it, why don't you.

And, just so you know, the false-bonhomie of the likes of 'guv'nor' kind of over-compensates for your lack of a point.

You acknowledge, S62, that this tiler messed up very badly? And that Jack bears no responsibility or liability for this?

Jeepers_Creepers

Rosa_Damascena said:

Enough! How about we give Jeeps a break?

This thread reminds me of the good old days, when you could have a heated debate with a stranger in a pub. Ever so 2019 I know

Lol! Thanks, but I don't need a break. It's not as tho' he doesn't have form - it's become a bit of a habit on a few threads now.

Jeepers_Creepers

Section62 said:

People need advice on what they can realistically expect when they employ a trader, not some hypotheticals about how things should be.

Hypotheticals?

Easily sorted, S62. Will you acknowledge that this tiler simply messed up very badly? And that Jack bears no responsibility or liability for this?

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Section62 said:

[Stuff]

Since then, however, the OP has confirmed that there isn't any obvious out-of-squareness - this tiler laid the tiles out at the same wrong tilt to all 4 walls! And, yes, you know this too. But ditto.

No, I didn't know that. You should - it's shown in the OP's pen sketch, and is fundamental to this issue.

[More stuff]

Again, because it seems the point was missed - the OP's sketch shows one dimension as 'x tiles' plus 440mm.  The other is 'x' plus 400mm.

A difference of 40mm across what appears to be the shorter dimension of the kitchen is significant, and this is not the tilers fault.

How the tiler dealt with that difference is the tiler's responsibility in the absence of a specific instruction from the client.

I've already made a suggestion how the tiler might have miscalculated in dealing with that 40mm.

But here we are, however many posts later, with people still forcefully asserting that the room is 'square'.


I totally agree that this is "fundamental to this issue", and in my view the options the OP has for redress hinge entirely on that. But it doesn't help the OP to advise them on what action to take if the fundamental error is not understood by those offering the advice.


I'm not arguing with you - I'm pointing out that you have misread the OP's sketch, and therefore the basis of your advice is flawed.

Doozergirl

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Enough! How about we give Jeeps a break?

This thread reminds me of the good old days, when you could have a heated debate with a stranger in a pub. Ever so 2019 I know

Lol! Thanks, but I don't need a break. It's not as tho' he doesn't have form - it's become a bit of a habit on a few threads now.

It takes two to tango...

NSG666

Doozergirl said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Enough! How about we give Jeeps a break?

This thread reminds me of the good old days, when you could have a heated debate with a stranger in a pub. Ever so 2019 I know

Lol! Thanks, but I don't need a break. It's not as tho' he doesn't have form - it's become a bit of a habit on a few threads now.

It takes two to tango...

Not you again! 

Doozergirl

NSG666 said:

Doozergirl said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Enough! How about we give Jeeps a break?

This thread reminds me of the good old days, when you could have a heated debate with a stranger in a pub. Ever so 2019 I know

Lol! Thanks, but I don't need a break. It's not as tho' he doesn't have form - it's become a bit of a habit on a few threads now.

It takes two to tango...

Not you again! 

I'm innocent.   I thought this was over ages ago.  😂

You know, when you were nice to me and then I tried to lighten the atmosphere by slagging off my own husband? 

It only worked for a bit.  

Jeepers_Creepers

Section62 said:

Again, because it seems the point was missed - the OP's sketch shows one dimension as 'x tiles' plus 440mm.  The other is 'x' plus 400mm.

A difference of 40mm across what appears to be the shorter dimension of the kitchen is significant, and this is not the tilers fault.

How the tiler dealt with that difference is the tiler's responsibility in the absence of a specific instruction from the client.

I've already made a suggestion how the tiler might have miscalculated in dealing with that 40mm.

But here we are, however many posts later, with people still forcefully asserting that the room is 'square'.


I totally agree that this is "fundamental to this issue", and in my view the options the OP has for redress hinge entirely on that. But it doesn't help the OP to advise them on what action to take if the fundamental error is not understood by those offering the advice.


I'm not arguing with you - I'm pointing out that you have misread the OP's sketch, and therefore the basis of your advice is flawed.

Fair do's, S62. And thank you.

I have to say, I started out on this thread suspecting Jack of being a bit of a peda... oops, let's find another word - a bit 'OCD' about the discrepancy, and his first photo of the floor didn't show up any visible issue to me - any slight unavoidable 'slant' would have been absorbed by the visual perspective from that doorway.

My first replies to him, therefore, were to try and clarify whether it was the tiler's fault - I was suggesting to Jack that the back LH corner may have been >90o, so the tiler couldn't have laid a 'square' floor, and therefore made the judgement to split the discrepancy down both walls - reasonable enough.

Jack's first written dimensions seemed to confirm this, so I was all on the 'side' of the tiler.

But then Jack posted his sketch of the room and tiles. And the photo of the previous tile layout...

I can therefore only conclude that this was a silly error by the tiler, and I cannot figure out how he got it so wrong. Just inaccurate measuring? Or did he choose one (squint) wall for laying out the whole room's tiles?! I don't know.

But, a mistake/error/miscalculation/blunder it almost certainly was. And by the tiler only.

This has been compounded by his lack of contrition/acknowledgement/responsibility/liability.

So I found it uncomfortable to see from a few folk on here the implication that, in such a straightforward tiling exercise as this one -  which should have required next-to-no input from the customer - that the customer may somehow have some 'responsibility' due to not having checked up on the tiler during the work.

I don't see the 'redress' issue in this case as being grey in any sense whatsoever. The tiler should have laid this floor as perfectly (or darned close) as the original one; that was the correct way to do it. He didn't - he rotated the whole layout in a manner which made all the grout lines out of alignment with all 4 walls! He turned what should have been a great outcome bad. If he could pick up that tile layout like a rug and tug it just one inch clockwise - one inch - it would be nigh-on perfect. I do feel very bad for the tiler. But only up to the point he failed to take full responsibility.

If the bottom LH corner had been out of square, and the two 'unit' walls therefore did 'splay' outwards (as I was originally led to understand), then the tiler would have had an argument for misaligning the grout lines to share this discrepancy between the two. This was not the case, tho'. And - in my view - the customer in this case has zero liability.