New patio

[XTA]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1gyp759rskjyf ... 9.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s....pg?dl=0

Images of our G684 granite patio laid back in 2007 and grouted with a GftK resin....circa 95sqm in total.

Over the years a few flags that have worked loose and the odd bit of grout has come out.

It’s taken a hammering from pigeon Sh1t, tree sap etc (we live in conservation area and tree are protected by TPO's). Consequently maintenance has been a real pain, G684 is like a sponge…… sucks up any liquid that lands on it so staining has been a problem.

Have decided to replace it and given the above are considering porcelain as it will be so much easier to maintain.

Received a quote from a Company to supply the porcelain, they have seen the photos and had a detailed discussion with their representative about laying porcelain.

There are two things which I have been advised of which I am dubious about and would appreciate expert opinion…….

Firstly as the existing granite slabs are all structurally solid then the porcelain could be laid directly on top of them (after rebedding the few that have worked loose) … is this acceptable ?

Secondly the existing granite on the lower level is 150mm from DPC to comply with building regs. If the porcelain was laid directly over this granite then were probably be at 110mm from DPC which I was told would not be an issue from a functional viewpoint (and highly unlikely to be noticed by a surveyor if the house was ever to be sold.)

[Tony McC]

First of all, anyone suggesting laying new modular paving over old modular paving should be given a bucket of oats for their horse and shown the door. That is BAD practice.

Note I use the word 'modular' - we often overlay monolithic paving (so: bitmac, concrete, even resin bound) - because it is, by definition, a singloe entity. Modular paving has far too many joints to provide a stable sub-layer,e ven when it's laid on a mortar bed with morteared joints.....too much *potential* for movement.


Secondly, for anyone not convinced by the argument above (and there will be some - I've been through it before!) then the fact that this latter-day John Wayne is willing to breach the '150mm below' rule reveals so much about their ethics and professional integrity.

You'll only lay this porcelain once: might as well get it right!

[XTA]

Much appreciated your comments.

I spent a lot of time googling suppliers of porcelian and the Company in question appeared to be VERY credible which is why I asked them for a quotation and their price to supply wasn't cheap either !!

So a bit dissapointing their sales guys, it would seem, are happy to talk s...t to secure a sale.

Naturally I wont be getting the porelain from them

[Tony McC]

The problem, a lot of the time, is that companies uses *sales* people as "technical advisors". The two are not mutually exclusive, obviously - some of the best sales folk have superb technical knowledge and experience - but all too often, the ability to sell snow to the Inuit is regarded as conferring technical expertise. Technical knowledge comes from years of study and experience. It cannot be acquired simply by donning a badge that reads "Sales Executive". This will come to a shock to several 'sales executives' that have crossed myt path over the last few years.

While I can understand the commercial reasons why sales bods are often lumbered with a technical support role, I instinctively question advice from such sources: just how impartial and reliable can it really be when the 'expert' is relying on a sale from the proffered advice to fill their pay packet? It *does* happen - I do meet sales/tech folk who freely tell me that their product is probably not the most appropriate for a particular situation, but I;ve met far more who have sworn their product is the ideal option, only for it to turn out to be a complete waste of effing time!

So: the moral of all this is to question why any advice is given, and whether it's genuinely impartial.....or is there a poorly-hidden subtext?