Floating parquet was unintentionally installed with a pattern

Hello everyone,

as the title already says, floating parquet has now been laid for us with an unwanted pattern or in a line.

The rest of the house is great, only here in the final stages of laying the parquet layer thought, because he apparently didn't have many planks left and was worried about waste, laid the planks like this in the dressing room.

I understand that the planks with tongue and groove cannot be turned and redistributed indefinitely. But since we still had 3 packs of planks left at the end, I find the laying quite strange.

Can a correction be demanded here, that is, do you have the right to remediation in such "patterns"?

What kind of bandage was agreed upon? I don't find it so bad, especially in the changing room right now. In the living room, it would annoy me too...

Agreed was simply a wild bandage or ship deck if you want to call it that. It worked well throughout the whole house. Only not here,

Well, strictly speaking, that is also a random pattern, just very regular. It's tricky when the room is exactly the width that you always have to cut a board the same way. In theory, he would have had to intentionally make a different cut one to three times and calculate beforehand whether it would work. It's not nice, but I doubt you have a claim for correction here. If it's floating installed and no base or transition moldings have been glued yet, you could talk to him about whether he could still cut every second row or so differently with the leftover boards and you share the time required for that... It should actually be manageable.

I had a similar problem when laying a paved path. There was also an unsightly line in the pattern. In the end, I stood behind the craftsman, watched his fingers, and corrected him if necessary to make it "neat." He had to put up with that.

Let's put it this way: the publisher almost managed a half-bond. The image shown here represents an optical aspect, as we experts in the field customarily write. I would, starting from the left, contribute that it is far below what is technically possible because there certainly was a way to install parquet elements with the same length measure starting from one wall. Then the pattern of the end joints would have formed a harmonious continuity. I consider it unlikely to demand a correction (also legally). We assess necessary measures or depreciation, which are then presented to the judge (and usually accepted by them), based on location and visibility (greatly simplified here). A dressing room is always rated as less important in assessing craftsmanship than an entrance area or living room. In this respect, I see no chance of rectification or depreciation here from a technical standpoint. Craftsmanship-wise, I agree with you, this execution was no masterpiece! In construction, there have always been numerous unsatisfactory situations in which the owners were left with nothing but gritting their teeth...
---------------------
Regards: KlaRa