Having had generally unsatisfactory results with these apparently similar products when used by two different contractors, I'd be interested to know what other folks who use/have used them think of them. If you have used them, were they any good - did they "do what it said on the tin"? Are there any tricks/tips or gotchas in using them? And are they basically the same product, or is one better than the other?
The background to my question is that we've had a couple of hard landscaping jobs done in the last couple of years. One involved some 'crazy' paving, the other normal rectangular paving slabs. In both cases the paving material was natural stone, and in both cases the contractors used Geofix or EASYJoint to fill the gaps between the paving stones/slabs.
In the case of the 'crazy' paving the Geofix never seemed to cure properly, breaking up in to sandy residue which spreads all over the paving and then gets tracked around the garden and in to the house. We complained to the contractor about this but they stalled and prevaricated for months and eventually just didn't return our calls or e-mails.
We got a different contractor in for the second piece of work, earlier this year, and asked them to replace the unsatisfactory jointing on the crazy paving at the same time. They jointed the rectangular paving with EASYJoint, which seemed to have cured OK (though there is still a small amount of sandy residue appearing on the surface from time to time, so some deterioration may yet be occurring). They used the same product to re-joint the crazy paving, and for some square setts that they laid as a border to the rectangular paving. In both those cases the EASYJoint hasn't cured properly and is, as was our previous experience, breaking up in to a sandy residue and leaving the joints exposed.
What we have noticed is that in both the cases where the products failed to cure properly, the joints appeared to have been partially secured with mortar before the EASYJoint was applied as a 'cosmetic' finish. Having found the manufacturer's information sheet for EASYJoint it does seem to state that the product should specifically not be laid on top of an impermeable under layer. So it looks like both contractors have mis-used the product(s). The second contractor did originally agree to come back and re-do the failed jointing, but they also now appear to have resorted to "ghosting" us, which is nice...
I get the impression that some contractors like to use these products because they are quick and easy to apply cf more traditional methods - but it seems all too easy to fall in to the trap of doing so with little or no regard to their suitability for each specific application. Given that such contractors prefer to opt for the easy but inappropriate solution in the first place it is perhaps no great surprise that, when their poor workmanship is pointed out to them, they opt effectively to go into hiding rather than, presumably, end up losing money on the job by spending more time and materials doing it the way they should have done it in the first place.
I don't think we can really be arsed to resort to the small claims court or Trading Standards. We just want the work done properly with the correct materials so that it looks good and lasts well!
Post edited at 11:37
