Hi, we're getting a new kitchen fitted and one of the fitters giving a quote couldn't understand why I don't want him to tile on top of the existing tiles. To me it seems like a bodge job, but he says it's normal. Is there any benefit to getting the tiles removed? I do understand that we may need to replace part of the wall with plasterboard, but I'm willing to pay to get that done. Is it just a waste of money? Any opinions?
It does and I generally advise against it. Invariably causes issues with depth adjacent to architraves, sockets, etc. However there are times when it’s perfectly ok and from a client budget point of view is often much cheaper. There are specific adhesives available to do it well. Not my job but a mate of mine recently tiled over a whole bathrooms worth of pink marble. Very 80’s. Client hated it but wanted it left in place. Actually gave them a perfectly flat surface to tile onto. Contemporary fit-out over the top. Looked stunning.
I did my bathroom some 35 years ago as a simple re-tile and it worked fine, as Truck says grand flat surface and only architraves to consider and these were quite deep. Then SWMBO wants to rejig the whole room so off they all came (together with a lot of plaster of course). One wall was only short and made of 3inch clinker block and I was a bit dubious about it cracking if I took the tiles off so I have 3 layers on that bit Time goes by and now she wants to do it again. I'm apparently now too old and too slow so "we'll get someone in" so maybe we won't see if 4 layers would work!! I still want to do it myself and as we have a full ensuite speed shoudn't be an issue. A battle to fight!!