Refusal from decorator to complete the job

marcia_

Alderbank said:

marcia_ said:

 I would not be claiming on my own insurance for the tv. I would be deducting it from their invoice. 

You might, but that is not good advice to give to others.

In law even if the decorator was to blame you are expected to mitigate your loss which you can do by making a claim for accidental damage. If your insurer wants to take further action against the decorator (they won't for the price of a TV) that is their concern.

As others have suggested, a flat-screen tv lying face down on a dark coloured duvet might well be seen by a court as a breach of your duties under the Occupiers' Liability Act and had the decorator had been injured by broken glass you could have been faced with paying substantial damages.

 As this is a money saving forum and claiming on their insurance means paying an excess and potentially higher premiums from now on it is very sound advice. 

 The decorator had no business standing on the bed, where were his ladders 

Section62

marcia_ said:

Alderbank said:

marcia_ said:

 I would not be claiming on my own insurance for the tv. I would be deducting it from their invoice. 

You might, but that is not good advice to give to others.

In law even if the decorator was to blame you are expected to mitigate your loss which you can do by making a claim for accidental damage. If your insurer wants to take further action against the decorator (they won't for the price of a TV) that is their concern.

As others have suggested, a flat-screen tv lying face down on a dark coloured duvet might well be seen by a court as a breach of your duties under the Occupiers' Liability Act and had the decorator had been injured by broken glass you could have been faced with paying substantial damages.

 As this is a money saving forum and claiming on their insurance means paying an excess and potentially higher premiums from now on it is very sound advice. 

 The decorator had no business standing on the bed, where were his ladders 

It is a difficult one, but the vibes from the discussion with the decorator feel like this one isn't going to go easily, hence the money saving option might not be the one which involves paying a solicitor to pursue a claim for the TV which ultimately gets thrown out because the TV shouldn't have been left where it might get damaged.

If I've understood the OP correctly, the damaged TV wasn't mentioned until after the dispute over the work had already arisen - so it may look like the claim for the TV has been introduced as a tit-for-tat.  If this were a simple MCOL and the decorator was likely to just pay up to make it go away then yes, claiming on the insurance wouldn't be a good idea.  But with the damage being one part of a larger dispute then the legal cost (in relation to the TV) might be disproportionate to value.

Ladders wouldn't be any use if the bed was in the way - so if they were expected to use ladders then something needed to be done with the bed.  Which means there is a whole can of worms to explore over what was agreed about furniture and contents being (re)moved prior to the decorators starting work, or if the contract included the decorator doing this.

Either way I don't think it is clear cut - which is the problem if it goes 'legal', there is so much the solicitors for each party can run up their bills arguing about.

JadeHighland

Alderbank said:

Stacey72 said:

I am after some advise, I employed a company to carry our decorating at my property to cut a long story short after a telephone call between the contractor and my husband to clarify the works and to mention hie worker stood on my bed to paint the ceiling damaging a TV we had taken off the wall and placed there, he is refusing to complete the job and has invoiced in my opinion for a ridiculous some of money.  What would a reasonable amount be to pay ?. Thank you. 

Welcome to the Forum.

What proportion of the decorating has been carried out?
If the contractor had completed 80% of the work, for example, then paying 80% of the agreed bill would be reasonable.

Damage to the TV lying on the bed sounds like an accident. Claim on your contents insurance and ask your insurer whether your premium will increase as a result (very often it will not). 
If you have any excess to pay, and if your premium will increase, deduct those uninsured losses from the scaled down bill before paying it.

Don't listen to this nonsense.

The reasonable amount to pay is - 

The initial quote - the cost of the TV - the cost to get someone else in to finish the job. 

I was in a somewhat similar situation when a week's worth of work turned in to 6 weeks. The decorator I hired didn't do many parts including painting the doors and skimming the ceiling. Getting someone in to do just those two jobs is going to cost proportionally more than it would be as part of a bigger job. I got someone else in to complete that work, deducted that from the decorators initial quote and that's what I paid. 

ThisIsWeird

Stacey72 said:

I am after some advice. I employed a company to carry our decorating at my property to cut a long story short after a telephone call between the contractor and my husband to clarify the works and to mention the worker stood on my bed to paint the ceiling damaging a TV we had taken off the wall and placed there, he is refusing to complete the job and has invoiced in my opinion for a ridiculous some of money.  What would a reasonable amount be to pay ?. Thank you. 

Ok, we don't know the nature of this phone call, but just based on what we are told here, I'd suggest the reasonable amount to pay this PD is his original quote, less what an equivalent PD is now going to take to complete the work. So, Stacey, you need a couple of new quotes for this.
Yes, the original PD will almost certainly receive less than he has 'earned' for what he's done, but that's for the simple reason that a two-company job - which is what this will become - will always cost more than one done in one go, by one person, where the materials and workfolk are already there, the room protected, etc.
But, based on what you have told us, the PD made the decision to not continue, and not you - so he needs to accept there are consequences.
We don't really know anything else.
A good tradesperson would, I'd like to think, explain and apologise, and offer to put things right. But even a good tradesperson might become exasperated if they found their customer's manner unreasonable. And most, I suspect, will be thoroughly miffed by the presumed lack of trust in having discrete(?) cameras watching them, that they weren't told about.
If these are normal security cameras, for example, then it would have been courteous to have let them know they are on, 'so you may not want to scratch yer nuts unless you want to appear on YouTube'. The cameras would then have served their additional 'best behaviour' purpose. 
If the incident was as you described, then the tradesperson should have been mortified, apologised, and explained - "I just needed to reach over a wee bit to cut-in... Sorry, it was careless of me - I shouldn't have stepped on your bed. And, of course I'll pay towards a new telly...", and rescue the situation.
But, he didn't.
Why? We don't know. Perhaps he started to white-lie, and then you told him he'd been filmed. Most folk, understandably - but no excuse - will be annoyed at being caught out and 'humiliate', and may claim 'trust has broken down'.
But, from every angle I can see, the guy is stuffed. He'd be nuts to try and claim off you the full amount for what he's actually done so far, because his actions are going to cost you more in having the job completed, and also in the damaged TV.
So, I'd get your ducks in a row; (a) call up your insurance, explain what happened, and ask them what it'll cost you to claim for a replacement in increased premiums. Based on what they say, you work out the best way to get your TV back to how it was; either the full cost to you for an insurance claim with any increased premium, or the straight purchase price for an equivalent model. Or even a figure to cover the loss in value, should the TV still be useable.
That's one figure the guy 'owes' you.
Then (b) there's the cost of finishing the work. You can only get that from actual quotes, so get two - possibly three - if you need it for a proper claim.
You then explain your sums in writing, and offer a full and final figure to the guy - original quote, less these two figures. And you give him that sum.

He'd be nuts to claim more.

Do you have Legal Protection in your house insurance? If so, ignore all that and call them up for advice.

stuart45

A mate of mine was doing a full redec for an Indian couple who did shift work for the NHC. He had the bedroom prepped and sheeted, and was just about to start when the couple came in and insisted that they needed to go straight to bed. When he said that it was going to hold him up, they told him to give them 10 minutes to get into bed, and then come in, cover them over with a dust sheet and carry on painting. He said they were fast asleep when he came back, so he just covered them up and started rolling the ceiling. Don't know what would have happened if they'd both suffocated.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

...
If the incident was as you described, then the tradesperson should have been mortified, apologised, and explained - "I just needed to reach over a wee bit to cut-in... Sorry, it was careless of me - I shouldn't have stepped on your bed. And, of course I'll pay towards a new telly...", and rescue the situation.
But, he didn't.
Why? We don't know. Perhaps he started to white-lie, and then you told him he'd been filmed. Most folk, understandably - but no excuse - will be annoyed at being caught out and 'humiliate', and may claim 'trust has broken down'.
....

Needs to be some clarity on the meaning of "...and initially was prepared not to worry about this as they did apologise..." to get a better idea of the BiB - i.e. where on the timeline was this "initially" and the apology?

Also needs some clarity on how much of the TV was visible or if it was completely covered over, and also the extent to which the bed was covered/protected before the work started.  A recent property I looked at the trader had covered the bed with two layers of (clean) dust sheets, then laid a thick carpet-like protector sheet over the top.  Although stepping/standing on a bed is not a good alternative to using a ladder from a H&S point of view, I'd be less concerned about a foot on the bed if it were protected like that, vs stepping directly onto the sheets/duvet.  The flipside is if there were a TV under (say) a duvet plus those layers of protection then the trader would have probably been unaware the TV was there, and probably wouldn't have heard or felt the crunch if they were standing on it.  (i.e. depending on circumstances it may have been a truly held belief rather than "white lie")

I agree with you raising the video. I doubt an offence has been committed by recording, if the presence of a bed indicates this is a bedroom then it might raise questions about how the recording came to be made as I'd guess it wouldn't have been a normal general security use of CCTV which captured this footage by chance.  I'm not suggesting the OP has necessarily done anything wrong with having some kind of camera device recording the trader while they were working, but it might be a complicating factor in assessing the nature of the relationship between client and trader when it comes to working out what a reasonable settlement might look like.  Trust works both ways, and I'm not sure what view a court might take on expectations for a contract to be completed where trust has clearly broken down, or never existed in the first place.

Belenus

stuart45 said:

A mate of mine was doing a full redec for an Indian couple who did shift work for the NHC. He had the bedroom prepped and sheeted, and was just about to start when the couple came in and insisted that they needed to go straight to bed. When he said that it was going to hold him up, they told him to give them 10 minutes to get into bed, and then come in, cover them over with a dust sheet and carry on painting. He said they were fast asleep when he came back, so he just covered them up and started rolling the ceiling. Don't know what would have happened if they'd both suffocated.

When the decorator left the room the man turned to the woman and asked if she was in the mood for sex.

'Sorry darling. I've got the painters in.' she replied.

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

...
If the incident was as you described, then the tradesperson should have been mortified, apologised, and explained - "I just needed to reach over a wee bit to cut-in... Sorry, it was careless of me - I shouldn't have stepped on your bed. And, of course I'll pay towards a new telly...", and rescue the situation.
But, he didn't.
Why? We don't know. Perhaps he started to white-lie, and then you told him he'd been filmed. Most folk, understandably - but no excuse - will be annoyed at being caught out and 'humiliate', and may claim 'trust has broken down'.
....

Needs to be some clarity on the meaning of "...and initially was prepared not to worry about this as they did apologise..." to get a better idea of the BiB - i.e. where on the timeline was this "initially" and the apology?

Also needs some clarity on how much of the TV was visible or if it was completely covered over, and also the extent to which the bed was covered/protected before the work started.  A recent property I looked at the trader had covered the bed with two layers of (clean) dust sheets, then laid a thick carpet-like protector sheet over the top.  Although stepping/standing on a bed is not a good alternative to using a ladder from a H&S point of view, I'd be less concerned about a foot on the bed if it were protected like that, vs stepping directly onto the sheets/duvet.  The flipside is if there were a TV under (say) a duvet plus those layers of protection then the trader would have probably been unaware the TV was there, and probably wouldn't have heard or felt the crunch if they were standing on it.  (i.e. depending on circumstances it may have been a truly held belief rather than "white lie")

I agree with you raising the video. I doubt an offence has been committed by recording, if the presence of a bed indicates this is a bedroom then it might raise questions about how the recording came to be made as I'd guess it wouldn't have been a normal general security use of CCTV which captured this footage by chance.  I'm not suggesting the OP has necessarily done anything wrong with having some kind of camera device recording the trader while they were working, but it might be a complicating factor in assessing the nature of the relationship between client and trader when it comes to working out what a reasonable settlement might look like.  Trust works both ways, and I'm not sure what view a court might take on expectations for a contract to be completed where trust has clearly broken down, or never existed in the first place.

Absolutely.
My comments are based solely on what we've been told. There is a lot of detail missing - the content and attitude of that phone call, for example - but these situations will usually resolve themselves correctly.
Ie, if the situation isn't as described, then the OP will not get very far with my suggestions. But if it is largely as described, then chances are the PD will have next-to-zero chance of making a claim for a payment that'll leave the OP worse off overall.