The painting of our house was part of a very large renovation project. Being responsible for the entire project, it was our General Contractor who selected Sloan's Painting (hereafter referred to as Sloan's). Sloan's consisted of two owners, Michael and Michelle, and two employees.
The contract was fixed-price, and included the painting of the interior and exterior of the house, the staining of all unfinished wood trim and baseboards, and the re-staining of the deck and fence. The wood trim was to be finished so that it matched the doors, and all areas requiring protection were to be masked or covered with drop sheets. Sloan's work began in September, 2010.
From the beginning, Sloan's clearly had an insufficient number of staff for this job, and also started late and ended early each day. Many work days lasted only four hours. Michael explained that he had tried repeatedly to hire more staff for our house, but was unable to. Nevertheless, Michael admitted that Sloan's continued to accept additional work from their preceding client. In addition to this, Sloan's would leave our house each day without saying anything to us, and in particular about what had been done that day and what was planned for the next.
Michael proved from the beginning to be very impatient, drudgingly engaging in necessary discussions with me, and was often quite abrupt.
On repeated occasions, paint was splashed and sprayed on floors, wood trim, doors, granite counter tops, and fixtures, because Sloan's had not consistently protected these things. When the issue was raised by me, Michael reacted in a defensive and argumentative manner. Also, excessive paint and stain were used in several areas, leaving both "runs" and large streaks.
Sloan's also had to be repeatedly reminded of several omissions in their work, including some areas of walls and ceilings being left unpainted, and also some only receiving one coat where the surrounding areas had the required two coats.
When asked at the beginning of the project how many coats of finish would be required on the wood trim, so that it would match the doors, as stated in the contract, Sloan's stated that a minimum of four coats would be needed and would be done before the painting, after which a fifth coat would be applied if needed. However, towards the end of Sloan's work, several areas of wood trim had obviously received less sanding and coats of stain than others, so that they were left rough to the touch and still looked like unfinished wood, which contrasted noticeably with the rest of the wood trim and doors. When reminded of this, Michael argued that they had already exceeded the number of coats specified in the contract.
We updated our list of work deficiencies and emailed these to Sloan's as new issues were discovered, followed by an on-site review of these as needed with Sloan's on the following day. All of these deficiencies and the problematic behaviour of Sloan's were frequently communicated to the General Contractor, who assured us that all of these issues would be addressed by Sloan's. However, Sloan's behaviour did not improve, and their reluctance and/or inability to address many of the deficiencies became increasingly obvious, regardless of our many attempts to encourage Sloan's to improve.
I was then left with no alternative but to terminate the contract, although the interior was incomplete and the exterior barely started. This contract termination occurred in October, 2010.
Sloan's later invoiced us, not just for the balance of the work completed, but for approximately twice what had been quoted for the interior, with various justifications including the loss of the deposit on the exterior. Upon advice from our lawyers, we offered Sloan's reasonable payment for the work done, less the cost of correcting the deficiencies in their work. Sloan's then sent another letter demanding full payment of the amount they had invoiced and stating their intent to place a lien on our house if this payment was not received.
Again, on the advice of our lawyers, we offered Sloan's what was deemed reasonable payment, and again, Sloan's rejected this, and then sent a completely different invoice with different justification, but for approximately the same amount. Their new justification included such things as additional coats of finish on the trim and wasted time for conversations with me.
We once more responded as before, and then Sloan's referred the matter to a Claims Agency, who resubmitted Sloan's claim to us. We then made them the same offer as we had made to Sloan's but received nor reply.
After a short time, we received notice from Sloan's that they had filed a claim in the Small Claims Court. As part of the Small Claims process, prior to going to court, a Mediation Conference was held. At the end of the mediation, we offered Sloan's a much lesser amount than what they were claiming, which they accepted. This process ended in April, 2011. read more
