I had the outside of my house painted. I hired a company that does
lots of different exterior work and is rated by lots of people as
practically perfect. They didn’t do some things I think should have
been done. What do you think?

They ignored spots where old paint was peeling and simply painted over
them instead of sanding first.

They left window panes dirty with streaks and handprints after
scraping paint from them (the windows were cleaned before the painters
arrived).

You know how you paint in a gap between two pieces of wood that aren't
flush with one another by painting thicker than on the surface? They
didn't. I think I read that this is a result of the invention of
paint sprayers – that in the days when you painted with a brush, you
were close enough to see things like this and take care of it.

They didn’t avoid walking on my plants over and over instead of
avoiding them, which was possible, albeit inconvenient.

On Sep 8, 8:54*am, " wrote:
I had the outside of my house painted. I hired a company that does
lots of different exterior work and is rated by lots of people as
practically perfect. *They didn’t do some things I think should have
been done. *What do you think?

They ignored spots where old paint was peeling and simply painted over
them instead of sanding first.

They left window panes dirty with streaks and handprints after
scraping paint from them (the windows were cleaned before the painters
arrived).

You know how you paint in a gap between two pieces of wood that aren't
flush with one another by painting thicker than on the surface? They
didn't. *I think I read that this is a result of the invention of
paint sprayers – that in the days when you painted with a brush, you
were close enough to see things like this and take care of it.

They didn’t avoid walking on my plants over and over instead of
avoiding them, which was possible, albeit inconvenient.
Why did you pay them

On Sep 8, 9:54*am, " wrote:
I had the outside of my house painted. I hired a company that does
lots of different exterior work and is rated by lots of people as
practically perfect. *They didn’t do some things I think should have
been done. *What do you think?

They ignored spots where old paint was peeling and simply painted over
them instead of sanding first.

That's a major red flag and sure sign of a hack. Those spots
needed to be scraped or sanded, any bare spots primed, etc. Place
should have been power washed before too and
I bet they didn't do that either. I would have insisted that they do
the prep work properly and if they
did not, fire them. What did you do? What did the contract
say about prep work? Even if it said nothing, basic prep work
like scraping off loose paint is standard that even if it said
nothing they should have done it.



They left window panes dirty with streaks and handprints after
scraping paint from them (the windows were cleaned before the painters
arrived).

That's not right either.




You know how you paint in a gap between two pieces of wood that aren't
flush with one another by painting thicker than on the surface? They
didn't. *I think I read that this is a result of the invention of
paint sprayers – that in the days when you painted with a brush, you
were close enough to see things like this and take care of it.


If the job didn't specify brush or spray, then it would
be up to them.


They didn’t avoid walking on my plants over and over instead of
avoiding them, which was possible, albeit inconvenient.

Did you tell them about it while it was occuring? What
did they say? You could withhold some reasonable
amount from the final payment. But of course it depends
on what kind of plants, how easy it would have been to
avoid them, etc.

" wrote in message
...

I had the outside of my house painted. I hired a company that does
lots of different exterior work and is rated by lots of people as
practically perfect. They didn’t do some things I think should have
been done. What do you think?

They ignored spots where old paint was peeling and simply painted over
them instead of sanding first.

This is professional incompetence. You may find that a
local TV station or newspaper might be interesteed in
publicising these faults, depending on local social
conditions: the mass media are often "contrarian" i.e.
like telling their audiences their general assumptions
are wrong (e.g. the reputation of this contractor.)

But because your interest is the condition of the house
(not local journalism) you should first ask the contractor
to redo the defective work at his own expense.

(My all-wood house was repainted this summer. Preparation
took more time than the application of paint because every
inch was hand-sanded beforehand.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On 9/8/2011 9:54 AM, wrote:
I had the outside of my house painted. I hired a company that does
lots of different exterior work and is rated by lots of people as
practically perfect. They didn’t do some things I think should have
been done. What do you think?

They ignored spots where old paint was peeling and simply painted over
them instead of sanding first.


Did you ask them when they were doing it or after you noticed it? Unless
there were other circumstances such as a negotiated cheap price because
you said "I am going to dump this place, just slap the paint on" it is
definitely standard practice to remove loose and peeling paint. Prep is
the most important part of a paint job.


They left window panes dirty with streaks and handprints after
scraping paint from them (the windows were cleaned before the painters
arrived).

You know how you paint in a gap between two pieces of wood that aren't
flush with one another by painting thicker than on the surface? They
didn't. I think I read that this is a result of the invention of
paint sprayers – that in the days when you painted with a brush, you
were close enough to see things like this and take care of it.

They didn’t avoid walking on my plants over and over instead of
avoiding them, which was possible, albeit inconvenient.

If you have peeling paint you prolly have a moisture problem. Water vapor pressure will push the paint right off your siding.
Sanding won't help much.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:42:53 -0400, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo
wrote:


If you have peeling paint you prolly have a moisture problem. Water vapor pressure will push the paint right off your siding.
Sanding won't help much.

You are ASS U ming a lot. You don't know how long it has been since
the house was last painted. Paint on wood ALWAYS peels, eventually.
Any one who calls themselves a painter and does not scrape/wire-brush
all loose paint first, and then spot prime (or perhaps use self
priming paint - the jury is still out on that stuff) is a liar.

And anyone who paints a house without thoroughly washing it (pressure
washer is ideal - and helps stripping the loose paint) is just taking
your money.

The house needs to be washed, scraped (and sanded if necessary)
allowed to dry, primed, and THEN Painted.

When I had my aluminum siding repainted, the handy-man who did the job
(all by brush) did not leave ANY clean-up required - did not trample
ANY plants, and did a fabulous job - for what I considered to be an
extremely fair price - using the paint I specified (which was pricier
stuff than he normally uses - and he was favourably impressed)

On Sep 8, 3:39*pm, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:
"George" wrote in ...
On 9/8/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Angelo wrote:
If you have peeling paint you prolly have a moisture problem. Water vapor pressure will push the paint right off your siding.
Sanding won't help much.

Whats a "prolly"?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolly

Wiki, huh?

Consider the source...

" wrote in message
...
I had the outside of my house painted. I hired a company that does
lots of different exterior work and is rated by lots of people as
practically perfect. They didn’t do some things I think should have
been done. What do you think?

They ignored spots where old paint was peeling and simply painted over
them instead of sanding first.

They left window panes dirty with streaks and handprints after
scraping paint from them (the windows were cleaned before the painters
arrived).

You know how you paint in a gap between two pieces of wood that aren't
flush with one another by painting thicker than on the surface? They
didn't. I think I read that this is a result of the invention of
paint sprayers – that in the days when you painted with a brush, you
were close enough to see things like this and take care of it.

They didn’t avoid walking on my plants over and over instead of
avoiding them, which was possible, albeit inconvenient.

Did they have a Green Card?? ww

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message ...
On Sep 8, 3:39 pm, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:
"George" wrote in ...
On 9/8/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Angelo wrote:
If you have peeling paint you prolly have a moisture problem. Water vapor pressure will push the paint right off your siding.
Sanding won't help much.

Whats a "prolly"?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolly

Wiki, huh?

Consider the source...


You 'prolly' won't like this source either but here goes:
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/d...merican/prolly

On Sep 8, 2:33*pm, Evan wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:54*am, " wrote:





I had the outside of my house painted. I hired a company that does
lots of different exterior work and is rated by lots of people as
practically perfect. *They didn’t do some things I think should have
been done. *What do you think?

They ignored spots where old paint was peeling and simply painted over
them instead of sanding first.

They left window panes dirty with streaks and handprints after
scraping paint from them (the windows were cleaned before the painters
arrived).

You know how you paint in a gap between two pieces of wood that aren't
flush with one another by painting thicker than on the surface? They
didn't. *I think I read that this is a result of the invention of
paint sprayers – that in the days when you painted with a brush, you
were close enough to see things like this and take care of it.

They didn’t avoid walking on my plants over and over instead of
avoiding them, which was possible, albeit inconvenient.

Depends...

You haven't defined the situation here yet with much detail:

-- Where is the house located ?
(Labor rates vary by geographical location)

Labor rates in the area obviously have nothing to do
with the issue.



-- How much did you pay for the pain job ?
(If you paid way less than normal, you get what you get,
know what i mean ?)

That's true to a point. But the person having the
work done deserves a job that at least meets
minimum acceptable practices in the industry
or trade. You know of anywhere that it's
acceptable to paint over blistered paint?



So if you want to clue us in on some more of the important
details that would be great thanks...

~~ Evan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That would still leave you clueless, as usual.

On Sep 8, 9:54*am, " wrote:
I had the outside of my house painted. I hired a company that does
lots of different exterior work and is rated by lots of people as
practically perfect. *They didn’t do some things I think should have
been done. *What do you think?

They ignored spots where old paint was peeling and simply painted over
them instead of sanding first.

They left window panes dirty with streaks and handprints after
scraping paint from them (the windows were cleaned before the painters
arrived).

You know how you paint in a gap between two pieces of wood that aren't
flush with one another by painting thicker than on the surface? They
didn't. *I think I read that this is a result of the invention of
paint sprayers – that in the days when you painted with a brush, you
were close enough to see things like this and take care of it.

They didn’t avoid walking on my plants over and over instead of
avoiding them, which was possible, albeit inconvenient.

Damn Them...Damn Them to Hell!
DEMAND A REDRESS AND IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY REPORT THEM TO THE BBB.
THEY ARE SLOPPY & INEXCUSABLE.
PATECUM
TGITM

George wrote in :

On 9/8/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Angelo wrote:
If you have peeling paint you prolly have a moisture problem. Water
vapor pressure will push the paint right off your siding. Sanding
won't help much.



Whats a "prolly"?

Jargon among transvestites.


No description was given so it could be something tiny or something
extensive. A competent painter would point out the existence of a
moisture problem and suggest having it addressed because they know new
paint will also peel.

ransley: Why do you think I paid them?

Don Phillipson: Instead of TV or newspapers, which I didn’t think
about, I am reviewing the company online. I have asked the contractor
to redo the work.

George: What does it matter when I asked them? They didn’t do it.
But thanks for letting me know you think it is standard practice.

: Why do you think they didn’t power wash? I
asked for the job to be completed properly. The contract talked about
power washing, caulking, and generic prep. Thanks for letting me know
you think the windows should have been cleaned. Who cares whether
they choose to brush or spray? They should do the job right either
way. I didn’t tell them about the plants while it was occurring,
because I wasn’t there (who can take off every day of work to watch
the painters?). I can withhold some reasonable amount from the final
payment only if my local contract laws allow and only if I have
reasonable proof I will suffer financial damage, i.e. the plants will
need to be replaced.

Michael Angelo: Thanks for alerting me to a possible moisture
problem. Why do you think it’s on my siding? The peeling spots
certainly were caused by moisture, but not from the inside.

Evan: I gave as much detail as needed. What do geographic labor
rates have to do with performance? I paid more than average.

George: The spots are something tiny, hence the use of the word
“spots” (spot: a small area visibly different from the surrounding
area). Yes, I’m giving you a hard time for your "prolly" sentence.
Thanks for letting me know you think a competent painter would point
out the existence of a moisture problem and suggest having it
addressed.

: Thanks for letting me know you think painters
should scrape/wire-brush/spot prime/wash.

WW: Yes, any worker who is not a citizen has a Green Card. But why
would that matter, other than this: Natives of Latin America working
in the U.S. generally work harder than natives of the U.S., and are
willing to do jobs natives of the U.S. won’t (Sources: personal
observation, news reports, studies).

: Thanks for letting me know your think a person
having the
work done deserves a job that at least meets minimum acceptable
practices in the industry
or trade.

The Ghost In The Machine: Instead of the BBB, which I find not very
useful, I am reviewing the company online.

Everyone: This was fun! I had extra, useless time to waste while
stuck on a computer and chose to reply to you all. Overall, you have
confirmed to me that what they did was wrong and what I am doing is
correct. Long live USENET!

On Sep 9, 9:17*am, " wrote:
ransley: *Why do you think I paid them?

Don Phillipson: *Instead of TV or newspapers, which I didn’t think
about, I am reviewing the company online. *I have asked the contractor
to redo the work.

George: *What does it matter when I asked them? *They didn’t do it.
But thanks for letting me know you think it is standard practice.

: *Why do you think they didn’t power wash?

Because it's part of the prep work and another step
that can be skipped by a half-assed painter.

*I
asked for the job to be completed properly. *The contract talked about
power washing, caulking, and generic prep.

It would be interesting to know exactly what it says
about prep work. Even if it only says power wash,
prep and paint, it's clear to any reasonable person
that certainly would include scraping any peeling
paint and priming any bare wood areas.





*Thanks for letting me know
you think the windows should have been cleaned. *Who cares whether
they choose to brush or spray? *They should do the job right either
way.

The issue is you expect paint to be applied thicker
in some areas to better cover small gaps in the
wood. Unless the contract calls for that, I would
say that is not a part of the normal painting process.
It is something that will occur naturally to some
extent if done by brush and can be accomplished
by a painter using a brush, but not by spraying.
So, if the contract is silent on this and they
sprayed, I think you don't have a legitimate beef
about small gaps not being filled with paint.



*I didn’t tell them about the plants while it was occurring,
because I wasn’t there (who can take off every day of work to watch
the painters?). *I can withhold some reasonable amount from the final
payment only if my local contract laws allow and only if I have
reasonable proof I will suffer financial damage, i.e. the plants will
need to be replaced.

I don't know where you could be that contract law
would not allow you to withhold some payment for
damage. I'd say you have damage regardless of
whether the plants eventually recover. If they made
the place look like a mess for a month, that's worth
something too and you could withhold $50 to make
a point. I doubt they are gonna sue you over $50.





Michael Angelo: *Thanks for alerting me to a possible moisture
problem. *Why do you think it’s on my siding? *The peeling spots
certainly were caused by moisture, but not from the inside.

Evan: *I gave as much detail as needed. *What do geographic labor
rates have to do with performance? *I paid more than average.

George: *The spots are something tiny, hence the use of the word
“spots” (spot: a small area visibly different from the surrounding
area). *Yes, I’m giving you a hard time for your "prolly" sentence.
Thanks for letting me *know you think a competent painter would point
out the existence of a moisture problem and suggest having it
addressed.

: *Thanks for letting me know you think painters
should scrape/wire-brush/spot prime/wash.

WW: *Yes, any worker who is not a citizen has a Green Card. *But why
would that matter, other than this: *Natives of Latin America working
in the U.S. generally work harder than natives of the U.S., and are
willing to do jobs natives of the U.S. won’t (Sources: personal
observation, news reports, studies).

: *Thanks for letting me know your think a person
having the
work done deserves a job that at least meets minimum acceptable
practices in the industry
or trade.

The Ghost In The Machine: *Instead of the BBB, which I find not very
useful, I am reviewing the company online.

Everyone: *This was fun! *I had extra, useless time to waste while
stuck on a computer and chose to reply to you all. *Overall, you have
confirmed to me that what they did was wrong and what I am doing is
correct. *Long live USENET!

On 9/8/2011 4:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sep 8, 3:39 pm, "Michael Angelo"michael@angelo wrote:
wrote in ...
On 9/8/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Angelo wrote:
If you have peeling paint you prolly have a moisture problem. Water vapor pressure will push the paint right off your siding.
Sanding won't help much.

Whats a "prolly"?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolly

Wiki, huh?

Consider the source...

I just shake my head and wonder why an adult would want to sound like
they aren't far away from using something with another cute name "binkie"

On Sep 9, 9:17*am, " wrote:
ransley: *Why do you think I paid them?

Don Phillipson: *Instead of TV or newspapers, which I didn’t think
about, I am reviewing the company online. *I have asked the contractor
to redo the work.

George: *What does it matter when I asked them? *They didn’t do it.
But thanks for letting me know you think it is standard practice.

: *Why do you think they didn’t power wash? *I
asked for the job to be completed properly. *The contract talked about
power washing, caulking, and generic prep. *Thanks for letting me know
you think the windows should have been cleaned. *Who cares whether
they choose to brush or spray? *They should do the job right either
way. *I didn’t tell them about the plants while it was occurring,
because I wasn’t there (who can take off every day of work to watch
the painters?). *I can withhold some reasonable amount from the final
payment only if my local contract laws allow and only if I have
reasonable proof I will suffer financial damage, i.e. the plants will
need to be replaced.

Because you "asked for it" doesn't mean that was what was agreed
to in writing... All we have to go on is your word and since you are
asking here what is normal for painters to do, you are clearly not
CERTAIN as to what should be done by painters...

Your lack of supervision of work being performed by a contractor is
not the contractor's problem... Your agreement "contract" did not
inform the contractors that they need to take EXTREME precautions
around your plants... Unless the plants *die* your painter will not
have to replace them -- as they will grow back after being
disturbed...

If you really had cared about the plants, you would have either had
someone there to supervise while the work was being done or would
have made clear in writing that no plantings were to be disturbed...

Sounds like you will have to chalk this one off as a learning
experience
as you did not declare and define your standards and expectations
in writing -- what you think is reasonable may not be if there is no
other way to access the area to be painted safely...

You can not go back after the fact and try to hold an unsupervised
contractor responsible for items you neglected to specify in advance
and since you voluntarily decided not to supervise the work in
progress
you gave up any ability to renegotiate the conditions of the work as
it took place and have to live with what you have unless you can prove
intentional vandalism of your property...

Evan: *I gave as much detail as needed. *What do geographic labor
rates have to do with performance? *I paid more than average.

Because what you THINK is average may be wrong... Again we only
have your word to go on and you haven't disclosed any dollar amounts
so that the ACTUAL "reasonableness" of what you paid can be
debated...

I don't feel as though you have the right skill set and knowledge to
be
able to determine what is reasonable or not in this circumstance --
you sound a lot more like a ****ed off plant owner who now has
buyer's remorse...

~~ Evan

"George" wrote in message ...
On 9/8/2011 4:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sep 8, 3:39 pm, "Michael Angelo"michael@angelo wrote:
wrote in ...
On 9/8/2011 12:42 PM, Michael Angelo wrote:
If you have peeling paint you prolly have a moisture problem. Water vapor pressure will push the paint right off your siding.
Sanding won't help much.

Whats a "prolly"?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prolly

Wiki, huh?

Consider the source...

I just shake my head and wonder why an adult would want to sound like they aren't far away from using something with another cute
name "binkie"

Prolly cuz i don't care what the **** anyone thinks.

Michael Angelo: Thanks for alerting me to a possible moisture
problem. Why do you think it’s on my siding? The peeling spots
certainly were caused by moisture, but not from the inside.

'Prolly' excess humidity in house?

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/arti...2675-3,00.html

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Sep 9, 9:17Â*am, " wrote:
ransley: Â*Why do you think I paid them?

Don Phillipson: Â*Instead of TV or newspapers, which I didnt think
about, I am reviewing the company online. Â*I have asked the contractor
to redo the work.

George: Â*What does it matter when I asked them? Â*They didnt do it.
But thanks for letting me know you think it is standard practice.

: Â*Why do you think they didnt power wash? Â*I
asked for the job to be completed properly. Â*The contract talked about
power washing, caulking, and generic prep. Â*Thanks for letting me know
you think the windows should have been cleaned. Â*Who cares whether
they choose to brush or spray? Â*They should do the job right either
way. Â*I didnt tell them about the plants while it was occurring,
because I wasnt there (who can take off every day of work to watch
the painters?). Â*I can withhold some reasonable amount from the final
payment only if my local contract laws allow and only if I have
reasonable proof I will suffer financial damage, i.e. the plants will
need to be replaced.

Because you "asked for it" doesn't mean that was what was agreed
to in writing... All we have to go on is your word and since you are
asking here what is normal for painters to do, you are clearly not
CERTAIN as to what should be done by painters...

It is NOT normal for a professional painting contractor to damage
plantings or leave a mess.

Your lack of supervision of work being performed by a contractor is
not the contractor's problem... Your agreement "contract" did not
inform the contractors that they need to take EXTREME precautions
around your plants... Unless the plants *die* your painter will not
have to replace them -- as they will grow back after being
disturbed...


"Extreme" measures are not required. Did these Klutzes use
scaffolding? Generally scaffolding reduces damage to plantings

Professional contractors do not need to be supervised by the
home-owner.
If you really had cared about the plants, you would have either had
someone there to supervise while the work was being done or would
have made clear in writing that no plantings were to be disturbed...

Sounds like you will have to chalk this one off as a learning
experience
as you did not declare and define your standards and expectations
in writing -- what you think is reasonable may not be if there is no
other way to access the area to be painted safely...

I'm glad YOU accept sub-standard workmanship.

You can not go back after the fact and try to hold an unsupervised
contractor responsible for items you neglected to specify in advance
and since you voluntarily decided not to supervise the work in
progress


Not true. Reasonable expectations when paying a "professional" include
having the job done right.
you gave up any ability to renegotiate the conditions of the work as
it took place and have to live with what you have unless you can prove
intentional vandalism of your property...
Vandalism is not required - negligence is every bit as bad - and a lot
easier to prove.

Evan: Â*I gave as much detail as needed. Â*What do geographic labor
rates have to do with performance? Â*I paid more than average.

Because what you THINK is average may be wrong... Again we only
have your word to go on and you haven't disclosed any dollar amounts
so that the ACTUAL "reasonableness" of what you paid can be
debated...


Price has nothing to do with it.

You ever hear of the guy who came around asking if there were any odd
jobs he could do to earn some money. The home-owner said he needed the
porch out the back painted.

A couple hours later the guy comes back in and says "the job's done,
but I think I should tell you that's not a Porch- it's a Beemer.
I don't feel as though you have the right skill set and knowledge to
be
able to determine what is reasonable or not in this circumstance --
you sound a lot more like a ****ed off plant owner who now has
buyer's remorse...

I'd say the OP sounds like a somewhat particular home-owner who did
not get what they bargained for - and had a reasonable expectation of
getting for their money.

~~ Evan

On Sep 9, 10:26*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT), Evan





wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:17*am, " wrote:
ransley: *Why do you think I paid them?

Don Phillipson: *Instead of TV or newspapers, which I didn’t think
about, I am reviewing the company online. *I have asked the contractor
to redo the work.

George: *What does it matter when I asked them? *They didn’t do it.
But thanks for letting me know you think it is standard practice.

: *Why do you think they didn’t power wash? *I
asked for the job to be completed properly. *The contract talked about
power washing, caulking, and generic prep. *Thanks for letting me know
you think the windows should have been cleaned. *Who cares whether
they choose to brush or spray? *They should do the job right either
way. *I didn’t tell them about the plants while it was occurring,
because I wasn’t there (who can take off every day of work to watch
the painters?). *I can withhold some reasonable amount from the final
payment only if my local contract laws allow and only if I have
reasonable proof I will suffer financial damage, i.e. the plants will
need to be replaced.

Because you "asked for it" doesn't mean that was what was agreed
to in writing... *All we have to go on is your word and since you are
asking here what is normal for painters to do, you are clearly not
CERTAIN as to what should be done by painters...

It is NOT normal for a professional painting contractor to damage
plantings or leave a mess.



Your lack of supervision of work being performed by a contractor is
not the contractor's problem... *Your agreement "contract" did not
inform the contractors that they need to take EXTREME precautions
around your plants... *Unless the plants *die* your painter will not
have to replace them -- as they will grow back after being
disturbed...

"Extreme" measures are not required. Did these Klutzes use
scaffolding? Generally scaffolding reduces damage to plantings

Professional contractors do not need to be supervised by the
home-owner.

If you really had cared about the plants, you would have either had
someone there to supervise while the work was being done or would
have made clear in writing that no plantings were to be disturbed...

Sounds like you will have to chalk this one off as a learning
experience
as you did not declare and define your standards and expectations
in writing -- what you think is reasonable may not be if there is no
other way to access the area to be painted safely...

I'm glad YOU accept sub-standard workmanship.



You can not go back after the fact and try to hold an unsupervised
contractor responsible for items you neglected to specify in advance
and since you voluntarily decided not to supervise the work in
progress

Not true. Reasonable expectations when paying a "professional" include
having the job done right.you gave up any ability to renegotiate the conditions of the work as
it took place and have to live with what you have unless you can prove
intentional vandalism of your property...

Vandalism is not required - negligence is every bit as bad - and a lot
easier to prove.



Evan: *I gave as much detail as needed. *What do geographic labor
rates have to do with performance? *I paid more than average.

Because what you THINK is average may be wrong... *Again we only
have your word to go on and you haven't disclosed any dollar amounts
so that the ACTUAL "reasonableness" of what you paid can be
debated...

Price has nothing to do with it.

You ever hear of the guy who came around asking if there were any odd
jobs he could do to earn some money. The home-owner said he needed the
porch out the back painted.

A couple hours later the guy comes back in and says "the job's done,
but I think I should tell you that's not a Porch- it's a Beemer.

I don't feel as though you have the right skill set and knowledge to
be
able to determine what is reasonable or not in this circumstance --
you sound a lot more like a ****ed off plant owner who now has
buyer's remorse...

*I'd say the OP sounds like a somewhat particular home-owner who did
not get what they bargained for - and had a reasonable expectation of
getting for their money.



Agree. Particularly bizarre is the idea that the
homeowner is at fault for not actively supervising
the work being done. Many homeowners have
jobs and aren't going to be there when the work
is being done. On multiple day jobs I would
definitely take a look each day, if possible, to
correct anything, but as you say, that doesn't
excuse a contractor from trampling plants if
they were possible to avoid. And if they were
not possible to avoid, I'd say the duty to point
that out falls on the contractor BEFORE they
damage them.

"Evan" wrote in message
news:91ce2934-ef17-42e0-80df-

stuff snipped

You can not go back after the fact and try to hold an unsupervised
contractor responsible for items you neglected to specify in advance
and since you voluntarily decided not to supervise the work in
progress

Not true. You can easily hold them to what is called a "reasonable standard
of care" in many cases. If the contract doesn't hold the contractor
harmless for *any* mishap, then all sorts of legal avenues open up if
there's damage caused by their actions or inactions.

Those "hold harmless" contracts are rare and usually reserved to things like
cement delivery. If the owner/builder asks the delivery driver to go beyond
curbside delivery they are almost always asked to sign a contract that holds
the delivery company harmless for going beyond the normal state/county road
surface.

Why? Because they know the first kiss of a 10 ton truck on almost any kind
of landscaping is not a pretty sight. They crush conduit, collapse septic
tanks, take parts of the house structure itself down and more. The
visibility from the cab of a cement truck is not just not very good, the
size so huge and weight so heavy that it's unreasonable to expect they won't
harm anything. SO many trucks have crushed SO much stuff SO many times that
a "total indemnity" contract became industry standard. Getting it signed
curbside and not when the main contract is signed is also, unfortunately, an
industry practice as well. )-: People are reluctant to sign "hold
harmless" contracts and that's one reason why they are usually not found in
single home painting or other kinds of maintenance contracts entered into
with casual labor.

you gave up any ability to renegotiate the conditions of the work as
it took place and have to live with what you have unless you can prove
intentional vandalism of your property...

Hmmmmm. Also not true. The civil courts would be empty except for dust and
spiders if liability for damage ended where you claim it does. If the
contractor can bring another painting specialist or some other authority to
testify that Painter A did not exhibit a "reasonable standard of care" when
performing the job, they are likely to recover some money. Small claims
courts are clogged with this sort of litigation because either the contract
was oral, or it was a two paragraph "I will paint your entire house for
$5,000. Old paint will be scraped off."

As for a renegotiaton after completion, it happens all the time. If I
thought the contractor was a real flake and performed horribly I'd fill out
a small claims court form in advance, asking for the maximum damages I
thought I could get. Then I would meet with the contractor (who would not
be paid the last installment without my final approval) and say "You really
tore up my landscaping. I think that's at LEAST X$ in repair work. He
might get ****ed but he also might agree to a rebate - hence a post job
renegotiation. If he was a real hardass about it, I'd serve him
(informally) with my papers and ask one last time if he felt that he wasn't
careful enough and an adjustment was in order.

If he still thought he did an A-1 job he would now get the chance to prove
it in court. I might even buy a postal money order in the amount of the
last installment due to attach a copy of to the court filing, indicating it
wasn't lack of funds that caused me to sue. The contractor surely wouldn't
be getting the last installment if I thought he did significant damage
because of substandard work practices. I would also have a *lot* of before
and after photos to submit as evidence, which I would have shown to the
contractor during our final negotiation.

The deal is *mostly* done when there's a "meeting of minds" about how much
the job was worth in reality, factoring in things like damage to
landscaping, poor quality work, etc. An interesting side note: if a
contractor used substandard materials, below the quality of the contract
specs, the statute of limitation can be suspended because of fraud and start
running again only when that fraud comes to light.

Contractor "fall off" is the main reason most smart people pay in
installments. If they get all their money up front, contractor interest
"falls off" greatly. (-: I have seen numerous cases where contractors have
done a job in a clearly substandard way and their workmen even admitted so
in court! (A good reason not to pay them in Popsicle sticks.)

In the big leagues it often has to do with concrete that didn't meet test
specs. In the homeowner's arena it can be as simple as not prepping a floor
before refinishing or cleaning a wall before painting. The contractor (and
this is the part that makes them really, really hate the court system) can
be liable for the additional cost to remove his work, in addition to him not
getting paid for the original job.

That is a pretty good reason for contractors to have a good boilerplate
contract. If you don't, and if you did a substandard job, you could really
lose in court. There is a possibility of not only not getting paid and you
could have to pay the cost of bringing the job back to the condition where
you screwed it up. Making the client "whole" again can get incredibly
expensive in the world of skyscrapers or bridges built with substandard
cement. Expect "tons" of litigation to come out of the NYC concrete
inspection scandal.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/a...latest_st.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/ny...0concrete.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/ny...1concrete.html

(That last story is the scariest - it says NYC officials haven't decided
whether they will retest completed buildings that were never correctly
tested in the first place. They KNOW how many cases of cans of worms that
would open all at once. I'm also sure lawyers have already contacted the
building owners to explain the statute of limitations to them and how if
THEY don't test, THEY could become liable for a building collapse!)

Unreasonable standards of care can certainly cost a lot for any contractor.
There are so many good contract templates out on the internet free that it's
crazy for a contractor not to download one and modify it for his particular
needs. Yet they often don't bother and wonder why they end up in court.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:00:36 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 9, 10:26Â*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:53:54 -0700 (PDT), Evan





wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:17Â*am, " wrote:
ransley: Â*Why do you think I paid them?

Don Phillipson: Â*Instead of TV or newspapers, which I didnt think
about, I am reviewing the company online. Â*I have asked the contractor
to redo the work.

George: Â*What does it matter when I asked them? Â*They didnt do it.
But thanks for letting me know you think it is standard practice.

: Â*Why do you think they didnt power wash? Â*I
asked for the job to be completed properly. Â*The contract talked about
power washing, caulking, and generic prep. Â*Thanks for letting me know
you think the windows should have been cleaned. Â*Who cares whether
they choose to brush or spray? Â*They should do the job right either
way. Â*I didnt tell them about the plants while it was occurring,
because I wasnt there (who can take off every day of work to watch
the painters?). Â*I can withhold some reasonable amount from the final
payment only if my local contract laws allow and only if I have
reasonable proof I will suffer financial damage, i.e. the plants will
need to be replaced.

Because you "asked for it" doesn't mean that was what was agreed
to in writing... Â*All we have to go on is your word and since you are
asking here what is normal for painters to do, you are clearly not
CERTAIN as to what should be done by painters...

It is NOT normal for a professional painting contractor to damage
plantings or leave a mess.



Your lack of supervision of work being performed by a contractor is
not the contractor's problem... Â*Your agreement "contract" did not
inform the contractors that they need to take EXTREME precautions
around your plants... Â*Unless the plants *die* your painter will not
have to replace them -- as they will grow back after being
disturbed...

"Extreme" measures are not required. Did these Klutzes use
scaffolding? Generally scaffolding reduces damage to plantings

Professional contractors do not need to be supervised by the
home-owner.

If you really had cared about the plants, you would have either had
someone there to supervise while the work was being done or would
have made clear in writing that no plantings were to be disturbed...

Sounds like you will have to chalk this one off as a learning
experience
as you did not declare and define your standards and expectations
in writing -- what you think is reasonable may not be if there is no
other way to access the area to be painted safely...

I'm glad YOU accept sub-standard workmanship.



You can not go back after the fact and try to hold an unsupervised
contractor responsible for items you neglected to specify in advance
and since you voluntarily decided not to supervise the work in
progress

Not true. Reasonable expectations when paying a "professional" include
having the job done right.you gave up any ability to renegotiate the conditions of the work as
it took place and have to live with what you have unless you can prove
intentional vandalism of your property...

Vandalism is not required - negligence is every bit as bad - and a lot
easier to prove.



Evan: Â*I gave as much detail as needed. Â*What do geographic labor
rates have to do with performance? Â*I paid more than average.

Because what you THINK is average may be wrong... Â*Again we only
have your word to go on and you haven't disclosed any dollar amounts
so that the ACTUAL "reasonableness" of what you paid can be
debated...

Price has nothing to do with it.

You ever hear of the guy who came around asking if there were any odd
jobs he could do to earn some money. The home-owner said he needed the
porch out the back painted.

A couple hours later the guy comes back in and says "the job's done,
but I think I should tell you that's not a Porch- it's a Beemer.

I don't feel as though you have the right skill set and knowledge to
be
able to determine what is reasonable or not in this circumstance --
you sound a lot more like a ****ed off plant owner who now has
buyer's remorse...

Â*I'd say the OP sounds like a somewhat particular home-owner who did
not get what they bargained for - and had a reasonable expectation of
getting for their money.



Agree. Particularly bizarre is the idea that the
homeowner is at fault for not actively supervising
the work being done. Many homeowners have
jobs and aren't going to be there when the work
is being done. On multiple day jobs I would
definitely take a look each day, if possible, to
correct anything, but as you say, that doesn't
excuse a contractor from trampling plants if
they were possible to avoid. And if they were
not possible to avoid, I'd say the duty to point
that out falls on the contractor BEFORE they
damage them.
My handiman- painter pointed out that the cherry tree was close
enough to the house to require trimming before he could paint and
offered to do the trimming, or have me trim it before he started.

As he also trims trees as part of his handi-man service I told him to
trim it as required. ALL the trimmings dissapeared like magic - not a
sign left behind that any trimming had been done. My cost - IIRC, was
an extra $25. It was only a few branches - and nothing big - but it
was done right - just like the rest of the job.


When A roofer does a re-roof he darn well better pick up all the nails
too - or HE pays for the flat tire when the homeowner pulls into the
driveway and the tire finds the nail.

The OP's Painter violated the Da Vinci code and should be brought to
justice forthwith .

TGITM