Disservice Call

This arbitration never should have happened. The lawyers involved repeatedly qualified their statements with the phrase “in a home of this price,” yet the price (roughly $1.4 million) had little to do with it. Up for discussion were problems that shouldn’t exist in a home of any price. Some were tiny—a 1/8-inch dot of off-white wall paint on a white baseboard, for example. I could have lived in the home a decade without seeing it or the other issues raised, yet the homeowner’s anger motivated him to find and challenge all of them.

Over half of his concerns had to do with paint: paint in places it shouldn’t be (wall color on baseboards and window trim, drips on hardwood floors throughout the home), paint not in places where it should be, flat paint on woodwork, trim paint on walls, and paint applied with an attitude (not a good one). One windowsill’s touch-ups actually appeared to have been smeared on with someone’s fingertip—and, in contrast to the original spray application, it was visible from across the room. Why is it that so many of the people who make their living working on new homes seem to resent the very product they are paid to create? Detail after detail in this home seemed to reflect a “That’s what you get, so there!” attitude.

As far as this homeowner was concerned, workmanship quality wasn’t even the worst of it. The last straw, he said, was “a condescending remark” the painter had made to his wife. The builder’s staff defended the painter, assuming the homeowner was the problem. When one company representative offered up the statement “We’ve worked with this painter for 17 years” as a defense of the poor workmanship and offensive remark, my patience nearly ran out. Seventeen years of collaboration doesn’t excuse rude behavior, whether it takes the form of condescending remarks or condescending workmanship.

Ilana Kohn This particular conflict had been germinating since well before closing. Even though the owners had been in the home for eight months, the project’s orientation list was still incomplete. New items were continually being added as work progressed on the original list. Appointments were set and missed. Workers arrived and did half the job, then left. Dozens of phone calls followed, some at top volume. Builder staff members branded the homeowners as “difficult” and were slow to respond, often attempting to settle issues over the phone instead of traveling to the house to see the problems firsthand.

Having failed to get action on their own, the homeowners resorted to communicating through their attorney. The arbitration appointment was our attempt at bringing closure to a list that refused to end.

The homeowner greeted us warily, expecting that I might take the builder’s side despite his attorney’s assurances of my objectivity. Although I must admit that, based on my preview of the list of disputed items, I was mystified as to why an arbitration was even necessary. Fortunately, years of warranty work taught me (the hard way) that desk decisions on such matters are of little use: you have to see the home and talk to the people involved before reaching conclusions.

Certainly, no builder would leave undone or ignore complaints such as “No one can open the front door” or “Ceiling fan doesn’t work,” I thought to myself as I read the list. How could such items end up on an arbitration list? I wondered if somehow the homeowner had misunderstood operating instructions or misused or abused the items in question. What else could explain their becoming the basis for an expensive conflict?

Final Ruling. The arbitration appointment lasted just under two hours. I awarded 32 of the 34 disputed items to the homeowner, and we noted nine new items separately from those on the original list. The builder—clearly embarrassed by what we found during our tour of the home—contritely (and wisely) agreed to address every one of them.

What had begun as poor control of the orientation list—fueled by a thoughtless remark by a painter and a growing defensiveness on the builder’s part—had escalated routine items into major issues. Assuming the homeowners are exaggerating or fabricating issues and taking the word of trades over the objective act of inspecting conditions for yourself is risky. This wasn’t a difficult homeowner, until poor performance and indifference by the building company made him so.

In the end, the homeowner was correct: I was on the builder’s side. Sometimes that means insisting they do the job they were paid to do and lose their cavalier attitude. This company needs to instill respect for homeowners into its trades, its personnel, and every action it takes.

“In a home of this price”—or any price—such details can mean the difference between failure and success.

—Carol Smith offers customer service assessment, consulting, and training programs for home builders. She can be reached at csmithhomeaddress@att.net.