The Redecoration: When “Cheapest” Became the Measure of Value
A fresh coat of paint should be simple. At Noble Court, it has raised rather more questions than it answered.
Redecoration sounds innocuous enough. A building needs attention, contractors are invited to quote, directors consider the options and a decision is made.
Except that at Noble Court, the decision appears to have been driven by one overriding consideration: price.
The directors chose the cheapest quotation, with the decision reportedly justified by one director as being “due to the current economic climate.”
On the face of it, there is nothing objectionable about choosing the lowest quotation. Leaseholders would hardly complain about directors seeking to control expenditure.
But price is only one part of value.
The more interesting question is what the cheapest quotation actually bought.
Because when the paint finally went on, some rather conspicuous areas were left out.
The curious case of the doors
The redecoration included communal fire-door frames and meter cupboard door frames.
But the doors and door frames forming part of the demised flats were not repainted.
Nor were the relevant exterior portions of the demised flats.
And that matters because these areas are expressly addressed in the leases.
The result is difficult to miss.
Newly painted communal door frames now sit alongside neighbouring demised-flat doors and frames that were left untouched. Rather than producing the clean, uniform appearance one might reasonably expect from a comprehensive redecoration, the result is a rather curious visual patchwork.
The communal areas have been refreshed — but not entirely.
The distinction between what was painted and what was not is particularly noticeable precisely because the elements sit side by side.
It looks less like a complete redecoration and more like a redecoration drawn around the limits of the cheapest specification.
That may be entirely explainable.
But it certainly deserves explaining.
The economic climate
The phrase “due to the current economic climate” is an understandable explanation for trying to keep costs under control.
But it raises another question.
Did the economic climate simply determine which contractor was selected?
Or did it determine which work was carried out at all?
Those are two very different things.
There is nothing inherently wrong with obtaining several quotations and accepting the lowest. In fact, that can be entirely sensible.
But a £15,000 quotation that excludes work which needs to be done is not necessarily better value than a £20,000 quotation that includes it.
The cheapest number on a quotation is not automatically the cheapest outcome for leaseholders.
What exactly was quoted?
This is where transparency becomes important.
Were all the contractors quoting on precisely the same specification?
Were the demised-flat doors and frames included in the original request for quotations?
Were the exterior portions of the flats included?
If they were included, why were they subsequently omitted?
If they were not included, who decided that they should not form part of the works?
And if the lease expressly refers to these areas, what was the basis for excluding them?
These are not awkward questions.
They are basic questions about how a substantial expenditure decision was made.
A lease is not a shopping list
There is an important principle here.
A lease is not simply a menu from which a management company can select the provisions it considers affordable.
Where a lease imposes obligations concerning maintenance, repair or decoration, those obligations need to be properly considered when works are planned.
The precise legal effect depends upon the wording of the individual lease and the circumstances. But if particular areas are expressly identified, their omission should not simply disappear into the decorating specification without explanation.
And if leaseholders are contributing towards the cost, they are entitled to ask what they were actually paying for.
The strange visual aftermath
There is also a more straightforward point which requires no legal interpretation whatsoever.
It looks odd.
Painted fire-door frames and meter cupboard door frames contrast with unpainted demised-flat doors and frames immediately alongside them.
The eye naturally expects adjoining architectural elements to form part of the same decorative scheme. Instead, there is an abrupt visual distinction between what has been renewed and what has been left behind.
It gives sections of Noble Court’s communal areas an unfinished and inconsistent appearance.
That may have saved money.
But it is fair to ask whether it represents the best value.
Because if the intention was to redecorate the building, rather than simply certain parts of it, the obvious question is:
Why stop where the lease apparently did not?
The questions leaseholders should be asking
There should be no mystery surrounding a decision of this kind.
Leaseholders should be able to establish:
What was the original specification?
How many quotations were obtained?
Were the quotations genuinely like-for-like?
What did each contractor include?
Were demised-flat doors and frames included?
Were the exterior portions of the demised flats included?
Who decided that those items would not be painted?
Was the decision made before or after the quotations were received?
Was the lease considered before the specification was finalised?
And perhaps the simplest question of all:
If the lease expressly addresses these areas, why were they left out?
Cheap is not the same as good value
Nobody is suggesting that an RMC should spend money unnecessarily.
Quite the opposite.
Directors have a responsibility to manage communal expenditure sensibly and to consider the interests of leaseholders.
But economy and value are not synonymous.
Sometimes spending less is prudent.
Sometimes spending less simply means doing less.
The distinction matters enormously when the work omitted is work which may be required under the leases — and when the omission is plainly visible in the finished building.
The unfinished question
The redecoration of Noble Court may have saved money as the directors chose the cheapest quotation “due to the current economic climate”.
Fair enough.
But leaseholders are entitled to know whether the saving was achieved through genuine competitive pricing or through a reduced scope of works.
And if the latter is the case, there is an obvious question about whether the saving was actually a saving at all.
Because if the omitted doors, door frames and exterior portions ultimately have to be dealt with separately, leaseholders may simply find themselves paying for the same work twice — once through the original project and again through a future one.
For now, there is a simple visual reminder of the decision every time residents walk through the communal areas: some doors and frames were painted; others were not. The difference is conspicuous. The explanation is less so.
And where the lease appears to say more, “the current economic climate” may not be the end of the conversation.
Further discussions on the forum board: Have your say
What are the obligations of the Management Company for the decoration of the communal areas? Click HERE to read their obligations under the lease.