County Court at Bristol awards £90 over incomplete two-coat hallway painting

The County Court sitting at Bristol has ordered Owen Price to pay Leah Bennett £90 toward correcting incomplete hallway painting, plus the court fee claimed. Bennett sought £180 toward repainting, but the court rejected the remaining £90 because the evidence did not establish the full extent or cost of the work needed.

The dispute turned on whether Price had delivered the two coats promised in a £480 quote for the hall and stairs. Bennett paid when he finished; the court nevertheless found a limited failure to complete the agreed work, without finding that the entire job was defective.

The WhatsApp quote and Bennett’s approval established a specific obligation: preparation and two coats of Dulux white. The court distinguished proof of that agreement from proof that Price had carried it out. Payment at completion, without an immediate complaint, was relevant but did not establish that every part of the promised work had been performed.

Bennett’s account of complaining the next morning supported a finding that she noticed a shortfall soon after completion. Yet the court had no admitted photographs, inspection evidence or witness testimony establishing the precise area affected. Price’s follow-up reply was also absent from the admitted evidence.

Those gaps limited the finding rather than defeating the claim. Applying the recorded rules on contractual terms and specific service promises, the court found incomplete performance of the two-coat obligation. It treated Bennett’s account that Price would not correct the area as supporting that limited conclusion, while acknowledging that the reply itself was not in evidence.

The remedy had to reflect the supported harm. The £180 request was not backed by an admitted repair estimate or itemised calculation. The court awarded £90 as a proportionate contribution, not the cost of a proven need to repaint everything. The court fee was granted, but its amount was not specified.

Bennett argued that an area of the hallway received only one coat. She said she raised it the next morning and that Price’s response showed a further coat had been discussed, but he would not correct the area.

Price maintained that he completed the agreed work and was paid without complaint. His side questioned the timing of the messages and argued that photographs taken after his departure could not establish the condition when he left.

Price also relied on the WhatsApp exchange as a record of the deal. The court accepted its value in defining the obligation, but found that it did not demonstrate that the second coat had been applied throughout.

Bennett commissioned the hall-and-stairs repainting after approving Price’s £480 quote by WhatsApp. Concerns arose after completion and payment, leaving the parties divided over whether the later complaint identified unfinished work or a condition not established at departure.

The judgment resolves that dispute only to a limited extent. It does not identify the exact affected area, establish that a complete repaint was necessary, or find the whole £480 job defective.