Date Issued: March 26, 2021

File: SC-2020-009080

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Agecoutay v. Anghel (dba J.A. Transmission), 2021 BCCRT 332

Between:

FARON JOEL AGECOUTAY

Applicant

And:

JOHNNY ANGHEL (Doing Business As J.A. TRANSMISSION)

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about vehicle repairs. The applicant, Faron Joel Agecoutay, says the respondent, Johnny Anghel (Doing Business as J.A. Transmission), is responsible for his 1991 Jeep Wrangler’s oil leak problem worsening after Mr. Anghel’s repair. Mr. Agecoutay claims $2,375.86, as a refund of what he paid Mr. Anghel.

2.      Mr. Anghel says he did far more work on Mr. Agecoutay’s vehicle than fixing the oil leak, and so a full refund would be unreasonable. Mr. Anghel also says that he told Mr. Agecoutay to return the next week and the oil leak would have bee repaired under warranty, but that Mr. Agecoutay never returned and instead started this proceeding.

3.      The parties are each self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mr. Anghel must refund some or all of the $2,375.86 Mr. Agecoutay paid Mr. Anghel for car repairs.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Mr. Agecoutay must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the evidence and submissions before me, but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

10.   The parties agree:

a.    Mr. Agecoutay brought his vehicle to Mr. Anghel to have a leak repaired on October 6, 2020, and picked it up 3 days later on October 9.

b.    Mr. Anghel’s repairs included more than just one oil leak repair. Mr. Anghel’s invoice shows his shop fixed multiple oil leaks.

c.    The total repair cost was $2,375, and Mr. Agecoutay paid $2,000 in cash and the balance on his credit card.

11.   Mr. Agecoutay says he drove the vehicle on 3 occasions before he noticed smoking under it after he stopped for gas, and discovered an oil leak. Mr. Agecoutay does not explain why he only drove the car 3 times in a month. Mr. Agecoutay undisputedly first brought the vehicle back to Mr. Anghel’s shop on November 6, 2020.

12.   First, Mr. Agecoutay says he was verbally quoted $1,000 total for Mr. Anghel’s October 2020 repair job. In contrast, Mr. Anghel says he gave a $2,000 estimate, with a required $1,000 deposit. Also, the fact Mr. Agecoutay paid in full for the repairs and admittedly without complaint, including $2,000 in cash despite allegedly expecting only to pay $1,000, does not support Mr. Agecoutay’s position. So, I find the evidence does not show Mr. Anghel or his staff quoted only $1,000 for the repair job.

13.   Next, the parties also disagree about whether on October 6 Mr. Agecoutay asked Mr. Anghel to “fix the main seal oil leak only”, and not fix all leaks. Mr. Anghel submitted a February 4, 2021 signed statement from Ryan Beck, one of the mechanics at Mr. Anghel’s shop. Mr. Beck stated he identified multiple oil leaks coming from different areas. Mr. Anghel submits some leaks were profuse (transfer case and rear main seal), and others minor (rear differential and transmission seals). Mr. Beck stated he explained the multiple leaks to Mr. Agecoutay who agreed to the service Mr. Beck later performed.

14.   To the extent Mr. Agecoutay argues he is entitled to a full refund because of allegedly unauthorized work, I do not accept that assertion. I find if Mr. Agecoutay had only asked for one leak to be fixed, he more likely he would have complained about the bill, which he did not. Also, Mr. Agecoutay does not explain why he would want to continue to drive his car with only one of multiple leaks fixed, when he elsewhere submits he takes pride in keeping his car running smoothly and clean. I find it unproven that Mr. Anghel did unauthorized repairs.

15.   Next, Mr. Agecoutay asserts Mr. Anghel refused to guarantee his work, and so after the November 6 visit Mr. Agecoutay took his vehicle elsewhere. Mr. Anghel says he told Mr. Agecoutay the rear main seal would not be covered under warranty if Mr. Agecoutay drove it in an off-road environment, based on a Jeep bulletin. Mr. Anghel however says he warrantied his own work, which I agree is set out on Mr. Anghel’s invoice to Mr. Agecoutay. That said, Mr. Anghel says it is not proven his work caused further leaking. He says he would have repaired any defect in his work under warranty, had Mr. Agecoutay given him the opportunity to do so.

16.   In his statement Mr. Beck wrote that on November 6 the shop was full of vehicles and no lift was available so he did the inspection on the driveway. Mr. Beck said there was no observable or profuse engine oil leak, but that Mr. Agecoutay should return the next week to determine if there was an actual leak that required repair. As noted, Mr. Agecoutay never returned.

17.   Mr. Agecoutay denies the shop was full, and submitted a photo that he says shows the shop’s mechanical bay “wasn’t as full” as Mr. Anghel claims. However, the photo Mr. Agecoutay submitted is dated October 6, the first day he brought his vehicle in, not a month later on November 6, 2020 when he returned.

18.   Mr. Agecoutay denies Mr. Anghel’s assertion that he told Mr. Agecoutay to return the following week to have warranty work done and have the leak repaired at no cost. Instead, Mr. Agecoutay says Mr. Anghel or his staff told him they would not guarantee the work and did nothing. Again, I find this advice inconsistent with the written terms of Mr. Anghel’s October 9, 2020 invoice.

19.   Mr. Agecoutay submitted a January 2021 letter from “Marion” who had been assisting him with “his case”, which I infer refers to his November 23, 2020 application to the CRT. Marion wrote that Mr. Agecoutay mentioned Mr. Anghel’s shop had been calling him, and so Marion called and asked that they stop calling. I find those calls from Mr. Anghel’s shop consistent with Mr. Anghel’s submission that he told Mr. Agecoutay to return the following week and that a November 12 appointment was booked, but Mr. Agecoutay never showed up. I find this does not support a conclusion that Mr. Anghel or his staff told Mr. Agecoutay that its work was not covered under warranty. Rather, I find it more likely the calls were about the follow-up appointment.

20.   On balance, I find it more likely than not that on November 6 Mr. Anghel’s staff told Mr. Agecoutay to return the following week, so that they could investigate and determine what warranty work needed to be done, if any.

21.   Mr. Agecoutay relies on a November 12, 2020 invoice and credit card receipt for $682.36 from L & D Transmission and Auto Repairs Inc. (L&D). L&D wrote that the rear main seal surface was damaged “from last install”, which I accept likely refers to Mr. Anghel’s work on October 6 to 9, 2020.

22.   However, I find I do not need to address whether Mr. Anghel is in fact responsible for the alleged damage identified by L&D. I find that Mr. Anghel cannot be held responsible for an oil leak that he could have fixed under his own warranty, had he been given the opportunity. In Lind v. Storey, 2021 BCPC 2, the court stated:

If an owner fails to provide the contractor with a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiencies in its work, which do not constitute a fundamental breach of the contract and where there is no urgency, the owner is not entitled to claim damages based on his or her cost to have the deficiencies repaired ...

23.   While Lind was about a construction contract, I find the analysis similarly applies to Mr. Anghel’s right as a mechanic to have the reasonable opportunity to address any deficiencies in his work. I find there was no urgency and no fundamental breach.

24.   In summary, I find Mr. Agecoutay had no reasonable basis not to give Mr. Anghel the opportunity to investigate the alleged deficiency, particularly since I have found Mr. Agecoutay was asked to return the next week when there was space available to look at his vehicle. Given my conclusions above, I find he is not entitled to any refund. I dismiss his claims.

25.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Neither party paid CRT fees nor claimed dispute-related expenses, so I make no order about them.

ORDER

26.   I dismiss Mr. Agecoutay’s claims and this dispute.