Date Issued: August 24, 2022
File: SC-2022-000067
Type: Small Claims
Civil Resolution Tribunal
Indexed as: Taytelbaum (dba Heritage Plumbing & Gas Fitting) v. Khoshbakht,
2022 BCCRT 950
Between:
LYELL TAYTELBAUM (Doing Business As HERITAGE PLUMBING & GAS FITTING)
Applicant
And:
NAVID KHOSHBAKHT
Respondent
| REASONS FOR DECISION |
|
| Tribunal Member: |
Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair
|
INTRODUCTION
1. This dispute is about payment for plumbing services. The respondent, Navid Khoshbakht, hired the applicant, Lyell Taytelbaum (dba Heritage Plumbing & Gas Fitting), to do some emergency plumbing work in a residential 4-plex building. The work also included Mr. Taytelbaum’s supply and installation of a laundry sink. Mr. Taytelbaum claims $876.50 for his services plus $126 for an “administrative fee” to write Mr. Khoshbakht an explanation letter of what caused the flooding and the services provided. His claim totals $1,002.50.
2. In his Dispute Response filed at the outset of this proceeding, Mr. Khoshbakht says Mr. Taytelbaum failed to fix the plumbing issue and overcharged him. Mr. Khoshbakht later chose not to provide any documentary evidence or written arguments despite having the opportunity to do so.
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). CRTA section 2 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. CRTA section 39 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 properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.
6. CRTA section 42 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.
ISSUES
8. The issues are:
a. Whether Mr. Taytelbaum’s work was defective,
b. Whether Mr. Taytelbaum is entitled to $876.50 for materials and labour, and
c. Whether Mr. Taytelbaum is entitled to a $126 administrative fee.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
9. In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Mr. Taytelbaum must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). I have read all the submitted evidence and arguments but refer only to what I find relevant to provide context for my decision. As noted, Mr. Khoshbakht chose not to provide any documentary evidence or written arguments other than in his Dispute Response.
10. Mr. Taytelbaum attended Mr. Khoshbakht’s 4-plex property twice in November 2021, after Mr. Khoshbakht texted him asking for help due to flooding in the property. First, on November 14, 2021 to perform emergency services (which included “snaking” or augering). Second, Mr. Taytelbaum returned on November 15, 2021 at Mr. Khoshbakht’s request to supply and install a laundry sink. None of this is disputed.
11. It is also undisputed that when Mr. Taytelbaum arrived on November 14 he found the storm system overflowing with rainwater at the down spouts and water was entering the house from multiple areas. Mr. Taytelbaum determined that a drain auger was required to unclog the exterior storm system and he undisputedly performed the work.
The $876.50 charge for materials and labour
12. There is no formal written contract in evidence nor any quote or estimate. Mr. Taytelbaum did not submit a copy of his invoice despite clearly having issued invoice #1569 for $876.50 for his materials and labour. Parties are told during the CRT’s process to submit all relevant evidence, and the invoice at issue is clearly relevant. However, here I find the evidence shows Mr. Khoshbakht is largely responsible for the $876.50. My reasons follow.
13. First, Mr. Taytelbaum did submit screenshots of his record-keeping system that undisputedly showed Mr. Khoshbakht had viewed invoice #1569 for $876.50. The parties’ text messages also show he had received that invoice.
14. Next, I find the parties’ submitted text messages after the November 14, 2021 emergency work show Mr. Khoshbakht acknowledged he had agreed he would pay Mr. Taytelbaum $120 per hour for the 1st hour of work and $100 for every hour after. Both parties’ texts and Mr. Khoshbakht’s Dispute Response agree that $380 was the applicable charge for the 1st visit. I find Mr. Khoshbakht owes the $380 for the 1st visit.
15. According to the parties’ texts in evidence, for the 2nd visit Mr. Taytelbaum charged $200 for 2 hours of his labour plus $250 for supply of a sink and related material. Mr. Khoshbakht responded that Mr. Taytelbaum had said $250 for the 2nd day. Yet, in a December 2021 text, Mr. Khoshbakht indicated $250 for the sink and installation was reasonable, although in his Dispute Response and in later texts he said he could have sourced the sink cheaper. Mr. Taytelbum submitted a $215 invoice for his purchase of the sink. I find Mr. Khoshbakht could have sourced the sink himself but chose instead to hire Mr. Taytelbaum to buy it. Mr. Khoshbakht also submitted no evidence that a suitable sink could have reasonably been bought for $99 as he said in the Dispute Response. There is no evidence that Mr. Khoshbakht ever paid anything and no explanation why not. I find the $250 for the sink’s purchase reasonable, accounting for a nominal mark-up. I allow the $250.
16. I turn then to the $200 labour charge for the sink’s installation. Mr. Khoshbakht does not explain in the Dispute Response or in the submitted text exchanges why Mr. Taytelbaum should have had to do the sink installation for free. As referenced above, Mr. Khoshbakht made differing statements in the texts about what he should have to pay. At one point in the Dispute Response Mr. Khoshbakht said he had proof that Mr. Tayteltaum agreed to $150 for the sink’s supply and installation. However, as noted, Mr. Khoshbakht provided no evidence or written arguments. I do not accept Mr. Taytelbaum ever agreed to any fixed fee for the sink’s supply and installation.
17. Given Mr. Taytelbaum’s agreed hourly rate, I find $200 for his labour not unreasonable. I allow that amount, subject to any deduction for defective work.
18. I turn then to whether Mr. Taytelbaum’s work was defective. As the party alleging defective work, Mr. Khoshbakht bears the burden of proving those deficiencies (see Absolute Industries Ltd. v. Harris, 2014 BCSC 287 at paragraph 61).
19. In his Dispute Response filed at the outset of this proceeding, Mr. Khoshbakht alleged Mr. Taytelbaum failed to “change the water tab” and says those tabs are leaking and he has to use pliers to tighten them. As noted, Mr. Khoshbakht submitted no evidence or written arguments. So, on the evidence and arguments that are before me, I find it unproven Mr. Taytelbaum’s work was defective.
20. In summary, exclusive of taxes the total award for the $876.50 claim is $830. With $41.50 in GST, I allow $871.50. Mr. Taytelbaum did not submit an invoice so I have no explanation for how he arrived at the claimed $876.50. In coming to this conclusion, I note Mr. Khoshbakht’s agreement to pay for the services as claimed, until Mr. Taytelbaum later sought payment of $120 for a letter Mr. Khoshbakht requested, discussed below.
The $126 administration fee
21. Mr. Taytelbaum’s texts referred to $120 as the claimed administration fee but in this dispute he claims $126, which is $120 plus GST.
22. The relevant background follows. On December 3, 2021, Mr. Khoshbakht texted Mr. Taytelbaum and asked him to “email me something” about why the drain tiles were plugged and why there was debris found in the drain. I infer Mr. Khoshbakht was looking for Mr. Taytelbaum’s explanation to potentially pursue a damages claim against a third party. Nothing turns on why Mr. Khoshbakht sought the letter.
23. Mr. Taytelbaum submitted a copy of the explanation letter Mr. Khoshbakht requested. Contrary to Mr. Khoshbakht’s submission, the letter was not “2 sentences”. It was 10 sentences. The letter explained what Mr. Taytelbaum found on his arrival and what steps he took to address the flooding issue. I find no evidence that Mr. Taytelbaum agreed to produce this letter for free and no reasonable basis for Mr. Khoshbakht to infer that he would do so. However, there is no evidence the parties agreed on a price for the letter before Mr. Taytelbaum wrote it, but Mr. Khoshbakht had earlier agreed to Mr. Taytelbaum’s hourly rate. Given the letter was written almost a month after the work was done, I find it likely Mr. Taytelbaum needed to check his records to provide a summary. In the circumstances and based on the $100 per hour rate for subsequent work, I find $75 is a reasonable sum for the letter. With GST, this equals $78.75 and I allow that amount.
24. The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find Mr. Taytelbaum is entitled to pre-judgment COIA interest on the $950.25 ($871.50 + $78.75). Calculated from November 15, 2021 to the date of this decision, this interest equals $5.09.
25. Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As Mr. Taytelbaum was substantially successful, I allow his claim for reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. No dispute-related expenses were claimed.
ORDERS
26. Within 21 days of this decision, I order Mr. Khoshbakht to pay Mr. Taytelbaum a total of $1,080.34, broken down as follows:
a. $950.25 in debt,
b. $5.09 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and
c. $125 in CRT fees.
27. Mr. Taytelbaum is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.
28. Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.
|
|
| Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair |