File: SC-2022-007981
Type: Small Claims
Civil Resolution Tribunal
Indexed as: Rai v. Pro Ace Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd., 2023 BCCRT 481
Between:
RAJDEEP RAI and SUNDEEP RAI
Applicants
And:
PRO ACE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING LTD.
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION |
|
Tribunal Member: |
Shelley Lopez, Vice Chair
|
INTRODUCTION
1. The applicant homeowners, Rajdeep Rai and Sundeep Rai, say the respondent, Pro Ace Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd. (Pro Ace), incorrectly installed their home’s Nest thermostat. In particular, the Rais say Pro Ace improperly wired their thermostat as though they had an electric furnace, when they had a gas furnace. The Rais claim $1,000, for increased BC Hydro bills, their payment to a different contractor “to correct the issue”, and a refund for Pro Ace’s installation costs.
2. Pro Ace says that the Rais only hired it to install the thermostat, not program it. Pro Ace says it referred the Rais to Nest, and was not required to do more. Pro Ace says Mr. Rai programmed the thermostat himself which led to the high bills. Pro Ace also says its installation was correct, noting the furnace and heat pump were confirmed to work. Pro Ace further says it offered to attend the Rais’ home to assist but the Rais chose to rely on the other contractor, as discussed below.
3. Mr. Rai represents the applicants. Pro Ace is represented by its owner, Ali Soroush.
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. As the CRT’s mandate includes proportional and speedy dispute resolution, I find I can fairly hear this dispute through written submissions.
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.
ISSUE
8. The issue in this dispute is whether Pro Ace improperly installed the Rais’ Nest thermostat, and if so, to what extent, if any, are the Rais entitled to the claimed $1,000 in damages.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
9. As the applicants in a civil proceeding like this one, the Rais must prove their 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.
10. In November 2021, the Rais hired Pro Ace to service their gas furnace and install the Nest thermostat. The Rais paid Pro Ace $270.90 for this work, as set out in Pro Ace’s invoice. There is nothing in the body of the invoice that describes the work done. None of this is disputed.
11. The Rais say their first BC Hydro bill following Pro Ace’s work (January 2022) was significantly higher, and higher even still in March 2022. I address below whether the Rais refused to let Pro Ace return to address their concerns before hiring someone else, as Pro Ace alleges and the Rais deny.
12. At this point, I note that a Nest thermostat’s function, and how it works with either a gas or electric furnace back-up setting, is a technical matter that I find falls outside ordinary knowledge. So, I find that expert evidence is required, including whether Pro Ace’s installation was substandard (see Bergen v. Guliker, 2015 BCCA 283).
13. First, Pro Ace says it wired the Nest thermostat correctly. However, I find that Pro Ace is not sufficiently neutral, as an interested party. I place no weight on Pro Ace’s own opinion about the quality of its work.
14. The Rais hired Gandy Installations Heating Cooling Plumbing Electric (Gandy), whose March 23, 2022 invoice for $250.95 said the following (quote reproduced as written, except where noted):
On arrival, nest thermostat had been installed by another company in November and the heat pump always ran with the furnace. Found nest was programmed for heat pump with electric back up. This will run the furnace with the heat pump which is not correct. Programmed thermostat for Dual fuel with furnace as back up or Aux heat. Set balance point to always run Aux heat. Also found wiring incorrect. The common was wired into the O/B terminal on the stat and the O/B wire was not hooked up. Corrected wiring … heat pump running well considering the furnace has been running with the heat pump.
15. The Rais later asked Gandy’s general manager Taylor Gandy for their further opinion, after Pro Ace said it was not responsible. I accept that Taylor Gandy, and Gandy’s technician “Justin B.” who attended the Rais’ home, are qualified as experts under the CRT’s rules to provide an opinion about the Nest thermostat’s function, which is also not particularly disputed.
16. Mr. Gandy’s opinion, based on Gandy’s technician’s invoice description quoted above and from Mr. Gandy’s May 31, 2022 email to the Rais, is as follows. The furnace and heat pump were running at the same time, when they were not designed to do so. Mr. Gandy said this happened because Pro Ace had the Nest programmed as though it had an electric furnace as backup, when in fact the Rais had a gas furnace. More on Mr. Gandy’s opinion below.
17. Pro Ace relies on an undated screenshot of a “Google Support” online chat it had with a “Freddie” from Google Nest. Pro Ace asked Freddie if the heat pump would still run when the furnace would “kick in” as a backup when the temperature dropped below 40 degrees Fahrenheit or 4 degrees Celsius. Pro Ace said the Nest turned the furnace on automatically to work with the heat pump, rather than switching from the heat pump to the furnace. In other words, Pro Ace said that both appliances were working at the same time. Notably, Pro Ace did not specify that the furnace in question was gas, not electric. In response, Freddie wrote, “If this type of combination then is call dual fuel system and you got that right” (reproduced as written).
18. None of parties explained “dual fuel” but I find it likely refers to having both a heat pump and a furnace as fuel sources to heat the home. As noted by Mr. Gandy in his May 31, 2022 email that addressed Pro Ace’s response to Gandy’s comments in its invoice, I agree it is possible Freddie was unaware the Rais had a gas furnace. There is nothing in Freddie’s exchange with Pro Ace that says it was expected that the heat pump and a gas furnace would together run, which is what Mr. Gandy said occurred because the Nest had been programmed as though the Rais had an electric furnace, not a gas one.
19. I do not accept Freddie’s opinion as expert evidence under the CRT’s rules as I find there is insufficient evidence before me about their qualifications. However, as noted above, I find Freddie’s opinion unhelpful in any event because it does not address the central issue identified by Mr. Gandy, which is that the Rais had a gas furnace and the Nest had been programmed for an electric one.
20. In short, I accept Gandy’s and Mr. Gandy’s expert opinion, which is based on a review of the Rais’ Nest thermostat settings and their gas furnace. In particular, I accept Mr. Gandy’s expert opinion that a gas furnace operates differently than an electric one. He says that the electric elements will operate simultaneously with a heat pump, whereas with a gas furnace, the heat pump and gas burners operate independently and are not meant to operate at the same time. I further accept Mr. Gandy’s opinion that the same control wire from the thermostat that tells the burners to fire on a furnace tells the electric heat to come on. Because the Rais’ thermostat was programmed to think the backup heat source was electric, the burners ran at the same time as the heat pump.
21. So, I find that the Rais’ Nest thermostat should have been programmed so that it reflected the gas furnace the Rais had, rather than an electric furnace. The next question is whether this incorrect programming is Pro Ace’s responsibility.
22. As noted above, Pro Ace argues it was only hired to install the Nest thermostat and not “program” it. First, I do not agree with Pro Ace that this “gas furnace” backup setting fell within “programming” expected of a customer, such as programming the temperature settings they want in their home. In any event, I find Mr. Gandy’s opinion is that Pro Ace should have programmed the thermostat to reflect the gas furnace and that by failing to do so Pro Ace’s work was substandard. I say this because Mr. Gandy’s opinion included the statement that “when setting up the thermostat functionality, we choose either electric or gas backup. This is very basic HVAC knowledge”.
23. Next, Pro Ace says it should not be held responsible because it says it offered to go to the Rais’ home or have a phone conversation and was denied. The Rais disagree, and say Pro Ace refused to assist when the Rais called and only offered to attend after the Rais told them about Gandy’s opinion and said they were going to pursue legal action. Pro Ace submitted emails with the Rais, dated between May and June 2022. In them, Pro Ace responded only to Gandy’s invoice and noted that Pro Ace had contacted Nest as discussed above. There is no mention in these emails that Pro Ace had offered to attend the Rais’ before Gandy fixed the problem in late March 2022. I have no evidence of any written communications between the Rais and Pro Ace after Pro Ace did its work in November 2021 and before Gandy did its work on March 23, 2022. I find it unproven Pro Ace offered to attend and was denied. Rather, given the chronology, I find it more likely that the Rais called Pro Ace and asked it to return when they found their hydro bills were high in January and March, and when Pro Ace refused they hired Gandy.
24. In summary, I find Pro Ace was negligent and also breached an implied term in the parties’ contract by failing to properly install the Nest thermostat and ensure it was wired correctly and set to reflect the fact the Rais had a gas furnace, not an electric one. I turn then to the Rais’ claimed damages.
25. First, I find the Rais are entitled to $250.95, which is what they paid Gandy. Had Pro Ace properly installed the thermostat, the Rais would not have needed to hire Gandy.
26. Second, I do not allow a refund of the $270.90 the Rais paid Pro Ace. I say this because I have already awarded them Gandy’s invoice and also awarding them the $270.90 would amount to double recovery. Plus, the Rais benefitted from Pro Ace’s furnace service. I dismiss the $270.90 aspect of the Rais’ claim.
27. I turn then to the balance of Rais’ $1,000 claim, for increased BC Hydro bills. The Rais says their energy consumption increased by 73% after Pro Ace’s November 2021 installation. Pro Ace argues energy consumption is driven by multiple factors, such as appliance use and outside weather temperature. Here, I find the significant increase in consumption proves Pro Ace’s faulty thermostat installation likely caused the increase. This is supported by a comparison of the submitted BC Hydro bills, which show the following:
Month |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
January (covers use mid-Nov to mid-Jan) |
$348.46 2,723 kWh |
$625.66 4,566 kWh |
$405.03 3,123 kWh |
March (covers use mid-Jan to mid-Mar) |
$362.49 $2,797 kWh |
$645.92 4,703 kWh |
$376.80 2,907 kWh |
28. I find the above table shows the Rais incurred increased Hydro expenses in their January and March 2022 bills as compared to 2023 ($220.63 and $269.12), which totals $489.75. I find those increases likely resulted from the faulty thermostat installation, given the increase’s timing and later reduction after Gandy’s fix. Given my conclusions above, I allow the $489.75. Together with the $250.95, I allow $740.70 in total.
29. The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. I find the Rais are entitled to pre-judgment COIA interest on the $740.70. Calculated from March 23, 2022 (a date I find reasonable) to the date of this decision, this interest equals $21.53.
30. 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 the Rais were successful, I allow their claim for reimbursement of $125 in paid CRT fees. Neither party claims dispute-related expenses.
ORDERS
31. Within 21 days of this decision, I order Pro Ace to pay the Rais a total of $887.23, broken down as follows:
a. $740.70 in damages,
b. $21.53 in pre-judgment interest under the COIA, and
c. $125 in CRT fees.
32. The Rais are entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.
33. 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 |