Date Issued: November 20, 2023

File: SC-2022-008581

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Martins v. Narwal, 2023 BCCRT 997

Between:

SETH JOSE MARTINS

Applicant

And:

INDER NARWAL

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Sarah Orr

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a dispute about exterior house cleaning services. On October 2, 2022, the applicant, Seth Jose Martins, provided exterior house cleaning services to the respondent, Inder Narwal, for which he has not been paid. Mr. Martins claims $600 for his services.

2.      Mr. Narwal says Mr. Martins breached the parties’ agreement by spending only 2.5 hours cleaning, failing to use chemicals or a pressure washer, failing to wash the windows by hand, and generally failing to clean to a reasonable standard. Mr. Narwal says he does not owe Mr. Martins anything.

3.      Both parties are 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.

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 properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, 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.      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.

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.

8.      In his Dispute Response Mr. Narwal says Mr. Martins’ threatening messages caused his parents to suffer anxiety. However, Mr. Narwal’s parents are not parties to this dispute, and he does not expressly claim a set-off for mental distress. For these reasons I decline to address the merits of this allegation in this decision.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mr. Martins is entitled to $600 for the exterior house cleaning services.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   As the applicant in this civil proceeding Mr. Martins must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities, which means more likely than not. I have read all the parties’ evidence and submissions but refer only to what I find relevant to explain my decision.

11.   In September 2022, Mr. Narwal responded to Mr. Martins’ social media advertisement for exterior house cleaning services. The parties undisputedly agreed that Mr. Martins would clean the exterior of Mr. Narwal’s parents’ house, including the driveway and walkways, for $600. Both parties say they confirmed the agreement through text messages but neither of them submitted the texts as evidence.

12.   On October 2, 2022, Mr. Martins met with Mr. Narwal at his parents’ house and they both walked around the house discussing everything that needed cleaning. Mr. Martins then began cleaning the house’s exterior. Mr. Narwal was undisputedly not at the house when Mr. Martins completed the work.

13.   Several days later, Mr. Narwal notified Mr. Martins that he was not satisfied with the work, and he asked for a price reduction. Mr. Martins refused to reduce the price, but he offered to return to the house to fix anything Mr. Narwal was unhappy with. Mr. Narwal refused to allow Mr. Martins to return to the house and has not paid Mr. Martins anything for his cleaning services.

14.   Mr. Martins says he is owed the $600 the parties agreed to for the work because he sufficiently cleaned the house’s exterior as the parties agreed. He says he cleaned the exterior walls, windows, gutters, driveway, front deck and railings, side and back walkway, back patio and railings, and the basement suite’s exterior concrete. He provided some before and after photos showing various parts of the house and property which I find show that he generally completed the work as alleged. I am satisfied that Mr. Martins completed the work and is entitled to payment of $600 subject to any proven set-off for breach of contract damages.

15.   Mr. Narwal says Mr. Martins breached the parties’ agreement by cleaning for only 2.5 hours instead of a minimum of 8 hours. However, Mr. Narwal does not allege that the parties agreed to an hourly rate for Mr. Martins’ services. I find the balance of the evidence shows the parties agreed to a $600 flat rate for Mr. Martins to complete the work. For his part, Mr. Martins says it took him at least 6.5 to 7 hours to complete the work. He says it took him over 4 hours just to clean the concrete shown in the photos he submitted. Mr. Narwal was undisputedly not at the house when Mr. Martins finished the work, so I find he would have no way of knowing when Mr. Martins completed the work unless his parents told him. Mr. Narwal did not submit a statement from either of his parents. For these reasons, I find Mr. Narwal has failed to prove that Mr. Martins cleaned for only 2.5 hours, or that he breached the parties agreement by failing to clean for at least 8 hours.

16.   Mr. Narwal also says Mr. Martins breached the parties’ agreement by failing to use a chemical solution to clean the exterior walls and windows, failing to clean the windows by hand, and failing to use a pressure washer. Mr. Martins does not specifically address whether he agreed to these terms. He also does not specifically address whether he used chemicals or a pressure washer, or whether he washed the windows by hand. He says only that he completed the work according to the parties’ agreement. Again, Mr. Narwal was undisputedly not at the house when Mr. Martins finished the work, and he provided no witness statement from his parents or anyone at the house at the time. It is unclear how Mr. Narwal could know whether Mr. Martins used chemicals or a pressure washer, or if he washed the windows by hand. Even if Mr. Narwal could prove that Mr. Martins breached the parties agreement in this regard, to the extent he argues that Mr. Martins’ cleaning method choices deviated from professional house cleaning standards, he provided no expert evidence in support, and I find it unproven.

17.   Mr. Narwal also says Mr. Martins’ work was generally substandard. In contracts for professional services, which I find includes exterior house cleaning services, it is an implied term of the agreement that the professional will perform the work to a reasonable standard. Since Mr. Narwal did not provide expert opinion evidence about the standard of care of a reasonable home exterior cleaning service, any alleged deviation from the standard must be obvious (see Schellenber v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 BCSC 196, at paragraph 112).

18.   Mr. Narwal says Mr. Martins allowed dirt from the gutters to spill all over the front lawn, which ruined it. Mr. Martins denies this. Mr. Narwal submitted some photos of the lawn which I find show much of the grass was brown. However, since there are no photos showing the lawn before Mr. Martins completed his work, I find the lawn photos do not prove that Mr. Martins caused the damage as alleged.

19.   Mr. Narwal also says that after Mr. Martins completed the work the windows, walls, railings, and driveway were still dirty. Again, Mr. Martins denies this and says he completed the work to a reasonable standard. Mr. Narwal submitted a photo of the driveway showing some pebbles and debris, but I find it does not prove that Mr. Martins’ work left debris on the driveway. Mr. Narwal submitted some photos showing 2 separate stains on the underside of roof overhangs. Other photos show some remaining grey spots on a white exterior ceiling. While I agree that these photos show that parts of the house were not completely clean, there are no photos of these areas before Mr. Martins started the work. I find it is not obvious from these photos that Mr. Martins’ work was substandard, because I find it is reasonable that a general exterior house cleaning service may not be able to remove all stains and marks on a house’s exterior. I also find that Mr. Martins’ before and after photos show a noticeable improvement to many areas of the house and property. For these reasons, I find Mr. Narwal has failed to prove that Mr. Martins’ work was substandard.

20.   In summary, I find Mr. Narwal has failed to prove that Mr. Martins breached the parties’ agreement, and so I find he is not entitled to any damages to be set off from the $600 he owes Mr. Martins.

21.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. Mr. Martins is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $600 owing, calculated from October 2, 2022, which is the date he provided the cleaning services, to the date of this decision. This equals $27.42.

22.   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. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. Since Mr. Martins was successful, I find he is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. Neither party claims any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

23.   Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order Mr. Narwal to pay Mr. Martins a total of $752.42, broken down as follows:

a.    $600 in debt for the cleaning services,

b.    $27.42 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125 in CRT fees.

24.   Mr. Martins is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

25.   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.