Urson v. All-Tech Transmission Systems Inc. Date:, 2012 BCPC 23

Citation: Urson v. All-Tech Transmission Systems Inc. Date: 20120130 2012 BCPC 0023 File No: 24119 Registry: Richmond IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AMIR URSON CLAIMANT AND: ALL-TECH TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS INC. DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HER WORSHIP M. PRATCHETT Appearing for the Claimant: Amir Urson & Keren Hakkim Appearing for the Defendant: Rob Litke Place of Hearing: Richmond , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 6, 2012 Date of Judgment: January 30, 2012 [ 1 ] The Claimant, Mr. Urson and his wife Ms. Hakkim reside in Richmond, British Columbia.

They have three children and are not wealthy. In 2011 they owned a 2003 Ford Windstar vehicle. The vehicle had transmission problems. They took the vehicle to a Ford dealership and were given three options for repair ranging in price from $4600 to a newly rebuilt transmission to $1925 for the installation of a used transmission. All of these quotes were higher than the Claimant and his wife thought they could afford. [ 2 ] The Claimant found a reference to the Defendant and contacted them, speaking to Mr. Litke, the Defendant’s manager.

They explained their situation with their vehicle and the quotes they had obtained. According to Mr. Urson, not denied by Mr. Litke, Mr. Litke told them that a dealer’s price would always be higher than the Defendant’s price as repairing transmissions was the Defendant core business. Mr. Litke convinced the Claimant to bring his vehicle in to the Defendant’s shop and the Defendant would do a free inspection and provide them with a repair quote. [ 3 ] The Claimant brought the vehicle to the Defendant, understanding that a free test would be done. No written work authorization was sought or signed. Thereafter Mr.

Litke contacted the Claimant and advised the Claimant that they had done a diagnostic test which showed transmission problems and that they would now have to undertake a closer examination of the transmission to be able to give a repair quote and that this further examination would have to be charged for. Both parties agree that the Defendant advised that it would require approximately 4 hours of time. The parties do not agree on the hourly rate that was to be charged. Claimant states that Mr. Litke

told him $80.00 per hour, so that he understood the maximum charge would be $320.00. Mr. Litke testified that the Defendant’s hourly rate is $108.88. No written work authorization was prepared by the Defendant, or signed by the Claimant. The Defendant filed no Trial Statement and produced no documents.

No record of what time was actually spent in performing the additional inspection was tendered by the Defendant; no oral evidence was given in that regard. [ 4 ] Claimant testified that when the Defendant then contacted him, they quoted him $3000 for the repair of the transmission, which as stated was higher than the lowest quote the Claimant had received from the dealership. Claimant could not afford $3000 and did not wish to proceed with any repair by the Defendant. [ 5 ] Claimant arranged to pick up the vehicle from the Defendant at 8 a.m. on September 20, 2011.

Defendant advised that it would be ready for pick up. Defendant did not have to put the transmission back in the vehicle as the vehicle was to be towed to the dealership and the repair would be done there. Claimant’s wife went to the Defendant’s premises at the appointed time with a tow truck. She testified that she was aware that there would be a charge of no more than $320 plus tax that she would pay in exchange for the vehicle and had those funds with her ready to pay. However she stated that when she arrived, the Defendant refused to release the vehicle telling her she would now have to pay $600. Ms.

Hakkim said that she was shocked at this increase, but having three children she needed the vehicle urgently and agreed to pay it at which point according to Ms. Hakkim, Mr. Litke then advised that the amount would be higher, now $1000 or more but was not definitive and he would not allow her or the towing company to remove the vehicle and would not allow Ms. Hakkim to remove any personal effects from the vehicle. Her personal effects included car seats for her infant children which Mr. Litke was refusing to relinquish. [ 6 ] Mr.

Litke testified that the vehicle was not in any condition to be towed as the wheels had been removed. Ms. Hakkim states that this evidence was not true as she had to go into the vehicle and it had wheels on it. Mr. Litke testified that there was work to be done to put the vehicle back together, even without installing the transmission and he wanted an authorization for that work and then to be paid for that work before he would release the vehicle. According to Mr. Litke that work would require another hour and a half to be charged. [ 7 ] Ms. Hakkim testified that Mr.

Litke was threatening to her, with the result that she attended at the local RCMP and filed a complaint. The RCMP accompanied Ms. Hakkim back to the Defendant’s premises and required the Defendant to allow Ms. Hakkim to take possession of the personal effects and the vehicle’s license plate. The Defendant continued to stand behind its position that it was entitled to maintain possession of the vehicle and its refusal to release it.

The vehicle has never been returned to the Claimant. [ 8 ] At no time did the Defendant present the Claimant with an account for services rendered, or any accounting and verification of the time expended or any definitive statement of the costs to reassemble. [ 9 ] Having three small children the Claimant was forced to immediately find another vehicle and purchased a vehicle for approximately $1000. [ 10 ] The Defendant was not entitled to assert a repairer’s lien over the vehicle and to maintain possession of the vehicle.

The Defendant had failed to provide an invoice for payment to the Claimant, based on time spent. Further it was not entitled to charge for re- assembly. The Claimant had made his lack of financial resources abundantly clear from the outset and even if the Defendant was entitled to charge for the disassembly to do further testing, it was reasonable to assume that the quoted hours would include re- assembly. The Defendant knew that if the repair estimate was higher than they could afford, the Claimant would not be authorizing the work to be done.

The Defendant was not entitled to demand further payment for re-assembly when the Claimant’s wife attended. Furthermore, the Defendant knew the Claimant was coming to pick up the vehicle. The vehicle should have been made ready for pick up, a proper invoice should have been ready, in an amount not more than the quoted price. I accept the Claimant’s evidence that the quoted rate was $80.00 per hour.

The conduct of the Defendant and the failure or refusal to release the vehicle in the face of the Claimant’s willingness to pay constituted a wrongful conversion of the vehicle by the Defendant. [ 11 ] The Claimant provided evidence of the value of the vehicle. I find that the value was $4200. The value must be discounted by the cost the Claimant would have paid at the dealership to repair the car, $1925. Thus the value of the car converted was $2275. [ 12 ] One question is whether the value of the car should be reduced further by the sum of $320 as an amount attributed to the disassembly by the Defendant.

I find that the Defendant is not entitled to recover this amount or any amount for the disassembly. The charge for disassembly was to be based on time spent, not a lump sum. Defendant provided no evidence whatsoever to show what time had actually been spent.

In addition I find that there was no value to the services rendered by the Defendant and the disassembly for inspection was inconsistent with the Defendant’s original representations to the Claimant, that it could do a free diagnostic test and provide an estimate for repair. [ 13 ] Claimant also claimed $500 for car rental and other transportation while they were without a vehicle. While I accept on their evidence that such costs were incurred, Claimant did not provide any invoices to support those costs.

In the absence of proper support documentation, I am not prepared to give judgment for those costs. [ 14 ] Claimant is entitled to judgment against the Defendant for the wrongful conversion of the vehicle in the amount of $2275, with Court Order interest running from September 20, 2011 and costs of $176.00 as claimed. _______________ M. Pratchett Adjudicator