8.a.
Board of Examiners of Contractors
- Meeting Date:
- 12/12/2017
- Re
- Omar Abdelquader vs. Reed Sudderth - CRS Plumbing, LLC
- Submitted For:
- Paul Thomas
SUBJECT:
| Contractor/Qualifier | Dba | Competency Card # | State License # |
| Reed Allen Sudderth | CRS Plumbing, LLC | 1700017449 | CFC1426853 |
CASE INFORMATION:
| Property Owner | Address of Violation | Complainant |
| Omar Abdelquader | 2009 Avenue E | Omar Abdelquader |
BACKGROUND
| September 27, 2016: Proposal was accepted for bathroom renovations. October 31, 2016: Rough Inspection was approved. June 6, 2017: Final inspection was approved. June 13, 2017: Mr. Abdelquader filed a complaint for “delaying of the project – not returning phone calls.” Building Investigator advised Mr. Abdelquader that he needed additional information to process the complaint. June 13, 2017: CRS Plumbing emailed a proposal to Mr. Abdelquader for the grease trap. June 23, 2017: Proposal was accepted for the grease trap. June 27, 2017: Grease trap permit was issued. July 6, 2017: Grease trap inspection was disapproved because the mop sink did not drain into the grease trap. July 12, 2017: Revisions were made to change the mop sink and pipe it to the grease trap. Mop sink not originally indicated on the plans or included in the proposal. The mop sink was also installed and piped into the grease trap on this date. July 13, 2017: Mr. Abdelquader submitted “service order 14353” and “final billing” as evidence in this investigation. Mr. Abdelquader verbally indicated that CRS Plumbing advised that he (Mr. Abdelquader) was responsible for the cost of the mop sink installation, and re-inspection fees. Mr. Abdelquader didn’t feel that this was fair and that CRS Plumbing should have known, as a professional plumber, that the mop sink had to be piped into the grease trap and shouldn’t have scheduled the inspection knowing it would fail. Additionally, Mr. Abdelquader isn’t satisfied with the location of the above ground grease trap as it interferes with his kitchen work table. July 27, 2017: CRS Plumbing paid for, and picked up the revision, and submitted a notice to Mr. Abdelquader advising once the final amount is paid in full, that the final inspection will be scheduled. |
TIMELINE
| June 13, 2017 | Mr. Abdelquader files complaint with Building Department. |
| July 14, 2017 | Notice of Complaint letter sent to Mr. Sudderth and the Complainant. |
| August 3, 2017 | Contractor Complaint Investigation is completed. |
| August 14, 2017 | Probable Cause meeting held. |
| August 15, 2017 | Notice of Hearing letter sent to Mr. Sudderth and the Complainant. |
| September 12, 2017 | Meeting was cancelled due to hurricane Irma |
| September 18, 2017 | Notice of Hearing letter sent to Mr. Sudderth and the Complainant. |
| October 10, 2017 | Agenda item was continued to December meeting. |
| November 21, 2017 | Notice of Hearing (Continuance) sent to Mr. Sudderth and the Complainant. |
FINDINGS
| 1. | The initial complaint of delaying the project and returning phone calls is unfounded. At the time the complaint was made, the first contract was completed and the second contract was not entered into. However, during the course of the investigation, the following findings were made: |
| 2. | The original proposal, dated September 26, 2016, provided that “The plan shows a mop sink where the hot water heater is – the mop sink cannot be installed because it must go through a grease trap. This would only be a temporary service sink. If the owner wants the service sink installed, it must be removed at the time of the new grease trap installation – that sink is not part of this bid. If the owner wants a wall hung fiberglass sink to meet code in this area, the sink will be installed with a chrome faucet 24 x 24 fiberglass sink, piping hot and cold water – the total price for this would be $425.” It should be noted that neither party has provided a signed copy of the proposal. |
| 3. | It is reasonable to believe that CRS Plumbing should have known that the grease trap inspection would have been disapproved based off of the language in the original proposal. It is unclear what conversations took place between CRS Plumbing and Mr. Abdelquader as to why the inspecton was scheduled. No documents have been produced to indicate why the inspection for the mop sink was scheduled, when it was already indicated (in September) that the mop sink would not be compliant. |
| 4. | Upon the installation of the mop sink, the price billed on service order 14353 was $525.97, the original price indicated on the proposal was $425 |
| 5. | As of this date, the final inspection has not been conducted pursuant to the agreement that final payment would be made before the final inspection would be scheduled. At this time, Mr. Abdelquader is refusing to pay for fees that he deems as inappropriate; and, Mr. Sudderth is refusing to schedule the final inspection pursuant to their agreement. |
| 6. | The following sections have allegedly been violated: 5-52(3)(6c)(8). |
ALLEGED CHARGES:
| 5-52(3) | Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. |
| 5-52(6c) | Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when the contractor’s job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer. |
| 5-52(8) | Knowingly or deliberately disregarding or violating any applicable building codes or laws of the state, county or city. |
RECOMMENDATION:
To be determined at the hearing.
Attachments
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Building | Paul Thomas | 08/29/2017 09:42 AM |
- Form Started By:
- Karen Murphy
- Started On:
- 08/18/2017 08:24 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 10/12/2017