STATE OF OREGON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARDmedia.oregonlive.com/complaintdesk/other/Jack Howk...

OF 139 – NOTICE OF PROPOSED LICENSE REVOCATION, CIVIL PENALTIES AND NOTICE OF HEARING

STATE OF OREGON

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARD

In the Matter of: ) ENF File No. 98322 ) AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED LICENSE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware LLC, ) REVOCATION, CIVIL PENALTIES, CCB license no. 127325 ) AND NOTICE OF HEARING To: American Residential Services, LLC P.O. Box 17963 Memphis, TN 38187-0963

PROPOSED ACTION

Pursuant to ORS 701.098(1) the Construction Contractors Board (CCB) proposes to revoke the

construction contractor’s license of American Residential Services, LLC, hereinafter “ARS,” for

violating ORS 701.098, as further described below. Pursuant to ORS 701.992(1) and 701.995,

CCB proposes to issue civil penalties in the amount of $623,500, for violating the Construction

Contractors Licensing Act and rules, as further described below.

BUSINESS ENTITY AND LICENSE

1.

ARS is a Delaware limited liability company, authorized to do business in Oregon (Secretary of

State (SOS) registry no. 608232-84).

2.

ARS is licensed as an Oregon commercial and residential general contractor (CCB license

number 127325). CCB first issued ARS a license on December 24, 1997. The current license

expiration date is December 24, 2012. Should the ARS license expire during the pendency of

this action, CCB has continuing jurisdiction in this case pursuant to ORS 701.112.

3.

According to ARS’ business entity filing with the Oregon Secretary of State, its member is ARS

Acquisition Holdings LLC (ARS Acquisition), a Delaware limited liability company authorized

to do business in Oregon (SOS registry no. 456829-94). ARS Acquisition’s manager is David

M. Slott (Slott).


4.

According to ARS’ license application to the Oregon Construction Contractors Board, ARS’

members are:

a. ARS Investment Holdings, LLC (ARS Investment), a Delaware limited liability company

authorized to do business in Oregon (SOS registry no. 457390-91);

b. Donald Keith Karnes (Karnes);

c. James Thomas McMahon (McMahon); and

d. David Michael Slott (Slott).

5.

ARS operates under three assumed business names (ABNs) in Oregon. They are Rescue Rooter

(SOS registry no. 771276-87); Jack Howk Plumbing and Drain Service (Jack Howk P&D) (SOS

registry no. 311783-95); and Jack Howk Plumbing Co. (Jack Howk Plumbing) (SOS registry no.

627448-92). For purpose of this Notice, reference to “ARS” also means the three ABNs:

Rescue Rooter, Jack Howk P&D and Jack Howk Plumbing.

6.

ARS’ responsible managing individual (RMI) is Mark Kenneth Baleme (Baleme). Other ARS

senior management personnel are:

1) Don Karnes, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

2) David Slott, President and Chief Operations Officer (COO)

3) Ken Goodrich, President, Western Zone

4) Ken Peterson, Senior Vice President, Human Resources

7.

ARS operates in 23 states, including Oregon. Nationwide, it offers air conditioning, heating,

indoor air quality, sewer and drain services. In Oregon it offers plumbing and drain services.

8.

Sometime around 2007 to 2008, ARS acquired Jack Howk P&D. ARS’ Oregon office is “Jack

Howk/Rescue Rooter of Portland, 12430 SE Capps, Clackamas, Oregon 97015.”

INDIVIDUALS WHO WORKED FOR ARS

9.

Throughout this notice, there are several individuals that were employed by ARS and performed

work during the relevant times. These include the following:


Name Title (Newest) Dates Employed Plumber License No. Atchison, Stephen Plumber 5/10/06 – 5/10/11 No Barrett, Treven Plumber 11/1/10 – present Yes 8817JP Brackens, Cris Plumber 10/30/01 – present Yes 6699JP Bray, Gregory Plumbing Repair Specialist 9/10/09 – present No Brown, Cory Plumbing Protech 6/24/11 – present No Buelt, Brian Plumbing Protech 2/18/08 – 10/7/11 No Clemens, J.P. Plumber 1/27/10 – 8/25/11 Yes 8542JP Dix, Steven Plumber 7/8/10 – present Yes 9379JP Egger, Paul Plumbing Protech 6/20/11 – present No Fowler, John Plumbing Service Manager 7/14/09 – present No Gesler, Joel Plumbing Protech 5/27/10 – 10/21/11 No Guzman, Erik Plumber 2/25/11 – present Yes 9496JP Harwood, Graham Plumbing Repair Specialist 4/18/11 – 9/19/11 No Karn, Blane Plumbing Repair Specialist 7/19/10 – present No Likhonin, Alex Plumber 3/1/11 – present Yes 9144JP McClure, Andrew Plumber 12/27/10 – present Yes 9187JP McGaff, Michael Plumbing Protech 4/14/08 – 1/25/10 No Monego, Joseph Plumber 4/3/09 – 1/27/11 Yes 8594JP Morris, Jerrod Plumber 1/10/11 – present Yes 8341JP Peters, Larry Plumber 10/2/09 – present Yes 9120JP Riley, Brent Plumber 11/11/08 – 10/16/11 Yes 8712JP Rodgers, Daryl Plumbing Repair Specialist 5/7/08 – present Yes 6665JP Schneider, William Plumbing Protech 11/3/97 – 5/9/11 No Trimm, Tyler Plumber 11/12/09 – present Yes 8488JP Varvel, Jason Plumber 8/25/08 – present Yes 7596JP Vonada, Jason Plumbing Repair Specialist 9/29/09 – 3/18/11 No Wederquist, David Plumbing Repair Specialist 9/22/09 – present No Williams, Kenwyn Plumbing Protech 5/23/11 – present No

NEWS MEDIA REPORTS

10.

On August 12, 2011, KOIN-Local 6 (a Portland, Oregon, television news channel) reported that

a business using the names American Residential Services, Rescue Rooter, and Jack Howk P&D

used high-pressure tactics to prey on dozens of vulnerable seniors. One woman lost $30,000 and

had to sell her property to pay for the work. During the past three years, customers filed 26

complaints with the Better Business Bureau (BBB).

11.

On August 28, 2011, The Oregonian, a Portland, Oregon, general circulation newspaper,

published a story on ARS/Jack Howk P & D. The story detailed several instances where

individuals paid high prices for sewer work. Noting that a typical sewer line repair runs $3,000


to $9,000 in the Portland area, ARS charged over $9,000 in 20 of 29 cases, including charges

totaling $14,950; $15,584; $17,000; $20,000; $29,400; and $33,512. During the past two years,

customers filed 17 complaints with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ), including 15

alleging excessively high prices, high-pressure sales tactics or the performance of unnecessary

repairs. Before ARS purchased locally-owned Jack Howk P&D, there were only two

complaints, one in 1998 and one in 2004. After acquiring Jack Howk P&D, ARS changed to a

commission-based pay structure that paid workers only minimum wage unless they attained

certain sales goals. According to former ARS employees, sewer salesmen went out on every

clogged drain call.

CCB INVESTIGATION

12.

CCB conducted its own investigation. CCB interviewed individuals who contacted CCB and/or

DOJ about ARS, former ARS employees, and others. CCB reviewed numerous documents.

This action is based on the following facts.

WATER HEATER SCAM

13.

ARS services and sells water heaters and water heater parts. In several instances, it attempted to

sell, or sold, unneeded water heaters or parts. On some occasions, ARS employees used

untruthful scare tactics to make sales.

14.

Traditional water heaters are fixtures that look like big metal cylinders. They are a fairly simple

appliance – basically a drum filled with water (under pressure) equipped with a heating

mechanism.

15.

Water heaters are made up of the following parts:

1) Tank. The inner shell of a water heater is a heavy metal tank containing a water

protective liner that holds hot water under pressure. Over that is insulating material and

an outer shell.

2) Dip tube. Water enters the water heater through the dip tube at the top of the tank and

travels to the tank bottom where it is heated.


3) Shut-off valve. The shut-off valve stops water flow into the hot water heater. It is

located outside and above the unit.

4) Heat-out pipe. Suspended toward the top of the tank’s interior, the heat-out pipe allows

the hot water to exit the water heater.

5) Thermostat. Water heaters have (at least one) thermometer and temperature-control

device.

6) Heating mechanism. Electric water heaters have heating elements inside the tank. Gas

water heaters use a burner and chimney system.

7) Drain valve. Located near the bottom of the exterior housing, the drain valve makes it

easy to empty the tank and replace the elements, remove sediment or move the tank to

another location.

8) Pressure relief valve. The pressure relief valve is a safety device that keeps the pressure

inside the water heater within safe limits.

9) Sacrificial anode rod. Made of magnesium or aluminum with a steel core, the sacrificial

anode rod is suspended in the water heater tank to help retard corrosion. The anode rod

is designed to corrode (hence, the name, “sacrificial” anode rod). As a result, even

though entirely functional, after a few months, the anode rod appears corroded.

16.

ARS employees were trained to remove anode rods whenever they made service calls. ARS

training materials (copyright 2011) specifically direct employees making maintenance calls to

pull the anode rod and compare it with a new one. Based on the comparison of the existing

(corroded) anode rod to a brand new one, the employee would try and sell the customer a new

anode rod or new water heater.

17.

From May 1, 2010, through June 30, 2010, ARS held a nationwide “Anode Rod Contest” in

which top technicians received dollar prizes for the most anode rod sales. A former ARS

employee working out of the Portland office, Brent Riley, took second place and won $1,000.

18.

ARS trained its employees to up sell products, meaning to find appliances, fixtures or services

that were not reported as a problem and offer to repair or replace those items. ARS paid its


employees on the basis of commissioned sales. Employees who did not sell enough products and

services (so called “no-goes”) could be terminated.

WALLER WATER HEATER

19.

During the relevant time, Mark and Brandy Waller owned and lived in a house located at 3810

NE 69th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. They received a mailing from ARS offering to do a water

heater flush and safety check for $69. Mark Waller (Waller) called ARS and requested the

service.

20.

On or about March 2, 2010, an ARS employee, Daryl, arrived at the Waller residence. ARS has

one employee named Daryl – Daryl Rodgers. Daryl Rodgers is a Plumbing Repair Specialist,

hired by ARS in May 2008.

21.

Daryl performed the flush and safety check. He told Waller that the anode rod needed to be

replaced because of corrosion. Daryl provided a cost estimate of $99.

22.

Daryl also told Waller that the “T&P” (temperature and pressure) value, or pressure relief valve,

needed to be replaced because it was “sticky.” Daryl provided a cost estimate of $159.

23.

Waller told Daryl he would think about it and let ARS know his decision. Daryl told Waller that

the water heater could explode if the work was not done. Waller declined to have the work done

and paid $69.50 for the flush and safety check.

24.

Two days later, the water heater stopped working. Waller called Stan the Hot Water Man (Stan

Company) and requested service. On or about March 5, 2010, Stan Company sent out an

employee, Damon.

25.

Damon looked at the anode rod. He told Waller it was fine and should last another 10 years.

Damon also looked at the pressure relief valve. He told Waller it was in good condition and did

not need to be replaced.

/ / /


26.

Damon identified the problem as a leaking dip tube. He repaired the problem and charged

Waller $98.75 for the service call. Waller paid the amount charged. Thereafter, the water heater

worked satisfactorily.

27.

ARS violated ORS 701.098(1)(k)1 by engaging in conduct that was dishonest or fraudulent, and

injurious to the welfare of the public, namely:

1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the Wallers’ water heater needed a new

anode rod;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the Wallers’ water heater needed a new

pressure relief valve;

3) ARS untruthfully stated that if the Wallers did not have ARS perform the repairs, the

water heater could explode.

HATFIELD WATER HEATER

28.

During the relevant time, Herbert Hatfield (age 80) and Hazel Hatfield (age 82) owned and lived

in a house located at 10722 SE Knapp Circle, Portland, Oregon. The house was built in 1998.

29.

On or about March 12, 2010, Hazel Hatfield (Hatfield) noticed a water line break in the garage

ceiling. She turned off the water to the pipe and called ARS. The Hatfield’s were not having

any problems with their water heater. The call to ARS had nothing to do with the water heater.

30.

ARS sent first two, then, additional employees to the house. One was named John. ARS has one

employee named John – John Fowler, Plumbing Service Manager, hired by ARS in 2009.

Fowler is not a licensed plumber.

31.

According to the invoice/contract, ARS replaced an anode rod and sold the Hatfield’s a new 50-

gallon water heater. Assuming it provided the services for which it charged, ARS replaced an

1 ORS 701.098(1)(k) is the statutory citation operative before July 1, 2010, that made it an offense to engage in conduct as a contractor that is dishonest or fraudulent and that the board finds injurious to the welfare of the public. On and after that date, the operative statutory citation is ORS 701.098(1)(L). See Or Laws 2007, ch. 836, §§ 63, 70; Or Laws 2009, ch. 226, §§ 4, 5; Or Laws 2009, ch. 408, §§ 6, 7, and Note to ORS 701.098 in 2009 edition.


anode rod in an existing water heater that it then removed to install a new water heater (which

contained a new anode rod). Charges for these materials and services were not itemized.

Instead, they were included with other materials and services for a total of $11,500. The

Hatfield’s paid ARS $11,500.

32.

On or about September 30, 2011, ARS paid the Hatfield’s $5,900 in exchange for a settlement

and release of claims against ARS. The settlement agreement requires that Hatfield: (1) keep

confidential the existence and terms of the settlement agreement; (2) if asked by any other

person, state that any complaint with ARS has been resolved to her complete satisfaction and

make no further comment; and (3) refrain from making any statements, written or oral, which

disparage the goodwill or reputation of ARS, its products or services, and its directors, officers,

executives, shareholders and employees.

33.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely:

1) ARS either:

a. Misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it replaced an anode rod in the

Hatfield’s’ existing water heater when it did not do so; or

b. Replaced an anode rod in an existing water heater that it immediately removed to

install a new water heater.

PETERSON WATER HEATER

34.

During the relevant time, Daniel (age 62) and Nancy Peterson (age 59) owned and live in a house

located at 911 NE 174th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

35.

On or about July 27, 2010, Daniel Peterson (Peterson) called ARS because the gutters on the

house were not draining properly. The Petersons were not having any problems with their water

heater. The call to ARS had nothing to do with the water heater.

/ / /

/ / /

2 See Note 1.


36.

ARS sent out an employee, Joel G., who used a camera ostensibly to view the sewer line. Then

another ARS employee, Greg B., arrived. ARS had one employee named Joel with a last name

beginning with the initial “G” – Joel Gesler, Plumbing Protech, hired by ARS from 2010 – 2011.

ARS has one employee named Gregory with a last name beginning with the initial “B” –

Gregory Bray, Plumbing Repair Specialist, hired by ARS in 2009. Neither Bray nor Gesler is a

licensed plumber.

37.

The Petersons’ water heater was 12 years old and functioned properly. ARS gave them the

impression it should be replaced, so they agreed.

38.

Charges for the water heater and installation were not itemized. Instead, they were included with

other materials and services for a total of $15,300. The Petersons paid ARS $15,300.

39.

ARS violated ORS 701.098(1)(L) by engaging in conduct that was dishonest or fraudulent, and

injurious to the welfare of the public, namely that ARS misrepresented that the water heater

needed to be replaced, when it functioned properly with no problems.

SHARLOCK WATER HEATER

40.

During the relevant time, Marijen Sharlock (Sharlock), age 87, owned and lived in a house

located at 4404 SE Alder Street, Portland, Oregon. Her sister, Iris Mae Petit (Petit), age 90, also

lived in the house. Both Sharlock and Petit were confined to wheelchairs.

41.

On or about May 5, 2011, Sharlock’s caregiver, Jodie Carr (Carr), discovered a clogged drain in

the lower level of the house. Sharlock called ARS to request service for the drain. Sharlock was

not having any problems with the water heater. The call to ARS had nothing to do with the

water heater.

42.

ARS sent out an employee, Dave W., who inspected plumbing in the basement. ARS has one

employee named David with a last name beginning with the initial “W” – David Wederquist,


Plumbing Repair Specialist, hired by ARS in 2009. Soon after, ARS employee Greg Bray

arrived at the house. Neither Bray nor Wederquist is a licensed plumber.

43.

After viewing the property, ARS presented Sharlock with an invoice/contract for $14,329.50. It

did not include installation of a water heater.

44.

On the following day, May 6, 2011, ARS presented a second invoice/contract to Sharlock. This

invoice/contract included installation of a 50-gallon water heater. Charges for the water heater

and installation were not itemized. Instead, they were included with other materials and services

for a total of $32,794.70.

45.

On May 11, 2011, ARS presented a third invoice/contract to Sharlock. This added $7,456.00 to

the costs of the work. The total charges were $40,250.70. Sharlock (and Petit) paid ARS

$40,250.70.

46.

Through a neighbor, Sandy Garland (Garland), Sharlock requested an itemization of the charges.

47.

On or about May 25, 2011, ARS sent a “breakdown of work completed in May 2011.” The total

was $30,135.12 and included: (a) exterior sewer line ($12,900.00); (b) interior waste and water

re-pipe ($10,460.12); and (c) bore exterior sewer line ($6,775.00). The water heater was not

included. The document was signed by David Wederquist, Service Technician.

48.

Garland made further inquiry to ARS, noting the omission of a water heater.

49.

On or about June 1, 2011, ARS sent a “breakdown of work completed in May 2011.” The total

was $30,135.12 and included: (a) exterior sewer line ($11, 915.00); (b) interior waste and water

re-pipe ($9,060.62); (c) 50-gallon gas Bradford white FVR [water heater] ($1,399.50); (d) jobsite

clean-up ($985.00); and (e) bore exterior sewer line ($6,775.00). With the exception of the

newly added items, the water heater and the clean-up, the descriptions of the work on the second

“breakdown” were identical to the first. The document was signed by David Wederquist,

Service Technician.


50.

On or about August 29, 2011, ARS paid Sharlock $18,022.12 in exchange for a settlement and

release of claims against ARS.

51.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely that:

1) ARS misrepresented that the water heater needed to be replaced, when it functioned

properly with no problems; and

2) ARS untruthfully created a fabricated charge for replacing the water heater by simply

reducing amounts previously charged for exterior sewer lines and interior piping and

using the difference to “itemize” the water heater (and job site clean-up), all of which was

an accounting fiction, not a true cost for the service.

ROSALES WATER HEATER

52.

During the relevant time, Karen Rosales (age 62) and her husband owned and lived in a house

located at 1490 Braemar Drive, West Linn, Oregon.

53.

On or about July 19, 2011, Karen Rosales (Rosales) called ARS because the faucet to the clothes

washer was leaking and a toilet needed a new water supply tube. Rosales’ house had two water

heaters. Rosales was not having any problems with the water heaters. The call to ARS had

nothing to do with the water heaters.

54.

ARS sent out an employee, Jerrod Morris, a licensed plumber, hired by ARS in 2011. Soon

after, ARS employee Greg Bray arrived at the house. Bray is not a licensed plumber.

55.

ARS advised Rosales that both water heaters needed to be replaced. ARS described the work to

be performed as “remove 50 and 75 gallon water htr. in garage. Install new Navien tankless

WH. Run new ¾” gas line from meter to water htr. Remove extra ¾ lines and water will be

move [sic] down wall to tankless. Install electrical for tankless. Install vent through roof for

exhaust.” The cost for the work was not itemized. Total cost for all work was $8,695.00.

Rosales paid $8,695.00.


56.

On or about August 23, 2011, ARS sent a “breakdown of Navien Condensing Water Heater/Pro-

System Installation.” The document was signed by Jerrod Morris, Journeyman Plumber. The

total cost for the water heater was $5,200. This included: (a) appliance cost before discounts

($2,375.00); (b) miscellaneous plumbing and fixture cost ($875.00); (c) labor cost for installation

($1,850.00); and (d) minor plumbing permit ($100).

57.

ARS did not obtain a plumbing permit from the City of West Linn.

58.

ARS did not install the electrical wiring for the water heater. Rosales contacted ARS and

complained it did not perform the contract for the electrical work on the water heater or a Pro-

System water filtration installation. ARS sent Rosales a check for $250 for both items.

59.



1) ARS misrepresented that the water heaters needed to be replaced, when they functioned

properly with no problems;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it incurred a cost of $100 (which it billed

to Rosales) for a plumbing permit, when it did not obtain a plumbing permit; and

3) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it performed electrical installation to the

tankless water heater, which it did not do.

NOLAN WATER HEATER

60.

During the relevant time, Glenda Nolan (Nolan), age 75, owned and lived in a house located at

9717 SE 17th Avenue, Milwaukie, Oregon.

61.

In November 2010, Nolan received a water bill for an amount larger than expected. She

contacted the City of Milwaukie. A city employee told her she probably had a water leak and

should call a plumber.

/ / /

/ / /


62.

On or about November 5, 2010, Nolan called ARS to request an inspection for water leaks.

Nolan was not having any problems with the water heater. The call to ARS had nothing to do

with the water heater.

63.

ARS sent out an employee, Jason, who told Nolan she needed to replace the water line from the

street to the house. ARS has one employee named Jason – Jason Varvel, licensed plumber, hired

by ARS in 2008. Soon after, another ARS employee arrived. The second ARS employee told

Nolan she needed to replace the water heater.

64.

ARS presented Nolan with a contract/invoice for $12,726, including $1,180 to “replace water

heater.” A few days later, ARS presented Nolan with a Contract Addendum for additional work,

for a total job cost of $20,726. With financing, Nolan paid ARS $20,726.

65.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely that ARS misrepresented that the water heater

needed to be replaced, when it functioned properly with no problems.

CALHOUN WATER HEATER

66.

During the relevant time, Ray and Karen Calhoun owned and lived in a house located at 245 NW

Linneman Avenue, Gresham, Oregon. Ray Calhoun (Calhoun) was 65 years old.

67.

On or about April 4, 2011, Calhoun noticed a leaky faucet in the master bathroom. He went to

Home Depot and purchased a new faucet. When he arrived home, he realized that he did not

have the right tools to replace the faucet. Calhoun called ARS to have them replace the faucet.

Calhoun was not having any problems with the water heater. The call to ARS had nothing to do

with the water heater.

68.

Two ARS employees – Jerrod Morris and Greg Bray – arrived and looked at the faucet. Bray is

not a licensed plumber. They told Calhoun that they needed to go underneath the house to view


the water lines. Afterwards, they told Calhoun the water lines needed to be replaced. Calhoun

agreed to allow them to do the work.

69.

As the two employees were heading out to the ARS truck through Calhoun’s garage, they walked

past the water heater. The water heater had been installed three years earlier. The ARS

employees told Calhoun that ARS could not work on the water pipes unless they also “fixed” the

water heater. According to the ARS employees, the water heater installation was not to code

because the water heater needed to be raised off the ground.

70.

ARS originally bid $13,700 to perform the work. ARS later increased the charges, per a Change

Order dated April 7, 2011, to a total of $21,650. With financing, Calhoun paid ARS $21,650.

71.

Oregon law (code) requires that water heaters be installed above garage floor grade if they are

“burner ignition devices.” However, the requirement does not apply if the water heater is

“flammable vapor ignition resistant.” Calhoun’s three-year-old water heater would have been

flammable vapor ignition resistant. It did not need to be raised off the ground.

72.



1) ARS misrepresented that Oregon law (code) required the water heater to be raised above

floor grade when there was no such requirement for the particular water heater; and

2) ARS charged Calhoun for the unnecessary service of raising the water heater above floor

grade.

JOLLY WATER HEATER

73.

During the relevant time, Paul (age 67) and Karen (age 65) Jolly owned and lived in a house

located at 10339 SW 40th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

74.

On or about May 11, 2011, Karen Jolly (Jolly) contacted ARS because the house was having

problems with sewer backup. Jolly was not having any problems with the water heater. The call

to ARS had nothing to do with the water heater.


75.

On or about May 12, 2011, ARS employee Greg Bray arrived and ran a camera down the sewer

cleanout. Bray is not a licensed plumber. Bray told the Jolly’s that the sewer lines needed to be

repaired. Bray gave a verbal estimate of $8,875 and began the work. Later, Bray provided an

invoice/contract for $28,731. The document included installing a new 50-gallon water heater.

76.

The Jolly’s were going out of town the next day for the weekend. Jolly requested an itemized

estimate. Jolly questioned the need for a new water heater. The current water heater was not

original to the house (the house was built in 1973) and worked well.

77.

On or about May 13, 2011, Bray e-mailed a somewhat itemized estimate, which included

“plumbing parts for ground work and water heater, $2,500.00 - $3,000.00.” Later that same day,

Jolly responded to Bray by e-mail. Jolly specifically stated that ARS was not to install a new

water heater without first obtaining approval from the Jolly’s.

78.

After the Jolly’s returned, they learned that ARS had installed a new water heater without their

approval. Eventually, the Jolly’s paid ARS $1,800 for the water heater.

79.



1) ARS misrepresented that the water heater needed to be replaced, when it functioned

properly with no problems; and

2) ARS installed the water heater without the Jolly’s approval when the Jolly's clearly

instructed ARS not to make any such installation without their approval.

REA WATER HEATER

80.

During the relevant time, Jean Rea (Rea) (age 69) owned and lived in a house located at 1125 SE

60th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

81.

On or about July 26, 2010, ARS prepared a Residential Plumbing Checklist for Rea’s house.

ARS employee Larry Peters, a licensed plumber, hired by ARS in 2009, did the review. The


checklist noted that the water heater was 18 years old and in fair condition. There was sufficient

hot water and not a long wait for hot water. The checklist noted deficiencies that included

leaking faucets and a toilet that was running.

82.

That same day, Brian Ayres (Ayres), was dispatched by DeTemple Plumbing to look at a

plugged bathtub drain in Rea’s house. When Ayres arrived, two ARS trucks were at the house.

Ayres went to the front of the house where Rea was speaking with two ARS employees. The

ARS employees had already drained and removed the water heater.

83.

Rea showed Ayers the invoice/contract she had signed with ARS. It showed that ARS would

install a new water heater. The agreement included language for a “65 gallon” water heater,

which was then crossed out and replaced with “50 gallon.” Rea had not initialed the change.

The cost for the water heater remained the original amount of $1,879. The price was not reduced

to reflect the lower price for the smaller sized water heater.

84.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely that it misrepresented and deceptively charged the

cost of a 65-gallon water heater as the cost for a 50-gallon water heater.

AUSTIN WATER HEATER

85.

During the relevant time, Lawthan (Slats) Austin, age 88, and Willie Jo (Jo) Austin, age 85,

owned and lived in a house located at 1595 Dellwood Avenue, Beaverton, Oregon.

86.

On or about April 6, 2011, a moving van ran over the water meter in front of the house. The

pipes into the house were damaged. Jo Austin called both Anctil Plumbing (Anctil) and ARS for

bids to repair the damage. Jo Austin was not having any problems with the water heater. The

call to ARS had nothing to do with the water heater.

87.

Anctil arrived first and provided a bid for $1,950. ARS arrived thereafter and provided a higher

bid. The Austin’s accepted the Anctil bid and, that day, Anctil performed the work. The

Austin’s paid Anctil $1,950.


88.

On or about April 7, 2011, an ARS employee, Blane, came to the house. ARS has one employee

named Blane – Blane Karn, Plumbing Repair Specialist. Karn is not a licensed plumber. He

wanted to look at the piping in the house. Jo Austin showed him pipes in the basement that were

visible. An ARS employee went to the company truck and returned with a piece of pipe. He

showed the Austin’s the pipe that was filled with “gunk.” He told the Austin’s the pipes in their

house were similar and needed to be replaced. He also told them they needed a new water

heater. The Austin’s were not having any problems with the existing water heater.

89.

On or about April 7, 2011, ARS installed a 50-gallon electric water heater, for a charge of $515.

Together with other re-piping and a water conditioning system, the total contract/invoice was for

$13,313. Jo Austin paid ARS with two checks dated April 14, 2011, one, a down payment, for

$10,500 and one for $2,813.

90.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely it misrepresented that the water heater needed to be

replaced, when it functioned properly with no problems.

SHIOSHI WATER HEATER

91.

During the relevant time, Kiyoko Shioshi (Shioshi) owned and lived in a house located at 4905

SE Lincoln Street, Portland, Oregon. Shioshi was 89 years old and lived by herself.

92.

On or about June 23, 2009, the water pressure was low and the dishwasher was not working.

Shioshi called ARS for service. Shioshi was not having any problem with her water heater. The

call to ARS had nothing to do with the water heater.

93.

ARS sent an employee, Joseph, on the service call. ARS had one employee named Joseph,

Joseph Monego, licensed plumber for ARS between 2009 and 2011. ARS provided a

contract/invoice to re-pipe the water system in the house, to run a new water main from the meter

to the house, and to install a new 50-gallon electric water heater. The cost for the water heater

was $490. Together with other charges, Shioshi paid ARS $6,770.


94.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely it misrepresented that the water heater needed to be

replaced, when it functioned properly with no problems.

WATER SYSTEM SCAM

95.

Water supplied by the Portland Water Bureau comes from the Bull Run watershed. It is not

filtered because it meets the filtration avoidance criteria of the federal Surface Water Treatment

Rule. Portland’s water is very soft so it needs no conditioning. The Water Bureau disinfects the

water using chlorine and ammonia to form chloramines. Without disinfecting the water,

waterborne diseases such as those caused by E-coli, Guardia, and Legionella would be present.

The total residential disinfectant is within federal water safety standards. The Water Bureau also

adds sodium hydroxide to increase pH of the water and reduce corrosion of plumbing systems.

96.

The Tualatin Valley Water District (TVWD) provides water to Beaverton and other areas in

Washington County. TVWD obtains its water from two sources: (1) the Portland Water Bureau,

the source for which is the Bull Run Watershed, and (2) the Joint Water Commission (JWC), the

source for which is Hagg Lake (Scoggins Reservoir), the Barney Reservoir, and the Tualatin

River. Water from the Bull Run Watershed is very soft. Water from the other sources is also

considered soft. The TVWD disinfects the water to protect the health of its users. The water

meets federal safety standards. With regard to water filters, TVWD states that “because TVWD

takes numerous steps to provide you quality water that meets all state and federal rules,

additional filtration is not required.”

97.

Water supplied by the City of West Linn comes from the Clackamas River. West Linn’s water is

within federal standards for safety. It is treated to protect the health of the users. With regards to

residual chlorine, the water is sampled daily. The maximum acceptable level is 4 ppm (parts per

million). The West Linn water supply tests at between 0.62 and 0.90 ppm.

/ / /

/ / /

3 See Note 1.


98.

Water supplied by the City of Salem comes from the North Santiam River Watershed. Salem’s

water is within federal standards for safety. The North Santiam, like Bull Run, supplies high

quality water. The water is sand-filtered and further treated with sodium hypochlorite (liquid

chlorine) for disinfection. It is also treated with fluoride to prevent dental decay and sodium

carbonate to minimize the corrosion of lead and copper from household plumbing. With regards

to residual chlorine, the water is sampled. The maximum acceptable level is 4 ppm (parts per

million). The Salem water supply tests at between 0.87 and 1.64 ppm.

99.

ARS sold and serviced HALO water filtration and conditioning systems. ARS employees made

untruthful statements and used scare tactics to make sales.

100.

ARS sold and serviced Pro-System whole house water filters. ARS employees made untruthful

statements and used scare tactics to make sales.

101.

HALO Water Systems, LLC, Carlsbad, California, marketed HALO water systems. One of these

systems is the “HALO 5,” a whole house water filtration and conditioning system. The filtration

portion of the product ostensibly removes or reduces minerals, particles and chemical

compounds. The conditioning portion of the product “softens” water. The product presents as a

narrow tank that is connected into the house water supply system. It can be attached so that it

by-passes exterior faucets. The HALO system does not disinfect water – that function is

generally performed by local water treatment facilities.

102.

The Pro-System Whole House Water Filter uses granular activated carbon to filter water. The

filter is installed between the main water line and the interior pipes. The filter does not disinfect

water – that function is performed by local water treatment facilities.

103.

ARS employees were coached to offer a water filtration system on every call.

104.

ARS employees were coached to tell customers that the water filtration system will extend the

life of their water pipes.


105.

ARS supplied its employees with chlorine “test kits.” ARS employees were coached to tell

customers that their drinking water contained chlorine. It could be absorbed by taking a bath or

shower. It could poison them or their children. Also, it caused cancer.

THOMAS HALO SYSTEM

106.

During the relevant time, Vonda Thomas (V. Thomas), age 89, owned and lived in a house

located at 2353 NE 56th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Her daughter, Tami Thomas (T. Thomas)

lived with her and cared for her mother.

107.

On or about December 10, 2009, T. Thomas noticed a leak in the corner of the house basement.

It had been very cold and V. Thomas had turned off an outside faucet near that part of the house.

T. Thomas was concerned that the pipe from the faucet may have frozen then, when the weather

started to warm, broke. T. Thomas called ARS to request service.

108.

ARS sent out an employee, David, to the house. He looked at the water pipes and turned on the

outside faucet. He told T. Thomas that the house would need all new pipes. She declined.

David then told T. Thomas that the only way to ensure that there would be no leak was to install

a HALO system. He stated that it would save the galvanized steel piping in the house. T.

Thomas agreed to have ARS install the HALO system.

109.

ARS installed the HALO system and charged V. Thomas $3,000. V. Thomas paid $3,000 on her

credit cards.

110.

A few days later, the weather warmed further and there was no leak.

111.

T. Thomas called other plumbing companies and learned the HALO system would not save the

water pipes. T. Thomas contacted the credit card companies and disputed the payment to ARS.

V. Thomas’ credit cards were not charged for the $3,000.

112.

T. Thomas called ARS to have them come and remove the HALO system. They did not do so.


113.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the HALO system would ensure there

were no leaks in the water pipes; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the HALO system would save the pipes

in the house.

AUSTIN HALO SYSTEM

114.

The facts stated in paragraphs 85 through 90 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was because

a moving van ran over the water meter and broke a pipe into the house.

115.

An ARS’ employee recommended the Austin’s purchase a HALO system due to their water

quality.

116.

The Austin’s agreed to purchase the HALO system for $3,649. Together with other re-piping

and a water heater, the total contract/invoice was for $13,313. Jo Austin paid ARS with two

checks dated April 14, 2011, one, a down payment, for $10,500 and one for $2,813.

117.

After the HALO system was installed, Jo Austin called TVWD and asked that a representative

come to the house. A TVWD representative went to the house. He told the Austin’s that their

water was not a danger and they did not need the HALO system. The representative also stated

that the system was connected to the exterior faucets, which might damage the lawn.

118.

Jo Austin called ARS and complained about being sold the HALO system. The next week,

Baleme (General Manager) came to the Austin’s’ house. He agreed to have ARS remove the

HALO system and refund $3,300.

119.



4 See Note 1.


1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the HALO system was necessary due to

the water quality at the Austin’s’ house; and

2) ARS misrepresented that ARS would refund the cost of the HALO system, for which it

charged $3,649, but only agreed to refund $3,300.

ROSALES PRO-SYSTEM FILTER

120.


a faucet to the clothes washer was leaking and a toilet needed a new hose.

121.

ARS’ employees Jerrod Morris and/or Greg Bray told Rosales that West Linn’s water quality

was bad due to the amount of chlorine in it. She needed a water filtration system to counteract

the chlorine.

122.

ARS employees also told Rosales that if she did not buy the water filtration system, West Linn

water would damage her pipes. Rosales agreed to purchase a Pro-System filtration system.

123.

ARS described the work to be performed as “Install new pro filter in crawl space run drain to

exterior. Install 110V plug for Bran [sic] of filter. Run 1” wirsbo pipe to tie in filter.” The cost

for the work was not itemized. Total cost for all work was $8,695.00. Rosales paid $8,695.00.

124.

On or about August 23, 2011, ARS sent a “breakdown of Navien Condensing Water Heater/Pro-

System Installation.” The document was signed by Jerrod Morris, Journeyman Plumber. The

total cost for the water filtration unit was $3,195. This included: (a) $1,600 for a Pro-System 1”

water filtration unit; (b) $375 for miscellaneous plumbing and fittings cost; and (c) $1,220 for

installation labor.

125.

ARS did not install the electrical 110V plug for the Pro-System filer. Rosales contacted ARS

and complained it did not perform the contract for the electrical work on the water heater or a

Pro-System installation. ARS sent Rosales a check for $250 for both items.

/ / /

/ / /


126.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the water filter system was necessary

due to the bad water in West Linn caused by chlorine;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the water filter system would save the

pipes in the house; and

3) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it performed an electrical installation for

the water filter, which it did not do.

WOODS HALO SYSTEM

127.

During the relevant time, John Woods, age 71, and Beverly Woods, age 68, owned and lived in a

house located at 551 Wagon Road SE, Salem, Oregon.

128.

A bathroom toilet was not working. On or about October 28, 2010, John Woods (Woods) called

ARS.

129.

ARS sent out an employee, Cris B. ARS has one employee named Cris with a last name

beginning with the letter “B” – Cris Brackens, licensed plumber, hired in 2001.

130.

Cris looked at the toilet and told the Woods that their water was bad. It was causing the toilet

problem and the toilet mechanisms needed to be replaced.

131.

Cris told the Woods that the (Salem) city water was destroying their pipes. He stated that all

appliances hooked to the water lines were subject to failure because of the water.

132.

Cris looked at the water pipes beneath the house. He told the Woods that they were “pitted”

from the city water and would need to be replaced.

133.

According to the contract/invoice dated October 28, 2010, ARS also conducted a chlorine test

“0.6.” The Woods were not aware of this “test.”


134.

The Woods declined to have the pipes replaced. Cris told them that although they would need a

re-pipe in the future, he could install a HALO water system to make their pipes and appliances

last longer.

135.

ARS charged the Woods $3,550 for the HALO water system. With financing, the Woods paid

ARS $3,550.

136.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that Salem city water had damaged the toilet;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the appliances hooked to Salem city

water were subject to failure because of the water;

3) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that Salem city water was destroying the

water pipes in the house;

4) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that Salem city water had pitted the water

pipes in the house;

5) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the HALO system would make the pipes

and appliances last longer.

RE-PIPING AND SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT SCAMS

137.

Plumbing follows the basic laws of nature – gravity, pressure, and water seeking its own level.

The plumbing system in a typical house is composed of two separate subsystems. One brings in

freshwater and the other removes wastewater.

138.

The water that comes into a house is under pressure. The pressure allows the water to travel

upstairs, around corners and wherever it is needed.

139.

For many houses, the water comes via a municipal water main. A supply pipe from the water

main goes to a meter which registers the amount of water that is used. On the house-side of the

meter, and near the meter, is a shut-off valve. The valve allows the resident to shut off the water


supply in the event, for example, of a water pipe break. Otherwise, water can quickly flood the

house because it is being pushed in at a high pressure.

140.

Water from the water main is cold. One pipe carries water from the cold water system to fixtures

(e.g. sinks, tubs and toilets) and appliances (e.g. clothes washers) that require cold water, and to

the water heater. From the water heater, a hot water line carries the heated water to fixtures (e.g.

sinks and tubs) and appliances (e.g. clothes washers and dishwashers) that require hot water.

141.

Drainage systems include all the piping within a building (e.g., house) that conveys sewage or

other liquid wastes to a point of disposal. Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), § 206.0 (definition of

“drainage system”). Drainage systems, whether connected to sewers or septic systems, do not

depend on pressure. Instead, waste matter leaves the house because the drainage pipes all pitch,

or angle, downward. Gravity pulls the waste along. The drainage system also includes traps and

clean outs.

142.

A trap can be seen under every sink. It is the curved section of the pipe under the sink drain.

Water flows from the basin with enough force to go through the trap and out through the

drainpipe, but enough water stays in the trap afterward to form a seal that prevents sewer gas

from backing up into the house. Except in old plumbing, sink traps are P-traps. Bathtubs also

have P-traps. Toilets are self-trapped. Traps often have clean-out plugs (usually located at the

lowest point of the curved pipe), which allow access to the trap to remove or break up any

blockage.

143.

The vent system consists of a pipe or pipes installed to provide a flow of air to or from a drainage

system to protect trap seals from siphonage and back-pressure. UPC § 224.0 (definition of “vent

system”). Vents stick up from the roof of the house and allow air to enter the drainpipes. If

there were no air supply coming from the vents, wastewater would not flow out properly and the

water in the traps would need to be siphoned out.

144.

The building sewer means that part of the horizontal piping of a drainage system that conveys

sewage into a public sewer, septic tank, cesspool or other point of disposal and that begins five


feet outside the building or structure within which the sewage originates. (ORS 701.348(4);

UPC, § 204.0 (definition of “building sewer”).

145.

Any licensed contractor may install a building sewer after obtaining a permit for plumbing

inspection. (ORS 701.348(3); 447.095).

146.

Oregon law requires that before anyone digs (or excavates) on private property, they must call a

centralize number (now, 811, for the Oregon Utility Location Center). Excavators then request a

utility locate where they plan to dig. Utility operators have two business days in which to locate

and accurately mark their underground facilities using color-coded paint. There is no charge for

this service. The excavator must wait the two days to allow time for the utility locate.

147.

Sewer lines typically are replaced by one of two methods: (1) pipe bursting or (2) trenching.

148.

For pipe bursting, crews dig holes at each end of the sewer pipe to be replaced. A cable is sent

through with a device that breaks up the old pipe. The cable eases through the new pipe. This is

usually the less expensive method of sewer pipe replacement. It typically costs about $1,500

minimum and $25 to $50 a foot for the new pipe.

149.

For trenching, crews dig down along an existing sewer line, haul out dirt and add gravel. There

may be additional costs if a trench collapses or excavators hit gravel. Cutting sections into

streets can add $2,000 to $4,000 depending on the size and depth of the trench. Crews install

new sewer lines into the open trench. Even using this method, most jobs in the Portland area still

cost less than $9,000.

MCHONE SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

150.

During the relevant time, Robert (age 59) and Patricia McHone (age 55) owned and lived in a

house located at 4562 SE 84th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. The McHones were disabled.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


151.

On or about July 8, 2011, the kitchen drain in the house would not drain. Robert McHone

(McHone) had heard a radio advertisement that ARS (specifically, Jack Howk) would clear any

clogged drain for $97. McHone called ARS.

152.

Two ARS employees, Greg Bray, Plumbing Repair Specialist, and Dave Wederquist, Plumbing

Repair Specialist, arrived at the house. Neither Bray nor Wederquist is a licensed plumber. An

ARS employee walked past the kitchen sink and walked to the sewer main line cleanout. He ran

a camera down and told McHone the sewer line was broken in two places and there was a back

grade towards the house rather than the line running at an angle down towards the street. The

employee stated the sewer line needed to be replaced. The employee indicated that there could

be health issues unless the work was done. ARS quoted $21,400 to perform the work. McHone

agreed and the work started. For two days, ARS left open a hole its employees made in the

sewer line. McHone continued to use sinks, toilets, tubs, and so forth, while sewage leaked from

the hole into the soil.

153.

Later, ARS dug a hole along the sewer line near the street. ARS told McHone the sewer line was

also broken at that location and would need to be replaced. According to an ARS employee, the

additional work would cost $8,000, but the city might pay a part of it. The City of Portland did

not pay for any of the work.

154.

ARS employee, Greg Bray, signed a contract/invoice dated July 13, 2011, indicating: “Original

bid, $21,400; New bid, $8,000.” McHone paid $29,400 to ARS. It took ARS five days to

complete the job.

155.

The kitchen drain remained clogged and would not drain properly. After McHone’s repeated

requests, ARS unclogged the kitchen drain for no additional charge.

156.

After the work was finished, McHone obtained bids for the same job that ARS performed from

three other companies: the bids ranged from $7,800 to $9,200.

/ / /


157.

ARS violated ORS 701.098(1)(L) by engaging in conduct that was fraudulent or dishonest, and


1) ARS misrepresented that the sewer line needed to be replaced to clear a clogged kitchen

drain;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the City of Portland would pay for

repairs to the sewer line on the homeowner’s property, when it would not do so; and

3) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the McHone's would have health

problems unless they agreed to replace the sewer line.

GRAY SEWER LINE

158.

During the relevant time, Sumiko Gray (Gray) owned and lived in a house located at 16255 NE

Everett Court, Gresham, Oregon. By the end of February 2011, Gray was eight months

pregnant.

159.

During late February 2011, the laundry drain in the house overflowed onto the garage floor

several times. Gray called ARS to fix the problem.

160.

On or about later February or early March, 2011, ARS sent two employees to the house. They

were Dave W. (Wederquist), Plumbing Repair Specialist, and another employee. Wederquist is

not a licensed plumber.

161.

The ARS employees went into the crawl space. They told Gray she had duct tape coupling on

her laundry line. They also told Gray the sewer line was leaking. They told her there was a 4”

trench where the leak had washed away top soil. They told Gray the main vent showed rust,

which, according to Wederquist, indicated the entire sewer line was rusting away. They

explained that the sewer line was improperly installed causing the house drains to clog. They

took pictures with a camera provided by Gray.

162.

Gray asked for an estimate. Wederquist stated that he did not do estimates. He asked Gray for a

date and time when his supervisor could meet with her and her husband to discuss the process


and costs. The meeting was scheduled for March 8, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. When the date and time

arrived, only Wederquist showed up. Wederquist presented a written contract/invoice for

$4,960.43. It included removal of contaminated soil. The Grays declined to enter into the

contract.

163.

On or about March 11, 2011, Gray called Apollo Drain and Repair Service (Apollo). An Apollo

employee came to the house. He went into the crawl space but did not notice a sewer line leak.

Gray asked him to perform a more complete examination. She paid $60 for the examination.

The Apollo employee reported that there was water coming from outside the house under the

foundation and into the crawl space. There was no sewer line leak. He showed Gray the

location outside the house from where the water was entering.

164.

Gray had French drains installed to correct the problem with rain water entering under the

foundation.

165.

Gray hired Elite Plumbing to fix the laundry drain. She paid $2,500 for the repairs.

166.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the sewer line was leaking and needed to

be replaced when it was not; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the sewer line leak was the source of

erosion and contaminated soil in the crawl space when it was not.

SCAFIDI SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

167.

During the relevant time, Michael and Margaret Scafidi owned and lived in the house located at

4607 SE 88th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

168.

In the summer or fall of 2010, Mrs. Scafidi smelled something under the house. Michael Scafidi

(Scafidi) called ARS. ARS employees arrived at the house and told Scafidi he had rats and he

needed to have an exterminator come out before ARS could go under the house.


169.

Scafidi hired an exterminator who, while under the house, noticed a leaking kitchen drain.

170.

On or about September 27, 2010, ARS sent an employee named Tyler T. to the house. ARS has

one employee named Tyler with a last name beginning with the initial “T” – Tyler Trimm is a

licensed plumber, hired by ARS in 2009.

171.

Tyler ran a camera scope down the main sewer line and showed Scafidi a picture of clogged

toilet paper. He told Scafidi that the sewer line under the house needed to be replaced. ARS

prepared a contract/invoice to perform the work for $7,500. Scafidi agreed to the terms.

172.

On or about September 28, 2010, another ARS employee, Greg Bray, Plumbing Repair

Specialist, arrived at the house. Bray is not a licensed plumber. He was accompanied by an

individual whom he described as a “specialist from Arizona.” They ran a camera down the

sewer line to the street.

173.

Bray presented a contract/invoice to (1) put in new hot and cold water pipes and (2) install a new

water heater, gas line and vent. The bid for this new work was $8,900, for a total of $16,400.

174.

Scafidi was considering the bid when Bray told him that the exhaust vent from his water heater

was not up to code and would burn the house down. Scafidi did not believe Bray and told him to

leave.

175.

ARS told Scafidi it would replace the bathtub drain while performing the sewer work that Scafidi

agreed to pay for. It did not do so.

176.

ARS told Scafidi it would install a sewer clean out near the rear of the house while performing

the sewer work that Scafidi agreed to pay for. It did not do so.

177.




1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the exhaust vent from the water heater

was not up to code and would burn the house down;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it would replace the bathtub drain while

performing the sewer work, which it did not do; and

3) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it would install a sewer clean out near

the rear of the house while performing the sewer work, which it did not do.

TINNEY WATER RE-PIPE

178.

During the relevant time, Peggy Tinney (Tinney), age 83, owned and lived in a house located at

34815 SW Cloudrest Lane, Hillsboro, Oregon. The house is located on acreage and its water

provided by a well.

179.

On or about December 2, 2010, the water heater leaked. Tinney called ARS to have them

replace the water heater. ARS sent out an employee, Treven. ARS has one employee named

Treven – Treven Barrett, a licensed plumber hired by ARS in 2010. ARS replaced the water

heater and charged Tinney $1,112.15. Tinney paid ARS by Visa card.

180.

On or about March 8, 2011, Tinney noticed rust in her water and that the water had a bad smell.

She called ARS. Again, ARS employee Treven came to the house. He flushed and drained the

water heater and provided a contract/invoice to replace existing pressure tanks with a new tank.

(Because the water is provided by a well, it must first be pumped into one or more pressure tanks

then, under pressure, be distributed throughout the house). The proposed contract also provided

for piping to run the water service from the well to the garage. The total bid was $5,655.25.

Tinney declined to enter into the contract.

181.

On or about May 18, 2011, Tinney again called ARS because there was rust in the water and a

bad smell. This time, ARS sent out two employees, Blane Karn, Plumbing Repair Specialist, and

Erik. Karn is not a licensed plumber. ARS has one employee named “Erik” – Erik Guzman,

licensed plumber, hired in 2011.

/ / /

/ / /


182.

ARS proposed to replace the two pressure tanks, re-pipe the water lines behind the tanks, put in a

new “Red Jacket” [brand name] water pump, remove rusted water lines, and have an electrician

make necessary connections. ARS provided a contract/invoice for $7,500. Tinney agreed and

paid ARS $7,500.

183.

On or about July 7, 2011, Tinney called ARS and complained that the water still contained rust

and smelled bad. Erik Guzman went to the house. He told Tinney that ARS’ work was not the

cause of the problem. He indicated that the cause of the problem was the well water. He told

Tinney that a little rust would not hurt her.

184.

On or about July 18, 2011, Shiloh Water Systems, Inc. (Shiloh) performed work on Tinney’s

water system. Shiloh had to install a new water pump because ARS had failed to do so, even

though they billed Tinney for the Red Jacket water pump. The new pump cost $1,440 plus $200

for installation. In total, Shiloh charged $5,178.75 for materials and services.

185.



1) ARS misrepresented to Tinney that ingesting rust from her water source would not hurt

her; and

2) ARS deceitfully charged for a water pump that it did not provide.

ARMSTRONG WATER RE-PIPE AND SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

186.

During the relevant time, Marjorie Armstrong (Armstrong) owned and lived in a house located at

2845 NE 117th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Armstrong was 82 years old and lived alone.

187.

On or about August 2010, ARS replaced a toilet in an upstairs bathroom.

188.

On or about September 8, 2010, the toilet leaked while Armstrong was in the hospital.

Armstrong’s daughter discovered the leak and that it had ruined the ceiling in the room below.


On or about September 9, 2010, Armstrong called ARS to fix the toilet. Armstrong was not

having any problems with any sewage backup, plugged lines or water pressure.

189.

On or about September 9, 2010, an ARS employee, “John,” arrived at the house. He provided a

contract/invoice to replace partial stacks and toilet arms. The cost for the work was $4,950.

Armstrong made a down payment of $2,500.

190.

On or about September 13, 2010, John returned with a second ARS employee, Greg Bray,

Plumbing Repair Specialist. Bray is not a licensed plumber. ARS told Armstrong that the sewer

line was bad, that rats could come up the toilet and the work needed to be done immediately.

191.

ARS prepared a Contract Addendum for new waste and drain pipe, re-pipe water line, and repair

the shower and tile in the basement bathroom. The new total for all work was $44,600.

Armstrong made another down payment of $5,000.

192.

On or about October 7, 2010, Armstrong made an additional payment of $15,000. On or about

October 20, 2010, Armstrong made a final payment of $21,900.

193.

On or about November 3, 2011, ARS paid Armstrong $10,000 in exchange for a settlement and

release of claims against ARS. The settlement agreement was facilitated by the CCB.

194.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated to Armstrong that rats could come up the

toilet due to the condition of the sewer line; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that work on the sewer line had to proceed

immediately.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


SEIFERT SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

195.

During the relevant time, Ronald (age 69) and Judith (age 68) Seifert owned and lived in a house

located at 6247 Arbordale Drive SE, Salem, Oregon. Mrs. Seifert’s mother also lived in the

home.

196.

In January, 2010, there was a sewage backup in a bathroom. Judith Seifert (Seifert) called ARS.

ARS sent out an employee who opened the sewer line cleanout. He said he would return.

197.

On or about January 14, 2010, ARS sent two employees to the Seifert house, Greg Bray,

Plumbing Repair Specialist, and Dave Wederquist, Plumbing Repair Specialist. Neither Bray

nor Wederquist is a licensed plumber. They ran a camera down the sewer line. An employee

told the Seifert's that the sewer line between their house and the septic tank was broken and had

to be replaced.

198.

The contract/invoice provided that ARS charged the Seifert’s $3,900 for the cost of running the

camera and digging out the sewer line running from the house to the septic tank “to find issue

with line.” This charge was made despite the fact ARS had already run the camera and told the

Seifert’s that the sewer line was broken and had to be replaced.

199.

On or about January 15, 2010, ARS added $6,100 to the cost, for a total of $10,000, to (1)

replace the sewer line from the house to the septic tank and (2) replace the sewer line from the

septic tank to the distribution box. There is no evidence that ARS replaced the sewer line from

the septic tank to the distribution box. Seifert paid ARS $10,000 in a combination of checks and

credit card charges.

200.

About a month later, Seifert called ARS back to come out and unplug the sewer line again. ARS

“flushed” the sewer line.

201.

On or about February 28, 2011, the sewer line was again plugged. Seifert called Action Drain

and Rooter Service (Action Drain). Action Drain came out and replaced an inlet baffle. (An


inlet baffle is a mechanism made of polymerized vinyl chloride (PVC) plastic that is placed just

inside the inlet to the septic tank, where wastewater flows from the house into the tank. They

help separate solid and liquid waste. If dislodged, waste going into the septic tank can plug the

line.) Action Drain charged Seifert $583. Action Drain told Seifert the baffle should have been

replaced when the new sewer line was installed.

202.



1) ARS either misrepresented that it knew the source of the backup, a broken sewer line, or;

2) ARS deceitfully charged for an unnecessary service, $3,900 to evaluate the sewer line,

when it already knew the line was broken; and

3) ARS misrepresented that it repaired the source of the backup by replacing the sewer line

from the house to the septic tank when, in fact, a new sewer line did not prevent drains

from plugging up, likely caused by a dislodged or inadequate inlet baffle at the septic

tank; and

4) ARS misrepresented that it replaced the sewer line from the septic tank to the distribution

box.

HATFIELD WATER RE-PIPE

203.


a water line broke in the garage ceiling. The house at issue was only 12 years old. The work

was done by John Fowler, Plumbing Service Manager; Joseph Monego, licensed plumber hired

by ARS from 2009 – 2011; and Brian Buelt, Plumbing Protech, hired by ARS from 2008 – 2011.

Neither Fowler nor Buelt is a licensed plumber.

204.

Hatfield took an ARS employee into the garage and showed him the problem with water coming

inside. He said he needed to go underneath the house and look at the water pipes.

205.

The ARS employee told Hatfield that she needed to replace all of the water pipes. He said the

chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipes were defective and there were broken pipes under

the house as well as above the garage. The ARS employee told Hatfield that the pipes could


burst and ruin the drywall if they were not replaced. The Hatfield’s had not noticed any other

water leaks or pressure issues besides the break in the garage.

206.

The ARS employee said he could not repair the pipes – they all needed to be replaced. ARS

charged the Hatfield’s $11,500 for the re-pipe, and other work. The Hatfield’s paid ARS

$11,500.

207.

On or about September 30, 2011, ARS paid the Hatfield’s $5,900 in exchange for a settlement

and release of the claims against ARS.

208.

ARS violated ORS 701.098(1)(k)5 by engaging in conduct that was fraudulent or dishonest, and


1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the CPVC pipes in the Hatfield house

were defective, the cause of the leak, and/or could not be repaired; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the CPVC pipes could burst and ruin the

drywall.

NIM’S WATER RE-PIPE/SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

209.

During the relevant time, Kathleen Nims (Nims), age 70, owned and lived in a house located at

3120 NE 34th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. At the time, Nims was recovering from a car accident

and was in a neck brace.

210.

On or about July 12, 2011, the kitchen sink became clogged. Nims called ARS for service.

211.

ARS sent out Greg Bray, Plumbing Repair Specialist, and Dave Wederquist, Plumbing Repair

Specialist. Neither Bray nor Wederquist is a licensed plumber. They went to the sewer cleanout

in the basement and put a camera down the sewer line. The ARS employees told Nims that there

were several breaks in the sewer line. They told her that if she did not have the sewer line fixed

or replaced, the problem would expand and could cause sink holes.

/ / /

5 See Note 1.


212.

Nims told the ARS employees to replace the sewer line.

213.

The ARS employees also told Nims that she needed to replace the water lines in the house. They

said the pipes had rusted.

214.

Nims told the ARS employees to replace the water lines.

215.

Later that day, Steve Nims (S. Nims), Nim’s son, talked to Greg Bray on the phone. Bray told S.

Nims it was good they called when they did because the methane gas could have killed your

mom.

216.

ARS prepared a contract/invoice for $24,900 to re-pipe the water lines and replace the sewer

line. Nims paid $6,000 by check. She took out a second mortgage on her home to pay the

balance of $18,900.

217.

On or about August 17, 2011, ARS paid Nims $13,900 in exchange for a settlement and release

of the claims against ARS. The settlement agreement requires that Nims: (1) keep confidential

the existence and terms of the settlement agreement; (2) if asked by any other person, state that

any complaint with ARS has been resolved to her complete satisfaction and make no further

comment; and (3) refrain from making any statements, written or oral, which disparage the

goodwill or reputation of ARS, its products or services, and its directors, officers, executives,

shareholders and employees.

218.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that if Nims did not have the sewer line

repaired or replaced, damage could include sink holes; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that if Nims did not have the sewer line

repaired or replaced, she could die from methane gas.

/ / /


PETERSON SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

219.


gutters on the house were not draining properly. The storm sewer drains – not the building sewer

– was plugged. ARS sent out two employees, Greg Bray, Plumbing Repair Specialist, and Joel

Gesler, Plumbing Protech. Neither Bray nor Gesler are licensed plumbers.

220.

On or about July 27, 2010, Joel Gesler arrived at the Peterson house. He performed a camera

scope of the sewer lines. Together with Greg Bray, the ARS employees sold the Petersons a

new sewer line installation. Work began that day, July 27, 2010.

221.

According to the contract/invoice prepared and signed on July 27, 2010, included in the $15,300

cost were “all permits.” (The contract did not itemize the services, products or other items

included). However, as of July 27, 2010, ARS had not obtained a permit to perform the sewer

line installation. On or about August 3, 2010, ARS obtained a permit from the City of Gresham

to “repair sewer line, replace sewer line as needed.”

222.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely that it included in the contract/invoice all permits,

and started work on the project, when the City of Gresham had not yet issued a permit.

223.

ARS violated ORS 701.348(3) by failing to obtain a permit before installing building sewer

components.

NEWMAN REPAIR/RE-PIPE WATER LINE

224.

During the relevant time, Pauline Newman, age 71, owned and lived in a house located at 3728

SE 27th Street, Gresham, Oregon. The house was built in 1997.

225.

On or about December 28, 2010, Newman had an underground sprinkler pipe repaired. On or

about December 30, 2010, Newman noticed a water leak in her front lawn. She called her water


supplier, who sent out a representative. The representative told her there could be a slow leak in

the household water main and she should call a plumber.

226.

On or about December 31, 2010, Newman called ARS. She asked if they had leak detection

equipment and they responded that they did. An ARS employee, Steve Atchison, arrived at the

house. Steve Atchison was a licensed plumber who worked for ARS from 2006 – 2011.

227.

Steve Atchison told Newman that he had no leak detection equipment. He went to his truck, said

he called the office and was told the equipment was broken. However, he told Newman, it did

not matter because she needed to replace the main water line because once damaged, a repair

rarely held. He told her that she could not get a leak detection company to come out on

December 31. ARS provided an estimate of $2,900 to replace the water main and $1,200 to

$1,500 to repair it.

228.

Newman called The Leak Detectives. Their office was in Vancouver, Washington, but they said

they would be out later in the day.

229.

Newman also called a friend who was a contractor. He came to the house and found three

sprinkler heads in the front lawn that were leaking.

230.

Keith Olson of The Leak Detectives arrived and, within 15 minutes, located a leak in the

irrigation valve that controlled the leaking sprinkler heads. The Leak Detectives charged

Newman $250 for the call-out and service. A landscaping company advised Newman that it

could replace the leaking valves, and a new backflow device, for about $623.

231.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that Newman needed to repair or replace a

water main when, in fact, only sprinkler valves needed to be repaired or replaced; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that Newman could not get a leak detection

company to come to her house on December 31, when in fact she did.


SHARLOCK WATER RE-PIPE/SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

232.


Sharlock’s caregiver had discovered a clogged drain. ARS sent out two employees, Greg Bray,

Plumbing Repair Specialist, and David Wederquist, Plumbing Repair Specialist. Neither Bray

nor Wederquist is a licensed plumber.

233.

In addition to installing a new water heater (see previous paragraphs), ARS (1) installed a new

(exterior) sewer line; (2) re-piped the interior water supply system; and (3) installed new waste

water piping. According to ARS, it was necessary to connect the sewer main to new lines that

ARS installed alongside the house. This was to prevent ARS from needing to cut through or tear

up “asbestos” tiles on the floor. However, in several other houses the same age, or older, than

Sharlock’s, ARS cut through similar tiles. ARS did not have any tests performed to determine

that the tiles were composed of asbestos.

234.

Greg Bray also told Sharlock that he had talked to her insurance company and they would bear a

big part of the costs. Later, Sharlock learned the insurance company would not pay for any of

the work.

235.

David Wederquist told Sharlock’s neighbor, Sandy Garland (Garland), that there was an

“accounting error” of over $10,000, which explained the difference between the $40,250.70 that

ARS originally charged Sharlock and the “breakdowns” totaling $30,135.12 that they supplied at

Garland’s request.

236.



1) ARS either misrepresented that it was necessary to pipe alongside the house because of

the “asbestos” tiles or that the tiles were, in fact, asbestos when ARS did not test the tiles

to determine such fact ;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it had spoken with Sharlock’s insurance

company and they would pay part of the costs; and


3) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that there was an “accounting error” in

Sharlock’s billing.

PEOT WATER RE-PIPE

237.

During the relevant time, Mary Peot (Peot), age 66, owned and lived in a house located at 14225

SW Red Haven Drive, Beaverton, Oregon. Peot had just had knee surgery and was taking pain

medication at the time.

238.

On or about May 4, 2011, Peot noticed a “drippy” kitchen sink faucet. She called ARS.

239.

ARS sent out two employees. One was Blane Karn, a Plumbing Repair Specialist, hired by ARS

in 2010. Karn is not a licensed plumber. The other was “J.P.” or James Patrick Clemens,

licensed plumber, hired by ARS between 2010 and 2011.

240.

The two ARS employees looked at the faucet then told Peot they needed to go under the house

and look at the pipes. Peot objected that she only wanted them to replace a faucet aerator, but

they insisted. When they returned, J.P. told Peot that the water pipes were going to “burst” and

asked if she wanted a big mess.

241.

Peot signed a contract/invoice prepared by ARS to re-pipe all hot and cold water lines, bore new

1” water service from meter to crawl space, and certain other items. The total price was $10,688.

Included was the cost of replacing an American Standard kitchen faucet, $439. Peot paid ARS

$10,688.

242.

In the course of its investigation, CCB’s investigators viewed and measured the size of the pipe

(water service) leaving the water meter. It was ¾”, not 1” as contracted for.

243.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the water pipes were going to burst; and


2) ARS misrepresented that it would use 1” pipe leaving the water meter to the crawl space

when, in fact, the pipe measured only ¾”.

FRANCIS SEWER LINE

244.

During the relevant time, Donald Francis, age 90, and Nadine Francis, age 89, owned and lived

in a house located at 2091 Summit Drive, Lake Oswego, Oregon. Both had health issues and

were assisted by a caregiver.

245.

The Francis first contact with ARS was in August 2009, when ARS responded to their call and

rebuilt a toilet for $229. The next contact was in September 2009, when ARS sold the Francis a

$12,300 re-piping job for their house. The job included installation of a tankless hot water

heater, which only delivered warm water. The Francis’ son, Ken Francis (K. Francis) was upset

about the cost and quality of the job. However, he did not learn of it until after the work had

been completed.

246.

In January 2011, the Francis’ kitchen sink would not drain. The Francis called ARS. ARS

employees arrived and ran a camera down the sewer line. ARS employees indicated to the

Francis' that they needed a new sewer line because roots in the existing line were causing a

backup. The Francis signed a contract/invoice to replace the sewer line for $15,000.

247.

K. Francis went to his parents’ house and met with ARS employees. They also told him that the

sewer line needed to be replaced because the whole system was backed up. An ARS employee

showed K. Francis a hole in the yard where he could view a section of the pipe that the

employees had exposed. K. Francis noticed that the pipe section was broken. He asked how that

occurred. An ARS employee explained that they had to open the pipe to release the sewage that

was backed up. K. Francis did not see any wetness near the area.

248.

K. Francis told the ARS employees to leave the property.

249.

K. Francis contacted another company, Lovett Services. They repaired the pipe that the ARS

employees had broken. They charged $575 for the repair.


250.

The Lovett employee performing the work told K. Francis that there was nothing wrong with the

sewer line.

251.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the sewer line was backed up and needed

to be replaced; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that a sewer pipe it had broken had been

opened up to release backed up sewage.

LARSON WASTEWATER SYSTEM

252.

During the relevant time Donald and Lois Larson owned and rented to tenants the house located

at 14008 SE Harrison Street, Portland, Oregon. Donald Larson (Larson) had experience clearing

drains in his rental properties. However, at the time, the Larson’s lived in Seaside, Oregon.

253.

On or about July 21, 2011, the tenant living in the house called ARS to unplug a kitchen sink and

laundry drain. An ARS employee, Cory, arrived at the house. ARS has one employee named

Cory – Cory Brown, Plumbing Protech, hired by ARS in 2011. Cory Brown is not a licensed

plumber.

254.

Cory called Donald Larson (Larson) and told him that the piping in the house was very old and it

would cost $2,500 to replace the drainage piping from the kitchen sink to the sewer main line.

Larson told Cory he simply wanted him to clear the drain.

255.

Soon after, Cory’s supervisory, Graham, arrived. ARS had one employee named Graham –

Graham Harwood, Plumbing Repair Specialist, who worked for ARS in 2011. Graham Harwood

is not a licensed plumber. Graham spoke to Larson and told him that the entire house should be

re-plumbed, at a cost of between $6,200 and $7,320. Again, Larson asked that they just clear the

drain.

/ / /


256.

The ARS employees ran a snake 90’ but could not clear the drains. ARS billed Larson’s tenant

$350 for the service call. Larson reimbursed his tenant for the cost.

257.

Later, when Larson went to Portland, he crawled under the house. He observed nothing leaking

from the drain pipes. He observed a clean-out that the ARS employees should have tried.

258.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely that ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated

that the drain lines were backed up and needed to be replaced.

DARR SEWER LINE

259.

During the relevant time, Judy Darr (Darr), age 68, owned and lived in a house located at 13240

SW Devonshire Drive, Beaverton, Oregon. The house is located in Washington County.

260.

On or about June 26, 2011, sewage backed up into the basement. Darr called ARS.

261.

ARS sent out an employee who ran a camera down the sewer line. According to the

contract/invoice completed by ARS, the technician was “Ken.” ARS has one employee named

“Kenwyn” – Kenwyn Williams, a Plumbing Protect, hired by ARS in 2011. Kenwyn Williams is

not a licensed plumber.

262.

The ARS employee dug a hole in the front yard, cut out a section of the sewer pipe and removed

it. He told Darr she could continue to use her toilets and drains.

263.

The ARS employee told Darr that her sewer line was bad and needed to be replaced. He gave

her a contract/invoice showing a cost of $11,900 to perform the work. Darr worked with the

ARS employee to set up financing to pay for the work.

264.

The ARS employee left the house, telling Darr that he would return when he obtained the

necessary permits. He did not reconnect the sewer pipe.


265.

After two days, Darr called ARS to ask when they would return to complete the work. They told

her that the county had not yet issued a permit.

266.

Darr called Washington County and asked them what was holding up the permit. They told her

that ARS had not applied for a permit for the job.

267.

Darr decided to cancel the contract with ARS. She called ARS, told them to come clean up the

sewage discharge where the pipe was open and that she was cancelling the contract.

268.

An ARS employee came to Darr’s house, “fixed” the sewer line and filled in the hole. The

employee told Darr that she would continue to have problems if she did not replace the sewer

line.

269.

Darr contacted CPS Mechanical Services (CPS) to run a camera scope of the sewer line. On or

about July 20, 2011, CPS arrived at the house and scoped the line. According to CPS,

“inspection of line indicated sewer in good condition only section holding water is previous

repair made by ARS.”

270.



1) After scoping the sewer line with a camera, ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated

that the sewer line was backed up and needed to be replaced;

2) After repairing the piece of pipe earlier removed, ARS misrepresented and untruthfully

stated that the sewer line would continue to cause problems and needed to be replaced;

and

3) ARS misrepresented that its repair to the pipe it had removed would fix the sewer line,

when in fact it was the only portion that, thereafter, did not work properly.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


CALHOUN WATER RE-PIPE/SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

271.


Calhoun needed to replace a faucet. Calhoun was not having any problem with rust in the water

or problems with water pressure. Calhoun was not having any problem with the sewer; there had

been no sewage backups. The house was built in 1978. ARS sent out two employees, Greg

Bray, Plumbing Repair Specialist, and Jerrod Morris, licensed plumber. Bray is not a licensed

plumber.

272.

After looking at the faucet, the two ARS employees went underneath the house to view the water

lines. They told Calhoun the water lines needed to be replaced. According to the ARS

employees, if Calhoun did not replace the water lines they would plug with sediment and there

would be no water.

273.

The ARS employees offered to run a camera down the sewer lines to see if any work was

needed. They did so and told Calhoun that they found a plug in the sewer line. The ARS

employees showed Calhoun a picture showing water, toilet paper and sediment. They told

Calhoun the problem could be fixed by replacing the drain lines in the house and the main sewer

line.

274.

Calhoun agreed to ARS replacing (re-pipe) the water lines, drain lines and the sewer main line.

The total cost per the ARS contract Change Order was $21,650. Calhoun paid ARS $21,650 by

credit card and with financing the balance.

275.



1) ARS misrepresented that the water pipes in the house needed to be replaced when they

did not; and

2) ARS misrepresented that the sewer line needed to be replaced to clear one clog.

/ / /

/ / /


MEYER SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT AND RE-PIPE

276.

During the relevant time, Christine Meyer (Meyer), age 86, owned and lived in a house located

at 1515 SW Pendleton Street, Portland, Oregon. Her sister lived with her.

277.

On or about May 10, 2011, Meyer called ARS to repair a broken bathroom faucet.

278.

Two ARS employees arrived at the house. One was Tyler Trimm, licensed plumber. The ARS

employees stated that they needed to look at the water pipes in the basement. They told Meyer

that she needed to replace the water lines and pointed out a patch made during a previous repair.

Meyer had not had any previous problems with the water lines, other than once when the repair

was made. ARS presented Meyer with a contract/invoice for $7,200. Meyer agreed to the re-

pipe work for that amount.

279.

The ARS employees offered to do a free camera scope of Meyer’s sewer lines. Meyer had not

been having any problems relating to sewer or drain lines. An employee told Meyer that her

sewer line had collapsed and needed to be replaced.

280.

On or about May 12, 2011, ARS presented Meyer with a Change Order showing a cost of

$13,200 to replace the sewer line. The total cost for the work was $20,400. Meyer paid ARS

$20,400.

281.

ARS paid Meyer $10,000 in exchange for a settlement and release of claims against ARS.

282.



1) ARS misrepresented that the sewer line had collapsed and needed to be replaced; and

2) ARS misrepresented that the water lines in the house needed to be replaced.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


PIKE DRAIN AND SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

283.

During the relevant time, Marilyn Pike (Pike), age 72, owned and lived in a house located at

1709 SE Ladd Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

284.

On or about March 2011, the kitchen drain became clogged. Pike called ARS. ARS came out

and snaked the drain, clearing the clog. ARS charged Pike $629.83, which Pike paid.

285.

On or about July 22, 2011, the kitchen sink drain joint was leaking. Pike called ARS. ARS sent

out an employee, David Wederquist, Plumbing Repair Specialist, who told Pike that it was an

easy fix. Wederquist is not a licensed plumber. Pike told him to go ahead and fix the leak.

286.

Within an hour, two more ARS employees arrived at the house. One was Greg Bray, Plumbing

Repair Specialist. They went downstairs into the basement of the house. Bray is not a licensed

plumber.

287.

The ARS employees took Pike downstairs to show her pictures of a camera that they had placed

in the sewer line. Pike had not asked ARS to scope the sewer line. According to the employees,

if Pike did not replace the sewer line and it broke, that would ruin the house foundation.

288.

ARS provided an invoice/contract for $4,300 to replace the kitchen drain line and install a new

floor drain.

289.

On or about July 25, 2011, Dave and Greg returned and told Pike that they had found an issue

with the main sewer line that runs outside the house. ARS employees told Pike that she needed

to replace the sewer line from the basement to the city hook-up. According to the employees, if

it broke, Pike could be fined by the city for a sewage leak. They also told her it was less

expensive to replace the sewer line now rather than waiting.

290.

ARS provided a Contract Addendum dated July 25, 2011, which added $12,600 to the original

$4,300 bid, for a total of $16,900. Pike used her debit card and paid ARS $16,900.


291.



1) ARS misrepresented that the kitchen drain leak was an easy fix when, in fact, ARS

charged $4,300 to replace the kitchen drain pipe;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that if the sewer line leaked, the City of

Portland would fine Pike;

3) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it was less expensive to replace the

sewer line at the immediate point in time than it would be in the future; and

4) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that, if the sewer line was not replaced, it

could ruin the foundation.

ABBOTT SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

292.

During the relevant time, Helen Abbott (Abbott), age 74, owned and lived in a house located at

1915 NE 148th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. By September 2010, Abbott was recently widowed

and had suffered a stroke. The sewer line to the house was approximately 15 years old. Abbott

was planning on putting the house up for sale.

293.

On or about April 19, 2010, Abbott called ARS to service a clogged floor drain in Abbott’s

basement. ARS employee “Willie” responded to the service call. ARS had one employee

named William during the relevant time – William Schneider, Plumbing Protech, hired in 1997;

he left ARS in 2011. William Schneider is not a licensed plumber. The ARS employee

unclogged the drain by cabling or snaking the drain. He poured down a quart of “Drainright

Drain Maintainer” (an ARS proprietary product “made from a special formula that liquefies and

disperses grease, soap scum, food residue and other waste build up”). The cost for the service

was $295 to snake the drain and $37.50 for the Drainright, less a 10% discount.

294.

On or about September 24, 2010, sewage backed up through the floor drain into the basement of

the house. Abbott called ARS and requested service.

/ / /

/ / /


295.

ARS sent two employees to the house. They were Greg Bray, Plumbing Repair Specialist, and

Blane Karn, Plumbing Repair Specialist. Neither Bray nor Karn are licensed plumbers. ARS

recommended a five-foot spot repair to the sewer line. The contract/invoice prepared for the

sewer repair and other related services by ARS indicated a charge of $10,500. Abbott paid

$10,500 to ARS.

296.

Abbott was not happy with the work quality – ARS did not use pea gravel as had been specified

in the contract and did poor work in repairing the cement that had been disturbed.

297.

On or about December 3, 2010, ARS had to return to the house and install a new toilet and

reconnect the sink drain. Abbott complained and, on or about December 22, 2010, ARS sent her

a check for approximately $2,500.

298.

On or about July 1, 2011, the floor drain again had a sewage backup. Abbott called ARS. ARS

sent two employees to the house – Greg Bray and Dave Wederquist. Neither Bray nor

Wederquist is a licensed plumber.

299.

From a cleanout, Greg Bray ran a camera down the sewer line, but reported it would not go

beyond 70 feet. Instead, the employees dug a hole in the back yard and ran the camera in both

directions. The employee showed Abbott and her son, Eric Abbott (E. Abbott) what appeared to

be toilet paper. Greg Bray also stated that he could not push the camera through the clog and

therefore it would not work to snake the line. The camera consists of a thin, bendable fiber optic

material; a snake has considerably more size and power.

300.

Greg Bray told Abbott and E. Abbott that the sewer line needed to be replaced. He indicated it

would not be a good idea to re-sleeve the line. E. Abbott commented that he would use Drano to

try and clear the line. Greg Bray responded that ARS would have to “report” the issue. E.

Abbott stated that he wanted to get more bids. Greg Bray responded that ARS had the lowest

prices in town.

/ / /


301.

Abbott signed a contract/invoice provided by ARS to install a new sewer main line. The cost for

the work was $17,000. Abbott paid ARS $17,000, which represented about ¼ of her entire

savings.

302.

ARS orally agreed with E. Abbott to sod the back yard and provide red rock next to the house.

Instead, they gave him grass seed to use to re-seed the yard.

303.

After The Oregonian article was published, E. Abbott complained to Ken Peterson, Senior Vice

President, Human Resources. On or about August 29, 2011, ARS paid Abbott $2,500.

304.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it would report the sewer line problem

when E. Abbott mentioned using Drano to clear the clogged line;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it had the lowest prices in Portland for

sewer line replacement;

3) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it would sod the lawn that was torn up to

replace the sewer line; and

4) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it would provide red rock to place along

the lawn next to the house.

KERR SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

305.

During the relevant time, Allen Kerr (Kerr), age 66, and Pauline Kerr (P. Kerr) owned and lived

in a house located at 901 JQ Adams Street, Oregon City, Oregon.

306.

On or about April 12, 2011, the shower drain plugged. Kerr called ARS. ARS sent out two

employees – Greg Bray, Plumbing Repair Specialist, and Dave Wederquist, Plumbing Repair

Specialist. Neither Bray nor Wederquist is a licensed plumber.

/ / /

/ / /


307.

An ARS employee arrived and said that the first thing to do was look at the sewer main. The

employee subsequently told the Kerr’s that the galvanized sewer pipe in the basement floor was

broken and the basement floor would collapse if the Kerr’s did not replace the entire sewer line.

P. Kerr signed the contract/invoice agreeing to have ARS perform the work. The contract was

for $33,512.70. The Kerr’s paid ARS $33,512.70. They put $3,000 on their credit cards and

obtained a line of credit to cover the balance.

308.

On or about April 21, 2011, Greg Bray presented the Kerr’s with a contract proposal to re-pipe

the entire house for $17,362. The Kerr’s declined to enter into the agreement.

309.

ARS eventually settled with the Kerr’s for $6,000 and to perform the re-pipe work for no charge.

310.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely that ARS misrepresented that the basement floor

would collapse if the Kerr’s did not replace the sewer pipe.

BRAY SEWER LINE

311.

During the relevant time, James Bray (Bray), age 86, owned and lived in a house located at 9930

SW Inez, Tigard, Oregon. His daughter, Jane Sunada (Sunada), also lived in the house. The

house has two floors.

312.

On or about July 2011, Bray was having problems with the drains in the laundry room and

bathrooms not draining properly. In contrast, there was no problem with the kitchen drain,

located in the upper floor of the house.

313.

Sunada had heard a radio advertisement that ARS would unclog any drain for $97. Sunada told

her father about the advertisement and Bray called ARS to service the drains.

314.

ARS sent out an employee, Paul Egger. Paul Egger, Plumbing Protech, hired by ARS in 2011.

Although Sunada and Bray had explained the source of the problem, the ARS employee


examined the drain under the kitchen sink. Sunada heard banging coming from the kitchen.

After several minutes, Paul Egger appeared and told Sunada that he needed to call another ARS

employee to look at the problem. Within a short time, Blane Karn, Plumbing Repair Specialist,

arrived at the house. Neither Karn nor Egger is a licensed plumber.

315.

Paul Egger and Blane Karn viewed the kitchen sink drain and told Sunada it had been done

wrong. Sunada pointed out that they were not having any trouble with that drain but with other

drains. The ARS employees indicated they would need to put a camera into the cleanout to tell

identify the problem.

316.

Shortly thereafter, Sunada joined Blane Karn and Paul Egger in the back yard where they had

been working. Blane Karn told Sunada that the sewer line needed to be replaced. He said the

sewer line was clogged and this was the only way to fix it.

317.

As Sunada, Karn and Egger were talking, Sunada heard water running. She looked up to the

upper floor, where the kitchen was located, and saw water running out of the siding. She asked

the ARS employees what had happened and they stated the kitchen drain needed to be replaced.

Sunada left the house.

318.

After Sunada left, ARS provided a contract/invoice to replace the sewer line. Bray agreed to the

contract. The cost was $9,088. Sunada returned to find that Bray had signed the contract. He

asked her to set up the financing for the project.

319.

After consulting with Bray’s financial advisor, Sunada called Karn and told him not to start the

job until she approved and that she was getting a second opinion. Sunada contacted Marxmen

Plumbing and Construction, Inc. (Marxmen). Marxmen’s owner, Mark Snethen, came out the

next day and pressure-cleaned a stand pipe, floor drain and tested the drains. The clean out

cleared the clog in the sewer line. Marxmen charged Bray $125 for the service.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


320.

Sunada called Karn and told him to cancel the contract. Karn told Sunada that there would be

problems with the sewer line again due to the climate in the Pacific Northwest. Karn also said

that ARS had performed $600 worth of work. Bray had paid ARS $300.

321.



1) ARS damaged the functioning kitchen sink drain and misrepresented that the sink drain

was already broken; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that Bray’s sewer lines needed replacing and

that after the Marxmen cleanout would continue to have problems due to the climate in

the Pacific Northwest.

FRYE WATER RE-PIPE

322.

During the relevant time, Gary (age 60) and Stephanie Frye (age 58) owned and lived in a house

located at 20590 SW Teton Avenue, Tualatin, Oregon. The house was built in 1981.

323.

On or about January 2, 2010, the water main outside the house broke. Gary Frye (Frye) called

the City of Tualatin. The city sent out an employee who located where the break occurred and

turned off the water. He told Fry that, because the break was on the “house” side (not the “city”

side) of the meter, Frye needed to call a plumber.

324.

Stephanie Frye (S. Frye) tried to call their regular plumber but could not reach him. She called

ARS.

325.

ARS sent out an employee. According to the contract/invoice the employee’s name was David

N.

326.

Frye asked that ARS do a spot repair. The ARS employee told Frye that he could not do a spot

repair because there would be dirt in the water line. He also said that if he did a spot repair, Frye


would have problems with the water heater and faucets later. Instead, ARS needed to replace the

entire water main line.

327.

Because it was 1:00 a.m. and the Frye’s needed water, Frye agreed. ARS showed up the next

day and ran a new water line to the garage. The cost for the work was $4,800. The Frye’s paid

ARS $4,800.

328.

Frye filed a homeowner claim with his insurance company, Allstate Insurance. Frye requested

that ARS provide certain information to Allstate. Allstate wanted to know why the entire water

main needed to be replaced.

329.

On or about March 16, 2010, ARS provided the following information to Allstate Insurance:

a) The journeyman plumber who did this work no longer works for our company and we are

unable to verify any information from him.

b) We believe this was caused possibly due to the weather conditions during the winter

season, but that would need to be verified with the National Weather Service.

c) Client says their house was built in 1981.

d) Client has several others [sic] pieces of information that may assist your investigation on

this claim, however, we are unable to verify these facts for you.

The letter is signed by Don Ochs, ARS Sales Manager.

330.

On or about December 14, 2011, ARS paid S. Frye $3,800 in exchange for a settlement and

release against ARS.

331.

ARS violated ORS 701.098(1)(k)6 by engaging in conduct that was fraudulent or dishonest, and


1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it could not spot repair the water main

pipe because there would be dirt in the line if it did so;


pipe because there would be problems in the future with the water heater; and

6 See Note 1.



pipe because there would be problems in the future with the faucets.

CABELLY SEWER LINE

332.

During the relevant time, Mary Elaine Cabelly (Cabelly) owned and lived in a house located at

4305 SE Alder Street, Portland, Oregon. Cabelly was 66 years old and was receiving

chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer. The treatment impaired her memory and ability to

make decisions.

333.

On or about May 19, 2011, ARS was working at a house next to Cabelly’s house and damaged

her fence. ARS employees came to Cabelly’s house and offered to fix the fence and provide her

with a free camera scope of the sewer lines for her inconvenience.

334.

ARS employees Greg Bray and Dave Wederquist were on the job. Neither Bray nor Wederquist

is a licensed plumber. ARS employees told Cabelly that she needed to replace the sewer line due

to breaks. Cabelly told the employees that she had a medical condition and should not be

making such a decision at that time. ARS employees told Cabelly that she would have rats

coming into her toilet if she did not have the new sewer line installed. ARS provided Cabelly

with a proposed contract/invoice to dig and burst 29’ of sewer line from the house to the curb.

The cost was $8,000.

335.

Later, ARS provided a second bid to jackhammer the basement floor and perform other work.

The bid was for $12,000, for a total of $20,000.

336.

Cabelly agreed to the proposal. She wrote a check for $2,500 as a down payment.

337.

After the ARS employees left, a neighbor – Sandy Garland (Garland) – talked to Cabelly.

Garland stated that another neighbor had work performed by ARS and was charged a large

amount of money. She advised Cabelly not to go through with the contract but to obtain other

bids. On or about May 20, 2011, Cabelly called ARS and cancelled the contract. She obtained

other bids from two other contractors to repair the sewer line. One contractor viewed camera


pictures of the sewer line and told Cabelly that a rock had penetrated the line in one place and

that section needed to be repaired – but the matter was not urgent. Both contractors told Cabelly

there was no reason to jackhammer the basement floor.

338.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that there were breaks in the sewer line that

could only be corrected by replacing the entire sewer line; and

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that if it did not replace the sewer line there

could be rats in Cabelly’s toilet.

FULLER RE-PIPE

339.

During the relevant time, Sandra Fuller (Fuller) owned and lived in a house located at 16270 SE

Sterling Circle, Milwaukie, Oregon. Fuller was 64 and lived alone.

340.

On or about July 17 – 19, 2010, the Oak Lodge Water District read the water meter for Fuller’s

house and found that Fuller was using four units of water in two days. This indicated that the

water usage was above normal and there might be a leak in the main water line between the

meter and the house. If Fuller had such a leak repaired within 30 days, the water district could

adjust the amount charged to Fuller. The water district so notified Fuller. Fuller called ARS for

service.

341.

On or about July 24, 2010, ARS sent an employee to the house. The ARS employee told Fuller

the leak was underneath the driveway in the main water line between the meter and the house.

He told Fuller that she needed to: (1) replace the main water line; and (2) re-pipe the entire

house. He also told Fuller that there was high water pressure that could cause her galvanized

(house) pipes to burst. ARS did not offer Fuller the option of a water pressure regulator. (A

water pressure regulator or pressure reducing valve is a compact, inexpensive device that: (1)

automatically reduces high incoming water pressure from a city main to provide a lower, more

functional pressure for distribution in a house; and (2) maintains a set water pressure (usually 50


psi).) Finally, the ARS employee told Fuller that the new pipes would provide better water

quality.

342.

ARS provided a contract/invoice to Fuller that provided for new water line ($4,366) and a re-

pipe of the interior house water pipes ($5,320). Together with another charge and a credit for a

coupon, the total was $9,818 less $200. Fuller paid ARS $9,618.

343.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that the water pressure would burst the house

pipes and that the water pipes in the entire house needed to be replaced;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that new pipes would provide better water

quality than the existing water pipes; and

3) ARS deceitfully sold Fuller a whole-house re-pipe when it could have installed a water

pressure regulator to reduce the water pressure in the water pipes.

HAUKE SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

344.

During the relevant time, Leonard (age 65) and Jill Hauke owned and lived in a house located at

4323 SE Alder Street, Portland, Oregon.

345.

On or about May 13, 2011, sewer backed up into the basement of the house. Leonard Hauke

(Hauke) attempted to clear the sewer line with a snake. ARS was working across the street at

Sharlock’s house. An ARS employee observed Hauke working outside and asked if he needed

assistance. Eventually, two ARS employees came to Hauke’s house, first Dave Wederquist

(Plumbing Repair Specialist) and then Greg Bray (Plumbing Repair Specialist). Neither

Wederquist nor Bray is a licensed plumber.

346.

An ARS employee told Hauke that ARS could dig down to the exterior sewer line and run a

camera to check for problems. The cost for the work would be $5,900. Hauke agreed. Dave

Wederquist prepared the contract/invoice for the work. ARS dug up a hole and ran a camera into

the sewer line.


347.

ARS employee Greg Bray then arrived at the house. Bray told Hauke that the sewer line needed

to be replaced. Hauke indicated that instead he wanted a quote to re-sleeve the existing sewer

line. On or about May 16, 2011, Bray presented Hauke with two “Change Orders” that detailed

separate options. Option 1 involved the “re-sleeve” or basically excavation and installation of

new crushed rock around the existing sewer line. It would cost $19,345 plus $12,345, for a total

of $31,690. Option 2 involved installing a new sewer line. It would cost $27,500. (Option 2

incorporated the $5,900 that ARS already had invoiced into the total price; Option 1 did not).

Hauke elected to go with Option 2 because it was less expensive.

348.

Hauke made a down payment of $2,000. He paid the balance of $25,500 with his debit card.

349.

Hauke asked ARS for a copy of the video made from the camera scope. ARS responded that

they did not retain the video but, since the abandoned sewer line was still in the ground, they

would take a video of the line and give it to him. Hauke provided the copy of the video to the

KOIN-Local 6, the local news station that was investigating ARS.

350.

On or about June 1, 2011, ARS contacted Hauke and offered a $5,000 refund and to re-pipe the

basement for no charge. Hauke agreed.

351.


injurious to the welfare of the public, namely by charging $5,900 to dig a hole and run a camera

through the sewer line instead of using the accessible sewer line cleanout to insert and run a

camera.

THOMPSON WATER MAIN

352.

During the relevant time, John and Mary Thompson owned and lived in a house located at 4428

SW 55th Place, Portland, Oregon. John Thompson (J. Thompson) was 66. Mary Thompson (M.

Thompson) was 62.

/ / /

/ / /


353.

On or about December 2010, the Thompson’s were on vacation. They received a call from their

house sitter that their instant hot water dispenser quit working. The house sitter turned off the

dispenser.

354.

On or about January 3, 2011, M. Thompson called ARS to fix the dispenser. Also, there had

been water bubbling in the front lawn and ARS was requested to look at that.

355.

ARS presented a contract/invoice to replace the water main from the meter to the house

($6,378.55) and install a new Insta-Hot dispenser ($782.54), for a total price of $7,061.09. The

document contained the language that “Estimate does not include any unforeseen

circumstances.” The Thompson’s made a down payment of $2,000.

356.

The document was prepared by Steven Dix and Jason Vonada. ARS had an employee named

Steven Dix, a plumber, hired in 2010. ARS had an employee named Jason Vonada, a Plumbing

Repair Specialist, who worked for ARS from 2009 to 2011.

357.

On or about January 6, 2011, Jason Vonada told M. Thompson that the work would cost an

additional $5,000 due to unforeseen circumstances. According to ARS’ Contract Addendum this

was because “Utilities in the yard require additional work, excavation and drilling.” M.

Thompson asked for an itemized breakdown of the costs. ARS did not supply the itemized

breakdown. ARS completed the work. J. Thompson told ARS that the Thompson’s would not

pay for the work until they received an itemized breakdown.

358.

Thereafter, ARS provided two documents. The first, titled “Project Bid Sheet,” shows a total

cost of $7,061.09 (the original contract price), broken down as: (1) excavation, $900; (2) drilling,

$4,900; (3) material, $806.09; and (4) permit, $455. The second, dated January 12, 2011, on

ARS letterhead and signed by Jason Vonada, shows: (1) labor, $4,200; (2) installation of

pressure reducing valve, $500; (3) Wirsbo pipe and installation, $300; and (4) total additional job

cost, $5,000, for a total of $12,061. There is no charge for the hot water dispenser. There is no


charge for the permit. The charges are not consistent with the previously supplied “Project Bid

Sheet.”

359.

J. Thompson discussed the matter with a general contractor. He told J. Thompson that anyone

doing excavation work should have used a locating device to determine if, and where, utilities or

electrical lines were buried. On or about January 18, 2011, J. Thompson wrote ARS disputing

the additional billing of $5,000. In J. Thompson’s opinion, avoiding utilities was foreseeable.

ARS agreed to reduce the total bill ($12,061) by $2,000. The Thompson’s paid ARS $10,061.

360.



1) ARS untruthfully created a fabricated breakdown of actual costs by simply “creating”

costs that totaled the amounts bid; and

2) ARS deceptively charged $5,000 for work related to underground utilities when such

work was clearly foreseeable and ARS was legally required to wait to allow utility

locates, for which there would have been no charge.

TRATNYEK WATER PIPES

361.

During the relevant time, Paul Tratnyek (Tratnyek) owned and lived in a house located at 3155

SW Grace Lane, Portland, Oregon.

362.

During the summer of 2009, the West Slope Water District (using construction company Landis

& Landis LLC) replaced water mains in Tratnyek’s neighborhood. Tratnyek noticed that water

would back up from the clothes washer and, possibly, the bar sink next to the clothes washer.

363.

On or about October 2009, Tratnyek contacted ARS and arranged for them to replace the sewer

lines. ARS presented a contract/invoice dated October 22, 2009, signed by Greg B. (Greg Bray,

Plumbing Repair Specialist) and Mike M. ARS had one employee named Mike (or Michael)

with a last name starting with the letter “M” – Michael McGaff, Plumbing Protech for ARS from

2008 to 2010. Neither Bray nor McGaff is a licensed plumber.

/ / /


364.

At the outset of the work, Mike had closed off some water lines to the bar sink next to the clothes

washer. As a result, one of the valves started to leak. Mike attempted to fix the leak, but

concluded it would require plumbing that was beyond his capability.

365.

On or about October 26, 2010, another ARS employee, arrived to repair the leak caused when

Mike closed the water lines. The ARS employee tried to persuade Tratynek to re-pipe the entire

house, telling him that the pipes were old and likely to fail soon. Tratynek declined the offer.

ARS charged Tratynek $990 for the repair near the bar sink and clothes washer. Tratynek paid

ARS $990 for this service.

366.



that the pipes in the house were likely to fail soon.

SHIOSHI SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

367.

The facts stated in paragraphs 91 through 94 are restated here. The June 2009 call-out to ARS

was because Shioshi had low water pressure and her dishwasher was not working.

368.

On or about August 11, 2010, Shioshi contacted ARS to fix her garbage disposal and dishwasher

because of a smell emanating from the area. ARS was also going to fix the water service coming

through the wall. Shioshi was not having any problems with her drains or sewer line.

369.

On or about August 11, 2010, Greg Bray of ARS prepared a contract/invoice indicating that ARS

replaced the kitchen and laundry drain to the main sewer line, jack hammered a trench to replace

drain lines, installed a new floor drain, re-piped a sink and installed 50’ of sewer pipe. Bray is

not a licensed plumber. The charge for the work was $9,400. Shioshi paid ARS $9,400 by

check.

370.

On or about August 18, 2010, and August 24, 2010, John Fowler, Plumbing Service Manager,

ARS, prepared two Contract Addendums indicating that ARS would install drain lines and


replace an existing sewer line. Fowler is not a licensed plumber. According to Shioshi, she

agreed to the sewer line replacement after viewing pictures taken by ARS on a scope camera.

An ARS employee showed her what he identified as cracks in her sewer line that were caused by

rats.

371.

The total cost for the work was $35,400, which Shioshi paid in two installments.

372.

After ARS performed the sewer line work, Shioshi still noticed a smell coming from her

dishwasher and disposal. She contacted ARS, which replaced those appliances. The smell

stopped.

373.

ARS did not provide Shioshi with a breakdown of costs, other than the work performed on

August 18, 2010, which supposedly cost an “additional” $6,000. On or about June 13, 2011,

ARS provided a “breakdown of work completed in August 2010.” The breakdown was as

follows:

a) Basement slab extraction of 80’ trench, haul-off, disposal: $2,950.00

b) Concrete replacement of 80’ trench in the basement: $2,900.00

c) Excavation of dirt in basement; haul-off; disposal: $4,789.00

d) Removal and replacement of under slab plumbing; permits; backwater valve installation;

backwater valve permits: $12,505.00

e) Outside sewer excavation, haul-off, backfill, replacement from foundation to city sewer;

permits: $12,256.00.

374.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that there were cracks in the sewer lines

caused by rats; and

2) ARS misrepresented the breakdown for the work performed in August 2010, by stating in

the Contract Addendum that the work performed on August 18, 2010, cost an “additional

$6,000” but not including that amount in the breakdown as a cost item, or combination of

cost items.


BRADLEY SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

375.

During the relevant time, Albert and Margie Bradley owned a four-plex dwelling located 5615,

5617, 5619 and 5621 SE 92nd Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Albert Bradley was 71; Margie

Bradley was 66. Three of the four dwellings were rented to tenants. A fourth unit, 5615 SE 92nd

Avenue, was vacant.

376.

On or about August 1, 2011, the tenant living at 5617 SE 92nd Avenue called Margie Bradley

(Bradley) to complain that the toilet and bathtub were draining slowly.

377.

Bradley called ARS. ARS sent out two employees who met Bradley at the four-plex. The

employees did not examine the toilet and bathtub in 5617 SE 92nd, but instead went to the sewer

cleanout behind the four-plex. They ran a snake and a camera down the sewer line.

378.

ARS told Bradley that they could do a repair at the point where the line was clogged, about 10’

to 15’ from the cleanout. ARS prepared a contract/invoice indicating they found a “broken”

sewer line. The cost for the camera scope, digging up the sewer line and performing a spot

repair would be $2,400. The employees listed on the contract/invoice are Blaine (Karn),

Plumbing Repair Specialist, and Ken (Kenwyn Williams), Plumbing Protech. Neither Karn nor

Williams is a licensed plumber.

379.

Bradley informed ARS that the other two occupied units also had back-ups into the bathtubs.

The ARS employees looked into the sewer cleanout (but did not run the camera) and told

Bradley the entire sewer line would need to be replaced. Blaine wrote void on the contract for

$2,400 and told Bradley it would cost $19,360 to replace the sewer line. ARS spent the next 7 –

8 days replacing the sewer line, during which time the tenants were (variously) without toilet,

bathing and/or laundry service. When the work was finished, Bradley received a complaint from

the tenant living at 5617 SE 92nd Avenue that the toilet and bathtub were still draining slowly.

380.

Bradley called ARS about the slow draining toilet and bathtub. They suggested she wait until

the next morning to see what was happening. Bradley called Blaine about the situation. He told


her it was a “secondary” problem. ARS eventually came out and cleared the clogged drain at

5617 SE 92nd Avenue for no additional charge.

381.

Bradley paid ARS $19,360 by (1) a check for $9,860; and (2) financing for $9,500. ARS told

Bradley that they would finance the $9,500 for 12 months at no interest.

382.

On or about September 9, 2011, Bradley received a bill for a VISA credit account, offered by

Wells Fargo National Bank (Wells Fargo), indicating that she owed $9,500, with a minimum

payment of $332.50 due on or before October 4, 2011. Failure to pay the minimum payment

would result in a late payment fee of up to $35. ARS had not told Bradley that she would need

to make minimum payments as a condition of the no interest financing.

383.



1) ARS misrepresented that the entire sewer line needed to be replaced when replacing the

line did not clear the clog in the dwelling located at 5617 SE 92nd Avenue;

2) ARS misrepresented that it would finance $9,500 when in fact the financing was

provided by Wells Fargo; and

3) ARS misrepresented that the financing would be for a set amount, due in one year, at no

interest, when, in fact, the financing through Wells Fargo required minimum monthly

payments for which a late fee was charged if the payment was not made on time.

FARLEY SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

384.

During the relevant time, Timothy and Miriam (Mimi) Farley owned and lived in a house located

at 4645 NE Wistaria Drive, Portland, Oregon. The Farley’s two young children also lived in the

house.

385.

On or about April 29, 2011, Mimi Farley (Farley) had a back-up in her kitchen drain/garbage

disposal. She had previously used ARS and was part of their Home Service Plan. She called

ARS for service.

/ / /


386.

While waiting for ARS to show up, Farley ran the water in the other house faucets and checked

the other drains. Only the kitchen drain had a problem.

387.

Two ARS employees, David Wederquist, a Plumbing Repair Specialist, and another employee

arrived at the Farley residence. Wederquist is not a licensed plumber. They told Farley that they

needed to call their “general manager” to look at the situation. A short time later, John Fowler,

Plumbing Service Manager, arrived. Fowler is not a licensed plumber. Fowler tried to put a

camera down the sewer line. He told Farley that she “had the black death” in her sewer system

and that it needed to be replaced. Fowler gave her a verbal bid of $40,000 to $45,000 to replace

the sewer system. Farley told Fowler that she needed to call her husband.

388.

Farley called her husband, Timothy Farley, who told her to get the ARS employees out of the

house.

389.

Farley returned to talk to Fowler, who then told her that her insurance company would cover the

cost of the sewer work but she needed to have the demolition work done right away. Fowler

explained that the insurance company would only cover the work if the floor was opened up but

not if the floor was closed, because the problem could not be known. Fowler told Farley not to

call the insurance company until the walls and floors were opened up and then he would give her

the “verbiage” to use with the insurance company so that they would cover the problem.

390.

During this time, a fourth ARS employee showed up to do the work.

391.

Fowler continued to tell Farley that the stuff on the basement floor was hazardous material,

anything that comes out of the sewer line is hazardous material, and she was endangering her

children and family.

392.

Farley agreed to go ahead, against her husband’s wishes, and have the sewer line replaced. She

gave Fowler a deposit of $1,500 on her VISA card.

/ / /


393.

Fowler suggested that Farley should stay in a hotel while the work was being done.

394.

An ARS employee was in the garage working. Farley approached this employee who explained

that Fowler was scamming her and that the sewer line did not need to be replaced. He gave her a

piece of paper with the name and phone number of another plumber that could take care of the

problem. The employee also told Farley she could cancel her agreement with ARS within three

days.

395.

The next morning, Farley called ARS and cancelled the contract. She called Ranieri Plumbing,

LLC (Ranieri Plumbing). Ranieri Plumbing came to the house and ran a camera in the basement

drain line. The pictures disclosed no roots but only food waste. Ranieri Plumbing snaked the

line and cleared the clog. They also snaked an upstairs lavatory. The total cost was $369.

Farley paid Ranieri Plumbing $369.

396.



1) ARS misrepresented that the entire sewer line needed to be replaced when the drain lines

only needed to be snaked;

2) ARS untruthfully stated that Farley “had the black death” in her sewer system;

3) ARS untruthfully stated that backup on the basement floor was hazardous material;

4) ARS untruthfully stated that anything that comes out of the sewer line is hazardous

material;

5) ARS untruthfully stated that Farley was endangering her children and family; and

6) ARS untruthfully stated that Farley’s insurance company would cover the cost of the

sewer work but only if the demolition work was done right away.

LAYTON SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT

397.

During the relevant time, Keith Layton (Layton) owned and lived in the house located at 8206

SW 10th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Layton, age 55, lived alone and suffered from medical

problems.


398.

On or about September, 2011, Layton noticed his neighbors were having work done by ARS. He

talked to the ARS employees on the job site and they offered to do a free camera scope of the

sewer line to Layton’s house.

399.

On or about September 27, 2011, ARS ran a camera down the sewer line and told Layton that he

had several root intrusions and that a section of the sewer line was sagging.

400.

An ARS employee, Daryl Rodgers, Plumbing Repair Specialist, prepared a contract/invoice for

$8,700 to “burst” a new 30’ sewer line and to re-pipe for $6,000 to re-pipe the bathroom waste

and drain lines.

401.

On or about September 28, 2011, Layton negotiated the price to burst the sewer line to $7,500

but did not agree to re-pipe the bathroom waste and drain lines. On the contract/invoice are ARS

employees: (1) Daryl Rodgers; (2) Cory Brown, Plumbing Protech; and (3) Jarrod Morris,

licensed plumber. The contract/invoice provided that ARS would send Layton a DVD of the

new sewer. ARS never did that.

402.

Layton paid $2,500 down and agreed to finance the balance of $5,000 through ARS. He

understood from ARS that it would finance the balance for 12 months at no interest. Later,

Layton learned that the financing was only good for 6 months.

403.

ARS offered to settle with Layton for $750. The terms of the agreement would have required

that Layton: (1) keep confidential the existence and terms of the settlement agreement; (2) if

asked by any other person, state that any complaint with ARS has been resolved to his complete

satisfaction and make no further comment; and (3) refrain from making any statements, written

or oral, which disparage the goodwill or reputation of ARS, its products or services, and its

directors, officers, executives, shareholders and employees.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


404.

When the City of Portland first inspected the new sewer line, it did not pass inspection. ARS

told Layton that the city had changed its building code. Layton called the city. A city employee

told Layton that the building code had not changed.

405.



1) ARS misrepresented that Layton’s financing was for 12 months, when it was only for 6

months;

2) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it would provide Layton with a DVD of

the new sewer, and did not do so; and

3) ARS untruthfully stated, when the sewer did not pass a first inspection, that the City of

Portland had changed the building code, when it had not done so.

HAIDAR SEPTIC LINE REPLACEMENT

406.

During the relevant time, Michelle Haidar (Haidar) owned and lived in the house located at

17460 SE Sunnyside Road, Damascus, Oregon. Her children lived with her.

407.

On or about July, 2011, the toilets in Haidar’s house backed up, as did showers in the master and

hall bathrooms. Haidar called ARS. David Wederquist, Plumbing Repair Specialist, arrived at

the house with other ARS employees. Wederquist is not a licensed plumber. ARS told Haidar

that she needed first to have her septic tank pumped. She contacted Dale’s All Pump Sanitation

Service, which pumped the tank.

408.

ARS told Haidar that it would need to replace the line from the house to the septic tank and from

the septic tank to the distribution box. According to Dave Wederquist, the “worst case scenario”

would be $16,000.

409.

On or about July 29, 2011, ARS prepared a contract/invoice to: (1) replace the septic lines; and

(2) to re-pipe the water lines in the house. Haidar asked why ARS needed to re-pipe the water


lines and Wederquist told her the lines were not up to code and replacing them would make the

septic/drainage system work better.

410.

Haidar signed the contract for $16,200. About halfway through the work, Wederquist

approached Haidar about making the payment. ARS offered to finance the cost of the work.

ARS ran Haidar’s credit and determined that she only qualified for credit in the amount of

$5,400. Haidar did not have enough money to pay the balance.

411.

ARS asked Haidar if there was someone who could co-sign a loan with her. Haidar indicated

that her brother, Doug Knapp (Knapp), might be willing to do so.

412.

ARS presented Haidar with two charge slips to be signed by her and her brother, Knapp. Haidar

and Knapp noticed that one of the charge slips created a separate account for Knapp. Knapp

refused to sign the charge slip. Haidar indicated Knapp was only supposed to co-sign on

Haidar’s loan/account.

413.

ARS provided Haidar with a second set of charge slips and stated that Knapp would only be a

co-signor on Haidar’s account. One charge slip was for $5,200 and made out for Michele

Haidar, with “David Wederquist, Salesperson”. The other was for $7,300 and made out for

Douglas Knapp, with “Andrew McClure, Salesperson.” Andrew McClure is a licensed plumber

hired by ARS in 2010. (The total was less than the $16,200 listed in the contract. Wederquist

stated that if the charge slips were signed, ARS would “forgive” the difference.)

414.

Haidar and Knapp signed the charge slips. Later, Knapp received a bill for payment. He called

Haidar, upset that he had been scammed.

415.



1) ARS misrepresented and untruthfully stated that it needed to re-pipe the water lines

because the lines were not up to code and replacing them would make the septic/drainage

system work better; and


2) ARS untruthfully stated that that Knapp would only be a co-signor on Haidar’s account.

GAS LEAK SCAM

416.

In its normal state, natural gas is odorless. For easy detection, gas companies like Northwest

Natural Gas inject an odorant called mercaptan into the gas before it is inserted into the

distribution system. Mercaptan gives off a foul smell, like rotten eggs or sulfur.

417.

If a homeowner smells rotten eggs, especially near a gas line, they should leave the premises and

call the gas company, here Northwest Natural Gas. The company will come out and turn off the

gas and assist the homeowner.

KEEHN GAS LINE REPAIR

418.

During the relevant time, Robert Keehn (Keehn), age 87, owned and lived in a house located at

5840 Pikes Pass Street SE, Salem, Oregon. Keehn is a military veteran. In December 2010, the

court appointed a conservator, Robert Dorzinski (Dorzinski), Attorney at Law, to oversee

Keehn’s financial affairs. The conservator was appointed after Keehn’s bank, Wells Fargo,

notified Adult and Family Services (AFS) that Keehn was going through a large amount of cash

during a very short time.

419.

On or about November 7, 2010, before the appointment of the conservator, ARS performed a

“water heater flush” during which they replaced an anode rod ($125) and installed a HALO

water system ($3,500). The ARS employee who performed the service was Tyler Trimm, a

licensed plumber hired by ARS in 2009. ARS left a sticker on the water heater with its phone

number.

420.

On or about June 7, 2011, Keehn’s grandson, Robbie Keehn, was visiting and staying with his

grandfather. Robbie Keehn smelled gas near the water heater. Keehn called ARS, using the

phone number on the sticker affixed to the water heater.

421.

An ARS employee named Alex arrived at the Keehn house. ARS has one employee named Alex

– Alex Likhonin, a licensed plumber hired by ARS in 2011. Alex turned off the gas supply to


the house. ARS provided a contract/invoice to find the gas leak ($610.37) and repair the gas line

($512). There was a 5% discount, for a total charge of $1,182.45. Although Keehn signed the

contract, payment could not be made without approval from Dorzinski’s office.

422.

Alex contacted Dorzinski’s office and spoke to Kathy Boyll (Boyll), Legal Assistant. Boyll

asked Alex if he had contacted Northwest Natural Gas to find the gas leak. He told Boyll that

Northwest Natural Gas would not do anything in the house. Boyll said she could not authorize

payment to ARS.

423.

Boyll called Judson’s Plumbing (Judson’s) and asked that they go to Keehn’s house to look into

the matter. At the time, Keehn was without heat and other natural gas services. Judson’s

dispatcher called Northwest Natural Gas to go to the house to locate the gas leak, which they did,

without charge. Judson’s repaired the gas pipe and charged Keehn $341.86. Dorzinski’s office

paid Judson’s charges on behalf of Keehn.

424.



that Northwest Natural Gas could not do anything to locate gas leaks in a house.

LEAD BASED PAINT VIOLATIONS

425.

Under Oregon law, a contractor must be licensed as a certified lead-based paint renovation

(LBPR) contractor before it may perform renovation on target housing. ORS 701.510(2).

“Renovation” means the modification of any existing structure, or portions of the structure, that

disturbs painted surfaces. ORS 701.505(8); OAR 812-007-0020(25). Renovation does not

include “minor repair and maintenance” which involves disrupting no more than 6 square feet of

interior painted surface or no more than 20 square feet of exterior painted surface. OAR 812-

007-0020(22), (25). “Target housing” means any housing built before 1978, except housing built

especially for the elderly or persons with disabilities, or housing with no bedrooms. OAR 812-

007-0020(29).

/ / /

/ / /


426.

ARS became a certified LBPR contractor on September 21, 2011. Before that time, it was not

licensed as such.

427.

In the following cases, ARS performed renovations on target housing without being a certified

LBPR contractor. Such acts violate ORS 701.510(2) and OAR 812-007-0300. Violations of

ORS 701.510 are grounds for sanction under ORS 701.098(1)(a). Violations of OAR 812-007-

0300 are grounds for sanction under ORS 701.098(1)(b).

AUSTIN RENOVATION

428.

The facts stated in paragraphs 85 – 90 and 114 – 119 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was

because a moving van ran over the water meter and broke a pipe to the house.

429.

The Austin’s house, located at 1595 Dellwood Avenue, Beaverton, Oregon, was built in 1957.

430.

On or about April 7, 2011, ARS re-piped all of the hot and cold water lines in the Austin house,

installed a hot water heater and a HALO water filtration system. In so doing, ARS removed a

section of painted drywall in the garage. The section removed was approximately 24” x 90”, or

15 square feet.

431.

ARS violated ORS 701.510(2) and OAR 812-007-0300 by performing renovation on target

housing without being a certified LBPR contractor.

ARMSTRONG RENOVATION

432.

The facts stated in paragraphs 186 – 194 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was because a

toilet that ARS had previously installed leaked and damaged the ceiling in the room below.

433.

Armstrong’s house, located at 2845 NE 117th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, was built in 1962.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


434.

On or about September 13, 2010, ARS re-piped the water lines and installed waste and drain

lines in the Armstrong house. In so doing, ARS demolished walls in the bathroom. The area

demolished measured approximately 7.5’ x 30”, or 18.75 square feet.

435.



NOLAN RENOVATION

436.

The facts stated in paragraphs 60 - 65 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was because Nolan

had received notification from the city that she had an unusually high water bill and could have a

water leak.

437.

Nolan’s house, located at 9717 SE 17th Avenue, Milwaukie, Oregon, was built in 1948.

438.

On or about November 5, 2010, ARS re-piped the water lines, replaced the water service from

the meter to the house and installed a new hot water heater. In so doing, ARS tore out the

bathtub and painted drywall in the hallway bathroom. The area demolished was approximately

13 square feet.

439.



MEYER RENOVATION

440.

The facts stated in paragraphs 276 – 282 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was because

Meyer had a broken faucet.

441.

Meyer’s house, located at 1515 SW Pendleton Street, Portland, Oregon, was built in 1942.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


442.

On or about May 10, 2011, ARS re-piped the water lines and replaced the drain/sewer lines. In

so doing, ARS removed a portion of the painted concrete floor in the basement. The area was

approximately 30’ long and 6” wide, which is more than 15 square feet.

443.



JOLLY RENOVATION

444.

The facts stated in paragraphs 73 - 79 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was because of a

sewer backup.

445.

Jolly’s house, located at 10339 SW 40th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, was built in 1973.

446.

On or about May 12, 2011, ARS repaired and replaced drain/sewer lines and installed a water

heater in the Jolly’s house. In so doing, ARS created holes in the painted bathroom floor that

exceeded 6 square feet.

447.



THARP RENOVATION

448.

During the relevant time, Patricia Tharp (Tharp), age 64, owned and lived in a house located at

2344 SE 53rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon. The house was built in 1933.

449.

On or about June 8, 2011, Tharp contacted ARS because she had a sewer backup in her

basement. Over the next few days, ARS replaced drain and sewer lines beneath and outside the

house. In so doing, ARS trenched through the painted concrete basement floor. In so doing,

ARS removed over 40 square feet of painted concrete floor.

/ / /

/ / /


450.



NOTICE VIOLATIONS

451.

Oregon law requires that contractors provide three notices for residential construction projects

where the contracted value of the work exceeds $2,000. See Attachment A, “Required Notices

for Residential Construction Projects.” Before January 1, 2010, the “Information Notice to

Owner,” required by ORS 87.093 [see ¶ 454], was mandated where the contracted value of the

work exceeded $1,000. See Oregon Laws 2009, ch. 408, § 1.

452.

During the relevant times, ORS 701.330(1), (3), (4), and (5) required contractors to provide a

“Consumer Protection Notice” in a form adopted by the CCB. The CCB adopted a form

pursuant to OAR 812-001-0200 and established delivery and proof of delivery requirements in

OAR 812-012-0130. See Attachment B for an example of the “Consumer Protection Notice”

(rev. 4-26-11). The purpose of this notice is to explain contractor licensing standards, bond and

insurance requirements, and other information.

453.

During the relevant times, ORS 701.330(2), (3), (4), and (5) required contractors to provide a

“Notice of Procedure” in a form adopted by the CCB. The CCB adopted a form pursuant to

OAR 812-001-0200 and established delivery and proof of delivery requirements in OAR 812-

012-0130. See Attachment C for an example of the “Notice of Procedure” (rev. 12-04-07). The

purpose of this notice is to explain what an owner must do before starting arbitration or a court

action against a contractor.

454.

During the relevant times, ORS 87.093 required contractors to provide an “Information Notice to

Owner” in a form adopted by the CCB. The CCB adopted a form pursuant to OAR 812-001-

0200 and established delivery and proof of delivery requirements in OAR 812-012-0130. See

Attachment D for an example of the “Information Notice to Owner ” (rev. 1-01-10). The

purpose of this notice is to explain the construction lien law and the rights and responsibilities of

an owner under that law.


455.

In several instances, ARS violated Oregon law by failing to provide one or more of the required

notice forms. Violations of ORS 701.330 are grounds for sanction under ORS 701.098(1)(a).

Violations of OAR 812-001-0200 or 812-012-0130 are grounds for sanction under ORS

701.098(1)(b).

THOMAS NOTICE

456.

The facts stated in paragraphs 106 – 113 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was because of a

water leak. ARS installed a HALO water filtration system pursuant to a contract for $3,000.

457.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Thomas.

458.

ARS violated ORS 701.330 and OAR 812-012-0130 by failing to deliver, when required to do

so:

1) “Notice of Procedure.”

AUSTIN NOTICE

459.

The facts stated in paragraphs 85 – 90, 114 – 119, and 428 - 431 are restated here. The call-out

to ARS was because a moving van ran over the water meter and broke a pipe to the house. ARS

re-piped the house, installed a new water heater and a HALO water filtration system. The total

contracted amount was $13,313.

460.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Austin.

461.


so:


MCHONE NOTICES

462.

The facts stated in paragraphs 150 – 157 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was for a

clogged kitchen drain. ARS replaced the sewer line. The total contracted amount was $29,400.


463.

ARS failed to deliver to McHone the following notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” (2)

“Notice of Procedure,” and (3) “Information Notice to Owner.”

464.


so:

1) “Consumer Protection Notice;” and


465.

ARS violated ORS 87.093 and OAR 812-012-0130 by failing to deliver, when required to do so:

1) “Information Notice to Owner.”

SCAFIDI NOTICES

466.

The facts stated in paragraphs 167 - 177 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was for a leaking

kitchen drain. ARS replaced the drain/sewer line beneath the Scafidi house. The total contracted

amount was $7,500.

467.

ARS failed to deliver to Scafidi the following notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and

(2) “Notice of Procedure.”

468.


so:



TINNEY NOTICE

469.

The facts stated in paragraphs 178 – 185 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was for rust and

an odor in the water supply. ARS replaced two pressure tanks and re-piped certain water lines.

The total contracted amount was $7,500.

470.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Tinney.


471.


so:


ARMSTRONG NOTICE

472.

The facts stated in paragraphs 186 – 194 and 432 – 435 are restated here. The call-out to ARS

was for a toilet leak. ARS replaced partial stacks, installed new waste and drain pipe, and re-

piped the water lines. The total contracted amount was $44,600.

473.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Armstrong.

474.


so:


SEIFERT NOTICE

475.

The facts stated in paragraphs 195 – 202 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was for a sewage

backup. ARS replaced the sewer line. The total contracted amount was $10,000.

476.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Seifert.

477.


so:


HATFIELD NOTICE

478.


for a water line break. ARS replaced a water heater and re-piped the house. The total contracted

amount was $11,500.

/ / /


479.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Hatfield.

480.


so:


NIMS NOTICE

481.

The facts stated in paragraphs 209 - 218 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was for a sewage

backup. ARS replaced the sewer line. The total contracted amount was $24,900.

482.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Nims.

483.


so:


PETERSON NOTICES

484.


for gutters that were not draining properly. ARS installed a new water heater and replaced the

sewer line. The total contracted amount was $15,300.

485.

ARS failed to deliver to Peterson the following notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” (2)


486.


so:



487.




SHARLOCK NOTICE

488.


for a clogged drain. ARS installed a new water heater, re-piped the house, and replaced the

sewer line. The total contracted amount was $40,250.70.

489.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Sharlock.

490.


so:


PEOT NOTICE

491.

The facts stated in paragraphs 237 – 243 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was for a

dripping faucet. ARS re-piped the water lines and the water main to the service. The total


492.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Peot.

493.


so:


ROSALES NOTICE

494.

The facts stated in paragraphs 52 – 59 and 120 -126 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was

for a leaking faucet and a new toilet hose. ARS installed a new water heater and water filtration

system. The total contracted amount was $8,695.

495.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Rosales.

/ / /


496.


so:


NOLAN NOTICE

497.


because Nolan had received a high water bill and the city told her she could have a water leak.

ARS re-piped the water lines, replaced the water service to the meter and installed a water heater.


498.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Nolan.

499.


so:


DEBRUHL NOTICE

500.

During the relevant time, Marietta DeBruhl (DeBruhl) owned and lived in a house located at

3316 NE 20th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. DeBruhl was 81 years old and lived alone.

501.

On or about March 29, 2011, DeBruhl had a sewage backup in her basement. She called ARS.

Ultimately, ARS replaced the sewer line for a total cost of $27,822.

502.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to DeBruhl.

503.


so:


/ / /

/ / /


GRADT NOTICES

504.

During the relevant time, Dorothy Gradt (Gradt) owned and lived in a house located at 1814 NE

61st Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

505.

On or about April 21, 2011, and April 28, 2011, Gradt contacted ARS to clean out some drains

and replace a faucet. ARS installed a new water heater, a new faucet and jetted a lavatory drain.

The total contracted amount was $2,171.21.

506.

ARS failed to deliver to Gradt the following notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” (2)


507.


so:



508.



DARR NOTICES

509.

The facts stated in paragraphs 259 – 270 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was for a sewage

backup. ARS and Darr agreed that ARS would install a new sewer line. The total contracted

amount was $11,900. Later, Darr cancelled the contract.

510.

ARS failed to deliver to Darr the following notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” (2)


511.


so:




512.



CALHOUN NOTICE

513.


for a faucet replacement. Ultimately, ARS re-piped the water lines, replaced the drain lines and

sewer main line. The total contracted amount was $21,650.

514.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Calhoun.

515.


so:


THEIS NOTICE

516.

During the relevant time, Bob Theis (Theis) owned and lived in a house located at 6482

Palomino Way, West Linn, Oregon. Theis was 70 years old and lived with his wife.

517.

On or about April 9, 2011, Theis had a sewage backup. He called ARS. Ultimately, ARS

replaced the sewer line for a total cost of $17,250.

518.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Theis.

519.


so:


/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


MEYER NOTICE

520.

The facts stated in paragraphs 276 – 282 and 440 – 443 are restated here. The call-out to ARS

was because Meyer had a broken faucet. ARS re-piped the water lines and replaced the

sewer/drain lines. The total contracted amount was $20,400.

521.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Meyer.

522.


so:


WOODS NOTICES

523.

The facts stated in paragraphs 127 – 136 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was a toilet was

not working. ARS installed a HALO water filtration system. The total contracted amount was

$3,550.

524.

ARS failed to deliver to Woods the following notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” (2)


525.


so:

1) “Consumer Protection Notice” and


526.



/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


PIKE NOTICE

527.


Pike had a leak in the kitchen sink drain joint. ARS repaired the drain line, installed a new floor

drain and replaced the sewer line. The total contracted amount was $16,900.

528.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Pike.

529.


so:


JOLLY NOTICE

530.


because Jolly had a sewage backup. ARS installed a water heater and replaced the sewer lines.


531.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Jolly.

532.


so:


ABBOTT NOTICE

533.

The facts stated in paragraphs 292 - 304 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was because

Abbott had a sewage backup. ARS replaced the main sewer line. The total contracted amount

was $17,000.

534.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Abbott.

/ / /

/ / /


535.


so:


KERR NOTICE

536.

The facts stated in paragraphs 305 - 310 are restated here. The call-out to ARS was because Kerr

had a plugged shower drain. ARS replaced the main sewer line. The total contracted amount

was $33,512.70.

537.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Kerr.

538.


so:


BRAY NOTICE

539.


Bray had slow drains in the laundry and bathroom. ARS and Bray entered into a contract for

ARS to replace the main sewer line. The total contracted amount was $9,088. Bray later

cancelled the contract.

540.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Bray.

541.


so:


MONTONE NOTICE

542.

During the relevant time, Kenneth Montone (Montone) owned and lived in a house located at

165 NW 95th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Montone was 73 years old and lived with his wife.


543.

On or about July 21, 2010, Montone had a sewage backup. He called ARS. Ultimately, ARS

replaced the sewer line from the house to the street for a total cost of $13,000.

544.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Montone.

545.


so:


THARP NOTICE

546.


Tharp had a sewage backup. ARS replaced drain and sewer lines. The total contracted amount

was $32,600.

547.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Tharp.

548.


so:


FRYE NOTICE

549.


Frye had a break in the main water line between the house and street. ARS replaced the line.


550.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Frye.

551.


so:



FULLER NOTICE

552.


Fuller received a notice from the city that she had a high water usage which could indicate a

water leak. ARS re-piped the house water lines and installed a new water main line. The total


553.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Fuller.

554.


so:


HAUKE NOTICE

555.


Hauke had a sewage backup. ARS replaced the main sewer line. The total contracted amount

was $27,500.

556.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Hauke.

557.


so:


THOMPSON NOTICE

558.


Thompson’s instant hot water appliance stopped working and Thompson noticed water in the

yard. ARS replaced the main water line from the house to the meter. The total contracted

amount was $12,061.

559.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Thompson.


560.


so:


KAHN NOTICES

561.

During the relevant time, Raphael Kahn (Kahn) owned and lived in a house located at 3005 SE

Sherman Street, Portland, Oregon. Kahn was 61 years old, disabled, and lived alone. His

trustee, Steve Berliner, assisted Kahn.

562.

On or about May 25, 2010, Kahn had a leaking faucet. He called ARS. Ultimately, ARS

replaced the faucet, re-piped the lavatory drain line and replaced the bathtub waste and overflow.

The total contract price was $3,405.56.

563.

ARS failed to deliver to Kahn the following notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” (2)


564.


so:



565.



566.

On or about April 12, 2011, Kahn had a sewage backup. He called ARS. Ultimately, ARS

replaced the sewer line and installed a new shower. The total contract price was $34,000.

567.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Kahn.

/ / /

/ / /


568.


so:


TRATNYEK NOTICE

569.

The facts stated in paragraphs 361 – 366 are restated here.

570.

On or about October 22, 2009, Tratnyek contracted with ARS to replace his sewer line. The total

contract price was $6,350.

571.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Tratnyek.

572.


so:


PETERSON (ANNABELLE) NOTICES

573.

During the relevant time, Annabelle Peterson (A. Peterson) owned and lived in a mobile home at

7227 SE Flavel Street, Space 29. A. Peterson was 84 years old and lived alone.

574.

On or about March 12, 2011, A. Peterson woke to find water on the floor. She called ARS, who

sent out Jerrod Morris, a licensed plumber. Morris shut off the water heater and replaced it with

a new 50-gallon electric water heater, for a cost of $1,199.

575.

On or about March 22, ARS advised A. Peterson of a leak under her home. ARS repaired the

leak for $315.96.

576.

On or about March 26, 2011, ARS re-piped the mobile home for $4,085. Jerrod Morris

performed the work and prepared the contract/invoice.

/ / /


577.

A. Peterson paid ARS the total amounts charged to her.

578.

With respect to the March 26, 2011, work, ARS failed to deliver to A. Peterson the following

notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” (2) “Notice of Procedure,” and (3) “Information

Notice to Owner.”

579.


so:



580.



SHIOSHI NOTICES

581.

The facts stated in paragraphs 91 – 94 and 367 – 374 are restated here.

582.

On or about June 23, 2009, Shioshi contacted ARS because her dishwasher was not working.

ARS re-piped her house, installed a new water heater and a new water line, charging a total of

$6,770, which Shioshi paid.

583.

ARS failed to deliver a “Consumer Protection Notice” and “Notice of Procedure” to Shioshi.

584.


so:



/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


585.

On or about August 11, 2010, Shioshi contacted ARS because of problems with her dishwasher

and garbage disposal. ARS replaced the drain and sewer line. ARS charged Shioshi $9,400,

which she paid.

586.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Shioshi.

587.


so:


BRADLEY NOTICE

588.

The facts stated in paragraphs 375– 383 are restated here.

589.

On or about August 1, 2011, Bradley contracted with ARS to replace the sewer line. The total

contract price was $19,360.

590.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Bradley.

591.


so:


FARLEY NOTICE

592.


593.

On or about April 19, 2011, Farley contracted with ARS to replace the sewer line. The contract

price for the demolition and investigation was $4,500. Farley subsequently cancelled the

contract.

594.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Farley.


595.


so:


REA NOTICE

596.


597.

On or about July 26, 2010, Rea contracted with ARS to install a water heater, re-pipe the house,

install new drain lines, and install water service from the meter to the house. The total cost was

$20,779. With financing, Rea paid ARS the full amount.

598.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Rea.

599.


so:


LAYTON NOTICES

600.

The facts stated in paragraphs 397 - 405 are restated here.

601.

On or about September 27, 2011, after a “free” camera scope, ARS provided a contract/invoice

to “burst” the sewer line for $8,700 and re-pipe the house for $6,000. Layton declined to enter

into that agreement. On or about September 28, 2011, Layton entered into a contract with ARS

to “burst” the sewer line for $7,500. With financing, Layton paid ARS $7,500.

602.

ARS failed to deliver to Layton the following notices: (1) “Consumer Protection Notice,” (2)


603.


so:




604.



HAIDAR NOTICE

605.


606.

On or about July 29, 2011, Haidar contracted with ARS to replace septic lines and re-pipe the

water lines in the house. The total cost was $16,200. With financing, Haidar agreed to pay

ARS. ARS required a co-signer. Haidar’s brother agreed. Later, he found that ARS had

charged him separately for part of the contract amount.

607.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Haidar.

608.


so:


BENSON NOTICES

609.

During the relevant time, Jerry (age 84) Benson (Benson) and Colleen (age 83) Benson owned

and lived in a house located a 4203 NE 32nd Place, Portland, Oregon.

610.

On or about June 2011, ARS was working at a house near the Benson’s. Benson approached

ARS and asked if they would check the sewer line with a camera. On or about June 13, 2011,

ARS employees ran the camera and told Benson that the sewer line needed to be replaced.

Benson agreed to have ARS perform the work. ARS charged $11,100 for the work. Benson

paid the full amount.

611.

ARS failed to deliver a “Notice of Procedure” to Benson.


612.


so:


CONTRACT VIOLATIONS

613.

Oregon law requires that contractors provide a written contract if the aggregate contract price

exceeds $2,000. ORS 701.305(1).

614.

The law and CCB rules require contractors to use standard contractual terms in their construction

contracts. ORS 701.305(2). Pursuant to ORS 701.305 and OAR 812-012-0110, required

contractual terms in a written contract or addendum to the written contract must include:

1) A statement that the contractor is licensed by the board;

2) The name, license number, address and telephone number of the contractors as shown on

board records on the date the contract is entered into;

3) An acknowledgement of a written offer of a warranty, if an offer is required by ORS

701.320, and indication of the acceptance or rejection of the offered warranty;

4) A list of notices required under ORS 87.093 [“Information Notice to Owner”] or under

rules adopted under ORS 701.330 [“Consumer Protection Notice” and “Notice of

Procedure”] and 701.335(2) [maintenance schedule] on the contractor’s bid proposal; and

5) An explanation of the property owner’s rights under the contract, including, but not

limited to, the ability to file a claim with the board and the existence of any mediation or

arbitration provision in the contract, set forth in a conspicuous manner as defined by the

board by rule.7

615.

An offer of warranty is required under ORS 701.320 only if the contract is to construct a new

residential structure or dwelling.

/ / /

7 Before January 1, 2010, ORS 701.305 and OAR 812-012-0110 required a “summary” rather than a list of the notices and an acknowledgment of the maintenance information required under ORS 701.335. The 2009 legislature relaxed the requirements to a “list” of the notices and eliminated the provision for the acknowledgement. Or Laws 2009, chapter 408, § 8; Or Laws 2009, chapter 409, § 1.


616.

Before January 1, 2010, certain contracts also had to contain an acknowledgement of the

maintenance information required by the board under ORS 701.335. Or Laws 2009, chapter 409,

§ 1. Maintenance schedules are required under ORS 701.335 and OAR 812-012-0120 only if the

contract is to construct a new residential structure or dwelling.

617.

Violations of ORS 701.305 or ORS 701.330 are ground for sanction under ORS 701.098(1)(a).

Violations of OAR 812-012-0110 are grounds for sanction under ORS 701.098(1)(b).

THOMAS CONTRACT

618.


619.

On or about December 10, 2009, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $3,000 to Thomas that did

not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a summary of the following

notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and (c) “Notice

of Procedure;” (3) an acknowledgement of receipt of the maintenance information; and (4) an

explanation of the property owner’s rights under the contract, including, but not limited to, the

ability to file a complaint with CCB.

620.

ARS violated ORS 701.305(2) and OAR 812-012-0110 by failing to provide in its contract:

1) A statement that ARS is licensed by CCB;

2) A summary of the notices required by ORS 87.093 and ORS 701.330;

3) An acknowledgment of receipt of the maintenance information; and

4) An explanation of the property owner’s rights.

AUSTIN CONTRACT

621.

The facts stated in paragraphs 85 – 90, 114 – 119, 428 – 431, and 459 – 461 are restated here.

622.

On or about April 7, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $13,313 to Austin that did not

contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the following notices: (a)

“Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and (c) “Notice of


Procedure;” and (3) an explanation of the property owner’s rights under the contract, including,

but not limited to, the ability to file a complaint with CCB.

623.



2) A list of the notices required by ORS 87.093 and ORS 701.330; and


MCHONE CONTRACTS

624.


625.

On or about July 8, 2011, ARS provided McHone an oral bid to replace the sewer line for

$21,400.

626.

ARS violated ORS 701.305(1) by failing to provide a written contract for work in excess of

$2,000.

627.

On or about July 13, 2011, ARS provided a contract addendum for an additional $8,000 (total

contract price, $29,400) to McHone that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by

CCB; (2) a list of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer

Protection Notice,” and (c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (3) an explanation of the property

owner’s rights under the contract, including, but not limited to, the ability to file a complaint

with CCB.

628.





/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


JAFFEE CONTRACT

629.

During the relevant time, Thomas Jaffee (Jaffee) owned and lived in a house located at 10440

SW 62nd Drive, Portland, Oregon.

630.

On or about July 25, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $9,000 to Jaffee that did not





631.





SCAFIDI CONTRACT

632.


633.

On or about September 27, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $7,500 that did not





634.





/ / /

/ / /


635.

On or about September 28, 2010, ARS provided a contract addendum for $16,400 to Scafidi that

did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) ARS’ CCB number; (3) a list

of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,”

and (c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (4) an explanation of the property owner’s rights under the

contract, including, but not limited to, the ability to file a complaint with CCB.

636.



2) The CCB number;



TINNEY CONTRACT

637.

The facts stated in paragraphs 178 – 185 and 469 - 471 are restated here.

638.

On or about May 18, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $7,500 to Tinney that did not





639.





MOLE CONTRACT

640.

During the relevant time, Alan Mole (Mole) owned and lived in a house located at 12830 SW

Carr Street, Beaverton, Oregon.

/ / /


641.

On or about June 6, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $2,345.00 to Mole that did not





642.





ARMSTRONG CONTRACTS

643.

The facts stated in paragraphs 186 – 194, 432 – 435 and 472 – 474 are restated here.

644.

On or about September 9, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $4,950 to Armstrong that

did not contain (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the following notices:

(a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and (c) “Notice of



645.





646.

On or about September 13, 2010, ARS provided a contract addendum to Armstrong for an

additional $39,650 (total contract price $44,600) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is

licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b)

“Consumer Protection Notice,” and (c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (3) an explanation of the


property owner’s rights under the contract, including, but not limited to, the ability to file a

complaint with CCB.

647.





SEIFERT CONTRACTS

648.


649.

On or about January 14, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $3,900 to Seifert that did not





650.





651.

On or about January 15, 2010, ARS provided a change order to Seifert for an additional $6,100

(total contract price $10,000) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB;

(2) a list of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection

Notice,” and (c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (3) an explanation of the property owner’s rights

under the contract, including, but not limited to, the ability to file a complaint with CCB.

652.






HATFIELD CONTRACT

653.

The facts stated in paragraphs 28 – 33, 203-208, and 478 – 480 are restated here.

654.

On or about March 12, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $11,500 to Hatfield that did

not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the following notices: (a)




655.





NIMS CONTRACT

656.

The facts stated in paragraphs 209 – 218 and 481 - 483 are restated here.

657.

On or about July 12, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $24,900 to Nims that did not





658.





/ / /

/ / /


PETERSON CONTRACT

659.

The facts stated in paragraphs 34 – 39, 219 – 223, and 484 – 487 are restated here.

660.

On or about July 27, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $15,300 to Peterson that did not





661.





SHARLOCK CONTRACTS

662.


663.

On or about May 5, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $14,329.50 to Sharlock that did





664.





665.

On or about May 6, 2011, ARS provided a change order to Sharlock for an additional $18,465.20

(total contract price $32,794.70) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by





with CCB.

666.





667.

On or about May 11, 2011, ARS provided a change order to Sharlock for an additional $7,456.00

(total contract price $40,250.70) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by




with CCB.

668.





PEOT CONTRACT

669.


670.

On or about May 4, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $10,688 to Peot that did not





/ / /


671.





ROSALES CONTRACTS

672.


673.

On or about July 19, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $8,395 to Rosales that did not





674.





675.

On or about July 21, 2011, ARS provided a change order for $300 (total contract price $8,695) to

Rosales that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the

following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and

(c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (3) an explanation of the property owner’s rights under the


676.





/ / /


NOLAN CONTRACT

677.


678.

On or about November 5, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $16,126 ($6,184 + $8,752

+ $1,190) to Nolan that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list

of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,”

and (c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (3) an explanation of the property owner’s rights under the


679.





680.

On or about November 10, 2010, ARS provided a contract addendum for $5,000 to Nolan that

did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the following notices:




681.





DEBRUHL CONTRACT

682.


683.

On or about March 29, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $27,822 to DeBruhl that did






684.





GRADT CONTRACT

685.


686.

On or about April 21, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $1,059.06 to Gradt. On or

about April 28, 2011, ARS provided a contract addendum to Gradt for $1,112.15 (for a total

contract price of $2,171.21). The contract addendum did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS

is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b)



complaint with CCB.

687.





DARR CONTRACT

688.


689.

On or about June 26, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $11,900 to Darr that did not






690.





CALHOUN CONTRACT

691.


692.

On or about April 7, 2011, ARS provided a change order for a total of $21,650 to Calhoun that





693.





THEIS CONTRACTS

694.


695.

On or about April 10, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $4,800 to Theis that did not





/ / /


696.





697.

On or about April 14, 2011, ARS provided a change order for an additional $12,450 to Theis (for

a total contract price of $17,250) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by




with CCB.

698.




3) An explanation of the property owner’s rights

MEYER CONTRACTS

699.


700.

On or about May 10, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $7,200 to Meyer that did not





701.






702.

On or about May 12, 2011, ARS provided a change order for $13,200 to Meyer (for a total

contract price of $20,400) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2)

a list of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection



703.





WOODS CONTRACT

704.


705.

On or about October 28, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $3,550 to Woods that did not





706.





PIKE CONTRACTS

707.


708.

On or about July 22, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $4,300 to Pike that did not






709.





710.

On or about July 25, 2011, ARS provided a contract addendum for $12,600 to Pike (for a total

contract price of $16,900) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2)

a list of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection



711.





COLE CONTRACTS

712.

During the relevant time, Shelly Allen Cole (Cole) owned and lived in a house located at 5739

SE Division Street, Portland, Oregon.

713.

On or about January 25, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $13,900 to Cole that did not





714.






GAUBATZ CONTRACTS

715.

During the relevant time, Carolyn Gaubatz (Gaubatz) owned and lived in a house located at

10475 NW Flotoma Drive, Portland, Oregon.

716.

On or about November 4, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $4,900 to Gaubatz that did





717.





718.

On or about November 5, 2010, ARS provided a change order for $4,000 to Gaubatz (for a total

contract price of $8,900) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a

list of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection



719.





/ / /

/ / /


JOLLY CONTRACT

720.


721.

On or about May 12, 2011, ARS provided a change order for an additional amount of $19,856 to

Jolly (for a total contract price of $28,731) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is




complaint with CCB.

722.





KERR CONTRACTS

723.


724.

On or about April 12, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $33,512.70 to Kerr that did not





725.





/ / /

/ / /


726.

On or about April 21, 2011, ARS provided a change order for $17,362 and $2,800 to Kerr that





727.





BRAY CONTRACT

728.


729.

On or about July 24, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $9,088 to Bray that did not





730.





MONOTONE CONTRACT

731.


732.

On or about July 21, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $13,000 to Monotone that did






733.





THARP CONTRACTS

734.


735.

On or about June 8, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $32,600 to Tharp that did not





736.





737.

On or about June 8, 2011, ARS provided a change order for $20,000 to Tharp that did not





738.






739.

On or about June 9, 2011, ARS provided a change order for $6,800 to Tharp that did not contain:

(1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the following notices: (a) “Information

Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and (c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (3) an



740.





741.

On or about June 9, 2011, ARS provided a change order for $6,000 to Tharp that did not contain

(1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the following notices: (a) “Information

Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and (c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (3) an

explanation of the property owner’s rights under the contract, including but not limited to the


742.





FRYE CONTRACT

743.


744.

On or about January 3, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $4,800 to Frye that did not






745.





FULLER CONTRACT

746.


747.

On or about July 24, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $9,618 to Fuller that did not





748.





HAUKE CONTRACTS

749.


750.

On or about May 13, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $5,900 to Hauke that did not





/ / /


751.





752.

On or about May 16, 2011, ARS provided a change order for an additional $21,600 to Hauke that





753.





754.

On or about May 16, 2011, ARS provided a change order for an additional $19,345 plus $12,695

to Hauke that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a list of the

following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and

(c) “Notice of Procedure;” and (3) an explanation of the property owner’s rights under the


755.





THOMPSON CONTRACTS

756.


/ / /


757.

On or about January 3, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $7,061 to Thompson that did





758.





759.

On or about January 6, 2011, ARS provided a contract addendum for an additional $5,000 to

Thompson (total contract price $12,061) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is




complaint with CCB.

760.





KAHN CONTRACTS

761.


762.

On or about April 12, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $34,000 to Kahn that did not






763.





764.

On or about April 15, 2010, ARS provided a contract addendum for $34,000 to Kahn that did not





765.





766.

On or about May 25, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $3,405.56 to Kahn that did not





767.





/ / /

/ / /


TRATNYEK CONTRACT

768.


769.

On or about October 22, 2009, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $6,350 to Tratnyek that did

not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a summary of the following

notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection Notice,” and (c) “Notice

of Procedure;” (3) an acknowledgment of the receipt of maintenance information; and (4) an



770.




3) An acknowledgment of the receipt of maintenance information; and


PETERSON (ANNABELLE) CONTRACT

771.


772.

On or about March 26, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $4,085 to A. Peterson that did





773.





/ / /


SHIOSHI CONTRACTS

774.

The facts stated in paragraphs 91 - 94, 367 - 374, and 581 - 587 are restated here.

775.

On or about June 23, 2009, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $6,770 to Shioshi that did not

contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a summary of the following notices:


Procedure;” (3) an acknowledgment of the receipt of maintenance information; and (4) an



776.




3) An acknowledgement of the receipt of maintenance information; and


777.

On or about August 11, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $9,400 to Shioshi that did not





778.





779.

On or about August 18, 2010, ARS provided a contract addendum for $6,000 to Shioshi that did






780.





BRADLEY CONTRACT

781.


782.

On or about August 1, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $2,400 to Bradley that did not





783.





FARLEY CONTRACT

784.


785.

On or about April 29, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $4,500 to Farley that did not





/ / /


786.





REA CONTRACT

787.


788.

On or about July 26, 2010, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $20,779 to Rea that did not





789.





LAYTON CONTRACTS

790.


791.

On or about September 27, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $14,700 to Layton that did





792.






793.

On or about September 28, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $7,500 to Layton that did





794.





NASS CONTRACT

795.

During the relevant time, Nancy and Drew Peterson (Peterson) owned a house located at 1843

NE 148th Place, Portland, Oregon. Ingrid Nass (Nass), Nancy Peterson’s mother, lived in the

house.

796.

On or about July 16, 2009, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $5,180 to Nass that did not

contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB; (2) a summary of the following notices:


Procedure;” (3) an acknowledgment of the receipt of maintenance information; and (4) an



797.




3) An acknowledgment of the receipt of maintenance information; and



HAIDAR CONTRACT

798.


799.

On or about July 29, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $16,200 to Haidar that did not





800.





BENSON CONTRACT

801.


802.

On or about June 13, 2011, ARS provided a contract/invoice for $11,100 to Benson that did not





803.





804.

On or about June 15, 2011, ARS provided a change order for $7,952.89 to Benson (for a total

contract price of $19,052.89) that did not contain: (1) a statement that ARS is licensed by CCB;


(2) a list of the following notices: (a) “Information Notice to Owner,” (b) “Consumer Protection



805.





BUILDING SEWER ESTIMATE VIOLATIONS

806.

Every contractor that submits a bid or written estimate of the costs to construct building sewer

piping must provide to potential customers before entering into an agreement to perform the

work, the following:

1) The contractor’s CCB number;

2) The contractor’s applicable bonding and liability coverage; and

3) A statement that the license is in full force and effect.

ORS 701.348(2); 701.325(1). For purposes of this requirement, “building sewer” means that

part of the system of drainage piping that conveys sewage into a septic tank, cesspool or other

treatment unit (e.g. public sewer system) that begins five feet outside the building or structure

within which the sewage originates. ORS 701.348(4). Violation of ORS 701.348 is grounds for

sanction under ORS 701.098(1).

MCHONE BUILDING SEWER PIPING

807.

The facts stated in paragraphs 150 – 157, 462 – 465 and 624 – 628 are restated here.

808.

On or about July 8, 2011, ARS provided a verbal bid to replace the building sewer piping at

McHone’s house. The bid was $21,400.

809.

Over approximately two or three days, ARS dug a hole along the building sewer piping along the

street. ARS told McHone that section also needed to be replaced. ARS provided a verbal bid to

replace that section of building sewer piping for $8,000.


810.

On or about July 13, 2011, approximately five days after the first bid and the commencement of

work, ARS provided McHone with a contract in the form of a Contract Addendum. According

to this document, the original bid was $21,400, the new bid was $8,000 and the contract total

was $29,400.

811.

ARS failed to provide the following information when providing the $21,400 bid to construct

building sewer piping, namely:



Not providing this information is a violation of ORS 701.348(2).

812.







SCAFIDI BUILDING SEWER PIPING

813.


814.

On or about September 28, 2010, ARS provided a written estimate (memorialized in a contract

addendum) to “Replace sewer from house to curb 45’ of sewer pipe.” The bid was $5,200.

815.








COLE BUILDING SEWER PIPING

816.


817.

On or about January 28, 2010, Greg Bray, ARS Plumbing Repair Specialist told Cole there was

an issue with the sewer pipe and ARS had to put in a new sewer pipe from the front yard to the

city hookup. ARS verbally bid $9,500 for the work.

818.

On or about January 28, 2010, ARS provided a written estimate (memorialized in invoice

number 8976-204616) to “Burst pipe from middle of yard to street at curb. Includes ¾ crushed

rock and asphalt repair.” The written estimate was $9,500.

819.






JOLLY BUILDING SEWER PIPING

820.


821.

On or about May 12, 2011, Greg Bray, ARS Plumbing Repair Specialist, ran a camera down the

sewer cleanout and advised Jolly that there was no bottom to the building sewer piping that ran

from the house to the street. ARS verbally bid $28,731 to replace the building sewer piping and

perform other work. Jolly requested a breakdown of the charges.

822.

On or about May 13, 2011, Bray wrote Jolly a letter with a “break down for main sewer line and

lateral lines.” It included “install liner for 40’ into sewer with lining material @ $200.00 a ft.

plus set up of equipment $8000 – 9000.00.”

/ / /

/ / /


823.

ARS failed to provide the following information when providing the $28,731 verbal bid that

included constructing the building sewer piping, namely:





824.

ARS failed to provide the following information when providing the $8,000 to $9,000 written

estimate to construct building sewer piping, namely:





HAUKE BUILDING SEWER PIPING

825.


826.

On or about May 16, 2011, Hauke asked Greg Bray, ARS Plumbing Repair Specialist, to provide

estimates of the cost to replace the building sewer piping by one of two methods: (1) re-sleeving

the existing line; or (2) installing a new line.

827.

On or about May 16, 2011, ARS provided “Option 1” in the form of a Change Order that would

“excavate from curb at street to front of House. Remove deck on front of house. Excavated 40’

to 50’ through concrete walk ways and front porch. Depth of ditch to foundation wall 6 – 7 feet.

Replace all concrete. Install ¾” crushed rock for ditches. $19,345.”

828.

On or about May 16, 2011, ARS provided “Option 2” in the form of a Change Order that would

“Drill sewer from backyard to front yard at curb. Drill sewer 60’ from curb to side of house.

Install new 4” hope pipe. Tie in sewer at bathroom in basement and where stack leaves house.


The use of directional drill to install new pipe in ground. Install concrete sidewalk back to

finish. $17,265.”

829.

ARS failed to provide the following information when providing the $19,345 written estimate to

construct building sewer piping, namely:




830.

ARS failed to provide the following information when providing the $17,265 written estimate to

construct building sewer piping, namely:




FARLEY BUILDING SEWER PIPING

831.


832.

On or about April 29, 2011, John Fowler, ARS Plumbing Service Manager, gave Farley a verbal

bid of $40,000 - $45,000 to replace the building sewer piping.

833.

ARS failed to provide the following information when providing the $40,000 - $45,000 verbal

bid to construct building sewer piping, namely:





HOME SERVICE PLAN UNNECESSARY CHARGES

834.

ARS sells a Home Service Plan (HSP) for $132 per year. Its contract/invoice has a place for

including the charge as part of ARS’ service.


835.

The HSP provides for an annual inspection of the home’s plumbing system and water heater.

(For example, the water heater inspection includes “remove and check anode rod condition.”

The plumbing inspection includes a “free main line sewer camera inspection.”) The HSP

provides a “one-year warranty on repair parts and labor,” but is unclear as to which parts and

labor this applies. (ARS employees routinely write in various “warranties” on contract/invoices

where there is no HSP.) The HSP purportedly provides priority emergency service within two

hours of calling, subject to restrictions. The HSP is supposed to provide preferred pricing, but

again it is unclear what this actually means.

836.

ARS’ employees routinely charge customers for the HSP even when the customers did not

request the HSP or thought they were receiving it for no cost.

AUSTIN HSP

837.

The facts stated in paragraphs 85 – 90, 114 – 119, 428 – 431, 459 – 461, and 621 – 623 are

restated here.

838.

On or about April 7, 2011, Austin signed a contract for $13,313.00. According to the contract,

Austin purchased a new HSP for “$132.00 included.” Pursuant to the contract, ARS was

completely re-piping all plumbing in the house and installing a new water heater. The

contract/invoice supposedly provides a 2-year labor warranty on the water re-pipe and a 1-year

labor warranty on the new water heater. Austin would not need a service plan on installations

under warranty.

839.

According to Austin, Karn told her that the HSP was free. She did not know she had been

charged $132 for the HSP.

840.

ARS violated ORS 701.098(1)(L) by engaging in conduct that was dishonest and fraudulent, and


1) ARS misrepresented that the HSP was free when it charged Austin $132 for the HSP; and


2) ARS misrepresented the service was necessary when it involved newly installed

plumbing and a water heater already under warranty.

DEBRUHL HSP

841.


842.

On or about March 29, 2011, DeBruhl signed a contract for $27,882. According to the contract,

DeBruhl purchased a new HSP for “$132.00 included.” Pursuant to a previous contract with

ARS (September 23, 2008), ARS completely re-piped all plumbing in the house. The

contract/invoice supposedly provides a 30-year warranty on the work. DeBruhl would not need

a service plan on installations that are under warranty.

843.

DeBruhl did not know she had been charged $132 for the HSP.

844.



1) ARS misrepresented charges for a plan that DeBruhl did not know she was buying; and

2) ARS misrepresented the service was necessary when it involved plumbing already under

warranty.

THARP HSP

845.


846.

On or about June, 2011, Tharp received an undated letter indicating that she had purchased an

HSP.

847.

On or about June 8, 2011, Tharp signed a contract/invoice for $32,600 for ARS to install a new

sewer line and re-pipe her house. According to the document, there are various manufacturer

warranties of 10 years, plus a 10-year warranty on labor. There is no charge of $132 for the HSP

indicated on the contract.

/ / /


848.

On or about June 8, 2011, Tharp signed a Change Order for $20,000. There is no charge of $132

for the HSP on this Change Order.

849.

On or about June 9, 2011, Tharp signed a Change Order for $6,800. There is no charge of $132

for the HSP on this Change Order. This contract covers re-piping the hot and cold water lines

and installing a new water service from the meter to the house. Handwritten on the document is

“30-year manufacturer’s parts warranty” and “2-year labor warranty.”

850.

On or about June 9, 2011, Tharp signed a Change Order for $6,000 to replace a sewer main.

Handwritten on the document is “10 year Parts & Labor warranty.” There is no charge of $132

for the HSP on this Change Order.

851.

Tharp did not know she had purchased the HSP for $132 and did not want it.

852.



1) ARS misrepresented charges for a plan that Tharp did not know she was buying; and

2) ARS misrepresented the service was necessary when it involved plumbing and a new

water heater already under warranty.

SANCTION: REVOCATION

853.

Pursuant to ORS 701.098(1), CCB proposes to revoke ARS’ construction contractor license on

grounds that ARS has repeatedly:

1) Violated provisions of ORS chapter 701, namely ORS 701.305, 701.330, 701.348, and

701.510 [ORS 701.098(1)(a)];

2) Violated rules of CCB, namely OAR 812-007-0300, 812-012-0110, and 812-012-0130

[ORS 701.098(1)(b)]; and

3) Engaged in conduct as a contractor that is dishonest or fraudulent and that CCB finds

injurious to the welfare of the public [ORS 701.098(1)(k)8 or ORS 701.098(1)(L)].

8 See Note 1.


SANCTION: CIVIL PENALTIES

854.

Pursuant to ORS 701.098(1), CCB proposes to assess against ARS civil penalties as provided for

in ORS 701.992 on grounds that ARS:

1) Violated provisions of ORS chapter 701, namely ORS 701.305,9 701.330, and 701.348

[ORS 701.098(1)(a)];

2) Violated rules of CCB, namely OAR 812-012-011010 and 812-012-0130 [ORS

701.098(1)(b)]; and

3) Engaged in conduct as a contractor that is dishonest or fraudulent and that CCB finds

injurious to the welfare of the public [ORS 701.098(1)(k)11 or ORS 701.098(1)(L)].

855.

Civil penalties imposed under ORS 701.992 may not exceed $5,000 per offense.

856.

Pursuant to ORS 701.995, governing lead-based paint violations, CCB proposes to assess against

ARS civil penalties for violations of ORS 701.510 and OAR 812-007-0300. Civil penalties

imposed under ORS 701.995 may not exceed $5,000 per violation.

857.

ARS committed 114 offenses of ORS 701.098(1)(k)12 or 701.098(1)(L), engaging in conduct as a

contractor that is dishonest or fraudulent and injurious to the welfare of the public. CCB

proposes to sanction ARS $5,000 for each offense, for a total civil penalty of $570,000.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

9 See Note 7. 10 See Note 7. 11 See Note 1. 12 See Note 1.


Offense Number Offense Number Waller Water Heater 3 Peot Re-pipe 2 Hatfield Water Heater 1 Francis Sewer 2 Peterson Water Heater 1 Larson Wastewater 1 Sharlock Water Heater 2 Darr Sewer 3 Rosales Water Heater 3 Calhoun Re-pipe/Sewer 2 Nolan Water Heater 1 Meyer Sewer 2 Calhoun Water Heater 2 Pike Sewer 4 Jolly Water Heater 2 Abbott Sewer 4 Rea Water Heater 1 Kerr Sewer 1 Austin Water Heater 1 Bray Sewer 2 Shioshi Water Heater 1 Frey Re-pipe 3 Thomas HALO System 2 Cabelly Sewer 2 Austin HALO System 2 Fuller Re-pipe 3 Rosales Pro-Service System 3 Hauke Sewer 1 Woods HALO System 5 Thompson Water Main 2 McHone Sewer 3 Tratnyek Water 1 Gray Sewer 2 Shioshi Sewer 2 Scafidi Sewer 3 Bradley Sewer 3 Tinney Re-pipe 2 Farley Sewer 6 Armstrong Re-pipe/Sewer 2 Layton Sewer 3 Seifert Sewer 4 Haidar Septic 2 Hatfield Re-Pipe 2 Keehn Gas Line 1 Nims Re-Pipe/Sewer 2 Austin Home Service Plan 2 Peterson Sewer 1 DeBruhl Home Service Plan 2 Newman Re-Pipe 2 Tharp Home Service Plan 2 Sharlock Re-Pipe/Sewer 3 TOTAL 114

858.

ARS committed 6 offenses of ORS 701.510(2) and OAR 812-007-0300, by performing

renovation on target housing without being licensed as a certified LBPR contractor. These

offenses are subject to sanction under ORS 701.098(1)(a), (b) and civil penalties under ORS

701.995. CCB proposes to assess a civil penalty against ARS of $1,000 for each offense, for

total civil penalties of $6,000.

859.

ARS committed 10 offenses of ORS 701.330(1), (3), (4), (5), and OAR 812-012-0130(1), by

failing to deliver the “Consumer Protection Notice.” These offenses are subject to sanction

under ORS 701.098(1)(a), (b) and civil penalties under ORS 701.992. CCB proposes to assess a

civil penalty against ARS of $100 for each offense, for total civil penalties of $1,000.

860.

ARS committed 44 offenses of ORS 701.330(2), (3), (4), (5), and OAR 812-012-0130(1), by

failing to deliver the “Notice of Procedure.” These offenses are subject to sanction under ORS


701.098(1)(a), (b) and civil penalties under ORS 701.992. CCB proposes to assess a civil

penalty against ARS of $100 for each offense, for total civil penalties of $4,400.

861.

ARS committed 8 offenses of ORS 87.093 and OAR 812-012-0130(1), by failing to deliver the

“Information Notice to Owner.” These offenses are subject to sanction under ORS

701.098(1)(b) and civil penalties under ORS 701.992. CCB proposes to assess a civil penalty

against ARS of $200 for each offense, for total civil penalties of $1,600.

862.

ARS committed 70 offenses of ORS 701.305(2) and OAR 812-012-0110,13 by not including in

its contracts certain terms, namely that the contractor is licensed by the board, a list of notices

required by law, and an explanation of the property owner’s rights under the contract. These

offenses are subject to sanction under ORS 701.098(1)(a), (b) and civil penalties under ORS

701.992. CCB proposes to assess a civil penalty against ARS of $500 for each offense, for total

civil penalties of $35,000.

863.

ARS committed 9 offenses of ORS 701.348(2), by not providing with a bid or written estimate to

construct building sewers certain terms, namely the contractor’s license number, applicable

bonding and liability insurance coverage, and a statement that the license is in full force and

effect. These offenses are subject to sanction under ORS 701.098(1)(a) and civil penalties under

ORS 701.992. CCB proposes to assess a civil penalty against ARS of $500 for each offense, for

total civil penalties of $4,500.

864.

ARS committed one offense of ORS 701.348(3), by failing to obtain a building permit before

installing a building sewer. This offense is subject to sanction under ORS 701.098(1) and civil

penalties under ORS 701.992. CCB proposes to assess a civil penalty against ARS of $1,000 for

each offense, for total civil penalties of $1,000.

865.

The total amount of civil penalties for all offenses is $ 623,500.

/ / /

/ / /

13 See Note 7.

OF 1 – ATTACHMENT A

OF 1 – ATTACHMENT B

OF 1 – ATTACHMENT C

OF 2 – ATTACHMENT D

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Abbott Notice ..........................................................................................................................86 Abbott Sewer Line Replacement.............................................................................................49 Answer Required .....................................................................................................................139 Armstrong Contracts ...............................................................................................................101 Armstrong Notice ....................................................................................................................79 Armstrong Renovation ............................................................................................................73 Armstrong Water Re-Pipe and Sewer Line Replacement .......................................................32 Austin Contract .......................................................................................................................97 Austin HALO System .............................................................................................................21 Austin HSP ..............................................................................................................................133 Austin Notice ..........................................................................................................................77 Austin Renovation ...................................................................................................................73 Austin Water Heater ................................................................................................................16 Benson Contract ......................................................................................................................127 Benson Notices ........................................................................................................................95 Bradley Contract .....................................................................................................................124 Bradley Notice.........................................................................................................................93 Bradley Sewer Line Replacement ...........................................................................................64 Bray Contract ..........................................................................................................................115 Bray Notice .............................................................................................................................87 Bray Sewer Line ......................................................................................................................52 Building Sewer Estimate Violations .......................................................................................128 Business Entity and License ....................................................................................................1 Cabelly Sewer Line .................................................................................................................56 Calhoun Contract.....................................................................................................................109 Calhoun Notice ........................................................................................................................84 Calhoun Water Heater .............................................................................................................13 Calhoun Water Re-Pipe/Sewer Line Replacement .................................................................46 CCB Investigation ...................................................................................................................4 Cole Building Sewer Piping ....................................................................................................130 Cole Contracts .........................................................................................................................112 Contract Violations .................................................................................................................96 Darr Contract ...........................................................................................................................108 Darr Notices ............................................................................................................................83 Darr Sewer Line ......................................................................................................................44 DeBruhl Contract ....................................................................................................................107 DeBruhl HSP ...........................................................................................................................134 DeBruhl Notice .......................................................................................................................82 Farley Sewer Line Replacement ............................................................................................65 Farley Building Sewer Piping .................................................................................................132 Farley Contract ........................................................................................................................124 Farley Notice ...........................................................................................................................93 Francis Sewer Line ..................................................................................................................42 Frye Contract ...........................................................................................................................117

Page ii

Frye Notice ..............................................................................................................................88 Frye Water Re-Pipe .................................................................................................................54 Fuller Contract.........................................................................................................................118 Fuller Notice ............................................................................................................................89 Fuller Re-pipe ..........................................................................................................................57 Gas Leak Scam ........................................................................................................................71 Gaubatz Contracts ...................................................................................................................113 Gradt Contract .........................................................................................................................108 Gradt Notices ..........................................................................................................................83 Gray Sewer Line......................................................................................................................28 Haidar Contract .......................................................................................................................127 Haidar Notice ..........................................................................................................................95 Haidar Septic Line Replacement .............................................................................................69 Hatfield Contract .....................................................................................................................103 Hatfield Notice ........................................................................................................................79 Hatfield Water Heater .............................................................................................................7 Hatfield Water Re-Pipe ...........................................................................................................35 Hauke Building Sewer Piping .................................................................................................131 Hauke Contracts ......................................................................................................................118 Hauke Notice ...........................................................................................................................89 Hauke Sewer Line Replacement .............................................................................................58 Home Service Plan Unnecessary Charges ..............................................................................132 Individuals Who Worked for ARS ..........................................................................................2 Jaffee Contract.........................................................................................................................99 Jolly Building Sewer Piping ....................................................................................................130 Jolly Contract ..........................................................................................................................114 Jolly Notice .............................................................................................................................86 Jolly Renovation ......................................................................................................................75 Jolly Water Heater ...................................................................................................................14 Kahn Contracts ........................................................................................................................120 Kahn Notices ...........................................................................................................................90 Keehn Gas Line Repair ...........................................................................................................71 Kerr Contracts .........................................................................................................................114 Kerr Notice ..............................................................................................................................87 Kerr Sewer Line Replacement ................................................................................................51 Layton Contracts .....................................................................................................................125 Layton Notices ........................................................................................................................94 Layton Sewer Line Replacement ............................................................................................67 Lead Based Paint Violations ...................................................................................................72 McHone Building Sewer Piping .............................................................................................128 McHone Contracts...................................................................................................................98 McHone Notices ......................................................................................................................77 McHone Sewer Line Replacement ..........................................................................................26 Meyer Contracts ......................................................................................................................110 Meyer Notice ...........................................................................................................................85 Meyer Renovation ...................................................................................................................74

Page iii

Meyer Sewer Line Replacement and Re-pipe .........................................................................47 Mole Contract ..........................................................................................................................100 Monotone Contract ..................................................................................................................115 Montone Notice .......................................................................................................................87 Nass Contract ..........................................................................................................................126 Newman Repair/Re-Pipe Water Line ......................................................................................38 News Media Reports ...............................................................................................................3 Nim’s Water Re-Pipe/Sewer Line Replacement .....................................................................36 Nims Contract .........................................................................................................................103 Nims Notice.............................................................................................................................80 Nolan Contract ........................................................................................................................107 Nolan Notice ...........................................................................................................................82 Nolan Renovation ....................................................................................................................74 Nolan Water Heater .................................................................................................................12 Notice Violations ....................................................................................................................76 Opportunity for a Hearing .......................................................................................................139 Peot Contract ...........................................................................................................................105 Peot Notice ..............................................................................................................................81 Peot Water Re-Pipe .................................................................................................................41 Peterson (Annabelle) Contract ................................................................................................122 Peterson (Annabelle) Notices ..................................................................................................91 Peterson Contract ....................................................................................................................104 Peterson Notices ......................................................................................................................80 Peterson Sewer Line Replacement ..........................................................................................38 Peterson Water Heater .............................................................................................................8 Pike Contracts .........................................................................................................................111 Pike Drain and Sewer Line Replacement ................................................................................48 Pike Notice ..............................................................................................................................86 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................1 Rea Contract ............................................................................................................................125 Rea Notice ...............................................................................................................................94 Rea Water Heater ....................................................................................................................15 Re-Piping and Sewer Line Replacement Scams .....................................................................24 Rosales Contracts ....................................................................................................................106 Rosales Notice .........................................................................................................................81 Rosales Pro-System Filter .......................................................................................................22 Rosales Water Heater ..............................................................................................................11 Sanction: Civil Penalties .........................................................................................................136 Sanction: Revocation...............................................................................................................135 Scafidi Building Sewer Piping ................................................................................................129 Scafidi Contract .......................................................................................................................99 Scafidi Notices ........................................................................................................................78 Scafidi Sewer Line Replacement ............................................................................................29 Seifert Contracts ......................................................................................................................102 Seifert Notice ..........................................................................................................................79 Seifert Sewer Line Replacement .............................................................................................34

Page iv

Sharlock Contracts ..................................................................................................................104 Sharlock Notice .......................................................................................................................81 Sharlock Water Heater ............................................................................................................9 Sharlock Water Re-pipe/Sewer Line Replacement .................................................................40 Shioshi Contracts ....................................................................................................................123 Shioshi Notices ........................................................................................................................92 Shioshi Sewer Line Replacement ............................................................................................62 Shioshi Water Heater ..............................................................................................................17 Tharp Contracts .......................................................................................................................116 Tharp HSP ...............................................................................................................................134 Tharp Notice ............................................................................................................................88 Tharp Renovation ....................................................................................................................75 Theis Contracts ........................................................................................................................109 Theis Notice ............................................................................................................................84 Thomas Contract .....................................................................................................................97 Thomas HALO System ...........................................................................................................20 Thomas Notice ........................................................................................................................77 Thompson Contracts ...............................................................................................................119 Thompson Notice ....................................................................................................................89 Thompson Water Main ...........................................................................................................59 Tinney Contract .......................................................................................................................100 Tinney Notice ..........................................................................................................................78 Tratnyek Contract ....................................................................................................................122 Tratnyek Notice .......................................................................................................................91 Tratnyek Water Pipes ..............................................................................................................61 Waller Water Heater ................................................................................................................6 Water Heater Scam..................................................................................................................4 Water System Scam ................................................................................................................18 Woods Contract .......................................................................................................................111 Woods HALO System .............................................................................................................23 Woods Notices ........................................................................................................................85

STATE OF OREGON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARDmedia.oregonlive.com/complaintdesk/other/Jack Howk...

Documents

Transcript of STATE OF OREGON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARDmedia.oregonlive.com/complaintdesk/other/Jack Howk...