During the renovation, 110 volts AC of potentially deadly electricity was wired into the metal bathtub drain of the Hall bathroom.  The power was supplied by a dedicated circuit controlled by a new circuit breaker in the new main power panel that was installed by AHS.  (Exhibit ahs 11.) 

AHS electricians left the job without having their work on the main 200 Amp service panel ("fuse box") inspected by the City of Redmond inspector, who has since stated that his inspection of the work would certainly be required, along with other electrical inspections that were not done.  (Exhibit cor 4)

For a description of other AHS’s work products, see Construction Defects, Section 4.  Windermere Redmond Real Estate agent Paul H. Stickney, Vice President of TMC, recommended AHS to us for both our low voltage wiring needs, and recommend that AHS personnel install our line voltage wiring as employees of TMC.

We have already questioned the propriety of AHS working along side Peter Oakes and other unlicensed TMC workers doing electrical work at The Cottage.  From the hours of work recorded on the invoices (we calculate TMC spent a total of 85.95 hours on electrical work, see Our Story, Part III, “Unlicensed Electrical Work At The Cottage”.)  It seems unlikely the workers spent 85.95 hours doing manual labor to assist AHS; after all, the house was wide open.  How much time could be spent drilling holes or pulling wires through framing timbers?

Oakes was the on-site foreman for the duration of much of our project.  He is the man cited by the State of Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries for working as an electrician without a license in 2002, and who has still not paid his L&I fine. (Exhibits pfo 5 and pfo 6.) 

On our job, neither Oakes nor Lester Ellis, electrical administrator for AHS, bothered to get a city permit to change the service grounding (#105).  Consequently, that work was never inspected.  (Exhibit cor 4 item #135, and cor 5)  According to Jeff Sheppard, City of Redmond inspector, the 200 amp main electrical panel (#135) was not inspected, either.  If those things had been inspected, the inadequate and incompetent system grounding would surely have been noticed, and maybe some of the other major defects in the electrical work, too.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the circumstances under which Automated Home Solutions became involved in the DeCoursey renovation, and to document AHS work products, billing procedures, and business practices.

The following section addresses AHS’s line voltage work.

1.  October 12 TMC Estimate:  $3600

Included in the grand plan for the renovation, Bob Trustworthy, President of Trust Me Construction, estimated the cost of rewiring the house.  On July 2, 2004, Trustworthy wrote, “Relocate and add electrical light fixtures, receptacles and switches in [sic] as required,” citing a price range from $1,600 to $1,800 (Exhibit tmc 3).  On October 12, 2004, when the full scope of the work was known, the estimate for “Electrical” rose to $3,600 (Exhibit tmc 3).

Other people familiar with the construction industry have confirmed that is a fair price for wiring a house this size (approximately 2,000 sq. ft.)  The walls and ceiling for most of the house were opened, so the rough-in (running the power cables between the wall studs and ceiling joists) was not onerous.  The one part of the house where the walls were left standing (half the main floor with three bedrooms and two baths) was fully accessible from the attic above and the open ceiling below.

We repeat:  Trustworthy estimated a total for $3,600 for electrical work, covering both labor and materials.  But when the invoices rolled in, TMC and AHS invoiced a total of $18,087.53.

October 12, 2004 TMC estimate	$3,600.00
AHS supplies invoices	$3,724.59
AHS unspecified	$8,783.94
AHS total (line voltage)	$12,528.53
TMC electrical supplies	$2,122.00
TMC electrical labor	$3,430.00
TMC total (electrical)	$5,559.00
Total electrical	$18,087.53

Of the $18,087.53, materials alone cost $5,846.59.  Thus the cost of materials exceeded Trustworthy’s October 12 estimate for the entire electrical job.  And all of the decorator light fixtures were purchased directly by us (we have the receipts) and do not count toward that $5,846.59 figure.

2.  AHS Electricians To Be On TMC Payroll

When Stickney promoted TMC for the renovation of our house in Redmond, he discussed the role AHS would play in the line voltage wiring of our house.  He told us that it was a long-standing TMC practice to put Automated Home Solutions electricians on TMC payroll, and have the AHS electricians do the line voltage work as TMC employees. 

Bob Trustworthy of TMC later confirmed Stickney’s account.  We were told the arrangement made electrical work less expensive for the homeowners.   We didn’t understand how this could be, but trusted that Stickney and Trustworthy were telling us the truth.

3.  AHS Secretly Hired As TMC Subcontractors

But that’s not what happened.  Without telling us, TMC hired AHS as subcontractors, while allowing us to believe they were following through on the arrangement Trustworthy and Stickney described. 

What was the nature of the secret subcontract?  We discovered later that TMC entered into a verbal agreement with AHS, giving AHS a time and materials “contract” with no cap on the final bill.  To our knowledge, AHS did not produce even so much as an estimate before they began work — certainly we did not receive one, nor have we found one in any of the AHS paperwork subsequently revealed to us.  Nor did AHS give us Notice to Owner, as subcontractors are required to do (RCW 60.04.031) (See more Below.)  We call AHS the stealth subcontractor.

So while we thought we’d be paying $3,600 for line voltage electrical work, TMC, with this silent change in operations, was signing us up for as much as AHS wanted to charge.  According to the convoluted accounting presented to us, the combined TMC/AHS electrical bill seems to be in the neighborhood of $18,087.53 (more below).

We did not know the truth about the AHS/TMC arrangements until much later, long after AHS had left the work site and presented its charges to TMC.   It seems that Trustworthy considered he was not bound by his October 12 estimate.  He spent freely, apparently believing we could not refuse to pay when the bills came rolling in.

In February, 2006, we asked a private investigator to call AHS to find out how they arrived at their estimates for residential electrical work.  General Manager Lester Ellis told the PI, "We do a walk-through of major remodels, and itemize everything that needs to be done.  We give a firm estimate without a lot of wiggle room.  Our estimates are pretty close to what it actually takes."  (See Exhibit ahs 14.)

Given that TMC's estimate for the entire electrical job was $3,600, and given AHS's standard practice is to give firm estimates "without a lot of wiggle room," we should have been told AHS's "firm estimate" in December, 2004, and warned that the price of the electrical work was about to springboard from $3,600 to more than $18,000.

4.  We See No Bill, But AHS Wants Money

Some time after May 10, 2005, after we moved into the house, we began to get phone calls from Lester Ellis of AHS dunning us for money.  He claimed that TMC had not paid him.  At that point we had already paid TMC more than $150,000 for renovations that were offered at the cost of $90,565. 

We had never been presented with an AHS bill, of course, having been told AHS employees were on the TMC payroll.  Certainly Lester did not tell us his company was a subcontractor.  We were puzzled, so we spoke to Trustworthy over the phone about it.  Mark expressed surprise that Lester was dunning us for money, saying:  “I thought you were paying these electricians as TMC employees?”  It was then that Trustworthy told Mark AHS had been a subcontractor.   Sure enough, we found that pg. 13 of TMC’s April 22 statement describes AHS as “subcontractor.”  (Exhibit tmc 9).  With the turmoil of moving, we had not examined the April 22 fine print.

Trustworthy explained that as the job developed and they saw that we needed a new service panel, he realized TMC would not be able to get a permit for electrical work that extensive.  TMC, he said, was not an electrical contractor, whereas AHS was.  Strange, though we were in daily contact concerning the progress of the job, Trustworthy never said a word to us about this matter.

As general contractor (or consultant to general contractor) on the job, it was TMC's responsibility to see that all building permits were in place and inspections signed off.  Even if AHS had failed to obtain the permit, TMC supervision should have caught the error and corrected it.  TMC should not and could not have been unaware of the missing permits.  Thus, each company must bear 100% responsibility for the violation of permit procedure.

5.  “Legal” Notice Sent To Wrong Address -- Twice

Then on May 31, 2005, our mailman delivered a certified, return receipt letter to us.  It contained a Notice to Owner (Exhibit ahs 8), sent on behalf of Automated Home Solutions by a lien service, Construction Credit Corporation (CCC).  The postmark showed the letter had been mailed on May 25, 2005.

Remember AHS knew our address full well.  It appears on their contract with us.  (Exhibit ahs 2, pg. 1 of contract.)   But the envelope told us CCC had mailed it to an address in Seattle.  The envelope was then forwarded to the rental house in which we used to live before moving into The Cottage.  From that address it was forwarded correctly to us at 8209 172^nd. Ave. ("The Cottage")

A few days later, on June 2, we received a copy of a lien filed on our property by AHS.  The lien had been sworn out on May 23, two days before the Notice to Owner was postmarked.  The lien claim was $13,736.19.  (Exhibit ahs 8aa.)  It also had been sent to the wrong address and forwarded twice by the Post Office before it reached us.

6.  Sending Notice To Wrong Address Helps Claimant

You can imagine that abuses might occur on either side of a contractor/subcontractor and homeowner relationship.  Thus the law (RCW 60.04.081) provides that the homeowner who believes a lien is unreasonable, frivolous, or excessive can appeal to the court.  But the homeowner has only 15 (fifteen) days from date of service to do so.  Suppose a dishonest claimant and his dishonest agent wish to put the homeowner at a disadvantage?  All that is necessary is for the lien to be sent to the wrong address. 

In our case, that is exactly what happened.  The lien was sworn out on May 23.  CCC mailed it the wrong address on May 25, and we did not receive it until June 2.   Thus eleven days passed between May 23 and June 2. 

June 2 was a Thursday.  Friday was Day 12, Saturday day 13, Sunday Day 14.   Days 13 and 14 were not business days.  That is, given the 15 days the homeowner is given to defend himself, we had TWO days — until Monday, June 5 (Day 15) -- to hire a lawyer for the job, have him study the documents, get our case scheduled before the court, and get the case heard before the clock ran down.   

There’s no language in the Claim of Lien to warn you about the 15-day limit from time of “service.”  But even if we had known about it, there was almost no chance we could have done anything about it.

Joy Tansey, President of CCC, had our correct address at her fingertips, right on AHS documents.  Tansy runs a professional lien service.  Are we to believe she is so incompetent she can’t even find the correct address when it’s staring at her? 

7.   We Pick Up Lester’s Documents

Soon after receiving the lien claim, we called Lester Ellis at AHS and asked him for the billing details, and picked them up at the AHS office.  (Exhibits ahs 4 and ahs 5.) 

8.  Unusual Billing and Payment Practices

According to the records Lester provided (see 15th item on Labor Detail, October 1, 2004 etc.), AHS started work on November 30, 2004.  According to the sworn lien documents, the work started on December 2, Exhibit ahs 8aa).  But curiously, according to the invoices provided to us, AHS did not did not send an invoice to TMC until February 2, 2005, more than two months after start date.  (Invoice 1148, Exhibit ahs 4.)  The invoice states, “not billed,” but no explanation is offered.  

Then, allegedly, still without any payment from TMC, AHS continued to work until April 11, 2005.  (See Claim of Lien, Exhibit ahs 8aa, page 2).  We wonder why AHS would continue to work over a course of four and a half months without being paid a penny?   (See AHS statement to TMC dated May 31, 2005, Exhibit ahs 4n.  None of the AHS paperwork mentions payments received.) 

9.  AHS Numbers Don’t Add Up

The total bill for the work (according to AHS Statement of 5/31/2005) is $12,528.53.  That invoice adds another $400.89 for “Finance Charges” for a total of $12,929.42. (Exhibit ahs 4n.)

The “Lien Fee” penciled onto the bottom of that statement adds another $125.  An additional $681.77 is added for an outstanding bill on the low voltage contract (described below), bringing the lien claim up to $13,611.19.  (See pg. 2 of Lien Claim at Exhibit ahs 8). 

Add all these figures, and you arrive at $13,736.19, not the $13,611.19 AHS claims on its lien. 

10.  Add Another $5,559 to Line Voltage Bill

Lest you think $12,528.53 was a handsome sum for wiring an open house, let us hasten to tell you we have been billed an additional $5,559 for labor and materials expended by TMC.  (See TMC statement of April 22, 2005, Section 16 Electrical, Exhibit tmc 8, pgs. 13, 14)  The additional TMC charges raised the final price tag for the work to $18,087.53.

Let us hark back to the TMC estimate for this work on October 12, 2004:

October 12, 2004 Estimate	$3,600
Final TMC and AHS Billing	$18,087.53

To consider the quality of work that $18,087.53 will purchase, see below, “The Quality of AHS Work,” and go to Construction Defects, Section 4, Electrical. 

11.  AHS Invoices Meet TMC Invoices

Let us now revisit the TMC detailed accounting of April 22, 2005 (Exhibit tmc 9, pages 13-14).  In that document, following down the column labeled Paid to, we find three Paid to entries for “Automated Home Solutions, Inc., Subcontractor” in the amounts $4,680.00, $687.00, and $5,246.00, totaling $10,613.00.  Repeat:  TMC states they paid $10,613.00 in total to AHS. 

But the amounts TMC allegedly paid to AHS do not match the amounts billed to TMC.  TMC numbers do not line up with AHS numbers.  In fact, AHS invoices reflect no payments from TMC.  AHS records support the account given to Mark over the phone by Lester:  TMC paid nothing to AHS. 

There are a number of options.

Option 1:  TMC misrepresents and AHS tells the truth.  TMC did not pay AHS $10,613.00.

Option 2:  AHS misrepresents and TMC tells the truth.  TMC did pay AHS $10,613.00, but AHS has chosen not to record those payments in its invoices.

Option 3:  The testimony and accounting methods of neither party can be trusted. 

12.  Remember The Experience Of Mr. J.?

During this discussion of billing and labor, we recall the experience of Bellevue attorney J. and his family.  Upon Stickney’s advice, Mr. J. hired Trustworthy to do renovations on a newly purchased house.  Sure, Trustworthy could not make his deadlines and bungled electrical and plumbing components of the work, but that’s not what comes to mind right now.  The following is an excerpt from the attorney’s affidavit:

Our neighbors informed us that the workers were arriving at the house about mid-morning and leaving by mid-afternoon.  My wife, on a couple of occasions shortly thereafter drove to the house and parked down the street in the morning and afternoon to observe when they arrived and left.  She observed them arriving about 9:30 to 10:00 a.m. and leaving by 3:30 p.m.  We were being billed for eight hours for each of the workers per day. (Exhibit phs 7)

 Could it be that the hours of labor Trustworthy charged on our job were also inflated?  If TMC inflates its charges, how could it honestly claim to supervise its subcontractor?

13.  Liens and Notices

We have already examined the Washington state rules concerning the rights of a contractor to file a lien on a homeowner’s property (see Our Story, “No Notice to Customer”).  As well as being a subcontractor, AHS signed a separate, fixed price the low voltage contract with us (described below).  As the direct contractor on this low voltage contract, AHS should have presented us with a Notice to Customer.  They failed to do so, and thus (by that law) the work done on the low voltage contract cannot be part of a lien claim.

But what about subcontractors and liens?  According to RCW 60.04.031, if a general contractor (such as TMC) does not pay a subcontractor (such as AHS), the subcontractor can file a lien on the owner’s property.  The subcontractor can also force the sale of the property to satisfy that lien (foreclosure), so a subcontractor’s lien should not be taken lightly.

In order to retain the right to file a lien, a subcontractor must send a Notice to Owner to the owner of the property within 60 days of starting the work, informing the owner of the legal right to lien the property and how the owner should protect himself.  The subcontractor may file a lien for all wages and materials expended on the job, counting back 60 days from the date of mailing the Notice to the owner, and forward in time until the job is finished. We may know this time constraint is applicable to our case because the same wording is included on the Notice to Owner mailed to us by CCC (Exhibit ahs 8ab).

In our case, recall that AHS hired a lien service, Construction Credit Corporation (CCC), to mail the Notice to Owner and file the lien and the certified mail, return receipt service was used.  The postmark indicates it was mailed on May 25.  However, CCC sent it to the wrong address, even though CCC had full documentation of the right address.  

Let’s consider this carefully.  The correct sequence of events, according to state law, is as follows: 

1)      Subcontractor signs the contract with general contractor

2)      Subcontractor gets a signed copy of Notice to Owner from the homeowner

3)      Subcontractor does work

4)      If not paid by contractor, subcontractor files a lien 

But the CCC/AHS team followed this sequence: 

1)      Subcontractor did work,

2)      On May 23, subcontractor had lien sworn out, and

3)      On May 25, two days after the lien was sworn out, the Notice to Owner was mailed to the homeowner at the wrong address.  Does sending the Notice to the wrong address qualify as sending it to the owner at the true address?

14.  Why No Timely Notice to Owner?

We must observe a possible effect that a timely Notice to Owner:  If AHS had delivered a Notice to Owner to us when they started the job, we would have realized AHS electricians were not on the TMC payroll, and that AHS was a subcontractor.  Had we known that, we might have started asking questions . . .

15.  Let’s Forget They Did Things Backwards . . .

Let’s disregard for the moment the fact CCC/AHS did things backwards (Lien before Notice), and let’s focus on the time machine set down by law.  The law counts back 60 days from the date of mailing Notice to Owner (May 25, 2005) to determine the first date for which AHS might claim a lien. 

Let us put aside for the moment the question of whether an envelope sent to the wrong address when the right address was available could be considered “mailed.”  Surely the legislature meant the mail to be sent to the right address.  For the sake of argument in this context, however, we will accept May 25 as the “mailing date,” although we do not concede that point until a court rules on it.

Our calendar reveals the earliest date of work subject to a lien claim is March 26, 2005.  Now let’s count the number of hours AHS worked from March 26 to their last day of work on April 11 (per page 2 of the lien document, Exhibit ahs 8aa).

We find AHS reported 56 hours of labor.  Bob Trustworthy told Mark over the phone that AHS was charging TMC $65 an hour.   So AHS can charge $3,640 in labor.  AHS reported spending $603.94 in materials between March 26 and April 11.  AHS cannot add the  $681.77 it claims is due for the low voltage contract (see “Liens and Notices,” above).

Given the best of all possible worlds in an imaginary universe, AHS could enforce a lien for: 

A maximum of:                                     And not:

$4,243.94                                                        $13,611.19

Granted Tansey may not have understood AHS improperly claimed $681.77 on the low voltage contract, but she must have known about the 60-day provision pertaining to subcontracts — and she disregarded the law.  The proof?  Liens are Tansey’s business, and she has written one for subcontractor AHS dating all the way back to November 30, 2004, way past the 60 day limit.  Yet Tansey assures the court and us the lien is good, “under penalty of perjury.”

Look at CCC’s lien statement, pg. 2 (Exhibit ahs 8aa):

Joy A. Tansey, president of Construction Credit Corp., agent for claimant, being sworn, says: . . . I have read or heard the foregoing claim, read and know the contents thereof; and believe the same to be true and correct and the claim of lien is not frivolous and is made with reasonable cause . . . under penalty of perjury.

Er, what is the penalty for perjury, anyway?  Since we’re on the subject, let’s find out what Washington law says. 

16.  Jail Time or Fine or Both

Tansey intends that the lien may be usable in court, possibly to have our property foreclosed to satisfy AHS’s lien.   She swore she “knew” the contents of the lien claim, and she swore it was “true and correct” and “not frivolous.”  Thus we may reasonably conclude Joy Tansey, if competent, intended to mislead the court.  These facts indicate to us Tansey may have committed perjury in the second degree.  (RCW 9A.72.030.) 

RCW 9A.72.030
Perjury in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of perjury in the second degree if, in an examination under oath under the terms of a contract of insurance, or with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her duty, he or she makes a materially false statement, which he or she knows to be false under an oath required or authorized by law.

(2) Perjury in the second degree is a class C felony.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.030

Washington state law (RCW 9A.20.021(1)(c), imposes this sentence for a class C felony:

RCW 9A.20.021
Maximum sentences for crimes committed July 1, 1984, and after.

For a class C felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for five years, or by a fine in a amount fixed by the court of ten thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.20.021

17.  The Quality of AHS/TMC Work

See also Construction Defects, Section 4

Leading the AHS parade of products, of course, is the electric bath tub, powered at up to 110 volts AC.  The first bath or shower could have killed a member of our family.  The power comes from a dedicated 20 Amp circuit with its own circuit breaker in the new 200 amp panel ("fuse box"). 

While we are on the subject of the panel, Redmond City Permit Center informs us that mandatory inspections were not done on the new electrical work, including the new panel and grounding for the new panel.  (Exhibit cor 4)

18.  The James Bond Electric Bathtub

Cascade Electrical Contractors, the electricians we called to investigate and disarm the bathtub, speculated in their letter (Exhibit cec 2) that the circuit might have been originally intended to power a spa tub in that location.  Maybe, but: 

• The wire was not properly terminated with insulated tape or plastic connectors 
• The bare wire come into contact with the metal drain 
• The wire should not have been near the drain  — the pumps in a spa tub are always on the sides or the foot of the tub, and never at the end with the taps and drain.  (See Exhibit cec 3 for jet tub diagram.)

When the Cascade electricians heard about the problem, they came over that very day.  Since that time, we have spoken to several electricians about the electric bathtub and they have been amazed and horrified.

19.  Grounding Clamp Loose, Hot Wires Hanging Out

But the bathtub was not the only problem with AHS work. When AHS left the job, the secondary grounding clamp — the Weaver clamp — was loose, creating a potential electrical hazard throughout the house.  Both a hot switch and a hot socket hung out — protruded — from the downstairs bathroom wall without trim plates, and bare hot wires stuck out of the shower stall.  (The lighting fixture for the shower appears in the invoices, but was not delivered or installed.  See Exhibit ahs 5r, Stoneway bill March 25, 2005 penciled item for “Outdoor Wall Lantern for Bathroom Shower.”)  

Other features from the AHS parade of products: A foot of hot power cable hung out the back of the house where a lantern was supposed to have been installed. The cable for the dual fuel range in the kitchen was too high on the wall to enable correct positioning of the range.  Several light switches on gang arrangements had no apparent function.  (For a complete list, see Construction Defects, Section 4.)

20.  Possible Double Billing

We have searched through the billing records from AHS to confirm their figures, but AHS bills rarely agree — with each other.  One detail, “Time by Job Detail, September 1 through December 15, 2004,” lists a total of 65 hours for two of the electricians on various days (Exhibit ahs 4g).  A second detail, “Time by Job Detail for October 1 through February 2, 2005,” lists some of the same days, personnel, and hours.  Are we being double billed of these hours?

On the other hand, some items on the first detail are dropped from the second.  The first few items appear on both, but a 9-hour billing for E.L on 12/08/2004 on the first invoice is not mentioned on the second.  Where did it go?  Another three items on the first were not mentioned on the second:  Charges for E.L. on 12/09/2004 and 12/10/2004, and charges for K.J. on 12/10/2004.  (Exhibit ahs 4j).  Where did they go?

21.  Labor Invoices Ring Sour Note

Here is the total of the three AHS labor details (Exhibit ahs 4.)

Remember, Bob Trustworthy told us that AHS was billing $65 per hr.  At that rate, 223:25 hours of labor would cost $14,527.50.  Yet AHS’s May 31, 2005 statement to TMC for line voltage labor and materials is $12,528.53. 

We cannot find any combination of charges, whether for labor or materials, that adds up to $12,528.53.

22.  Materials Invoices Ring Sour Note:  April 29 Pickup

The last materials invoice for our job shows supplies were ordered from Stoneway Electrical on April 18, 2005 and picked up on April 29, 2005.  (Exhibit ahs 5y.)  But the last day AHS worked on our job — according to their own labor detail documents and according to the lien claim — was April 11, 2005.  (Exhibit ahs 4m and ahs 8aa.)

Looking at that invoice (Invoice #123834), we see one item costing $41.25:

Item No. 8925255SEA  SEA 8925-15 1 -13W WHT FL

On February 6, 20006, we visited Stoneway and discovered that item is a Sea Gull florescent lighting fixture. The same Sea Gull florescent light (Item 8925-15) was also invoiced on March 25 (Invoice No. 083352).  The March 25 invoice indicates the light was purchased for the (downstairs) bathroom shower. 

So we’ve been charged twice for the same light, and it is still not installed.  You can see the live wires hanging out of the bathroom shower stall wall — that’s where AHS was supposed to install that light. (Construction Defects, Section 4, item 4-1.)

23.  Materials Invoices Ring Sour Note:  April 11 Pickup

Invoice No. (Invoice No. 100743) shows that 33 items were ordered on April 4 and picked on April 11. (Exhibit ahs 4m). The charge for the materials was $113.51.  The items on the invoice were:

• 1 fixture bracket
• 1 weatherproof Junction box
• 1 dryer receptacle for the wall
• 2 stack switches
• 1 cover for the dryer receptacle
• 2 almond GFI receptacles
• 6 wall plates
• 1 box cover
• 2 spark guards for inside a wall
• 2 connectors for water-proof conduit
• 1 water-proof conduit
• 7 pieces of wire mold ("wire mold")
• 2 ceiling plates
• 1 flexible conduit connector
• 2 white GFI receptacles
• 1 dusk to dawn photo cell

On the same day that order was picked up, April 11, AHS logged two hours for the labor of electrician K.J.  (Exhibit ahs 4m.)

What else happened on April 11?  According to city records, the City of Redmond electrical inspector inspected and signed off on permit #E042611. (City of Redmond Inspections List for Permit #E042611)  Apparently, the inspector looked at the work for which the City had issued permits. 

How could this be?  How could the City of Redmond approve electrical work left in that condition?  According to City of Redmond inspector, Jeff Sheppard, the new 200 amp service panel was not inspected.  We predict more information will be upcoming.

Thus we are asked to believe that:

1. AHS left it to the last day, April 11, the day of the City of Redmond electrical inspection, to pick up and install 33 pieces of electrical supply in our house.
2. At the beginning of the two hours, Electrician K.J. drove from the downtown Redmond office of AHS to the Totem Lake area of Kirkland to pick up the supplies from Stoneway.  (Mapquest estimates a one-way trip is 4.69 miles and takes 10 minutes — if we average better than 28 mph. on the surface streets).
3. After picking up the supplies, electrician K.J. drove back to approximately five miles back to The Cottage in Redmond.
4. Electrician K.J. installed the 33 electrical items that had been charged to our job.  The invoice includes (among other things) two spark guards for use inside walls, a dryer receptacle and cover, two ceiling blanks, and seven pieces of surface conduit ("wire mold").  But we can attest that long before April 11, all walls were sealed up, our dryer was fully installed and working, and the ceiling blanks were in place and the high ladders to the vaulted ceiling removed.  Moreover, we have no surface conduit in the house — all wiring is buried in the walls and ceilings. 
5. Electrician K.J. finished all this work in time to greet the city inspector, show him through the house, collect his tools, and drive down the hill again from The Cottage to the nearby AHS office.
6. And he did it all in two hours.

The invoices and charges of April 11 and April 29 are more evidence that AHS accounting cannot be trusted.  We don’t trust these invoices, and we don’t trust other AHS charges.  We don’t believe a $3,600 line voltage estimate on October 12 (Exhibit tmc 3) could honestly mushroom into a $18,087.53 charge.  That's more than five times the original estimate.

24.  No Mistake — Our Name Is On The Tickets

So to return to those mysterious invoices and the 33 items picked up on April 11 and April 29 — could those two invoices have been included by accident in the bundle of documents Lester gave to Carol? 

No, it is not possible.  The April 11 invoice cites “YOUR ORDER NO.” as “DEICOURSY,” and the April 29 invoice cites “YOUR ORDER NO.” as “DECORSI.”  Moreover, those Stoneway invoices were presented to Carol already stapled to the back of the May 20 invoice to TMC (Exhibit ahs 4l).  And stapled to the front of that invoice is an adding machine tape (see top left corner of Exhibit ahs 4l) that includes both Stoneway amounts, resulting in a total of “$806.4875,” the same number we find on the invoice ($806.49).  We were definitely billed for materials ordered and picked up weeks too late to be used in the work on our home.

25.  Thirty-Nine Shopping Trips!

In Our Story Part III, “Trim And Supplies,” we count twenty-three (23) shopping trips by TMC employees for electrical supplies.  Now let’s count the shopping trips by Automated Home Solutions.  

We have AHS orders (listed on the various invoices) for the follow dates:

• December 2, 2004
• December 16, 2004
• March 25, 2005
• March 28, 2005
• March 29, 2005
• April 6, 2005
• April 4, 2005
• April 18, 2005.

That’s eight separate orders, or “shopping trips,” although some may have been called in by telephone and some delivered by truck.  (See Exhibit ahs 5.)  

Add into that number the six trips we made to Home Depot and two trips to Lowe's to buy electrical supplies at the request of AHS.  That’s eight shopping trips for Carol and Mark.  (Exhibit ahs 6)

A professional line voltage electrician would already be familiar with the standard requirements of an ordinary house, and there would be few surprises.  He would have surveyed the house and the electrical plans, talked to the owners, tallied up the requirements, and bought all his supplies in one motion, wouldn’t he?  But between the AHS, TMC, and the DeCourseys, we count 39 discrete shopping trips.

Does that sound as if Automated Home Solutions knew what they were doing, wiring a four bedroom house?  Remember, Windermere real estate agent Paul H. Stickney encouraged us to use TMC and AHS, stressing their fine individual records and their long experience working together.

26.  Waterfront Property in Arizona

Given what we’ve just seen, how much confidence can we place in other invoices?  We don’t believe these contradictory and obviously untruthful claims presented by AHS and TMC represent truthful labor and supply charges for work done on our house.  We may have once trusted Windermere agent Paul Stickney and his referrals, but now we’d rather trust the evidence before our eyes.   And right now, we’re not in the market for waterfront property in Arizona. 

27.  Low Voltage Work

High-voltage work was not the only involvement we had with Automated Home Solutions.  On December 8, 2004, following Paul Stickney’s advice, we agreed to buy a Structured Wiring installation from AHS (Exhibit ahs 2).  We told AHS Vice President Wally Trustworthy (Bob Trustworthy's son) what we wanted, and Wally wrote up the contract in technical terms.  Under the low-voltage contract, AHS was to provide telephone, video distribution (cable or satellite), Cat5e (Internet or custom control systems), a home theatre and surround sound system, and a distributed music system (we'd select and purchase consumer audio and video electronic equipment ourselves).  The home theatre screen was to be located on the South-west wall of the rec. room and the video player was to be located in the shelving on the North wall. 

This work was made possible because most of the walls in the house were open, and it was an ideal time for hiding all that wiring inside the walls. The total price of the fixed price contract was $3,216.67.  At no time were we even given a Notice to Customer (see above.)

We paid a deposit of $1,500 on December 10, 2004.  The remainder ($1716.67) was due upon completion of contract.  (See Clause 13 of contract, Exhibit ahs 2).

28.  Low Voltage Labor Appears on Line Voltage Bill

We suspect that hours worked on the line voltage work became commingled with the work done on the low voltage contract.  One AHS invoice addressed to Trust Me Construction (undated “labor detail”) refers to work done between February 3 and May 1, 2005 (Exhibit ahs 4m).  At the bottom are the words, “Labor — Low Voltage Work.”  The hours that appear under that header are not figured into the total, and they add up to 13 hours and 55 minutes.  Since the low voltage work was done under a fixed price contract, we can see no good reason for the appearance of this information on a line voltage bill.

As we think back on our daily visits to the site, the low voltage wiring was done at the same time and by the same people as the line voltage wiring.  There was at least one bundle, containing both high and low voltage cables, fastened to the open trusses while we watched.  At the moment that work was going on, was the work done on the line voltage or the low voltage contract?  Were we paying by the hour as we watched (line voltage work), or had we already paid through the fixed price contract (low voltage work)?  At $65 an hour for the electricians, this is not an insignificant question. 

29.  Our Error:  We Pay AHS Bill Prematurely

Let us go to February, 2005.  We received an invoice from Lester pertaining to the low voltage contract.  According to contact terms, having paid the $1,500 deposit, we did not owe AHS any more money until the contract was complete (Clause 13).  (Exhibit ahs 2.)  We were responsible for testing the system according to AGS instructions (Clause 1). 

In February the project was not “complete.” The drywall was not done and the trim for the low voltage system could not be installed.  There was no way to test the system. And AHS had not given us instructions for testing the system. 

Given a complete and testable system with written instructions in hand for monthly testing, and accessible speaker wiring available for equipment installation and everything OK, we would have owed AHS $1,716.67.

But in February, AHS sent us a bill prematurely.  Due to our slip up, we paid AHS prematurely.  We paid them the amount they asked for on the bill:  $1,463.75.  Suffice it to say at the time we did not notice AHS’s error or ours. 

30.  Lester Reports Us to Collection Agency

The billing problem with the low voltage contract came sharply into focus when we began receiving notices from Transworld Collections Agency.  We called Lester and asked him why he reported us. 

We pointed out that the original contract was for $3,216.67, and we have an Invoice No. 1147, dated 2/2/2005, for $2,926.59 stamped “PAID” (Exhibit ahs 3a).  The difference is $290.08.  We asked Lester why he claims we now owe him another $681.77?

Lester told us that this amount includes three “change orders” — things we asked to have changed after the contract was signed and the work started. 

31.  AHS Change Order Policy

In the contract we signed with AHS, we find these words in Clause 10 (Exhibit ahs 2c).

Additional costs for labor and equipment due to changes or modifications by customer for the above description of services and system to be installed shall be assessed to and paid by the customer.

Invoice 1147 (2/2/2005, the very invoice marked “PAID” shows that added expense of the three change orders, $220. $45, $135; came to $400.  Lester records AHS is giving us a $40 discount on the $400.

We deny we ordered three changes.  According to their own contract (Clause 12), AHS was obliged to get written changes in contact, and have the changes signed by both parties. 

Clause 11 reads, in part,

This contract represents the entire agreement between the parties and there are no agreements, representations, or promises either oral or written other than as set forth herein or attached hereto.

The contract incorporates by reference the schedule of work to be done and equipment to install, and Clause 12 states:

This agreement cannot be modified or changed in any way unless in writing and signed by both parties hereto.

If we wanted to be strictly legalistic, we’d point out that there could have been no change orders because no changes in our contract were recorded in writing and signed.  No verbal changes are therefore enforceable.

In reality, however, we did actually make a verbal request for one change:  When we saw where AHS had already put the telephone connection, we asked for it to be moved from one wall of the living room to an adjoining wall.  According to Invoice 1147, we owed $45 for that change, minus a 10% discount.  (Exhibit ahs 3a.)   We don’t mind paying the $40.50. 

We know nothing of the other two change orders.  Lester claims that putting a video cable between the home theatre center and the North wall to accommodate the video was an “upgrade/change order,” but the truth is that the designed was part of the original agreement made between Wally Trustworthy and Mark, when Lester was not present. 

We dispute these two alleged change orders.  And given the contract we signed with AHS, the onus is upon Lester, not us, to produce evidence of those change orders. 

32.  AHS Owes Us Money

How does this all shake out?

For the entire contract we owed AHS $3,216.67.  (Exhibit ahs 2, page 1)

We made one change order, for which AHS charged us $45.  Given the 10% discount (Invoice 1147) we owe $40.50 for that change order.  Thus the real price of the contract we had with AHS, with the change order charge added to the original contract price, is $3,257.17.

Of that amount, we paid a $1,500 deposit and a mistaken premature payment of  $1,462.75. 

We have mentioned elsewhere the legal principle quantum merit (“as much as he deserves”), the concept that no one should be unjustly enriched through the efforts of another.  The money we paid AHS by mistake represents unjust enrichment.  Since AHS has not completed the contract, AHS owes us a return of that  $1,462.75. 

33.  AHS:  Faulty Work & Refusal to Fulfill Contract

Let us review the facts:

• When Wally Trustworthy (VP of Automated Home Solutions) visited our house before we signed the AHS contract, we spent some time with him in the rec. room.  We specified the area where we wanted the home theatre and surround sound (west wall), and the area where we’d have our office (north wall). 
• The results?  The office area has no telephone wires or data wires.  But the home theatre area has telephone and data wires.  In other words, AHS got the order bass-ackwards.
• The downstairs bedroom was supposed to be included on the distributed music system, but AHS failed to install a volume control panel in that room.
• Our contract with AHS states we must test the system monthly according to AHS written instructions if we are to maintain our warranty.  However AHS has never given us those instructions. 
• AHS was supposed to install distributed music wiring in five rooms:  Living room, kitchen, master bedroom, downstairs bedroom, and rec. room.  The wiring may have been installed, but it has never been tested.
• AHS did not install a patch panel or any other cross-connect between the wires for the music sources and the cables for the speakers.  All cables hang down in the data cabinet without termination.  More electrician's work will be required to identify each of the wires and terminate them in a cross-connect whereby the music sources can drive the music speakers.
• AHS did not install mud rings to mark and preserve the location of speaker wires.  TMC then drywalled over all AHS distributed music wiring, sealing up the wires.  AHS electricians were on site doing line voltage work, after drywall was up, so TMC actions must have occurred with full knowledge of AHS.  AHS has provided us with no map of those wires, despite our request to Lester.  Experts have told us it will be impossible to find the wires again without calling upon them to use special equipment.  It is therefore impossible to install speakers at present.  Thus, that part of the low voltage work AHS did in our home is useless to us.  In addition, TMC charged a fee for supervising the work of all the other contractors, so they bear another share of the responsibility.
• Instead of attempting to fulfill its contract obligations and complete our system, Lester gave AHS’s its unjustified claims against us to TransworldSystems Collection Agency.  The agency has sent us two letters and we have written to them in response (Exhibit ahs 9).  Lester Ellis received a copy of our first letter, in which we clearly state that AHS had failed to complete its contract.  The result?  AHS has made no attempt to address the situation, and we have received a second letter from the collections agency.  We take this as evidence as follows:  Lester has no intention of fulfilling AHS contract obligations.  In fact, he seems to want a dispute.

34.  AHS Owes Us a New Wiring System

On the other hand, AHS promised us a dynamite distributed music system, made inexpensive for installation because the walls and ceilings in our home were wide open during renovation.  The lower bedroom has been left out of the system entirely.  As one expert told us concerning the system we envisioned, “the moment has passed.”  Walls are in place, the ceilings are in place, a new distributed music system will have to be designed.  We think AHS should pay for wiring the new distributed music system.  We will pay for the consumer electronics.

35.  Fire Alarm System — Was It Permitted?  Does It Work?

By the way, we seem to have a fire alarm and smoke detection system.  We didn’t order them as part of our low voltage contract, but somehow they were installed.   We see that Peter Oakes bought some smoke detectors at Home Depot on March 25, 2005.  (Exhibit tmc 8, pg. 14) The smoke detectors have never been tested or inspected and may not work anyway.    

AHS should have applied for a permit to put in a fire alarm system, if in fact they did so.  We have no record of any such permit being applied for, and no record of required inspections having been performed.  (Exhibit ahs 7.) The missing permits/inspections under various contracts are:

• 105 SYS BNDNG GRNDNG
• 115 FIRE ALARM ROUGH
• 116 FIRE ALARM OK/TEST

36.  Summarizing Results of Our AHS Experience

Let us consider the results of both our line voltage and low voltage experience with AHS/TMC.  What we have is the following:

• A subcontract misrepresented as direct employment
• A bill for more than five times the original estimate
• Substandard and incomplete workmanship that endangered our lives
• An alleged verbal change to a contract wherein everything was supposed to be in writing
• Invoices for materials purchased after the work stopped
• Bills for incomplete work that is not due for payment until the work is completed
• A lien that encompasses two contracts, one as a subcontractor with an almost-too-late Notice to Owner, and the other as a direct contractor with no Notice to Customer
• A collection agency attempting to collect in full for work not completed
• Distributed music wire buried invisibly in the walls or actually not installed (downstairs bedroom).  The wires are unavailable for speakers so there can be no distributed music
• A guarantee dependant on monthly testing according to written instructions that have never been supplied
• Data and telephone wiring to every room in the house except to the part where it is most highly desired: the office

37.  Reconsider This Tall Story

By the time we received the CCC Notice to Owner, we had already paid TMC $161,876 on a job that was supposed to cost $90,565.27. 

Recall that AHS had been working on our house from November 30, 2004, to April 11, 2005.  According to TMC records, AHS was paid $10,613.00.  Yet according to AHS, TMC had paid them not a penny.

How many contractors would work for 4½ months without receiving a dime in pay?  It is hard to understand how Bonnie and Lester Ellis could stay in business with practices such as those.  It doesn’t add up, unless . . .

38.  Does This Sound Like A Plan?

Let us pretend for a moment that

• A company gets a electrical subcontract without homeowner knowledge
• The terms of the subcontract are time and materials with no cap
• The subcontractor works for four and a half months on the job, running up cost overruns
• All the homeowners’ cash and whatever they can beg or borrow is paid to the general contractor for their cost overruns
• The subcontractor then surprises the homeowner with an additional bill, claiming the general contractor has paid him nothing
• When the homeowners have no money to pay, the subcontractor files a lien on the house to satisfy the bill
• The subcontractor’s lien service makes a “mistake” and mails the lien to the wrong address, consuming 13 days of the homeowners’ 15 day allowance to file frivolous lien complaint

What’s left? 

• Foreclosure on the house to satisfy the lien

Significantly, on May 24, 2005, Bob Trustworthy wrote to us (email) suggesting that we use our house as collateral against a loan to pay him the money we allegedly owe him.  It seems that he, also, considers our house is desirable.  (Exhibit tmc 9.)

We attach e-mail correspondence between Lester, Joy Tansey, and us, which took place on February 2 and 3, 2006, nine months later.  (Exhibit ahs 13.)  Lester seems confident of legal victory.

39.  What Tansey Knew

Let us grant for a moment that Joy Tansey knew nothing of our history with TMC and AHS.  Let us consider what she should have been able to discern from the documents presented to her.  Here are the hours claimed by AHS workers from March 26 onward from the document “Labor Detail, February 3 through May 1, 2005” (Exhibit ahs 4m):