Existing ductwork: whose responsibility? 1

[ichibansan]

I have a question for you guys, if you have a minute.

Homeowner ABC has been living in an old house for several years. The home was originally built over 20 years ago, and the original ductwork and HVAC components have been in place ever since.

Homeowner ABC hires XYZ AC Company to install a new air handler and outdoor unit due to the old system finally taking a dive.

XYZ Company installs said items, and in the process informs Homeowner ABC that the ductwork, based on load calcs, is insufficient and in pretty rough shape, and probably should be replaced addition to the replacement of the other items. Homeowner ABC decides to leave the existing ductwork in place. Thus, the ductwork replacement suggestion never comes to fruition in regards to final scope of services provided.

Homeowner ABC eventually sells the house to homeowner DEF a couple years after the aforementioned air handler and outdoor unit have been replaced. Homeowner DEF is astonished at the very high power bills, and decides to get it checked out.

Homeowner DEF hires a few HVAC guys to see if they can pinpoint the problem, and all of them tend to offer the same statement - the ductwork is bad and should probably be replaced.

With this newfound knowledge, homeowner DEF files a complaint with the State Board of Plumbing/HVAC, against XYZ AC Company, stating that it was XYZ's responsibility to replace the ductwork back when they changed out the air handler and outdoor unit.

Can the complaint claim be substantiated? Does homeowner DEF have a leg to stand on?

 

[DouginMB]

I don't see how. I would think the responsibility would lie with the home inspector hired by the DEF couple before the home sale was complete.

However, some states (like SC where i live) have laws that really favor homeowners. It wouldn't suprise me in the least if some board ruled against XYZ. Especially if the duct were so deteriorated that it affected operation of the equipment.

 

[MintJulep]

It seems to be that DEF has no legs in regard to a complaint against XYZ. Especially if XYZ has documentation that they made a recommendation and ABC willingly elected to not follow the recommendation.

Depending on the disclosure laws, and what ABC may or may not have disclosed at the time of the sale, DEF may have a complaint against ABC.

 

[ChasBean1]

The signed agreement between XYZ and ABC should exactly define the scope of work. XYZ is on the hook for no more. DEF probably routinenly hires attorneys to straighten out for them any uncertainties in life and cannot handle the fact that life does not come with a written certificate of guarantee, and should move to a third world country for a while to calibrate themselves.

 

[KGRoberts]

Homeowner DEF doesn't have a leg to stand on, unless there is more to this story than has already been told here. Seems the former homeowner should have more to worry about, if anyone (disclosure).
Anyway, this is really a legal question and should be directed to someone that is farmiliar with your applicable codes, laws, and such......Good luck.

 

[jimmyjam]

Well,IchiBansin1 is right,higher utility bills must mean the installer screwed up...However he mentioned he goes to lawyers for everything,my opinion is he is a lawyer! Never ever ever do a job for a lawyer.

 

[phreaq]

I think DEF is SOL.

Think of it this way, I have a car and Honda tells me to replace the timing belt at 140,000kms. I didn't change it and sold the car. Can the new owner sue Honda? of course not.

I just bought a house, and part of my clause was to have a building inspector check out the house. Best $500 I ever spent

 

[GMcD]

Hang on a sec. The system with the old ductwork apparently worked fine for 20 years until the air handler and outdoor unit died and needed replacement. So what suddenly required the "bad ducts" to need replacement? The new load calcs? Were the load calcs done correctly? Why are all the "HVAC guys" all agreeing that "yeah- needs new stuff to make it work". Have you had an independent evaluation from someone who isn't trying to sell more "stuff" for the house?

 

[CarolinaPE]

I am not sure if it is ABC or DEF, I need a piece of paper to keep this all straight. I would think the original homeowner, who was aware of this condition, and did not disclose this condition in a disclosure statement, is liable. Homes are not cars, every one I have bought and sold came with a disclosure statement. My guess is that the ductwork is undersized and possibly internally lined that has deteriorated? What really puts people in a predicament is when they buy a house and nobody discloses problems to them, a existing condition arises and is a problem, then they have to fix it before they sell the home to someone else.

 

[ichibansan]

Wow. Can't believe this was dredged back up.

Depends on you definition of working "fine" for 20 years. The previous owner (ABC) admitted to having high utility bills, but apparently never had issues with paying them. Up until installation of the new unit and air handler, there was never really a pair of eyes that had taken a look at the ductwork tucked away in the crawlspace. ABC simply didn't have a problem with the high bills, or at least had nver questioned them.

XYZ came along, suggested the ductwork be re-insulated and patched at various locations to ensure the most efficient operation of the new equipment. DEF kindly declined, and that was that.

To put some closure to this, the state board decided in favor of the new homeowner, DEF. XYZ was required to fix the ductwork, at no cost to DEF. There stance was as follows: Regardless of the XYZ's suggestion being made in writing to ABC for the ductwork to be remediated/patched/etc., XYZ should not have installed the equipment knowing the ductwork would not be able to "handle" the new equipment. They basically said that XYZ should have just walked away from the project, providing no services at all. This is despite the fact that DEF specifically requested the new air handler and outdoor unit, and specifically declined the ductwork remediation, knowing full well XYZ's warnings about the shortcomings of such a system.

Anyway, for those of you having your doubts about XYZ. This is an honest man (he's a relative of mine, if you must know). He'd done work for ABC in the past, and was highly regarded. He wasn't out to milk the money cow on this thing as GMcD implies, trying to continually add to a laundry list of items that "needed fix'n". He took no issue with DEF's declining the ductwork suggestion, as it was, in his eyes, ultimately the homeowner's decision. He learned the hard way that, no matter what, it's a CYA business. apparently, in the state board's eyes, he shoud have covered his a$$ a bit better and declined provision of service to ABC altogether.

And for what it's worth, at the state board review, homeowner DEF (a real estate agent), showed up with her two-month old baby daughter to further drive home the fact that the high utility bills were simply something that could not be tolerated, and SOMEBODY needed to fix the problem, immediately.

And what about ABC (the town's doctor/family physician)? Good question. You'd think there would have been some sort of "disclosure of existing condition" violation on his part during the sale of the home, but DEF apparently declined that opportunity and instead opted to go after the less intimidating XYZ.

This was over two years ago. I found out recently that XYZ is not the only victim of DEF's "tactics". There are two other contractors that were dinged for similar issues by DEF and the state board. As someone alluded to, the situation just lends itself to the proetection of the homeowner, not the contractor.

Think what you will about XYZ. Obviously, I originally posted this while standing in his corner. I think the thing to take from this is, no matter what good intentions you think you have in providing a service to a client, there is always that potential for the client to use the system to your detriment.

My dad has learned his lesson.

 

[tombmech]

I hope the lesson is that XYZ no longer does business with DEF, not that XYZ changes his ethics and honesty. Our court system has evolved in the wrong direction in some instances, and is susceptible to emotion instead of common sense logic. It's also too bad that some such as DEF have learned to take advantage of that.

As you correctly point out, if anyone was liable, it was ABC - with his failure to fully disclose deficiencies. As Newfella points out, home buying is not the "buyer beware" dictum that rules most purchases - especially used cars. Instead, questions of damage and liability are legally concerned with full disclosure. It matters little whether a deficiency existed, only with whether it was disclosed.

The thought that XYZ should have any part in that dispute is incredible. I sincerely hope that it only affects his selection of clients in the future, not how he treats those clients.