III. THE INVESTIGATION

Following is a summary of the staff's findings and the alleged violations.

The Staff informs us that it opened its investigation into the practices of Ronen Perez and Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. because of consumer complaints, continued unlawful advertising and operations as a household goods carrier. According to staff, these unlawful activities encompassed the periods from May 29, 2002 through November 30, 2003. Staff alleges Ford Moving and Storage falsely held itself out to the public as a licensed mover by including unauthorized permit numbers in its postcard advertisements. Staff warned this operator to cease and desist all unlawful advertising and operations as a mover without the required permit in three separate verbal admonishments (November 18, 2002, December 3, 2002, and January 15, 2003). Notwithstanding directives issued by CPSD staff to cease and desist, Ford Moving and Storage continued to violate the statutory and regulatory schemes applicable to household goods carriers. This is evident by a complaint received from a consumer (Navy Banvard) alleging loss and damage and overcharge on a move performed by Ford Moving and Storage on March 27, 2003. Ford Moving and Storage conducted, or attempted to conduct, moves after its permit was revoked.

A. CONSUMER COMPLAINTS

1. Benjamin Raber Complaint

CPSD received a complaint from Benjamin Raber concerning events relating to his move performed by Ford Moving and Storage on May 28, 2002 (into storage) and July 3, 2002 (out of storage). The operating authority of Ford Moving and Storage for the move conducted on May 28, 2002, was valid, however, the permit was suspended effective May 29, 2002, for failure to file evidence of workers' compensation insurance coverage.² The move performed on July 3, 2002 was unlawful because the carrier's permit was in a suspended status.

The complaint alleged that Ford Moving and Storage entered into a contract with the consumer to move his household goods from his old residence in Long Beach, CA to the carrier's storage facility, and subsequently out of storage to his new residence, also located in Long Beach, CA. for a fixed price of $ 1,250. Benjamin Raber provided staff with a copy of what he considered a contract dated May 25, 2002, written and signed by Michael Nash, a foreman for Ford Moving and Storage. The contract showed the cost of his household goods move was $1015, including the costs for packing and unpacking, plus storage for five (5) weeks for $235. Benjamin Raber paid Ford Moving and Storage $ 910 (3 separate payments) for partial payment towards the total cost of the move. Benjamin Raber stated that on May 28, 2002, Ronen Perez made the unauthorized charge of $800 on Raber's credit card to ensure that he was paid enough for the move. On July 3, 2002, Ford Moving and Storage demanded an additional $1870 in cash before his household goods would be unloaded. Ford Moving and Storage also charged Benjamin Raber $220 for re-assembling of some furnishings. Benjamin Raber paid a total of $3,800 for the moves, $2,550 over the original estimate. Benjamin Raber stated that Ford Moving and Storage was not responsive to his claims of overcharge or loss and damage. Benjamin Raber has filed a suit against Ford Moving and Storage in Small Claims Court, and was awarded a judgment of $4958 on October 28, 2002 (Raber v. Ford Moving and Storage, et al., Case LB 02S03249). On three occasions (November 18, 2002, December 3, 2002 and January 15, 2003) CPSD staff discussed (in-person and over the phone) Benjamin Raber's complaint with Ronen Perez; specifically, the significant overcharge from a flat rate quoted, operations during insurance suspension without a permit, possible "bait and switch" unfair business practices, and violations of rules contained in the Commission's MAX 4 Tariff. Ronen Perez advised staff that he was aware of the suspended status of his permit.

2. Laura Westfall Complaint

CPSD staff obtained from the Better Business Bureau, information on consumer complaints filed against Ronen Perez dba Ford Moving and Storage. Of the thirteen unanswered consumer complaints filed between July 19, 2002 and December 2, 2002, only one move (Laura Westfall) was performed within the State of California. Ford Moving and Storage performed the move on October 18, 2002, after his household goods permit was revoked. The complaint alleged that Ronen Perez quoted her a price of $225 for four hours to move her household goods from her old residence to her new residence, both located in Sherman Oaks, CA. On the day of the move, Ford Moving and Storage showed up at her premises with a Budget rental truck. The movers took 9.5 hours to move her household goods and increased the moving charge to $775. Laura Westfall stated that she spoke with Ronen Perez who told her that the truck would not be unloaded until she paid the movers $775.00. Laura Westfall said she argued with Ronen Perez and told him that she would not pay the $775.00 amount. Laura Westfall further stated that she negotiated with Ronen Perez, who then agreed to reduce the moving charge to $600 ($375 over the original verbal estimate). Laura Westfall stated that the movers left everything in the living room, at the final destination, boxes marked fragile were left upside down with the contents smashed and her furniture was damaged. Laura Westfall stated that the movers left quite a bit of her personal belongings behind which she had to rent a truck to move. Laura Westfall stated that on October 21, 2002, Ronen Perez promised her a total refund of $600 for the moving charges but she has never heard back from him.

3. Navy Banvard Complaint

CPSD staff received a complaint from Navy Banvard concerning events relating to his move performed by Ford Moving and Storage on March 27, 2003. The complaint alleged that Ford Moving and Storage entered into a contract with him to move his household goods from his old residence in Pacific Palisades, CA to his new residence, located in Malibu, CA for an estimated cost of $ 1,120 plus packing materials. Navy Banvard stated that on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, an employee of Ford Moving and Storage, Lee Holland, came to their home and did a thorough walk through of the residence and prepared a detailed estimate. The Banvards were told all of their belongings would fit into one truck and Ford Moving and Storage would do the entire move in one trip. The Banvards were not given any further documentation or papers, other than the written estimate, prior to the move. The Banvards stated on the day of the move the movers were unable to load all of their belongings into the truck they brought and acknowledged it would take two trips. This was inconsistent with what they were originally told by the estimator. The Banvards stated after the movers had finished unloading their household goods, they were presented with a "Combined Agreement for Moving Services and Freight Bill" for $2,432.50 (including $437.50 described as "packing"). Mr. Banvard also stated the mover "pressed" him to sign a liability release form, but he refused, as he already had paid the mover more than twice what was originally quoted ($1,120 plus packing materials).

The Banvards stated they've attempted many times to contact Ronen Perez and left messages for him to call back to discuss the overcharge; however, Ronen Perez has not returned any of their calls.

4. Michelle Morris Complaint

CPSD's investigation disclosed Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. performed at least six moves during October and November 2003. These moves performed by Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. violate the temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction issued by the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles on September 12, 2003 (Case No. BC300974). Staff interviewed Michelle Morris about her move into Ford's storage facility on June 27, 2003 and the subsequent move out of storage to her new residence in Santa Clarita on October 18, 2003. Morris informed staff she received a written estimate from Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. on June 12, 2003. The estimate stated her move into storage would cost $ 636, storage was quoted at $ 175 per month, and the move from storage would be $ 650. Morris stated the estimate did not include a "Not To Exceed Price", nor was she given an opportunity to declare the value of her property or select a valuation option. She said the mover did not give her an Agreement For Moving Services/Freight Bill or the shipper information booklet as required by MAX 4. Morris questions additional charges for packing supplies and further stated there was loss and damage (estimated in the amount of $ 5,000) to her furniture on the move out of storage. Ford Moving has failed to respond or resolve her damage claim.

5. Christine Gaiman Complaint

Staff interviewed Christine Gaiman concerning her experience during the move performed by Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. Gaiman told staff she contacted Ford Moving after finding its advertisement in the Yellow Pages. Ford Moving performed moving services for Christine Gaiman on October 15, 2003. This is another move performed in violation of the TRO and Preliminary Injunction issued by the court on September 12, 2003. Gaiman said she arranged for Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. to move her household goods from Sherman Oaks to North Hollywood. Gaiman informed staff the movers never provided her with the shipper information booklet, nor explained the declaration of value options for declaring the value of her household goods. The Ford Moving shipping document, the Combined Agreement For Moving Services and Freight Bill, did not contain a "Not To Exceed Price". Gaiman said she was charged $ 229.50 for boxes and packing supplies, which she thought was excessive. The moving bill of $ 773.50 was twice what she expected to pay. Gaiman told staff she felt the movers' conduct was not professional because they attempted to solicit a tip from her husband and left trash on her lawn.

6. Lillian Jacobs Complaint

CPSD received a complaint from Lillian Jacobs concerning events which occurred during her move performed by Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. on November 25, 2003. Again, this is another move performed by Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. after issuance of the TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Jacobs alleged she was overcharged and suffered loss and damage to her personal belongings due to the movers' negligence. Staff contacted Lillian Jacobs about her complaint. Jacobs advised she arranged for Ford Moving and Storage, Inc. to move her property from Pacific Palisades, CA to Carlsbad, CA. She recalled speaking with an individual who identified himself as "Ronnie", who gave her a verbal estimate over the telephone. Jacobs said the movers did not provide her with the shipper information booklet, an Agreement For Moving Services prior to the day of the move, and did not explain declaration of value options for declaring the value of her household goods. On the day of the move the mover arrived without enough packing supplies or tape. Jacobs says she was required to go to a store to purchase several rolls of tape which delayed the move. Once the movers completed loading her belongings into their truck, they gave her a bill for $ 857, which she thought was excessive. Jacobs further stated she noticed the movers charged her full price for used packing supplies, billed her for boxes she provided, and charged extra transportation time. The movers required her to sign a credit card authorization for $ 2,102.75 prior to completion of the move. Jacobs stated she was not given a "Not To Exceed Price" on the bill presented by Ford Moving. The movers arrived in Carlsbad three hours late. Although she received a bill for the services of three movers, only two persons performed her move. Jacobs says she noticed damage to some of her items and contacted "Ronnie" at Ford Moving. She says she made 8 telephone calls and left messages for "Ronnie" to call her about her damage claim. Ford Moving failed to respond or process her damage claim.

B. Public Utilities Code and Commission General Order Violations

1. Operations After Suspension and Revocation of Permit

According to Section 5286, it is unlawful for carriers to operate during periods of cancellation or revocation of a permit or during the period of its suspension. The respondent conducted household goods operations encompassing periods from May 29, 2002 through November 30, 2003. Section 5315 provides every violation of the Household Goods Carriers' Act is a separate and distinct offense. In case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance is a separate and distinct offense. Section 5313.5 authorizes a $ 5,000 fine per violation. A $ 5,000 fine per violation; at thirteen (13) alleged violations, the Respondents could be held jointly liable for a total fine of $65,000.

2. Operating Without Permit in Force

According to PUC Section 5133, "no household goods carrier shall engage, or attempt to engage, in the business of transportation of used household goods by motor vehicle over the public highways in this State without a permit in force issued by the Commission authorizing those operations". The respondent conducted household goods operations encompassing periods from May 29, 2002 through November 30, 2003. Section 5315 provides every violation of the Household Goods Carriers' Act is a separate and distinct offense. In case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance is a separate and distinct offense. According to Section 5313.5, "whenever the commission, after hearing, finds that any person or corporation is operating as a household goods carrier without a valid permit, or is holding itself out as such a carrier without a valid permit in contravention of Section 5314.5, the commission may impose a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation. The commission may assess the person or corporation an amount sufficient to cover the reasonable expense of investigation incurred by the commission". A $ 5,000 fine per violation; at thirteen (13) alleged violations, the Respondents could be jointly liable for a total fine of $65,000.00.

3. Advertising Without a Permit in Force

The respondents advertised household goods carrier service to the public encompassing periods from May 29, 2002 through May 29, 2003. Section 5315 provides every violation of the Household Goods Carriers' Act is a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance is a separate and distinct offense. A $ 500 fine per violation; at 365 alleged violations, the Respondents could be jointly liable for a total fine of $ 182,500.00.

4. Operating Without Proper Insurance Coverage

According to Sections 5139, 5135.5, and 5161, and Commission General Order (GO) 100-M, a carrier must maintain inter alia liability, property, and workers' compensation insurance coverage in effect and on file with the Commission. In this case, the Respondent failed to maintain the required workers' compensation insurance coverage encompassing periods from May 29, 2002 through April 2, 2003 [306 days]. Respondent also failed to maintain the required public liability insurance coverage for a total of 134 days (June 24, 2002 - July 10, 2002 [17 days], and November 27, 2002 through March 23, 2003[117days]. Section 5313 authorizes $ 500 fine per violation, at 306 alleged violations, the Respondents could be held jointly liable for total fine of $211,500.

5. MAX 4 Violations

According to Section 5139 and the Commission's Maximum Rate Tariff 4 (MAX 4), Items 128 and 132, every household goods carrier shall issue an Agreement for Moving Services, a Shipping Order and Freight Bill to a shipper for each shipment received for transportation. In addition, Item 88 requires that every household goods carrier shall furnish to each prospective shipper a copy of the "Important Information Booklet For Persons Moving Household Goods". Respondents failed to provide the required information, including a "Not To Exceed Price", on its shipping documents; failed to furnish to each prospective shipper a copy of the consumer information booklet; issued verbal estimates over the telephone and charged in excess of the maximum allowable charge on estimated services; and failed to issue a change order for increased charges in violation of Items 108 and 120 of MAX 4. Respondents failed to offer valuation options or have its customers declare the value of their household goods as required by Item 136 of MAX 4. Finally, Item 92 of MAX requires household goods carriers to timely acknowledge and process customer claims for loss and damage. Complaints from consumers allege Respondents failed to respond and resolve their loss and damage claims.