IV. CONSUMER COMPLAINTS

A. Commission Records

The Commission received six (6) consumer complaints filed against All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage. Complainants generally alleged they were charged more than the estimate; that their goods were damaged; that the company failed to contact them about delayed pick-up and delivery of items; and that the company failed to respond to their claims of damaged goods. CPSD staff interviewed six former customers regarding their experience with All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage's moving services.

1. Gail Gottsabend

CPSD received a complaint from Gail Gottsabend concerning events relating to her move performed by California Transportation Systems (All State Moving) on August 10, 2002. On July 18, 2002, All State Moving provided her an on-line hourly rate quote of $89 for 3 men and 1 truck for a total estimate of 9 hours, and a "Not to Exceed Price" of $900 for the move. However, on the day of the move, the movers informed her that the estimate was incorrect, and it would take them up to 15 hours to complete the move. The movers presented her with a bill for $1,030 and refused to unload her household goods at destination until she paid the additional $130, which she paid under protest. All State Moving moved Ms. Gottsabend's household goods but payment for the move was charged on her credit card to Prime Movers. Ms. Gottsabend was not given the "Important Information For Persons Moving Household Goods" booklet until the day of the move. Item 88 of MAX 4 tariff requires a carrier to furnish each prospective shipper a copy of the booklet three days prior to the move. After staff contacted Israel Lerner regarding Gottsabend's complaint, Lerner settled with Ms. Gottsabend and refunded her $130.00. Israel Lerner stated that Ms. Gottsabend's move was farmed out to Prime Movers, a household goods carrier based in Maryland. Lerner stated that he felt responsible for the move and will collect from Prime Movers.

2. Jennie Gonzalez

CPSD received a complaint from Jennie Gonzalez concerning events relating to her move performed by Prime Movers on June 20, 2002. Ms. Gonzalez stated that she spoke to Alex, an employee of Prime Movers, who gave her a written estimate of $1,010 plus a $50 coupon credit for the move, including 1-month free storage. Alex guaranteed Ms. Gonzalez that the move would not cost more than $1,000 and that the total move would take no more than 10 hours. However, on the day of the move, Ms. Gonzalez was presented with a bill for $3,931. On the day of the move, the foreman insisted that Ms. Gonzalez purchase lunch for the movers, and pressured her to give the crew a tip. Ms. Gonzalez paid $4,031 for the move (including the $100 deposit) and payment was charged on her credit card to Prime Movers. Ms. Gonzalez stated that the mover did not deduct the $100 deposit from the total bill and did not honor the $50 coupon that they advertised. She was not given the "Important Information For Persons Moving Household Goods" booklet, nor was she given a Change Order for additional charges. On or about November 18, 2002, Ms. Gonzalez filed a claim with Prime Movers Claims Processing Center, in Brooklyn, New York, alleging $3,000 in overcharges and $6,385.00 for loss and damage to furniture and items transported. Ms. Gonzalez has not received a response regarding her claims.

3. Harold Rawls

CPSD staff received a complaint from Harold Rawls concerning events relating to his move performed by Prime Movers on June 1, 2002. Mr. Rawls searched the Internet and received a response from Prime Movers. Mr. Rawls was given a verbal estimate over the telephone of $1,300- $1,700 two weeks prior to the move, based on the inventory of Rawls' home and belongings, which was also conducted over the telephone. On June 1, 2002, the movers showed up one hour late. Before they loaded his goods onto their truck, the movers told Rawls to sign a blank Change Order, stating that it was for insurance purpose. Instead of delivering the goods to Sacramento on the same day as scheduled, the movers took his goods and unloaded it into storage for four days. Mr. Rawls immediately called the mover but did not get a response. Mr. Rawls called the movers again on June 3, 2002, and was informed that the charges were now $6,700. On June 5, 2002, when the movers delivered his household goods, they demanded a 10% tip and threatened to raise the moving charges if Rawls refused. Mr. Rawls had no choice but to give them $80 cash and a $200 check payable to one of the movers. Mr. Rawls paid a total of $6,617.85 for the move, and is seeking $5,300 in overcharges. Mr. Rawls was not given the "Important Information For Persons Moving Household Goods" booklet until June 10, 2002.

4. Tina Louise Masquelier

CPSD staff received a complaint from Tina Louise Masquelier concerning events relating to her move performed by All State Moving into storage on October 4, 2002, and subsequently out of storage to her new residence on December 15, 2002. Ms. Masquelier alleged All State Moving overcharged her by $300.00 for her move based upon a lower verbal estimate she initially received from the carrier over the phone. Ms. Masquelier also alleged loss and damages in the amount of $16,247.00. Payment for the move was made to Prime Movers through her credit card. She did not receive the "Important Information For Persons Moving Household Goods" booklet. On December 16, 2002, Masquelier filed a claim with All State Moving but has not received a response. Ms. Masquelier hired an attorney to assist her in recovering her damages.

5. Scott Arnold

CPSD staff received a complaint from Scott Arnold concerning events relating to his move performed by California Transportation Systems (All State Moving) on March 1, 2003. Mr. Arnold contacted California Transportation Systems on February 24, 2003, and spoke to Mike, an employee of California Transportation Systems. Mike told Mr. Arnold that the company is fully licensed, and gave Arnold an estimate of $600-$700 for the move. On the day of the move, the movers showed up half an hour late. The movers gave Mr. Arnold the "Important Information For Persons Moving Household Goods" booklet and the "Agreement for Service" while they were loading his goods onto the truck. There was no Not To Exceed Price on the Agreement. Mr. Arnold paid $1,250 in cash for the move. He is seeking $550 in overcharge due to excessive use of packing materials, and $600.00 in loss and damage to his furniture.

6. Yaron Oren-Pines

CPSD staff received a complaint from Yaron Oren-Pines concerning events relating to his move performed by California Transportation Systems (All State Moving) on September 18, 2002. On September 11, 2002, California Transportation Systems provided Mr. Oren-Pines a written on-line rate quote for an hourly rate of $110 for 3 men and 1 truck for a total estimate of 5-6 hours for the move. On the day of the move, the movers showed up six hours late and did not notify Mr. Oren-Pines of the delay. Mr. Oren-Pines stated that the contract was to move his goods into California Transportation Systems' storage facility in San Francisco. However, he found out that his household goods were stored in California Transportation Systems' Sunnyvale storage facility without his knowledge. California Transportation Systems billed Mr. Oren-Pines $1,383 for the move, instead of the $550-$660 quoted price in the original estimate. Mr. Oren-Pines stated that after many attempts to contact California Transportation Systems regarding the storage of his household goods, he found out that California Transportation Systems had transferred his household goods, without his permission, to another storage facility in San Jose (Safari Moving storage). Mr. Oren-Pines paid Safari Moving $1,330 for seven months of storage and transportation of his household goods to a public storage. Mr. Oren-Pines did not receive the "Important Information For Persons Moving Household Goods" booklet. Mr. Oren-Pines has filed legal action against California Transportation Systems for $ 1,383 in overcharges and additional moving expenses, and $22,879 in loss and damages.

7. Better Business Bureau of the Southland (BBB)

Staff's review of the BBB Southland web site disclosed nine unanswered and unresolved consumer complaints filed between June 2002 and January 2003. The BBB's web site contained a Reliability Report (See Michael Nakasone's declaration, Attachment 14) for All State Moving and all of its other business names including City Transportation System, All State Moving & Storage, and Prime Movers which states, in part:

We rate this company as having an unsatisfactory business performance record based on a pattern of complaints, allegations which cause us concern and a failure to respond to complaints. Complainants generally allege they were charged more than the estimate, that their goods were damaged, that the company failed to show up for pick-up dates, and that the company failed to contact them about delayed delivery items. The company responded to a few complaints by sending claim forms. Some complaints remain unresolved, meaning the complainants are not satisfied with the company's response. Most complaints remain unresolved.

Staff contacted all of the complainants to determine the dates and final destinations of their moves. Of the nine intrastate household goods moves completed by All State Moving, only one shipper could not be contacted (Matthew Bedke). Mr. Bedke stated in his complaint to the BBB that he was fraudulently charged for packing costs totaling $1,077.00. Another complaint, Ms. Gail Gottsabend, was a duplicate complaint already filed with the CPUC. Six of the BBB complainants provided the Commission with a written declaration outlining their moving experience with All State Moving. These declarations substantiate continued operations by All State Moving. Two of the complainants also filed written complaints with the Commission and provided documentation.

B. Public Utilities Code and Commission General Order Violations

1. Advertising Without a Permit in Force

According to Sections 5139 and 5314.5, every corporation or person who knowingly and willfully causes or permits the issuance, publishing of any oral or written advertisement of household goods carrier operations to the public without a valid permit, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). Respondents All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage advertised household goods carrier services to the public in three SBC Smart Yellow Pages Directories (Greater Los Angeles - August 2002 issue; Glendale & Burbank - July 2002 issue; and San Fernando Valley West - July 2002 issue), for a total of 396 days from July 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003. These full-paged ads are placed under the "Movers" section. 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 $1,000 fine per violation; at 396 alleged violations, Respondents All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage could be jointly liable for a total fine of $396,000.

2. Operating Without Permit in Force

According to 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. Respondents All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage conducted household goods operations for a period of 23 days. Section 5315 provides every violation of the Household Goods Carriers' Act is a separate and distinct offense. In case of a continuing violation, each additional day is a separate and distinct offense. Section 5313 authorizes a $500 fine per violation; at 23 alleged violations, Respondents All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage could be liable for a total fine of $11,500.

3. Operating Without Proper Insurance Coverage

According to Sections 5135.5, 5139 and 5161, and Commission General Orders (GOs) 100-M and 136-C, a carrier must maintain inter alia workers' compensation (WKCP), public liability and property damage (PL & PD), and cargo insurance coverage in effect and on file with the Commission. In this case, Respondents All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage failed to maintain all three required insurance coverage for the 22 days in which All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage performed household goods moves (see table below).

Section 5313 authorizes $500 fine per violation; at 363 alleged violations, Respondents could be liable for a total fine of $181,500.

4. 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 All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage 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. 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 All State Moving and Washington Mini-Storage failed to respond and resolve their loss and damage claims.

5. Fitness Issues

Public Utilities Code Section 5135 (e) provides that, "[t]he commission may refuse to issue a permit if it is shown that an applicant or an officer, director, partner or associate thereof has committed any act constituting dishonesty or fraud; committed any act which, committed by a permit holder would be grounds for a suspension or revocation of the permit; misrepresented any material fact on the application; or, committed a felony, or crime involving moral turpitude." Staff states its investigation disclosed that Israel Lerner has applied for a household goods permit under the corporate entity of VIP Relocation, Inc. The application is currently pending the outcome of this proceeding. Staff has concerns that Respondent VIP Relocation may continue to practice similar unfair "bait and switch" estimating practices as part of a scheme to overcharge its customers; continue to operate and advertise during an extended period without either required evidence of insurance (public liability, cargo and workers' compensation) on file or a permit in force from the Commission authorizing those operations, and continue to violate the "Household Goods Carriers' Act" and Commission rules and regulations, including MAX 4 rules.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page