June 2014 - Page 118 of 352 - Home Builder Developer, Interior Renovation and Design Home Builder Developer, Interior Renovation and Design

She was looking for someone to fix her washing machine and instead she lost nearly $300.

Now, the New Fairfield woman is warning others about a network of bogus repair shops.

Joan Sudol lives alone in New Fairfield, so when her washing machine broke, she looked online for help.

New Fairfield Appliance Repair said they were in business for 14 years. The repairman showed up charging her $312 dollars to fix the machine. She was satisfied, until the next morning.

I went to do a load of laundry. Machine was still broken, same problem, says Sudol.

The repairman wouldnt come back. So, Joan demanded a refund. He mailed her a check, which didnt clear.

She eventually received a call from a Mississippi phone number offering a refund and then weeks later, got a check from an Arizona company that has yet to clear.

OK, how many people are in on this thing?, thought Sudol.

Joan ended up having to get a new washing machine altogether, but its what she discovered about the company that has her issuing a warning to others.

She looked a little deeper into New Fairfield Appliance Repair and found theres also a Bethel Appliance Repair, Brookfield Appliance Repair and as it turns out, the same business title in 23 different CT towns.

Link:
Appliance Repair Scam Warning

Waco, TX (PRWEB) June 22, 2014

The first question often asked when an appliance breaks is should I get this fixed or just go buy a new one? Today, with the increased cost of utilities, consumers are more aware of how much it costs to operate appliances.

Manufacturers have been working to increase the efficiency of appliance for more than 20 years. According to the National Resources Defense Council, replacing a washing machine manufactured before 1994 with an ENERGY STAR model can save a family $110 per year on utility bills, while replacing a dishwasher manufactured before 1994 with an ENERGY STAR model can save $25 per year.

Other appliances either dont offer ENERGY STAR labels or do not enjoy energy savings that are noticeably better than the alternative. For instance, according to the U.S. Governments ENERGY STAR calculator, a new energy efficient side-by-side refrigerator operating at a cost of $.15/kwh would only save about $26 per year over a comparable refrigerator less than 15 years old.

When faced with these realities regarding energy cost savings for new appliances, the decision to repair a broken appliance rather than replace a new one seems simpler. A general rule of thumb is that if the cost to repair an appliance is less than half of the cost to replace it with a new one, the repairs should definitely be considered, stated Steven Johnson, owner of Mr. Appliance Over the Mountain in Birmingham, Alabama.

Beyond the price of a new appliance, other factors should be considered in this replacement cost. For example, many major retailers will not install new appliances, thus adding more cost for the consumer. Additionally, the cost to dispose of an old appliance can be quite high. The cost of repair should be compared to not only the cost of a new appliance, but the installation cost of the new appliance and disposal costs of the old appliance, said Johnson. The history of the appliance is also an important factor because many repairs are the result of a faulty part in need of replacement. Replacing the part would be more affordable than replacing an entire appliance that is otherwise in good condition, added Johnson.

When faced with a failing appliance, consider these factors and be sure to consult with your local Mr. Appliance repair expert.

Go here to see the original:
Should You Repair or Replace that Broken Appliance? Mr. Appliance Helps Make the Decision Easy

Question: My apartment building is about 10 feet from a small, nine-unit complex. That building's homeowners association undertook reconstruction work involving significant re-landscaping, iron railing repairs, brick masonry, patios and common walkways. All this work faces our building's front doors.

I had incorrectly reasoned the homeowners association would be a considerate neighbor during this time. But when I returned home, I noticed six large trees had been removed and my kitchen and living room were covered with a thick layer of dirt, dust and wood debris that had been pushed through window sills and under my apartment door, covering my floors, rugs and walls.

I wrote to the homeowners association president and politely requested that she provide 24-hours notice of any further exterior renovation so I could take precautions. I also asked when the work would be completed. She apologized, then referred me to the homeowners association manager, who said they ran into unforeseen circumstances that created small but unavoidable impacts. He then said that not only could he not tell me when the work would be completed but that he didn't owe me any further response.

On a daily basis, I continue to suffer from mounds of dirt, dust and wood debris stuck to my sliding doors and windows and lodged throughout my unit and on my personal belongings. This is a time-consuming mess to clean up every day and has also exacerbated my allergies. Since the president and manager are dismissive of my concerns and requests for good neighborliness, what recourse do I have?

Answer: It may not be neighborly, but depending on your local ordinances this manager may be correct that no notice is required. But being potentially correct about a notice requirement won't prevent the homeowners association from being part of a lawsuit and subject to damages.

It may also be possible that notice was given to your landlord or the owner of your building but not to you directly. Most construction cannot be performed without the appropriate city permits. With a little bit of time spent at City Hall, you might find information related to the extent of the homeowners association's reconstruction plans.

Regardless of issues pertaining to notice and dissemination of scheduling information, the association cannot damage your property. It must take reasonable steps to reduce the effect of its construction and repairs on your unit. The intrusion of dirt, dust and debris is a nuisance and/or interference with the quiet enjoyment of your residence and may also constitute a physical trespass onto your property.

Even where the effects of construction are not invading your property, an action for a private nuisance may allow you to recover for the inconvenience and interference you have suffered. You should be diligent in recording and documenting your damages, which include time and money spent cleaning or taking time off work for illness or doctor appointments as well as other physical ailments or lack of sleep you may suffer. Keep the manager and association updated with your growing damages and repeatedly demand, in writing (return-receipt requested), compensation for the same. You may want to copy your landlord on that correspondence and request the landlord's assistance with your efforts.

Depending on the extent and urgency of the damages, you may also consider pursuing claims in civil or Small Claims Court for the association's failure to take adequate precautions with regard to its construction project. Clearly, the association has a duty to act reasonably with respect to its construction efforts and refrain from negligently taking actions, or from failing to take reasonable actions, that result in damage to you and your property.

Although Small Claims Court may be an expedient option for you to recover a monetary award, a restraining order or injunction in civil court may be necessary to preserve your health and quiet enjoyment.

Read the original post:
Debris from reconstruction work creates mess in neighboring building

Dispute: The Meriton building site at Moore Park. Photo: James Brickwood

One of Australias largest developers has spent six months building a series of inner Sydney apartment towers it is accused of not having full approval to build.

Meriton and the City of Sydney are now facing off in a courtroom, after the council sought an urgent injunction when it claimed the company refused to stop work.

The NSW Land and Environment Court will decide next week whether to force more than 300 workers to down tools at the Waterloo site, where billionaire Harry Triguboff is building 355 apartments across five towers soaring up to 25 storeys high.

Council said the serious and significant breach was uncovered during inspections by its staff about two weeks ago.

Excavation work, construction of basement car parking and building work up to 10 storeys on a number of buildings has been completed without the necessary approvals being obtained, a spokesman said. The City will not tolerate developers who fail to respect these requirements.

The property giant was granted development consent for the project last year, as well as approval for some preliminary work, but not the construction certificate that is required before building could actually begin.

According to affidavits read out at Fridays hearing, it was the sites senior project manager, Shener Dursun, who failed to lock in this disputed approval.

The court was told Mr Dursun attempted to resolve the problem without telling anyone at the company for fear of losing his job.

View original post here:
Six months building with 'no approval'