Company has no obligation in feud

By NANCY PARADIS

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 16, 2000

An employee of Dunedin Refrigeration was caretaking a piece of property that we own. In the middle of March, he abandoned the property, leaving about 15 3-ton air conditioning condensers, which are big, heavy units. The employee acknowledged that the units came from jobs he did for Dunedin Refrigeration.

We phoned the owner of Dunedin Refrigeration and explained the situation. He responded that Dunedin Refrigeration allowed the employee to take the units for scrap and that they were the problem of the employee. They have now become our problem.

Even if Dunedin Refrigeration did give the units to the employee, we feel that it should be responsible enough to ensure proper disposal of units it removes from customers' homes. After all, customers pay the company for the removal and disposal of old units.

We just couldn't believe that they wouldn't come and get these condensers, especially since there could be an environmental issue as well. Can you help us get rid of these old condensers? Nancee Laursen

Response: Michael Bowman, president of Dunedin Refrigeration, said in a letter to Action that you left out several facts concerning this situation.

He said his employee had been living on a property owned by his stepbrother, your husband. Your husband evicted him after an argument and told him that he had a certain number of days to get his stuff off the property.

Bowman said his employee took time off work to get relocated and to remove his belongings. When he went to get more of his things, he found that the locks on the door had been changed and and that his vehicle had been towed.

Since he obviously was not welcome on the property anymore, he was unable to collect the remainder of his belongings or clean up. He told Bowman that he would have removed all the scrap had he been allowed to finish moving his things.

Shortly thereafter, you called and gave Dunedin Refrigeration a day to remove the rest of the employee's belongings or you would would write to Action and call all the TV stations. Bowman consulted an attorney, who said Dunedin Refrigeration was not responsible for the employee's leftover items.

With regard to any possible environmental problem, he said all refrigerant is removed from the equipment on the job site before it is brought to the company's scrap pile. There were no environmental issues with the equipment the employee had removed. He said you were aware of that.

The company was not dumping old equipment on your husband's property, he said, since it has a junk collector who comes in daily and hauls away all old equipment. His employee felt that he could make money doing this on the side.

Bowman said he is willing to ask his junk man to haul away the old units if he wants them, even though this is an issue between family members and does not involve his company at all. If this is agreeable to you, Bowman said to have your husband call his office.

After receiving Bowman's letter, we called to ask why you had not told us his employee was your husband's stepbrother. You said it was irrelevant and that the two were no longer speaking. You also said that the locks were never changed and that the vehicle was towed at the suggestion of the police department when you called it concerning the abandoned property.

Your husband's stepbrother had three months to move, you said, and it was during this time that the air condensers showed up on the property.

We are glad that there seems to be a reasonble solution to the junk problem, but it seems that you tried to solve a family dispute by involving first the employer of your husband's stepbrother and then Action.

Given that Dunedin Refrigeration gave its employee the old air condensers for him to salvage the parts, we do not feel that it is under any obligation to remove them from your property. Furthermore, we do not agree that it is irrelevant that you failed to disclose that your former caretaker is also your husband's stepbrother. If anything, their relationship seems to be a key issue in this dispute.

Action solves problems and gets answers for you. If you have a question, or your own attempts to resolve a consumer complaint have failed, write Times Action, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731, or call your Action number, 893-8171, or, outside of Pinellas, (800) 333-7505, ext. 8171, to leave a recorded request.

Requests will be accepted only by mail or voice mail; calls cannot be returned. We will not be responsible for personal documents, so please send only photocopies. If your complaint concerns merchandise ordered by mail, we need copies of both sides of your canceled check.

We may require additional information or prefer to reply by mail; therefore, readers must provide a full mailing address, including ZIP code. Names of letter writers will not be omitted except in unusual circumstances. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.