Tougher law tackles repairman runaround

By Cy Ryan

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 | 2 a.m.

It could be 118 degrees in Las Vegas when a home air conditioner fails.

Not to worry. The homeowner has a service contract requiring the problem to be handled within 24 hours.

But in a growing number of cases contractors or repairmen show up in 24 hours but the problem never gets fixed.

“And you may not see him for another two weeks or a month or longer,” said Martin Krassner, an examiner with the state Insurance Division.

Marilyn Lee of Henderson learned that painful — and expensive — lesson when the heat in her cabin on Mount Charleston went out just before Thanksgiving 2006. The contractor showed up within the required 24 hours but the repairs were not made for a month.

Without heat, the cabin’s pipes froze and burst. “We fixed it ourselves,” she said, noting that her husband, state Sen. John Lee, is in the plumbing business. She said she repeatedly called both the service contract company and the repair company but never got satisfaction — and ended up getting stuck with $5,000 in repair bills.

To remedy such problems the Legislative Commission has approved a beefed up regulation to give homeowners more protection. The regulation toughens a 2000 rule that says such problems must be taken care of within 24 hours after a complaint is filed.

Since 2000, consumers often have gotten the runaround when reporting complaints about air conditioning, heating, electricity and electronic devices covered by service contracts, Krassner said. “Consumers, in some cases, throw up their hands in frustration” and pay for the repairs themselves.

About a dozen companies write service contracts in Nevada. Many of the contracts are purchased when people buy new homes.

The updated regulation specifies that repairs must be completed within 24 hours or “as soon as reasonably practical.” If the problem can’t be fixed within three days, the homeowner must be told when the work will occur.

Lee, however, said the new regulation “doesn’t seem to have much teeth.” For example, it doesn’t permit homeowners to seek a new repairman or contractor if their problem is not corrected in the allotted time period. And it doesn’t allow consumers to seek reimbursement for damage such as that at the Lees’ cabin.

Violation of the regulation carries up to a $10,000 fine.

•••

District Judge Andrew Puccinelli says “it’s not a beach walk” for a criminal defendant placed in drug court instead of going to jail or prison.

The nonviolent offenders are subject to unannounced drug and alcohol testing, required to attend counseling and must seek jobs. There are regular appearances before the judge to determine whether the individual is living up to the goals set for him. Those who fall short can end up behind bars.

Puccinelli of Elko and District Judge Jackie Glass of Las Vegas say the programs work and are better than imprisoning people with drug problems.

Drug and mental health courts, two of the specialty sentencing programs available to keep offenders out of prison, need more money, supporters say. And if the Legislature doesn’t change the law in 2009, many of the programs will disappear.

Currently the state has committed about $3 million to the program. But Glass and other judges who work in the specialty programs say they need $42 million in the next biennium.

One possible source of additional funding for the specialty courts is a $6 million reserve in the prison budget. But Howard Skolnik, director of the Corrections Department, said that money will have to be spent because the number of inmates is higher than expected.

Glass, Puccinelli and Senior District Judges Peter Breen and Archie Blake said drug courts have an 85 percent success rate in keeping people out of trouble. In contrast, inmates released from prison without treatment have only an 11 percent rate of success.

Advocates of the specialty courts say the $20,000-a-year cost of housing an inmate in prison could treat six individuals in the drug or mental health programs.