|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| SEARCH | SUBSCRIBE | ||
Support Global Action on Aging!
Thanks! |
 |
Bill Would Protect Elderly From Home Repair Fraud
Vermont News April 29, 2003 MONTPELIER — A House committee is due to take up legislation this week that would strengthen criminal penalties for home repair fraud against elderly or other vulnerable people. The legislation would make it easier for authorities to prosecute those who charge too much for services, who claim unnecessary work is needed, or who intimidate homeowners into paying for work they don’t want. Such fraud is a major problem in Vermont, said Philene Taormina, a spokeswoman for AARP who worked with the state Attorney General’s office to draft the legislation. It’s more common among the elderly because they are more likely than younger people to own a home and be at home during the day when tradesmen call, the AARP said. They also are less likely to do their own repairs and tend to be vulnerable to deceptive sales practices. Fraud harms the victims both emotionally and financially, Taormina said. “They’re intimidated, they’re embarrassed, and they can lose a lot of money,” she said. “They feel violated.” A December 2001 report from several state and consumer groups in Vermont that work with the elderly identified home repair fraud as a priority. In recent years, the Attorney General’s office has received 150 to 200 written complaints a year, said Assistant Attorney General Wendy Morgan. Vermont is one of only seven states in the country that doesn’t have specific laws to deter such fraud, she said. The fraud takes many forms. In the summer, it can be driveway paving crews that pave more than the homeowner requested, and then demand payment for the larger job; a repairman who says the chimney is dangerous; and roofers who say they noticed a problem and offer to fix it, even if there is no problem, Morgan said. Sometimes people are afraid to say no to the work. “I remember one guy, during the ice storm, going from house to house to cut up trees,” Morgan said. “His chain saw was actually running. How much are you going to argue with a large person holding a chain saw?” In the case of Christopher Howe’s parents, it was a tree-cutter who said a line of trees might fall in a storm and damage the house. Howe, a lawyer and probate court judge, said the tradesman charged his parents $3,400 for about $300 worth of work to cut the trees. His mother paid $1,700 up front. “My mother came in the next day and said, ‘I think I made a mistake,”’ Howe said. “She was in tears.” Howe went to his parents’ house in Poultney and fired the tree-cutter, and told his story to the attorney general’s office when the legislation was being drafted. “I don’t know if I would categorize it as a flagrant and sinister scheme,” Howe said of the tree-cutter. “But there was no question that (the tradesman) was holding all of the cards during the contractual negotiation, and that’s wrong.” There’s no statute specifically on home improvement fraud in Vermont right now; the state’s attorney usually prosecutes for false pretenses in such cases, Morgan said. To do that, he or she must prove the tradesman intended to defraud the homeowner — which means proving the fraud has happened before. The bill now before House Judiciary Committee would allow a jury to infer an intent to defraud if the money were neither returned nor the work completed. “Then the state’s attorney can bring the case without having 10 victims,” Morgan said. “From our perspective, that’s the primary reason for the bill.” The bill has passed the Senate, and the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take it up on Thursday. The bill’s drafters were careful not to create legislation that would increase the burdens on legitimate contractors, Taormina said. The measure defines what activities are criminal home improvement fraud, and requires registration of workers who have been convicted of such fraud. It also calls for penalties that are linked to how much money was taken. Copyright
© 2002 Global Action on Aging |
