Source: https://www.stevenkriegerlaw.com/blog/category/consumer-law
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 17:08:27+00:00

Document:
Virginia General District Court has a variety of forms to help litigants file and defend lawsuits in a more efficient manner. Although the forms themselves are relatively straight forward (and come with instructions), the names of the forms are not as easily understood. Below is a simple chart to help litigants determine the appropriate form to file for the most common circumstances (there are dozens of other forms that can be seen here).
Remember: Claims up to $5,000.00 may be filed in Small Claims Court and claims over $5,000.00 may be filed in General District Court (or Circuit). A detailed explanation of the Virginia court system can be seen in this prior post.
Specifically, the VCPA outlines 35 different “prohibited practices” to protect consumers from unscrupulous businesses that engage in misrepresentations, false advertisements or statements, and/or failure to adequately disclose relevant information to the consumer (like conditions or fees) could all be separate violations of the VCPA. Additional examples of potential VCPA violations can be seen in the Practice Areas section discussing Consumer Protection Law and at the bottom of this post.
Unfortunately, in many instances, consumers with valid claims do not file lawsuits against the company or business that wronged them because the consumer is unaware of the VCPA and the corresponding benefits.
Additionally, consumers may think they are at an insurmountable disadvantage when a conflict arises with a business (regardless of the business’ size), so they do not even bother to seek legal counsel.
Finally, consumers may have the misimpression that legal counsel is financially unavailable to them. Some consumers do not have the financial resources to retain legal counsel. Other consumers determine that the costs to retain an attorney do not justify pursuing the claim (the consumer does not want to pay an attorney more than the consumer would recover from the business).
To address these very legitimate concerns from consumers, Steven Krieger Law, PLLC is proud to offer low bono legal counsel to qualifying clients.
Thus, consumers should make every effort to obtain legal counsel if they have a complaint stemming from a “consumer transaction” against a business because a successful consumer complaint will be awarded damages and may also be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees.
In Robert M. Seh Co., Inc. v. O'Donnell, the consumer plaintiff contracted with builder defendant to install a Fox swimming pool at plaintiff’s residence for $22,895.00. The consumer plaintiffs argued that the pool was not installed to industry standards and a Vyn-All brand liner was installed instead of a Fox brand liner. The trial court awarded the consumer plaintiffs damages of $66,507.20, $1,000 in enhanced statutory damages for the willful violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and attorneys’ fees of $31,049.55. See Robert M. Seh Co., Inc. v. O'Donnell, 675 S.E.2d 202, 277 Va. 599 (Va., 2009) (appeal for retrial was granted due to potential juror bias).
In Oettinger v. Lakeview Motors, Inc., the consumer plaintiff bought a vehicle from defendant dealership with over 75,000 miles of use, but the odometer indicated approximately 40,000 miles. Further, defendant manipulated the mileage number on the title certificate to say “37,252.1” when the actual mile was “72521.” The Court awarded plaintiff actual damages totaling $1,756.40 and reasonable attorney’s fees that the parties were required to brief. See Oettinger v. Lakeview Motors, Inc., 675 F.Supp. 1488 (E.D. Va., 1988).
In Abi-Najm v. Concord Condo. LLC, twenty-four consumer plaintiffs purchased condominiums in Arlington, Virginia from the defendant company. In the purchase agreement, the company stated it would install three-quarter-inch Bruce Oak hardwood flooring, but installed prefabricated engineered hardwood. The plaintiffs were seeking $50,000 per condominium, $350,000 in punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorney’s fees. The defendants attempted to have the suit dismissed, but the Court allowed the suit to continue and was likely settled out of court. See Abi-Najm v. Concord Condo. LLC, 280 Va. 350, 699 S.E.2d 483 (Va., 2010).
In Commonwealth v. Gavigan, the consumer plaintiff had a contract with defendant builder, Larry Pippen, doing business as “Affordable Home Repairs,” for the construction of a basement apartment for $45,000. Defendant had a Class C contractor’s license from the Virginia Board for Contractors, but needed a Class B license to perform the work outlined in the contract. The consumer plaintiff found the workmanship to be unsatisfactory and terminated the contract. The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s award of $14,000 in actual damages and $5,000 in attorney’s fees. See Commonwealth v. Gavigan, Record No. 0921-10-3 (Va. App., 2011).
In Mya Saray, LLC v. Al–Amir, the consumer plaintiff was a manufacturer and distributor of tobacco products and accessories, including a Middle Eastern-style pipe known as a hookah. The defendants were inappropriately using plaintiff’s trademarks, which gave consumers the inaccurate impression that plaintiff was responsible for the goods sold by defendants. The Court awarded Plaintiff $188,418.68 in damages, $3,562.97 in costs, and $248,863.29 in attorney’s fees for violating the VCPA and other statutes. See Mya Saray, LLC v. Al–Amir, 831 F.Supp.2d 922 (E.D. Va., 2011).
In Rucker v. Sheehy Alexandria Inc., the consumer plaintiff purchased a car from defendant dealership. On April 3, the parties made an agreement conditional upon obtaining financing from a third-party within five days. On April 13, defendant obtained financing, but the terms were less favorable to consumer plaintiff because the APR was 2% higher and plaintiff had to double the down payment. Defendant backdated the agreement to April 3 instead of using the April 13 date when financing was obtaining and used the April 3 date to begin calculating the accrued interest, which resulted in an APR of 0.4% higher than the disclosed figure. For miscalculating the interest, the Court awarded plaintiff $13,345.82 in damages and $18,871 in attorneys’ fees for violating the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 and the VCPA. See Rucker v. Sheehy Alexandria Inc., 244 F.Supp.2d 618 (E.D. Va., 2003); Rucker v. Sheehy Alexandria, Inc., Civil Action No. 02-466-A (E.D.Va. Mar. 18, 2003) (Order); Rucker v. Sheehy Alexandria, Inc., 255 F.Supp.2d 562 (E.D. Va., 2003).
In Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., the consumer plaintiff financed a vehicle from defendant dealership. Plaintiff put $4,000 down, traded-in his old vehicle, and was told the dealership would obtain financing. The defendant dealership could not obtain financing and restructured the deal to require an additional $2,000 and told plaintiff the financing was at a better rate. Plaintiff tried to walk away and get his old vehicle back, but the dealer falsely told plaintiff it was already sold. Dealer still could not obtain financing and told plaintiff to return to the dealership or they would report the vehicle stolen. Ultimately, dealer obtained financing, but the trade-in vehicle was repossessed because plaintiff was told dealer had taken possession of it and stopped making payment. Finally, plaintiff learned that one reason dealer could not obtain financing was because the paperwork included an unaccounted for charge, which turned out to be a silencer car alarm, that plaintiff did not recall seeing on the transaction documents, did not request, and did not agree to pay for. The Court awarded consumer plaintiff $24,192.80 under the Truth in Lending Act, $4,000.00 under the VCPA, and $58,771.24 in attorney’s fees and costs. See Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., 319 F. 3d 119 (4th Cir. 2003); Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc., 384 F.Supp.2d 915 (E.D. Va., 2005).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1601
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.