Removal Company Problem

[rogertdog]

woah there tigers!

firstly apologies for the lack of response thus far, i was only able to do a quick post at a friends house on sunday as i have no internet yet at my new property, and have had to wait until my return to work today to log back on.

ive done some ringing round etc and obviously read your posts (thank-you) and will try and answer some of your points.

(1) it was a Written Quotation not an estimate

(2) it was based on information given by ourselves as the companys estimator was away on holiday

(3) the quotation is for a lump sum figure to "remove our furniture and effects". No itemised listing etc

 

now, i am of the understanding that a quotation is a binding contract, wheras an estimate can be altered. whislt i understand that the information provided to the company was by us, i would argue that we are neither qualified quantity estimators, and that as the company admited that their estimator was on holiday, then in producing a quotation (not an estimate) the risk lies with them in assuring themselves that the information they use to provide that quotation is accurate. at least thats how it works in my industry (civil egineering). if a contractor provides a lump sum quote, its up to him to make sure the information is accurate, not the client. otherwise he proivides an estimate, thereby reducing his risk as he is able to alter the final ammount based on circumstances.

if the removal company had provided an estimate, i would not have argued as there point would be valid. however it was a quotation.

in addition to this we telephoned them on the monday after recieving their quotation in the post (before the removal on the thursday) to check that they were still happy to proceed with the removal based on the price they provided, and they said yes.

so as far as i am concerned we as their clients gave them the opportunity to change their price.

also the same company moved us into our property 2 years ago, and therfore we assumed that they would still have a record of the number of vans/ quantity of stuff we have and would have used that information in their quote. indeed they even stated that we have used 2 vans last time to which i countered with the above argument. The quotation alsoi makes no reference to volumes/quantities or numbers of vans required, its simply a fixed price, therefore again, as clients we cannot be expected to know what they have and have not quoted for if they do not provide this information within their quote.

FYI their quote was approx £150 cheaper then the next highest, therefore not significantly lower enough for us to think they had not quoted correctly as it can reasnobly be assumed that they were being competitive, particulalry as we had used them last time.

The nature of their claim for additional monies is dubious at best, particularly as they stated initially that it would be double the total cost, and then (quote) 'did us a deal' for the other van. also they had started to load the first van before informing us that a second would be required again a dubious practice as it would have been obvious to them before they started that an additional van would be required and therefore should not have commenced work without obtaining our agreement beforehand.

as regards payment for the additional monies, we were made to do this under duress however paid for the extra via cheque. we intend to cancel this cheque as we believe it was obtained unlawfully and we now dispute it and if they want to go to court to get it, fine as we think we have a good case for withholding the funds.

as for trading standards, its a bot of an idle threat really as i doubt they want to become involved however its better than nothing.

anyway hope thats given you all something more to work with.

thanks.

[legalpickle]

woah there tigers!

firstly apologies for the lack of response thus far, i was only able to do a quick post at a friends house on sunday as i have no internet yet at my new property, and have had to wait until my return to work today to log back on.

ive done some ringing round etc and obviously read your posts (thank-you) and will try and answer some of your points.

(1) it was a Written Quotation not an estimate

(2) it was based on information given by ourselves as the companys estimator was away on holiday

(3) the quotation is for a lump sum figure to "remove our furniture and effects". No itemised listing etc

 

now, i am of the understanding that a quotation is a binding contract, wheras an estimate can be altered. whislt i understand that the information provided to the company was by us, i would argue that we are neither qualified quantity estimators, and that as the company admited that their estimator was on holiday, then in producing a quotation (not an estimate) the risk lies with them in assuring themselves that the information they use to provide that quotation is accurate. at least thats how it works in my industry (civil egineering). if a contractor provides a lump sum quote, its up to him to make sure the information is accurate, not the client. otherwise he proivides an estimate, thereby reducing his risk as he is able to alter the final ammount based on circumstances.

if the removal company had provided an estimate, i would not have argued as there point would be valid. however it was a quotation.

in addition to this we telephoned them on the monday after recieving their quotation in the post (before the removal on the thursday) to check that they were still happy to proceed with the removal based on the price they provided, and they said yes.

so as far as i am concerned we as their clients gave them the opportunity to change their price.

also the same company moved us into our property 2 years ago, and therfore we assumed that they would still have a record of the number of vans/ quantity of stuff we have and would have used that information in their quote. indeed they even stated that we have used 2 vans last time to which i countered with the above argument. The quotation alsoi makes no reference to volumes/quantities or numbers of vans required, its simply a fixed price, therefore again, as clients we cannot be expected to know what they have and have not quoted for if they do not provide this information within their quote.

FYI their quote was approx £150 cheaper then the next highest, therefore not significantly lower enough for us to think they had not quoted correctly as it can reasnobly be assumed that they were being competitive, particulalry as we had used them last time.

The nature of their claim for additional monies is dubious at best, particularly as they stated initially that it would be double the total cost, and then (quote) 'did us a deal' for the other van. also they had started to load the first van before informing us that a second would be required again a dubious practice as it would have been obvious to them before they started that an additional van would be required and therefore should not have commenced work without obtaining our agreement beforehand.

as regards payment for the additional monies, we were made to do this under duress however paid for the extra via cheque. we intend to cancel this cheque as we believe it was obtained unlawfully and we now dispute it and if they want to go to court to get it, fine as we think we have a good case for withholding the funds.

as for trading standards, its a bot of an idle threat really as i doubt they want to become involved however its better than nothing.

anyway hope thats given you all something more to work with.

thanks.

 

Welcome back!

 

A quotation is a binding contract - once paid for - but if the quotation would say '10 boxes' and you had 20, then they would have an argument, but obviously they don't.

 

If the quotation was based on an estimate, then it should be marked clearly in the quotation, as it wasn't I don't think they have a case.

 

You didn't say that they hadn't cashed the cheque yet, so I would definitely cancel the cheque and then vigorously defend their claim if they issue against them - but send them a letter [by special delivery] advising them that you have cancelled the cheque and the reasons, and that you will vigorously defend any action they may initiate.

 

If they have cashed the cheque by now then I would write them a letter [again send it by special delivery] before legal action and sue them for the amount they took, plus interest & court fees.

 

I disagree that it was so bad that they charged the extra fee later on in the move rather than at the beginning. They were so bad - obviously - already, that I don't think it would make any difference.

 

Please keep us posted.

 

Good luck.

Edited August 26, 2008 by legalpickle
...

[rogertdog]

thanks, have rang the bank at lunch and cancelled the cheque.got to be on a winner as the very nice lady isn't even going to charge me for cancelling as she thinks the removal company are being so awful!will put together a letter tonight and send it tomorrow.the only thing my wife is slightly worried about is whether they 'send the boys round' to collect the money in person, but that would be highly irregular and im sure we could call the police in that instance.anyway will let you know what happens...

[legalpickle]

thanks, have rang the bank at lunch and cancelled the cheque.got to be on a winner as the very nice lady isn't even going to charge me for cancelling as she thinks the removal company are being so awful!will put together a letter tonight and send it tomorrow.the only thing my wife is slightly worried about is whether they 'send the boys round' to collect the money in person, but that would be highly irregular and im sure we could call the police in that instance.anyway will let you know what happens...

 

You're lucky. Which bank are you with? One of the rare cases of a bank being decent - keep a record, it doesn't happen often!

 

I doubt they'd send the heavies round, and if they did you could always call the coppers, though how much good they'd do I'm not so sure!

[abonae]

Glad you're getting somewhere.

 

One question I have though is won't they just come after you for the cancelled cheque?

 

I thought there were few defences for a cancelled cheque. Will you be able to mount a defence based on their poor service etc.:idea:

[KJD]

Couple of questions for the OP..

 

In what form did you inform the removal company of what there was to be removed? Written list of furniture? or did they send you a form to complete (usually in the form of a checklist)?

 

Did they supply any written terms and conditions with your quote?

 

Do they belong to any trade association, eg British Association of Removers or International Guild of Removers and Storers?

 

What was the actual reason for the need for an extra vehicle?

[JonCris]

abonae Yes stopping a cheque can have very serious repercussions for the drawer & as such could lead to a claim for damages if by stopping the said cheque the company suffered any loss such as bank charges etc at a time when the OP's allegations are unproven.

 

The correct course of action would have been to mount a claim for compensation on the basis of breach of contract. To arbitrarily stop payment, no matter how justified the OP feels, will put the OP on the same footing as the removal firm who demanded payment at a time it couldn't really be refused

 

In the event of court action I suggest clean hands are required

[raydetinu]

No problem, cancelling cheque was the correct thing to do, however you should tell them what you have done and why.

On the times I have moved I have never paid up front; just either on completion of the move and satisfied everything was OK or on receipt of invoice. Nobody should pay up front for a service just in case something goes wrong. It was definitely extortion and blackmail. Let them claim, you have a sound defence.

[JonCris]

What's done is done but contrary to some advice it's NEVER a good idea to stop a cheque payment after the event unless you think their are grounds through either fraud or some other illegal activity

[raydetinu]

It is fraud, they are claiming for something they were not entitled to. Let the court decide if they risk going that far.

[JonCris]

Lets not get carried away shall we.

 

It's certainly not fraud as even if they did effectively hold a gun to the OP's head when demanding extra payment they DID fulfill their undertaking

 

It's for this reason that I'm concerned that the OP stopped the cheque when he could albeit inconveniently have refused to pay at the time

[Guest joe.inom]

Oh man , why do you guys go for the cheaper on if you are unsatisfied with the known outcomes.

This afcourse that the cheaper groups always have some naughty outsomes , i have faced loads of it , that why i go for the known and belived agent.

[rogertdog]

JonCris (post #36)

 

Whilst i agree with your sentiments as far as court proceedings go, why should i pay them and then try to claim the money back? that only plays into their hands as they get the money and then i have to use yet more money to claim it back. if its that important to them and they believe their case to be strong enough then we can by all means take it to court and have a rumble. but i dont subscibe to the theory that says that you should play by the rules when those rules have clearly been broken.

 

We are not talking about a reputable company here otherwise they would not have done what they did in the first place, besides which, it is easy for you say we could have "albeit inconveniently have refused to pay at the time". how exactly? especially when there are 5 very large men in your house having spent the best part of 2 hours unloading your stuff. its easy to say these things when you are not directly involved and we would all like to live our lives by our morals etc, however sometimes it is not that easy.

 

me and my wife did not want a potential confrontation at our new house, particualrly after having had one at the old house. besides which it was not the removal men on the ground that we had an argument with, it was their office based staff who phoned us up to tell us.

 

I would have loved to be strong enough to confront them and say 'youre not getting your money' but frankly i had spent the last 7 hours having a very very stressful time with the loading of our stuff, a very stressful journey to our new home and then the worry of the unloading. on top of the very stressful week of packing & sorting things out etc. i wasnt physically or mentally up for the additional challenge of a confrontation, neither was my wife, and therefore we figured that giving them a cheque for the extra and then fighting about it afterwards when we had had the time and energy to recover would be a far better option.

 

Also from your post 34 I do happen to think it was both fraud and illegal. Therefore i believe i am well within my rights to withold payment of something that i felt i was co-erced into paying in the first place.

 

to reiterate my previous comments we DID pay them the ageed, quoted ammount in cash, and paid the 'extra' by cheque. We are simply withholding the additional sum as we do not think it is justified.

[rogertdog]

joe.inom #37.

 

sorry, not sure totally what you mean, but i think you are trying to say that we shouldnt go with the cheapest one? my previous posts say that we had used this company before and they were excellent. so why shouldnt i use them again, especially if they happened to be the cheapest also?

[JonCris]

roger I'm sorry but I stand by what I have stated. You had an opportunity to refuse payment yet chose to go ahead so stopping the cheque could have an adverse effect on any claim

 

That said your defence will be that you had no choice as you had been presented with a take it or leave it situation at a time, which in your view, it would have been impossible to make alternative arrangements.

 

Therefore understand that I'm not saying you don't have a case, you do & a strong one at that IMHO. I'm only stating that by stopping the cheque AFTER agreeing you MAY find that the court does not comply with your wishes.

 

Some courts have been known to see the stopping of payment as the contract being rescinded & therefore no agreement exists & have on very rare occasions awarded damages & costs to the 'wrong' party

[rogertdog]

JonCris,

 

Thanks for your comments and I appreciate your point of view, and apologise if i came across a bit strong yesterday.

 

Hopefully though it wont get as far as court (and there are other steps to be taken in between, such as trading standards and the BAR arbitration service for example).

 

Its always difficult when ideally should do one thing but end up doing another.

 

We weighed up the pros and cons of cancelling the chequ vs our defence in court and made the descision accordingly and whilst a court would probably take the view that we shouldnt of cancelled, we would push for the duress angle. In my experience of of the law its generally a very grey area with issues solved by matters of opinion amd who makes the most compelling argument.

 

obviously this is not always the case, but in this instance i think our argument is very compelling and outweighs the decision we made in witholding their funds.

 

also we have informed them in writing as to our intentions and why we dispute the additional costs so from that point of view we have been upfront with them.

 

The letter has now been delivered (recorded delivery) so the ball is in their court and will let you know their response in due course.

[JonCris]

Forgot to ask but I assume they have been paid the original sum agreed, is that correct??

[rogertdog]

hiya,

to clarify, the agreed sum is x the disputed sum is y

on the day we paid them x in cash and y via cheque

we have since cancelled the cheque (ie y)

therefore the have recieved the agreed amount, but we have withheld the disputed amount

hope than clarifies things