Unable to cancel rfuge collection without paying arears up front

dudara

I have to point out that Boards does not condone debt avoidance, should that debt be correctly incurred.

As always OP, it's up to you to determine how you will proceed.

oxygen

dudara wrote: »

I have to point out that Boards does not condone debt avoidance, should that debt be correctly incurred.

As always OP, it's up to you to determine how you will proceed.

Point very much taken and understood dudara.

Hanalei

foggy_lad wrote: »

Just move to the new company and forget about this amount they claim is owed, they provided no service and did not attempt to contact you in any way to seek payment or find out your intentions.

Sign up with the new operator and empty the full bins into the new operators bins, Ring the old company ans tell them to collect their bins from outside your premises ASAP and leave the old bins out for collection, if they are not taken away within a week call the litter warden and hand them to him.

There is a new operator in the Carlow area recently and they must be putting pressure on the existing companies if they are sticking to their guns over this.

Bad advice. Things will more than likely just get a whole lot worse for the OP if he/she goes with this.

oxygen

Hanalei wrote: »

Bad advice. Things will more than likely just get a whole lot worse for the OP if he/she goes with this.

I do fully understand the serious implications involved with this course of action Hanalei. I wil consider the repercussions seriously, ultimately they will be on me alone.

davo10

foggy_lad wrote: »

Just move to the new company and forget about this amount they claim is owed, they provided no service and did not attempt to contact you in any way to seek payment or find out .

Ironic that the advice given is at odds you the regular rant that consumers are ripped off. Non payment of service providers adds to the cost for everyone else who does pay.

dudara

@davo10 - Attack the post, not the poster

dudara

P. Breathnach

There is inherent unfairness in a term that allows a service provider to withhold service, yet demand payment for that service. They should be entitled to one remedy, and only one. Trying to withhold service and yet seek payment for it is trying to have it both ways. It almost certainly falls foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations url]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html[/url.

OP, as I suggested before, tell the contractor that you do not intend to pay the portion of the charge that you think unjustified. You can add a suggestion that if they wish to pursue the matter in litigation you will defend it on the basis of the protections offered by the regulations I have just cited.

slimjimmc

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is inherent unfairness in a term that allows a service provider to withhold service, yet demand payment for that service. They should be entitled to one remedy, and only one. Trying to withhold service and yet seek payment for it is trying to have it both ways. It almost certainly falls foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations url]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html[/url.

OP, as I suggested before, tell the contractor that you do not intend to pay the portion of the charge that you think unjustified. You can add a suggestion that if they wish to pursue the matter in litigation you will defend it on the basis of the protections offered by the regulations I have just cited.

Can you point out precisely which paragraphs of that SI you believe have been breached in this instance, and perhaps explain why, in your view, similar terms are still allowed in other service contracts, e.g UPC. Surely if such terms are so unfair they would have been banned by now?

P. Breathnach

slimjimmc wrote: »

Can you point out precisely which paragraphs of that SI you believe have been breached in this instance, and perhaps explain why, in your view, similar terms are still allowed in other service contracts, e.g UPC. Surely if such terms are so unfair they would have been banned by now?

"1. ( o ) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;"

P. Breathnach

davo10 wrote: »

Consumer was obliged to pay his monthly subscription.

And my point is that from the time the supplier ceased to perform his obligations under the contract, the consumer was equally freed from his obligations (that would have no bearing on any arrears).

[I seem to have replied to a post that disappeared as I was composing my reply!]

davo10

P. Breathnach wrote: »

"1. ( o ) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;"

I'm not sure what the rest of that clause says as you seem to have posted only a partial but it would seem to me that the OP was "obliged" to pay his subscription when entering a contract with provider:

"Please note there is no break in service, every month must be paid for. We will not collect any bins out of date, however you are still liable for full payment due until such time as you cancel your account with XXXX Ltd and we remove the bins from your property."

P. Breathnach

davo10 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the rest of that clause says as you seem to have posted only a partial but it would seem to me that the OP was "obliged" to pay his subscription when entering a contract with provider:

"Please note there is no break in service, every month must be paid for. We will not collect any bins out of date, however you are still liable for full payment due until such time as you cancel your account with XXXX Ltd and we remove the bins from your property."

I gave the link to the SI. It's not that lengthy, so you can read it for yourself.

What's your point in quoting the "partial" from the T&Cs? I'm making the case that it is an unfair term, and it's not much of a response to quote it as if it is some sort of clincher that OP is bound by it.

foggy_lad

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is inherent unfairness in a term that allows a service provider to withhold service, yet demand payment for that service. They should be entitled to one remedy, and only one. Trying to withhold service and yet seek payment for it is trying to have it both ways. It almost certainly falls foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations url]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html[/url.

OP, as I suggested before, tell the contractor that you do not intend to pay the portion of the charge that you think unjustified. You can add a suggestion that if they wish to pursue the matter in litigation you will defend it on the basis of the protections offered by the regulations I have just cited.

In this instance not only is the operator seeking payment for services they have not provided in the past but they are refusing to terminate the contract without payment of the arrears which means they can add charges in perpetuity.

davo10

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I gave the link to the SI. It's not that lengthy, so you can read it for yourself.

What's your point in quoting the "partial" from the T&Cs? I'm making the case that it is an unfair term, and it's not much of a response to quote it as if it is some sort of clincher that OP is bound by it.

Sorry P, the link is not showing up on my screen.

We all enter contracts from time to time, be they sky, mobile phone, gym, mortgage, bins etc. we sign up for 6 months, a year, 5 years, whatever. Most people today are intelligent enough to make the decision to enter that agreement based on the conditions offered to them and we then decide of it is of benefit to us. If during the term I decide, f*** this, I'm not happy, I'm not paying any more, that does not free me from my obligations under the contract I agreed to. OP stopped paying his fees, he didn't cancel so he is still bound by the terms he agreed to. He even went so far as to post them.

At the end off all this, I think we all agree that if the OP didn't want the service, he should have cancelled it. The fact that he didn't and then compounded it by not paying the fees means he is still under contract but is not receiving the benefit because he isn't paying what he agreed to.

P. Breathnach

davo10 wrote: »

Sorry P, the link is not showing up on my screen...

That does not mean that it is a good idea to persist in your line of argument without considering whether the regulations apply.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html

davo10

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That does not mean that it is a good idea to persist in your line of argument without considering whether the regulations apply.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html

Ah, I see. So the way you understand it, all service providers who provide services based on this type of term agreement are breaking the law. Excellent.

Nope. T&Cs say consumers agree to pay. When you don't pay, that does not free you from the terms of the contract. The bin collectors are fulfilling their obligation, they are providing the service, OP still has the bins, the lorry goes by the house, OP has access to under T&Cs, there is no lift because OP has not paid for the lift. Pay up and lifts resume.

My take on your quoted legislation is that Seller cannot charge for something they stopped providing, not (as in this case) continue to charge for something they stopped providing as a result of a consumer first breaching the T&Cs of a contract.

If we went by your interpretation, T&CS and term contracts would all be worthless, all anyone would have to do is stop paying when ever they like.

When you don't pay your mobile phone/Eircom subscription and they cut you off but still charge you for line rental even though you can't use the phone, are you seriously telling me in all the time consumers have brought operators to court for different things, one person would not have successfully argued your take on that legislation if it was correct? If they did, I'd certainly like a link to that.

Nice link to the statute, I'm nearly sure there was an earlier post by someone saying this was not a court and that there was no need to "drill" down into the problem. If we are going to talk legal interpretation, both sides of this argument could be wrong, that is what we pay solicitors for. Perhaps OP should get legal advice and become more indebted.

P. Breathnach

davo10 wrote: »

...
Nice link to the statute, I'm nearly sure there was an earlier post by someone saying this was not a court and that there was no need to "drill" down into the problem. ...

I have no time for ad hominem arguments.

dudara

P. Breathnach wrote: »

"1. ( o ) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;"

The fact is that the supplier has performed their obligations, and is willing to do so, once the arrears are paid. They have suspended service, not failed/refused to provide it.

P. Breathnach

dudara wrote: »

The fact is that the supplier has performed their obligations, and is willing to do so, once the arrears are paid. They have suspended service, not failed/refused to provide it.

That arrangement is so skewed in favour of the service supplier that there is a good case to be made that it is unfair term: "You don't pay; we don't empty your bins; but we still expect to be paid."

slimjimmc

OP, was your account in credit after the last collection, i.e. did you have enough money in your account to pay for October's collections?
If you did have sufficient money in your account, then I agree the company have failed their obligations as they should have collected in Oct.

However, my guess is this, (and OP please correct me if I am wrong) :
a) You signed up to an annual contract, payable in monthly instalments. The T&Cs state all 12 months must be paid without break otherwise collection will be suspended.
b) You knew you were going away and simply chose not to pay for collections after Sept.
c) Therefore, having not paid for Oct you were not entitled to a collection any time in Oct or since. Any waste you had in your bins was not collected because you hadn't paid.
d) In the meantime you continued to use their waste bins. You made no attempt to terminate the contract (or even negotiate a freeze) and have the bins returned to the company during your absence.

If the above is true I fail to see how the company is at fault here.

slimjimmc

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That arrangement is so skewed in favour of the service supplier that there is a good case to be made that it is unfair term: "You don't pay; we don't empty your bins; but we still expect to be paid."

"You make a promise to pay us a total fixed amount for the year,. You may pay in monthly instalments in consecutive months without break.
We promise to collect so long as you are paid up. If you break we will not collect until you get back on track, but you still owe what you promised because it's not our fault you skipped payments" Seems fair enough to me.