Unexpected bill from the Fire Brigade.

InsideInsurance

Deleted_User wrote: »

I already knew that companies (or their insurance providers) had to pay for fire service attendance. Didn't know that the public had to too.

The assumption would be that the OP simply passes it to their insurers for payment. The difference in this case is that the OP decided not to claim.

Insurers only pay your liabilities for you. If its claimed via insurance or claimed directly from the person doesnt change what is due (though may change how hard/ far people chase)

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

question here is should someone be liable for the invoice, answer is yes, but as the OP/wife didn't call the fire brigade for assistance and a by stander did then I would say the bystander is liable for those costs.


Also comes the question of was the OP wife informed of service charges prior to those services carried out by the Fire brigade? If not then the OP-wife had no option to refuse assistance, I cant come to your house clean your windows on a neighbors phone call because he thinks theyre stinking, then knock your door and ask £500.00 for my services, the fire brigade cant either!.


They should be persueing the caller, and should be informing you of charges prior to carrying out the service if they deemed it not an emergency on site.

I think you are on the right track here and I suspect the answer on whether to pay or not is a legal minefield that we do not have the experience. I suspect, but don't know, that we are outside the remit of consumer legislation, but on the other hand, a random unjustified invoice for a suspiciously round £500 sounds remarkably like a speculative invoice.

I would suggest that the alternative would either have been righting the car themselves (not necessarily the wisest move without care) or if the driver had breakdown and recovery they would have used that at no cost to themselves. Given that they were not given any choice, I'd certainly be aggrieved, and I would suggest that there would be opportunity of a counter-offer, such as based on the quote of a local recovery company.

If the poster has legal cover on their policy - or any other policy like home insurance - then I'd ask them for a proper answer. It might also be worth a chat with a solicitor (many offer a free or minimal charge initial advice service) or the CAB who may be able to research the legalities of this.

There is also your MP to have a whine at.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I think you are on the right track here and I suspect the answer on whether to pay or not is a legal minefield that we do not have the experience. I suspect, but don't know, that we are outside the remit of consumer legislation, but on the other hand, a random unjustified invoice for a suspiciously round £500 sounds remarkably like a speculative invoice.

I would suggest that the alternative would either have been righting the car themselves (not necessarily the wisest move without care) or if the driver had breakdown and recovery they would have used that at no cost to themselves. Given that they were not given any choice, I'd certainly be aggrieved, and I would suggest that there would be opportunity of a counter-offer, such as based on the quote of a local recovery company.

If the poster has legal cover on their policy - or any other policy like home insurance - then I'd ask them for a proper answer. It might also be worth a chat with a solicitor (many offer a free or minimal charge initial advice service) or the CAB who may be able to research the legalities of this.

There is also your MP to have a whine at.

why would the fire brigade be out the remit of consumer legislation their a business after all, registered in the UK, just because they are an emergency service doesn't make them above legislation.

Inch_High_2

IanMSpencer wrote: »

I think you are on the right track here and I suspect the answer on whether to pay or not is a legal minefield that we do not have the experience. I suspect, but don't know, that we are outside the remit of consumer legislation, but on the other hand, a random unjustified invoice for a suspiciously round £500 sounds remarkably like a speculative invoice.

I would suggest that the alternative would either have been righting the car themselves (not necessarily the wisest move without care) or if the driver had breakdown and recovery they would have used that at no cost to themselves. Given that they were not given any choice, I'd certainly be aggrieved, and I would suggest that there would be opportunity of a counter-offer, such as based on the quote of a local recovery company.

If the poster has legal cover on their policy - or any other policy like home insurance - then I'd ask them for a proper answer. It might also be worth a chat with a solicitor (many offer a free or minimal charge initial advice service) or the CAB who may be able to research the legalities of this.

There is also your MP to have a whine at.

My bet is they haven't told the insurance company.

Home insurance won't cover it as the car is insured under its own policy.

Inch_High_2

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

question here is should someone be liable for the invoice, answer is yes, but as the OP/wife didn't call the fire brigade for assistance and a by stander did then I would say the bystander is liable for those costs.


Also comes the question of was the OP wife informed of service charges prior to those services carried out by the Fire brigade? If not then the OP-wife had no option to refuse assistance, I cant come to your house clean your windows on a neighbors phone call because he thinks theyre stinking, then knock your door and ask £500.00 for my services, the fire brigade cant either!.


They should be persueing the caller, and should be informing you of charges prior to carrying out the service if they deemed it not an emergency on site.

So you think the op shouldn't pay.

Would you be happy to pay extra council tax to pay for the collisions in your county?

System

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

question here is should someone be liable for the invoice, answer is yes, but as the OP/wife didn't call the fire brigade for assistance and a by stander did then I would say the bystander is liable for those costs.

The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 Pt 1 Ch19 says they can bill the OPs wife and also the Fire Authority can set a standard charge

atrixblue.-MFR-.

!!!!!! wrote: »

The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 Pt 1 Ch19 says they can bill the OPs wife and also the Fire Authority can set a standard charge

part 2 ch19 you mean and its says specified description, the person can be the specified description who called them out ETC.


INCH HIGH im not saying the NO ONE should pay, infact I said someone was liable, but it remains the fact that if I were to be charged for their service I should expect someone to tell me before they offer services, this would give me the opportunity to refuse such service based on the charge.


the legislation is not water tight that they HAVE to charge the person they tendered the service to.

colino

What else would the water fairies have been doing then that there is an additional cost incurred that needs recovering in this instance? They should be grateful for the exercise and a bit of practical training.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

why would the fire brigade be out the remit of consumer legislation their a business after all, registered in the UK, just because they are an emergency service doesn't make them above legislation.

Because there is likely to be specific legislation covering them and their actions. I don't know what that is. It's like the difference between parking on private land and a council car park, a completely different legal framework.

Understanding what legislation applies and what recourse you have against what might appear to be an unreasonable charge needs understanding of a different area of law than standard consumer legislation.

The driver may have difficulties rising a claim now as they may not have reported an accident - even if they chose not to claim for any damage (and I find it hard to believe that a car rolled on its side did not have a significant amount of damage, so they must be driving around a spectacularly battered car if they have not repaired it). It may be a false economy not reporting an accident if a further accident brings this to light. They would definitely view an accident with no other driver involved as something they would want to take into account at renewal. With an excess of say £250, a claim then looks less attractive anyway. Is the car so old that the repair would be a write-off anyway?

There is an odd passage in the legislation:
"(6)In setting the amount of a charge, the authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the authority’s income from charges does not exceed the cost to the authority of taking the action for which the charges are imposed."

Reading that, it does not read that they cannot make a profit from an individual charge, but that only that they cannot make a profit overall from the services. It seems that if they have the costs of £100k to run vehicle recovery over the year, if they decide only issue two invoices in the year, then they could charge £50k each!

AdrianC

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

INCH HIGH im not saying the NO ONE should pay, infact I said someone was liable, but it remains the fact that if I were to be charged for their service I should expect someone to tell me before they offer services, this would give me the opportunity to refuse such service based on the charge.

The OP lost the opportunity to not have the emergency services called at the point at which his wife caused the road to be (partially) blocked and contaminated with the fluids from her car. The emergency services have the responsibility to arrange whatever's needed to re-open and decontaminate the road surface ASAP - and they have the legal right to bill whoever's responsible for it. On certain trunk routes, that responsibility (and right) is in the hands of private contractors. You agree to that by using a motor vehicle on the roads.

Yes, there may have already been other fluids on the road - that's a side issue, since the person who spilt them isn't traceable. The person who caused _this_ spill is definitely traceable, since - in the immortal words of Baby Bear - "she's still there!"