Low Cost EPC £9.95 charge for cancellation

kev100_2

unholyangel wrote: »

I admit I didnt read all of your post, but the bit in bold caught my attention.

I think you'll find that the CCR's exemption for contracts under £42 in value are for off-premises contracts only and is not relevant for distance contracts.

Sorry, yes you are correct, I was getting my regulations mixed up .. I will adjust the post .. Thanks .. Thats the regulation he tried to use on us to try make us pay all his additional charges .. and of course as you say it does not apply here.

Cheers
Kev

londonrob

cheers Kev, appreciate the post. I will find the time to follow those actions I am very far from intimidated, if they want a good fight they've picked the right person. Ain't no way these f**kwits are going to take a penny from me & my family!

I got an email from them today:

It seems to me that you have chosen to believe the negative comments left by a number of disgruntled customers rather than the advice offered by us. we are a fully compliant business and were recently assessed by trading standards. The findings of that assessment can be found by following the link below: <link removed> Whilst we recognise your right to cancel, you are obliged to pay for the service received up to the time of cancellation where you have expressly requested that the service starts straight away. The service received in this case is the assignment of the order to an energy assessor.

I'm just ignoring any & everything they send me now, including not replying to them to tell them the terms under which I believe I don't owe them a bean. If they decide to pursue the court action, I'll deal with them as suggested.

I had hoped to report his Google ad to Google, but I can't find a way of doing so.

kev100_2

LondonRob,

Trying to talk sense with Whatcott is like hitting your head against a brick wall .. he just isnt interested, and thats if you can get in touch with him. In my blog you will see he tries all tricks, even posing as a disgruntled customer to try and mislead those genuine customers into paying up, he has tried this tactic several times. I have the proof.

The report that he points to in no way is an endorsement by trading standards, again he is using a one off test of the way his website works to try and persuade people that he endorsed by trading standards, and trading standards have officially said that they have not endorsed his website or business .. in any case this report was for saviepc and not locostepc, see the link here http://energyassessormagazine.com/ts_controversy_over_panel.html . And just because he says he is compliant does not mean that he can do whatever he wants and charge whatever he wants.

He will try every trick in the book to try and relieve you of your hard earned cash as has been seen and reported not just by me but my many many people, when you have several blogs that have comments in the 100's then this is not a problem with disgruntled customers, its a problem with the company, the disgruntled customers are the end result of a bad experience.

A company that will not answer the phone, a company that will not reply to emails, a company that turns away registered post, and a company who's business practices are based around fining people who have suffered from a bad experience is not a company that should be trading.

I am sure this thread is going to grow as did the ones for firstchoiceepc, saviepc and the many EPC companies he had previously.

And about google, its practically impossible to get the google ad links removed, google is not concerned with the little guys, all they want is the revenue, and they are not bothered where it comes from sadly.

unholyangel

Personally I'd try argue along the lines that the legislation specifically states the trader should not begin early supply unless the customer has made an express request. This is in contrast to the section about additional payments or about the supply of digital content (not in tangible form) in the cancellation period - both of which state they must obtain "express consent" from the customer. You can get the customers consent but still not have received an express request from them iyswim? And if its in the suppliers T&C's then arguably its not a request from the customer to start services early but rather a request from the retailer.

The same way a ECJ ruling made a distinction between two sections of DSRs - where one said the information needed to be provided by the retailer and the other said the information needed to be received by the customer.

Of course no way to tell until a court with enough authority to set a precedent makes a judgement on exactly that.

The only other way to argue against it is if he failed to provide you the information in a durable medium - including what you'd be liable to pay for services provided if the service begun after an express request from yourself. T&C's on a website don't count as durable.

kev100_2

He has it covered that if you press the confirm order button then you explicitly request that the service starts straight away, and also the durable medium cancellation terms, these amongst other things are what we used to defend when he tried to take us to court, and now we exposed these holes in his terms he has closed them.

The argument is, has any service been received (and if so in a reasonable time, if his website says 1 - 5 days then trading standards have said, in that assessment he bleats on about, that 5 days should be the maximum) as he is allowed to charge for service received up until the point of cancellation. my argument would be that him saying that the details passed onto an assessor is not sufficient to say that a service has been received and can be charged for, after all anybody could set up a company, and say that .. just as Whatcott has. And to receive something, well you have to receive it, not just be told that your details have been passed onto an assessor, to receive it I would expect a confirmation that an assessor has agreed to do the assessment, a name, phone number, email address and address of the assessor to be presented to me by email (as this is a distance selling business then it should be by email), then he could argue that a service has been received and charge for that service up until the point of cancellation.

A Judge has to look at fairness, and this is why Whatcott always backs out of any court proceedings he has started, he knows that a judge will look to see if the service that whatcott is charging for is fair .. and of course it is not if no service has been received .. and on top of that whatcott would need to present in court ALL records he has, phone conversations and emails between himself and the assessor indicating the customers name and address to prove that a service has been started and received up until the point of cancellation, and in my opinion in the majority of cases this has not taken place, hence the delays and consequential cancellations of the service.

Not only does whatcott have a bad name in the public arena, he has a very bad name in the assessors arena, many of them know of him and refuse to work for him, and therefore he has problems finding an assessor that will work for him. See this link here about his previously named company (and hence the change to locostepc) https://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/104906-5990535670228094978

unholyangel

kev100 wrote: »

He has it covered that if you press the confirm order button then you explicitly request that the service starts straight away, and also the durable medium cancellation terms, these amongst other things are what we used to defend when he tried to take us to court, and now we exposed these holes in his terms he has closed them.

A Judge has to look at fairness, and this is why Whatcott always backs out of any court proceedings he has started, he knows that a judge will look to see if the service that whatcott is charging for is fair .. and of course it is not if no service has been received .. and on top of that whatcott would need to present in court ALL records he has, phone conversations and emails between himself and the assessor indicating the customers name and address to prove that a service has been started and received up until the point of cancellation, and in my opinion in the majority of cases this has not taken place, hence the delays and consequential cancellations of the service.

But thats what I'm saying. You consenting to their request is not the same thing as you making the request yourself for something to be done.

And it begs the question, if the EU intended for customers to be bound by consenting, why on earth did they not say "express consent" as they did with other provisions. Why instead choose "express request".

Your comment about judges is slightly off though. Its not a judges place to make law - only to enforce the law set by parliament. IF a judge has leeway, they would of course veer towards what is fair. But thats only if theres any leeway left after statute, case law, the intentions behind the legislation itself and also the consequences of such a judgement (although the last is less of a factor in small claims as they don't set a precedent - judgements from higher courts will give this more weight). Also keep in mind that for something to be "fair", it has to be equally balanced among all parties. Not just favouring one.

That is why I suggested arguing the difference in language used in the drafting of the legislation. Because using a different wording for one section imo indicates they had something different from express consent in mind.

Mr Whatcott probably doesn't proceed with court cases because he knows the bollocking he'd get for trying to claim hundreds in expenses over £9.95. With lord jacksons reform, costs need to be reasonable, necessary AND proportionate in order to be recoverable. Even if he did win his claim for the £9.95, he'd be out of pocket for his own expenses and possibly also the defendants costs.

kev100_2

Hi Unholyangel,

When I was referring to a judge being fair it was about being fair with regards to the way the regulations are implemented and the terms and conditions of the company, not the regulations themselves, for example, even though whatcott has a term in his conditions that says an EPC can take up to 28 days, he advertises 1 - 5 days .. now would it be fair to wait 28 days when in effect you are expecting a certificate in 5 days based on this being splashed all over his website .. I think a judge would say not .. and even in the report by trading standards he keeps pointing to, they have said that the consumer should expect the certificate no later than 5 days if that is what is advertised, and again fairness with regards to fines and additional costs, as whatcott piles on the costs very quickly as a tool in order to scare people into paying up quick .. again I thin that a judge would say this behavior is not being fair. And those things a judge can rule on, I have seen it happen where a company is actually 100% right, but the judge basically said to the company because of the way things were done he awarded the case to the claimant, in other words the judge said to the company .. "you should know better" (too long a case to explain here) so they lost the case and had to pay up.

claytona

HI All




I too have been caught out by this website, although partly my own fault this one.
I ordered an assessment through the lowcost epc website, assessor came and performed the requirement.
He then sent me a copy of my epc certificate by email.This meant i forgot all about the extra £9.99 I had to pay to epc.
Today I received a letter from SAVI telling me I now owed them a further £14.99 for late payment.
On top of this another £50 for sending me the letter.
I would have been happy to pay the extra £14.99 but no way I am paying them another £50.
Anyone know where I stand on this?

londonrob

Personally, if this were me, knowing what I know about these scumbags, I would just ignore any & everything they send you, even if technically you have received some sort of service from them. If you did want to 100% cover your ar*e, pay them the £14.99 & make it clear you have no intention of paying them a penny more. And don't pay by a card, they'll just take their extra 'charges' from your card. Offer to pay by cheque (they'll likely give up at this point as they don't want to give out their address)

Longjon_2

I cancelled because hadn't heard from him in 5 days and he promptly charge me the £9.99. But I've paid the SOB...my blood pressure would go thru the roof once he started niggling. Which is what he's counting on of course. Where's a good lynch mob when we need one?