Plumber Charging Missed Call Out Fee Even Though I Was In The House?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

photome said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The question is how was the contract formed (I assume at a distance) and whether the trader provided the usual required information, if not the OP isn’t bound by the contract so it’s academic what happened. 

That maybe so but this is the real world. The OP contacted the trader and asked him to do the job, the trader did his  bit ,but the OP didn’t

what happened to common sense

If the OP doesn't pay the trader will have to take them to court, if the trader didn't provide the info and OP's defence is they aren't bound by the contract the trader isn't going to win. 

We're not on the common sense board, if we were these types of threads wouldn't go for 4 or 7 pages.... 

HillStreetBlues

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Why would any tradesman respond to a call, drive to the premises and not want to undertake the job?  Knocking on the door and phoning is a reasonable effort in my opinion.  If he had rung the bell and got no answer, would the complaint have been that he didn't climb over the gate and try the back door?  Or go around knocking on all the windows?

Unless OP left specific instructions to ring the doorbell, I don't think they've got grounds to refuse to pay.  I doubt the plumber will chase it, but that's not really the point.

If you go down the contract route and about specific instructions, then the onus would be on the plumber.
What in their T&Cs is classed as a call out?  is it just turning up?  is it once inside? Is there a missed call out in the T&Cs?

Forgetting who's at fault and looking at it just from a legal viewpoint, the OP would have to be aware that there is a missed call out charge, so should have been made aware of it when booking, or pointed towards the T&Cs

So like many other posts we see on here, the T&Cs are important, without them and without knowing if the were bought to the attention of the OP  no one can say if or not the OP legally owes the charge.

Morally I know that's a totally different question.

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

photome said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The question is how was the contract formed (I assume at a distance) and whether the trader provided the usual required information, if not the OP isn’t bound by the contract so it’s academic what happened. 

That maybe so but this is the real world. The OP contacted the trader and asked him to do the job, the trader did his  bit ,but the OP didn’t

what happened to common sense

If the OP doesn't pay the trader will have to take them to court, if the trader didn't provide the info and OP's defence is they aren't bound by the contract the trader isn't going to win. 

We're not on the common sense board, if we were these types of threads wouldn't go for 4 or 7 pages.... 

The same logic that if the plumber had carried out the work, but hadn't provided the required information then the OP would not need to pay the plumber for his work?

HillStreetBlues

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

photome said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The question is how was the contract formed (I assume at a distance) and whether the trader provided the usual required information, if not the OP isn’t bound by the contract so it’s academic what happened. 

That maybe so but this is the real world. The OP contacted the trader and asked him to do the job, the trader did his  bit ,but the OP didn’t

what happened to common sense

If the OP doesn't pay the trader will have to take them to court, if the trader didn't provide the info and OP's defence is they aren't bound by the contract the trader isn't going to win. 

We're not on the common sense board, if we were these types of threads wouldn't go for 4 or 7 pages.... 

The same logic that if the plumber had carried out the work, but hadn't provided the required information then the OP would not need to pay the plumber for his work?

Only if the plumber relies on it.
For example if plumber states "I will fix your washing machine for £100,  then the contract is for that. If the washing machine is fixed then £100 is due. But if the it's not fixed  then the plumber can't point to the T&Cs the OP was unaware of and point to a cause stated "fix means  repair or attempted repair.

powerful_Rogue

Not according to someone on here previously. If certain information isn't given in a durable format, you don't have to pay.

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again

As a few have said they will not come back to someone who has not answered after requesting work. Could also find that word of mouth gets round & other locals traders will also do the same, or want a upfront deposit.

cannugec5

jefaz07 said:

outtatune said:

jefaz07 said:

When I was on the tools as an emergency gas engineer were weren’t allowed to use doorbells and knocking on a door/window was the only way.

Off topic, but is that because of the possibility of igniting a gas leak?

Yeah, that’s right. Point I was trying to make which I agree is probably lost is that knocking on a door works. You don’t HAVE to use a doorbell. 

In my house it doesn’t. We don’t hear knocks on the door. So we have loud doorbells ( front and back, to be sure) with flashing lights. 

RefluentBeans

powerful_Rogue said:

Not according to someone on here previously. If certain information isn't given in a durable format, you don't have to pay.

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

To play devils advocate - I think most people would expect to pay after services have been rendered. In addition there is a quote (or offer), consideration from the consumer and acceptance of the contract to do the services at the given quote. That is a contract - binding in all forms (but durable is better). 

In contrast, the OP asked for a contractor to come to quote some work. Most places have free quotations now. So the ‘contract’ would be for a free quotation in this context. Fees and penalties can’t be blindly applied, and have to be visible to the consumer (or at least that there may be additional fees to pay). Most places get around this by having a like like ‘we reserve the right to charge for failed appointments’ on the website. They may not have a full price list but the mention of additional penalties is normally enough, in my opinion. Given that the formation of a contract at all is somewhat dubious, not making the consumer aware of penalties is enough to exclude the term from the contract (if one was formed). 

Morally, the right thing to do would be to be to pay the guy for the time he wasted, but that’s not the question here. I question whether that’s £30 considering that this was just for a quote that likely would’ve been free. 

Legally, there’s not much the contractor can do to enforce this fine. In fact, the vast majority of fines issued by private individuals and companies are often dubious and prone to courts looking disfavourably (cough cough, parking companies). Other than sending stroppy letters, and bluster, private companies eventually would have to go to court where the contract would be under close scrutiny. In this case I’m dubious if the parts of the contract have even been met, let alone implied vs explicit terms. 

powerful_Rogue

RefluentBeans said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Not according to someone on here previously. If certain information isn't given in a durable format, you don't have to pay.

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

To play devils advocate - I think most people would expect to pay after services have been rendered. In addition there is a quote (or offer), consideration from the consumer and acceptance of the contract to do the services at the given quote. That is a contract - binding in all forms (but durable is better). 

In contrast, the OP asked for a contractor to come to quote some work. Most places have free quotations now. So the ‘contract’ would be for a free quotation in this context. Fees and penalties can’t be blindly applied, and have to be visible to the consumer (or at least that there may be additional fees to pay). Most places get around this by having a like like ‘we reserve the right to charge for failed appointments’ on the website. They may not have a full price list but the mention of additional penalties is normally enough, in my opinion. Given that the formation of a contract at all is somewhat dubious, not making the consumer aware of penalties is enough to exclude the term from the contract (if one was formed). 

Morally, the right thing to do would be to be to pay the guy for the time he wasted, but that’s not the question here. I question whether that’s £30 considering that this was just for a quote that likely would’ve been free. 

Legally, there’s not much the contractor can do to enforce this fine. In fact, the vast majority of fines issued by private individuals and companies are often dubious and prone to courts looking disfavourably (cough cough, parking companies). Other than sending stroppy letters, and bluster, private companies eventually would have to go to court where the contract would be under close scrutiny. In this case I’m dubious if the parts of the contract have even been met, let alone implied vs explicit terms. 

It's not a fine, only the courts and certain Government agencies can issue actual fines.

I was following on from the lunatics post who hae previously stated that if information isnt provided in a durabe means, you don't have to pay for the work.

RefluentBeans

powerful_Rogue said:

RefluentBeans said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Not according to someone on here previously. If certain information isn't given in a durable format, you don't have to pay.

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

To play devils advocate - I think most people would expect to pay after services have been rendered. In addition there is a quote (or offer), consideration from the consumer and acceptance of the contract to do the services at the given quote. That is a contract - binding in all forms (but durable is better). 

In contrast, the OP asked for a contractor to come to quote some work. Most places have free quotations now. So the ‘contract’ would be for a free quotation in this context. Fees and penalties can’t be blindly applied, and have to be visible to the consumer (or at least that there may be additional fees to pay). Most places get around this by having a like like ‘we reserve the right to charge for failed appointments’ on the website. They may not have a full price list but the mention of additional penalties is normally enough, in my opinion. Given that the formation of a contract at all is somewhat dubious, not making the consumer aware of penalties is enough to exclude the term from the contract (if one was formed). 

Morally, the right thing to do would be to be to pay the guy for the time he wasted, but that’s not the question here. I question whether that’s £30 considering that this was just for a quote that likely would’ve been free. 

Legally, there’s not much the contractor can do to enforce this fine. In fact, the vast majority of fines issued by private individuals and companies are often dubious and prone to courts looking disfavourably (cough cough, parking companies). Other than sending stroppy letters, and bluster, private companies eventually would have to go to court where the contract would be under close scrutiny. In this case I’m dubious if the parts of the contract have even been met, let alone implied vs explicit terms. 

It's not a fine, only the courts and certain Government agencies can issue actual fines.

I was following on from the lunatics post who hae previously stated that if information isnt provided in a durabe means, you don't have to pay for the work.

So what’s this if not a fine? Exactly my point. This fails to meet what it means to make a contract, as the charges weren’t clear (or even the fact the are charges). 

A contract doesn’t have to be written, but should have the major components of details. If the OP was unaware of a charge for failure, then the contract failed and isn’t withstanding.