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

powerful_Rogue

RefluentBeans said:

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. 

It's a civil debt, certainly not a fine.

RefluentBeans

powerful_Rogue said:

RefluentBeans said:

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. 

It's a civil debt, certainly not a fine.

Can’t be a debt if the the OP never agreed to a contract. That’s, literally, the point. 

powerful_Rogue

RefluentBeans said:

powerful_Rogue said:

RefluentBeans said:

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. 

It's a civil debt, certainly not a fine.

Can’t be a debt if the the OP never agreed to a contract. That’s, literally, the point. 

Well it's certainly not a fine. as you previously mentioned.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

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

At the risk of sending everyone to sleep, for an off premises contract the trader must provide the information on paper, or if the consumer agrees, another durable medium.

If the trader fails to provide specifically (l) (right to cancel) or (n) (that the consumer must pay for the proportion of service supplied before cancellation) from Schedule 2 then the consumer doesn't have to pay for the service if they exercise the right to cancel within the cancellation period (which is extended if (l) is not supplied). 

Equally the consumer is not to pay for the service received prior to cancellation if the service began during the cancellation period unless the consumer made a express request for it to begin during the cancellation period and for off-premises that request must be via a durable medium. 

I know this is one of those things where some might say "but in the real world", I get that but the regs clearly state such as does the advice from business companion (written by the likes of the Department for Business and Trade and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute) as well as the EU guidance on their Directive from which our regs stem. 

If you pay say £2000 for labour and £2000 for a boiler then the goods aspect could still be cancelled but the goods would need to be returned (usual rules on diminished value subject to correct information supplied regarding paragraph (l) again).

If you simply paid £4000 for that without a cost assigned to the goods aspect then this is a transfer of goods under the CRA which falls under services, although I'm not sure what happens with the CCRs in this instance.

Separate to all this for all contract types before the consumer is bound by the contract the trader must supply the information from Schedule 2.

For on premises this doesn't have to be durable and can include apparent information (e.g the trader's location may be apparent if you are standing in their place of business). 

For off-premises as above it needs to be on paper or another durable medium if agreed by the consumer, there is a caveat for off premises maintenance contracts under £170 which it's easier to link to than copy out:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/11

For distance contracts the information must be given (with caveats for contract concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information) but in any event the trader must give a copy of the information via durable means either no later than the time of delivery for goods or before a service begins. 

The £30 fee appears to be a sum imposed for the consumer failing to fulfil their obligations under the contract (i.e not allowing the service to be performed, for whatever reason as I'm not getting involved in the doorbell debate!) and this seems a very fair fee but if the consumer isn't bound by the contract I can't see they have any obligations to fulfil. 

In terms of fines, if the amount charged by the plumber in this situation was say £1000 that would be viewed as a penalty under common law, I think many people would see the word fine and penalty to be colloquially the same (many may refer to a FPN as a fine for example), however I don't know if there's a different legal definition between the two. 

powerful_Rogue said:

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

This is pretty much correct as a consumer contract can't include a penalty, I'm not sure about B2B with reference to the above regarding meanings. 

Sadly we can add private parking companies to that list who somehow managed to convince the higher courts their actions should be deemed legal through an argument of legitimate interest. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

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

This is pretty much correct as a consumer contract can't include a penalty, I'm not sure about B2B with reference to the above regarding meanings. 

Sadly we can add private parking companies to that list who somehow managed to convince the higher courts their actions should be deemed legal through an argument of legitimate interest. 

Private parking companies can't issue fines, they are parking charge notices - an invoice. (Unless I mis-understood your last part)

RefluentBeans

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

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

This is pretty much correct as a consumer contract can't include a penalty, I'm not sure about B2B with reference to the above regarding meanings. 

Sadly we can add private parking companies to that list who somehow managed to convince the higher courts their actions should be deemed legal through an argument of legitimate interest. 

Private parking companies can't issue fines, they are parking charge notices - an invoice. (Unless I mis-understood your last part)

And even then many have been ‘misapplied’ by parking companies and had courts throw them out. I standby that most ‘definitely not a fine, just an invoice for after the matter’ type issues are legally dubious at best. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Before the test case the argument against them was that they amounted to a penalty under common law rather than being a pre-estimation of loss.

The parking companies argued that this was required as legitimate interest to ensure you and I can get a parking space when we visit the shops (and of course nothing to do with it being a good way for them to make money).

So whilst it is an invoice, it’s also a penalty from a private company, one that the higher courts have deemed enforceable. 

Like I say I’m not sure on the legal difference between the words penalty and fine.

Perhaps the legal difference between a fine and a penalty is that it isn’t possible to challenge a fine in a court (perhaps except by appeal) where as penalty can be? (Which would mean the private parking tickets aren’t a fine as you can attempt to go to court, just case law says you won’t win without adding a new arguement). 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

And even then many have been ‘misapplied’ by parking companies and had courts throw them out. I standby that most ‘definitely not a fine, just an invoice for after the matter’ type issues are legally dubious at best. 

"Just an invoice" doesn't really mean much, the question is whether it's a legitimate invoice, regarding private parking the answer used to be no it's not but since Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis the answer now is that it is a legitimate invoice  

unforeseen

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

And even then many have been ‘misapplied’ by parking companies and had courts throw them out. I standby that most ‘definitely not a fine, just an invoice for after the matter’ type issues are legally dubious at best. 

"Just an invoice" doesn't really mean much, the question is whether it's a legitimate invoice, regarding private parking the answer used to be no it's not but since Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis the answer now is that it is a legitimate invoice  

 Only if the exact same situation & set of conditions apply, as has been proved numerous times. For 99.9% of the time they are still speculative invoices

Appliance_engineer

You can all go on about the technical and legal aspects of this but in essence, a tradesman has gone to quote on a job, he's made every effort to contact the householder and his phone call was ignored.

He has had the expense and time taken to visit.  That needs to be reimbursed.  £30 is a very small amount of money and may be less than the costs of attending.

Banging on about the doorbell is just clutching at straws, and an excuse.

I have had the excuse of not hearing the door hundreds of times in my career. It's an easy one to use, but I always take a photo of the front door, I ring, knock, usually tap on the nearest window, and even go down the passageway to the back garden if accessible.  I then always ring any contact numbers before leaving a card, which I put through the letter box after knocking for a final time.

The OP should pay this small amount and be done with it.

My personal policy is that I charge a call-out charge on EVERY initial visit whether or not a job goes ahead or whether or not any quote is accepted. The charge is a visit charge to offset costs in money AND time in calling to a person's house. I don't work for nothing, but I don't charge to quote.

The £20 call-out charge is for travelling to a house for whatever reason, be it a quote or a repair, and if the customer isn't home, I always let them know that I will be charging another £20 to come back following a wasted visit, so the follow-up visit costs them £40.