Company asking me to pay more than agreed

Notflippinlikely

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Notflippinlikely said:

Okell said:

Notflippinlikely said:

Okell said:

I think the correct posiition is that the OP still owes £358.80 and not £450.  The trader's maths is at fault again.  [Edit:  But see edit at foot of this comment]

This all seems to have happened because the trader miscalculated what 10% of the total price was in the first place.

The total price was £4038.  For some reason the trader seems to have done some back-calculation to arrive at the first 10% payment.  (I'm not quite sure how they've done it but...)

Instead of correctly calculating 10% as £403.80 the trader seems to have wrongly deducted the first payment of £358.80 from the total of £4038, and has then proceeded to calculate 10% based on the reduced total after the first payment has been taken off

So each time the OP thought they had been making a payment of 10% (or multiples thereof) they had actually only been paying 8.9% of the correct total £4038

The trader has caused this by subtracting the first payment from the correct total before wrongly calculating the 10% (or 40%) on the remaining balance.  This was wrong.  They should have calculated the 10% (or 40%) amounts before deducting the first payment from the correct total.

The OP really should have noticed this straightaway - as should the trader.  It's obvious that £358.80 is not 10% of £4038.  (It's only become obvious here once the OP gave actual figures we could see).

I think the trader is wrong that the OP owes £450 still.  The OP owed £4038 and has paid £3679.20, therefore they owe £358.80.

The trader has - I think - confused matters again by subtracting £3588 from £4038 = £450.  The trader has erroneously arrived at £3588 because they think the OP has only paid 10 instalments each of £358.8.  But - according to the figures given us by the OP - he has paid more than that

He's made a total of 6 instalment payments of £358.8 and a larger payment of £1526.40.  That larger payment should have been £358.80 x 4 = £1435.20, but it was obviously calculated wrongly - again - and the OP paid £91.20 more on that larger payment than he should have done.

So whether the OP owes another £358.80 or another £450 depends on how much he actually paid when he paid the larger supposed 40% payment at the outset.  The trader obviously thinks he only paid £1435.20, the OP thinks he paid £91.20 more than that.

Neither the trader nor the OP seem mathmatically inclined... 

[Edit:  I think the trader is wrong about the OP owing £450 becuase I'm looking at what the OP has said he's paid.  But on reflection I'm not sure how reliable the OP is in knowing how much he's paid...]

The OP does indeed know that exact amounts that SHE paid!

Well in that case SHE must know exactly what has gone wrong here.

Although her comment seems to be contradicted somewhat by her post made at 8:24pm today correcting erroneous information she had previously posted.

And if she knew the exact amounts paid she should have realised straightaway that £1526.40 was not 4 x £358.80

I am a very busy business owner and do not have the time to add up amounts of money that a reputable UK company has asked me to pay.
It would have all been scrutinised by my accountant at the end of the financial year.

I trusted a company to know how much they were charging me and I dutifully paid the amounts that were clearly stated on the VAT invoices.

I rather wish I had not even asked my question on this forum as I feel berated.

I was looking for friendly advice and I do not feel that I have gained anything from this experience.

Next time I won't bother!

The trouble is that it seems you knew all along they'd made an error and considered that since the error favoured you, it should be binding.  As you've discovered, that's not the case.  You didn't need friendly advice, you needed good advice, which would have been given much sooner had you been open about the situation rather than spinning it to get the answer you wanted to hear.  I'm afraid that as you are a very busy (and presumably successful) business owner, it's not plausible that you didn't realise you'd been undercharged.  As you've said, you expected to bind them to their mistake in your favour.  I suspect you would want the opportunity to correct a genuine mistake you make in your business if it led to you losing out.

If I made a mistake in my calculations to a customer I would indeed take it on the chin as I would have made the mistake! That is common courtesy and the sign of a considerate person.

I DID NOT know that they had made a mistake. Please do not assume things!

Also it is plausible that I did not know that I had been under charged.

I did not spin anything!

Facts not assumptions!

eskbanker

Notflippinlikely said:

Notflippinlikely said:

ACTUAL FIGURES AS PER VAT INVOICES

Machine £4,093.99
Additional item £375.00
Subtotal £4,468.99
Discount £1,103.99
VAT total £4038.00
Payment received £358.80
Balance due £3,679.20

The first Payment was 10% to secure the discounted machine which was on offer on the day.

I made another payment of
£1885.20 which I believed was 40% of the total bill.

I then paid 5 payments of £358.80 by DD.

Sorry that is wrong
10% holding payment of £358.80
40% payment of £1526.40

Then 5 equal payments of £358.80 by DD

For what it's worth, it would seem to me that the root cause of the issue was a presumably inadvertent failure to include the 'additional item' within the payment plan, as the gross purchase price without it would have been £3,588, thus six 10% payments (one deposit and five DD stage payments) being £358.80, although the derivation of the mysterious "40%" middle payment remains unclear to me, whichever figure was actually invoiced and/or paid.  Was the additional item a late inclusion in the purchase?

RefluentBeans

OP your invoice and your credit are two separate legally binding contracts. 

The invoice is to say you want the machine at £X, with appropriate payment terms (eg to be paid in full by such date, such as pay in 30 days). 

The credit is the contract to say you would like to borrow a sum of money to meet the obligations above. For all intents and purposes- these are two separate contracts that are often supplied by different legal entities (but here seems to be provided by the same). 

You must acknowledge that there is an underpayment on the invoice - and thus that contract is breached. Whilst I don’t believe the contract for your credit would be breached (I haven’t seen the entire terms and conditions etc - so can’t say definitely - plus not a lawyer so can’t say definitely anyway) - you need to find where this penalty has come from. 

I think the company probably should’ve contact you before to say the invoice total hasn’t been met and you’re owing some amount of money,  it they are entitled to pursue the costs to meet the deficit. 

You say you own a business - was this machine purchased for your business? If so, then a consumer rights board isn’t the right place to get advice (a lot more leniency is given to consumers - but in this context of buying a machine for business use -  you wouldn’t be a consumer). And you’d be best contacting legal advice as B2B contracts are a lot more complicated than consumer contracts. Obviously ignore this paragraph if you purchased a machine for personal use. 

Notflippinlikely

eskbanker said:

Notflippinlikely said:

Notflippinlikely said:

ACTUAL FIGURES AS PER VAT INVOICES

Machine £4,093.99
Additional item £375.00
Subtotal £4,468.99
Discount £1,103.99
VAT total £4038.00
Payment received £358.80
Balance due £3,679.20

The first Payment was 10% to secure the discounted machine which was on offer on the day.

I made another payment of
£1885.20 which I believed was 40% of the total bill.

I then paid 5 payments of £358.80 by DD.

Sorry that is wrong
10% holding payment of £358.80
40% payment of £1526.40

Then 5 equal payments of £358.80 by DD

For what it's worth, it would seem to me that the root cause of the issue was a presumably inadvertent failure to include the 'additional item' within the payment plan, as the gross purchase price without it would have been £3,588, thus six 10% payments (one deposit and five DD stage payments) being £358.80, although the derivation of the mysterious "40%" middle payment remains unclear to me, whichever figure was actually invoiced and/or paid.  Was the additional item a late inclusion in the purchase?

Yes it was

MattMattMattUK

You knew the total amount payable and invoiced, you know how much you have paid, their is a shortfall, that means you owe the money, it really is that simple. Now you can do the decent thing and pay, or you can let them take you to court and have to pay additional fees, I know which one I would pick. 

Notflippinlikely

MattMattMattUK said:

You knew the total amount payable and invoiced, you know how much you have paid, their is a shortfall, that means you owe the money, it really is that simple. Now you can do the decent thing and pay, or you can let them take you to court and have to pay additional fees, I know which one I would pick. 

There is no need to be so rude! I was trying to get my own head around it.

mikrt

Notflippinlikely said:

MattMattMattUK said:

You knew the total amount payable and invoiced, you know how much you have paid, their is a shortfall, that means you owe the money, it really is that simple. Now you can do the decent thing and pay, or you can let them take you to court and have to pay additional fees, I know which one I would pick. 

There is no need to be so rude! I was trying to get my own head around it.

Rude? 🙄🤔 OK

Aylesbury_Duck

Notflippinlikely said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Notflippinlikely said:

Hi, I'm new here.

I'm just wondering what my rights are.

I bought an appliance from a UK company. I paid 50% up front and signed an agreement to pay the remaining 50% over 5 months, interest free by DD. The VAT was included.

I paid the remaining 5 installments in full. 

After 2 months of thinking that I had fulfilled my obligations, I received a phone call saying that I still owed one month's payment.

I checked my bank statements and I confirmed that I had indeed paid all of the payments.

They are now threatening me with  debt collection. 

I can prove that it was their inability to do basic maths that has left me in this position.

Where do I stand?

It sounds like there may be more to this than you're letting on.  That's a strange turn of phrase to use, when I would have said "I can prove I've paid for the item in full".  Some of your other wording seems very carefully put, too.  I may be overly sceptical, but it just reads a little...oddly.

Did their mathematical inability mean there was a mistake in their original calculations and therefore that you've actually, despite paying the five instalments, knowingly underpaid for the item?

 It seems the answer to my question several pages ago is "yes".  It's a shame OP didn't answer it at the time.  Earlier transparency would have led to faster advice and fewer pages.

I have not and never would "knowingly" under pay anyone.

I trusted that they had worked out the correct payment plan.

I run a reputable business and I do not expect my customers to calculate how much they owe me!

Which is fair enough, but once it became apparent that they'd made an error and contacted you about it, you knew at that point that you had underpaid.   So the answer to my original question was "yes".  

Pollycat

RefluentBeans said:

You say you own a business - was this machine purchased for your business? If so, then a consumer rights board isn’t the right place to get advice (a lot more leniency is given to consumers - but in this context of buying a machine for business use -  you wouldn’t be a consumer). And you’d be best contacting legal advice as B2B contracts are a lot more complicated than consumer contracts. Obviously ignore this paragraph if you purchased a machine for personal use. 

Was it?.....

eskbanker

Although it's standard practice on this board to ascertain whether or not a purchase was by/for a business, I'd suggest that in this case it really doesn't matter - this clearly isn't one specifically requiring application of consumer rights legislation as such, and is simply a case of completing payment for a purchase!