Here's a weird one... may be unanswerable

bassist needed

I owe you 50 euro/month.

I write you a monthly cheque, which I post to you; you cash the first 6 months of cheques, but then due to a clerical error on your end, do not cash the last 6 months, and you acknowledge this was your fault. In other words, you acknowledge I attempted to pay you on time.

Months and months later, out of the blue, you demand 300 euro, or you'll sick a solicior on me within 30 days.

Any opinions?

Do I still owe you the money?

What is "payment"?

If it's a companies fault, as in my example, can they set any terms, or threaten me legally?

Just a mental exercise here... so opinions welcome... have asked a few legal types and have gotten a few differing opinions...

bassist needed

Let me makes this less abstract:

A) I set up a direct debit with a company
Company takes money for 6 months
c) Company makes clerical error
d) Bill unpaid for 6 months
d) Company threatens legal action for non-payment

If I make a good faith effort, and uphold my end of a contract, does a company have a right to proceed legally against me for non-payment?

Is the bill, still a bill, if I've upheld my end of the contract and gave them access to my money, with the agreement that they take what is owed, and they take nothing... then what?

Opinions?

234

Why not just pay them with the money that has built up in the account since the direct debit stopped?
If you were provided with a service/product on the agreement that you would pay them you still have to even if they made a mistake. They may not be entitled to sue for breach of contract or try to impose interest but they are still entitled to be renumberated for the value they transferred to you.

bassist needed

234 wrote: »

Why not just pay them with the money that has built up in the account since the direct debit stopped?
If you were provided with a service/product on the agreement that you would pay them you still have to even if they made a mistake. They may not be entitled to sue for breach of contract or try to impose interest but they are still entitled to be renumberated for the value they transferred to you.

ha! I wish value had built up.. pay cheque to pay cheque here...

btw: had a solicitor tell me no, let them take me to court and they'd never win... seems obscenely risky..

234

If you have consulted a solicitor then their advice should be preferred to anything that you recieve on a annomyous online forum where you hvae no guarantee that posters have any knowledge of the area of are just winding you up.

mlumley

A cheque is valid for 6 months from date on same. Tell them to cash them, tell you what is short and pay them that. Dont think a judge will look too favorable at them for making the error. Dont sweat over it. Tell them it is there error not yours, you paid THEY faild to collect. Ownus is on them not you, IMHO.

seamus

There is still a debt to be discharged, regardless of who what and where.

The "demand" most likely is an automated letter from their system sent out by their dunning processes when your account went into 6 months arrears. I seriously doubt that someone looked at your account and decided to send out a demand for money.

As 234 says, they would not be entitled to charge interest on the unpaid amounts as the agreement was that they would take the money on demand via direct debit, but they failed to do so. However, they are still entitled to be paid.

Of course they have a right to start legal proceedings against you, they always do, but a judge would laugh them out of court, because the failure was on their side, not yours.

bassist needed

234 wrote: »

If you have consulted a solicitor then their advice should be preferred to anything that you recieve on a annomyous online forum where you hvae no guarantee that posters have any knowledge of the area of are just winding you up.

He's a family friend, so... just a conversation.. nothing more...

bassist needed

seamus wrote: »

There is still a debt to be discharged, regardless of who what and where.

The "demand" most likely is an automated letter from their system sent out by their dunning processes when your account went into 6 months arrears. I seriously doubt that someone looked at your account and decided to send out a demand for money.

As 234 says, they would not be entitled to charge interest on the unpaid amounts as the agreement was that they would take the money on demand via direct debit, but they failed to do so. However, they are still entitled to be paid.

Of course they have a right to start legal proceedings against you, they always do, but a judge would laugh them out of court, because the failure was on their side, not yours.

So I wonder this:

If they give me a payment plan I can't afford, and they took me to court...

what then...?

all the contact, btw., is me contacting them to resolve... have huge amount of documentation showing their unwillingness to work with me to resolve...

Opinions?

listermint

Why not just arrange to clear the 6months over a further 6 months, This way everyone gets happy ?

MagicSean

You haven't paid so you still owe the money.

bassist needed

listermint wrote: »

Why not just arrange to clear the 6months over a further 6 months, This way everyone gets happy ?

that doubles my bill for 6 months, due to their screw up...

bassist needed

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

You haven't paid so you still owe the money.

that's the common (and common sense) answer, but getting a variety of answers, some of which say, shockingly, no I don't, as they broke contract and that my agreement said that, "they agreed to take what was owed".

seamus

bassist needed wrote: »

If they give me a payment plan I can't afford, and they took me to court...

what then...?

The judge will decide a payment plan based on what you can afford.

The payment plan is an agreement between you both, not a dictation from the company. It needs to be reasonable for you without being wholly unreasonable for them.

Splitting the full cost over the next 12 months would seem to be reasonable to me. Although they made the mistake, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be inconvenienced. Strictly speaking if the money wasn't being taken, you should have noticed

bassist needed

seamus wrote: »

The judge will decide a payment plan based on what you can afford.

The payment plan is an agreement between you both, not a dictation from the company. It needs to be reasonable for you without being wholly unreasonable for them.

Splitting the full cost over the next 12 months would seem to be reasonable to me. Although they made the mistake, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be inconvenienced. Strictly speaking if the money wasn't being taken, you should have noticed

Hmm... is their a legal basis for, "should have noticed"?

The other thing is that they, according to them, "scammed" me (and "many others"). Undoing this scam is what screwed up my account... this is the reason why I'm not hugely pushed to make this easy for them...

BTW: they are COMPLETELY trying to dictate terms and are being inflexible. I'm not being unreasonable (essentially offered a year) and they are demanding three lump sums, more or less...

so two months payment, per month, to sort their mistake, which they caused with a scam, or else court.

alexlyons

bassist needed wrote: »

that doubles my bill for 6 months, due to their screw up...

yes but you also had €50 extra every month due to there error.

234

Ok, if you are really concerned/serious about this talk to a solicitor in a professional capacity. On a general point, breach of contract (if this actually amounts to breach) gives you a right to decide to terminate the contract. If you decide to do this, and it must be communicated to the other party, then any future obligations under this contract cease. If the terminating party owes money to the other party then this money remains owed. You can't expect to recieve something for free, even if the other party makes a clerical error.

nobody3

bassist needed wrote: »

Let me makes this less abstract:

A) I set up a direct debit with a company
Company takes money for 6 months
c) Company makes clerical error
d) Bill unpaid for 6 months
d) Company threatens legal action for non-payment

If I make a good faith effort, and uphold my end of a contract, does a company have a right to proceed legally against me for non-payment?

Is the bill, still a bill, if I've upheld my end of the contract and gave them access to my money, with the agreement that they take what is owed, and they take nothing... then what?

Opinions?

If you set up a direct debit, they just take what you owe. A direct debit is a mandate to allow them to remove whatever sum from your bank account. They might write you to let you know, but they don't have to. If the direct debit is refused because you spent the money you owe them. You're still liable for the debt.

MagicSean

How was there a scam? And how did they break the contract? Did they not fulfill their part by providing the service.

jakdelad

listermint wrote: »

Why not just arrange to clear the 6months over a further 6 months, This way everyone gets happy ?

why should he pay to keep someone happy?? where does happy enter the legal end of it???
what do you have to do stuff it in their pocket

MagicSean

jakdelad wrote: »

why should he pay to keep someone happy?? where does happy enter the legal end of it???
what do you have to do stuff it in their pocket

He received a service for which he did not pay. It's pretty clear why he owes them money.

bassist needed

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

How was there a scam? And how did they break the contract? Did they not fulfill their part by providing the service.

The scam is a long story, but it affected dozens of people in Ireland, more probably. It has been admitted to and regulator was involved.

bassist needed

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

He received a service for which he did not pay. It's pretty clear why he owes them money.

I did pay, well, I did what they asked, set up direct debit and paid until they stopped taking my money. At no point did I "not pay".

bassist needed

nobody3 wrote: »

If you set up a direct debit, they just take what you owe. A direct debit is a mandate to allow them to remove whatever sum from your bank account. They might write you to let you know, but they don't have to. If the direct debit is refused because you spent the money you owe them. You're still liable for the debt.

Get all of that... they screwed up and didn't take the money.. I had the money available and paid for months... bill only went into arrears when they stopped taking the money.... money was there.

bassist needed

234 wrote: »

Ok, if you are really concerned/serious about this talk to a solicitor in a professional capacity. On a general point, breach of contract (if this actually amounts to breach) gives you a right to decide to terminate the contract. If you decide to do this, and it must be communicated to the other party, then any future obligations under this contract cease. If the terminating party owes money to the other party then this money remains owed. You can't expect to recieve something for free, even if the other party makes a clerical error.

Thanks for this response!