# Company insists we haven't paid bill in full



## Reyes (11 Jul 2006)

Delicate problem here. We recently moved into a new house. We asked a local company to lay carpets for us. The bill was in the region of €4k. We paid half up front and half afterwards, they did a great job, no complaints. However, about three weeks later, the company rang to tell us they had undercharged us. When we paid the initial deposit, we paid about €800 in cash and the rest by cheque. They claim to have entered the €800 cash deposit into their system twice by accident. My fiancée was dealing with the bills and, as happens with paying solicitors, plumbers, movers, painters etc, we've kind of lost track of what money has been paid to whom. However, she is 100% sure that we have paid the right amount. We have a receipt, signed by the owner himself, saying that we have 'paid in full'. He's insisting we still owe him money. 
I accept that mistakes can be made. We are probably at fault for not keeping a closer eye on what money was going where and such. But all the recipts we have add up to the agreed sum, and as far as we know, the bill has been paid. We also bought about €600 worth of garden furniture off the same company on the day too (for which we weren't given a receipt). We were given a receipt the day we paid the deposit. Then we were given a receipt the day we paid the balance. 
Just wondering if anyone has an opinion on where we stand here? I'm not keen to annoy the locals, only two months after we've moved in, but I'm less keen to part with another €800.


----------



## Marion (11 Jul 2006)

What is the value of the cheque that you wrote for the deposit?

Marion


----------



## Reyes (11 Jul 2006)

€1210.


----------



## orka (11 Jul 2006)

Are they saying the bill should have been 4,800 and you have paid 4,000 or that the bill should have been 4,000 and you have paid 3,200?
I know it's easy to lose track of money when it's running out the door but could you do a rough tot on your bank accounts - starting position, how much spent on solicitors, plumbers etc. (presumably most/all gave receipts?) - you might be able to figure out whether you still have or haven't got the 800.
If it's down to cash they say that you didn't pay and you have a receipt saying paid in full, I don't think they have any hope of a legal comeback against you. Not a nice situation in a small town though.


----------



## Reyes (11 Jul 2006)

Yes, they claim we have only paid €3200. 

I've been told by quite a few people that as long as I have a receipt, we legally don't owe them anything. However, I can't be 100% certain that we definitely _don't_ owe them anything. I'm considering suggesting a compromise, that perhaps we pay 50% of the disputed fee. What do you think? I'm certain that this guy could quite easily make our lives a misery, so I'd dearly love to sort this out as soon as possible.


----------



## ZEGAR (11 Jul 2006)

Well if your girlfriend is sure she paid in full and all your accounts add up I would take it that it has been paid in full.
  Why would that company give you a receipt stating  "piad in full" unless you had paid in full.

 I would fight my corner and consult a solicitor if it came to the crunch.
 You do after all have a signed redeipt saying you paid in full


----------



## Reyes (11 Jul 2006)

ZEGAR said:
			
		

> Well if your girlfriend is sure she paid in full and all your accounts add up I would take it that it has been paid in full.
> Why would that company give you a receipt stating  "piad in full" unless you had paid in full.
> 
> I would fight my corner and consult a solicitor if it came to the crunch.
> You do after all have a signed redeipt saying you paid in full



We actually have two receipts; one after we paid the initial deposit, and one after we paid the final balance. I really don't want to consult solicitors etc, as it's a small enough town. 
Would suggesting a compromise be completely out of order?


----------



## Christy (11 Jul 2006)

I know where you are coming from about the small town, I think the compromise option is the best tact.  For the sake of €400 and the hassle you might bring on yourslef never mind what you might pay in legal costs offer the €400 and hope he agrees.


----------



## MugsGame (11 Jul 2006)

I'm confused. Is this the situation?

Description / Amount / Supporting Documentation
Total / €4020 / Initial quote verbally or in writing
Cash deposit / €800 / Initial receipt
Cheque deposit / €1210 / Cheque stub and bank statement
Final balance / €2010 / How was this paid?


You need to clarify which of the above  there is agreement on and which the supplier disputes. If the dispute is over the cheques, you can prove the amount paid from your bank statements -- some banks even allow you to trace cheque numbers online. 

Was some of the final balance paid in cash? Is that the problem? If the final balance was paid wholly by cheque, they have a cheque from you for €1210 and another cheque for €2010, and they have them confused.

The problem with the compromise of €400 is that it could backfire. If they genuinely believe you haven't paid, it might seem like you are trying to pull a fast one. Stress that you are fairly sure you've paid the full amount, but because the service was good and in the interest of good relations in the town you don't want to quarrel over it and are prepared to split the difference.


----------



## Reyes (11 Jul 2006)

We paid €800 cash and €1200 cheque as a deposit one week before the job was done. We paid the balance in cash the day after the job was done. They claim that they credited 2 x €800 to our account rather than just one. However, we got a receipt after each payment, the final receipt saying 'paid in full' in the owner's handwriting.


----------



## MugsGame (11 Jul 2006)

OK, so the dispute is over the final cash payment -- they say you have only paid €1210 and are €800 short, you say you paid the full €2010. Correct?

In the absence of any other evidence, a final receipt from the owner for €2010 would seem pretty conclusive. Is that what you have? How does he explain that?


----------



## Reyes (11 Jul 2006)

Yes spot on MugsGame. The recipt is basically an itemised print-out of costs & labour. The numbers add up fine, and it is signed at the bottom by the owner, saying 'paid in full, with compliments..'. He's claiming that because he made a mistake when entering one of the numbers, that we still owe him €800, and he has since sent us _another_ print-out/bill to this effect.


----------



## MugsGame (11 Jul 2006)

Ah, so you don't actually have a *receipt* for the final amount. You have an *invoice* for the total amount which says paid in full. This implies the final amount paid was correct, and would probably be enough if he sued you. But there doesn't seem to be any way you can prove it conclusively to the owner's satisfaction. 

How was the supposed error discovered? If he accepts cash payments without giving receipts for amounts as they are received, how can he be sure that's it not another customer who has underpaid?


----------



## Reyes (11 Jul 2006)

He claims the error was discovered when they were doing their books at the end of the month and noticed the missing money. They did some investigatinig and found that the money had been added twice to our account in error.

I know that I can't conclusively prove that we definitely did pay the full bill. We believe we did, honestly, but that's probably not going to be enough for him. However, I don't think he can conclusively prove to us that we didn't pay the bill either.


----------



## Spock (11 Jul 2006)

Reyes said:
			
		

> I know that I can't conclusively prove that we definitely did pay the full bill. We believe we did, honestly, but that's probably not going to be enough for him. However, I don't think he can conclusively prove to us that we didn't pay the bill either.



In the event that you can't conclusively prove you did pay and he can't conclusively prove you didn't, then I think your offer of a compromise, the €400 to keep the peace, is fair.

As you're the only one who's met him Reyes, do you think he'd go for it?


----------



## Reyes (11 Jul 2006)

I don't know to be honest. It's all been fairly amicable so far really, but if I thought it was going to turn for the worst, I'd gladly shell out the €800. Saying that, I'd hate to think that he does this regularly.

I think I'll ring him in a while, see what he says. Just have to pluck up the courage first! Wish me luck!


----------



## nt00deep (11 Jul 2006)

I think you are mad.  His records show you paid in full.  Your recollection says you paid in full.  Sure there is doubt, but I would be holding on to my €400.

If you really want to compromise, then if you are only 50% sure you did in fact pay in full, then pay him 50% of the disputed amount (the 400).  If you are 90% sure you paid in full, keep your 90% share of the disputed amount and offer the 10% (€80) as a goodwill gesture, and get a receipt !


----------



## Marion (11 Jul 2006)

Did you pay the owner himself on the day? 

Marion


----------



## Humpback (11 Jul 2006)

Is there any point in asking to see the books where he allegedly made the book-keeping error?

Would it be worthwhile calling in some day and asking to see the error - giving no advance warning that you'll be looking to see the books? You did mention above below that you'd hate to think that he does this regularly. This would confirm or not.

A surprise visit, being all nice and friendly, saying that you're there to sort things out, as soon as you've seen the double entry in the books, would tell you whether he's being genuine or not, depending on his reaction to that request.

And there'd be no good excuse for him not showing you the books there and then.


----------



## ubiquitous (11 Jul 2006)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Is there any point in asking to see the books where he allegedly made the book-keeping error?
> 
> Would it be worthwhile calling in some day and asking to see the error - giving no advance warning that you'll be looking to see the books? You did mention above below that you'd hate to think that he does this regularly. This would confirm or not.
> 
> ...



Really? I doubt if there is a business in the country that would allow members of the public to access their book-keeping system. If any of my customers requested access to my own business records, I would run them there and then and tell them never to darken my door again. Were someone to do so giving no advance warning and making a comment such as  "I'd hate to think that you do this regularly" they would be calling the Guards for their own protection.

If the OP is cheeky or gullible enough to follow this suggestion, they will run a strong risk of alienating the business concerned and wrecking their chances of negotiating a successful outcome to the query.


----------



## Swallows (11 Jul 2006)

Well here's the answer then, they made a mistake, which they have admitted, by entering €800 twice. They probably then got totally confused because some money was paid by cash and some by cheque. No proper accounting was done that day because, 1, they were too busy or, 2, the person doing the accounts didn't know what they were doing at the time.They may have been distracted as to what they were doing at the till.You have a receipt to say you paid in full, so no, dont pay another €400,€800 or whatever. Not your fault, theirs. end of story. So what if it's a small town, I know what small towns are like, do not let them bully you into paying just because you are new in town.!!!


----------



## MugsGame (11 Jul 2006)

I think Swallows may be on to something, though I wouldn't approach him quite as "robustly" as Swallows has posted!

Put the ball back in the supplier's court. What can he show you to convince you that you have made a mistake? Insist that you think you have paid the full amount, and his own invoice backs this up. By his own admission he has made a mistake recording your cash payments. He is dealing with lots of customers and you can understand how easily that could happen. But you only have your own finances to deal with. And everything suggests you paid him the full amount. The simplest explanation from your point of view is that he has made more than one mistake. Currently you regard the account as closed and fully paid, but if he can demonstrate you have made a mistake, you would certainly reconsider.

Also, and I know it's easy to say this now, let this be a lesson to others to always get exact receipts for payments when they are made, especially cash payments. If you had a receipt from a particular date showing nothing but a cash payment for the final balance, that would be enough to convince the supplier.


----------



## Reyes (12 Jul 2006)

Thanks all.

I called in to the shop when they first contacted us to try and clear it all up. He showed me where they had double-entered the amount into their computer. It was an excel spreadsheet type thing with two €800 entered under our name. How do we know the second entry wasn't added after we paid that €800?

And yes, the owner himself was paid on the day.


----------



## rkeane (12 Jul 2006)

I think the owner is being very foolish.  The best he could do is advise you that they think there was a mistake, accept the loss and hope to do business with you in the future.  If he knew you had a 'paid in full' signed document then he is quite stupid to even chance his arm.


----------



## Humpback (12 Jul 2006)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Really? I doubt if there is a business in the country that would allow members of the public to access their book-keeping system.


 
You're only asking to see the details of your account, not their whole book keeping system. I don't believe that this is an unreasonable request, especially in the circumstances - i.e. legitimately and politely trying to resolve an issue to the satisfaction of both parties.




			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> If any of my customers requested access to my own business records, I would run them there and then and tell them never to darken my door again.


 
While you can do business in any way that you choose, if I was asked in a reasonable fashion for access to someones personal account in order to clarify a query or an issue, then I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. And, I don't think that any business could reasonably refuse to give anyone a view of their account with that business (would this be a Data Commissioner issue?).



			
				ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Were someone to do so giving no advance warning and making a comment such as "I'd hate to think that you do this regularly" they would be calling the Guards for their own protection.


 
If the OP were to be as gullible and cheeky to approach the matter in this fashion, then there would be no reason for the business to accomodate the request (though not by threatening violence in response to the request). If they approached the business in the manner I stated above, reasonably and politely, focusing on getting the issue sorted, it would be unreasonable in my view for a business to refuse to let someone see their own account information.

Finally, as has been shown by the OP in subsequent posts to yours, they were allowed see the information in an effort to show clarity to the situation.

If a business has nothing to hide, then there should be no issue at all in showing their customers their account information, simple as that.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Jul 2006)

Points taken, but in fact it was You who suggested.. 





			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> Would it be worthwhile calling in some day and asking to see the error - *giving no advance warning that you'll be looking to see the books*?



and... 


			
				ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> You did mention above below that you'd hate to think that he does this regularly. This would confirm or not.



I don't know how you could expect the OP to establish the latter point without seeing other customers' records.


----------



## Reyes (12 Jul 2006)

Thanks lads, good to see someone else as worked up about this as we are! Apparently a few of our neighbours have used this guy and have been disappointed, either with poor service, or over-charging. I'm even less inclined to ring this guy now. I'm tempted just to ignore him and hope he'll go away, but I'm kind of worried about the legal aspect. Can he bring us to court over this?


----------



## Humpback (12 Jul 2006)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Points taken, but in fact it was You who suggested..
> 
> and...
> 
> ...


 
I think you're misunderstanding me.

The OP said that the owner had stated that he'd made a mistake in the books. By calling in, unannounced, and asking politely to see the books, you're giving the owner a chance to show the account as it is. By not giving notice, you're not allowing him the chance to "doctor" the account if it is the case that he might do this regularly.

There's no issue with calling in unannounced.

And I didn't suggest that the OP go in all guns blazing accusing the owner of doing this regularly.

However, by getting a look at their account, to see if the error is as the owner stated, they can then see whether or not he's being genuine. You don't need to see other peoples accounts to determine whether or not he's being genuine about the alleged mistake that he made on the OPs account.

If he doesn't let the OP see the account then the OP could conceivably have a doubt.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Jul 2006)

Ronan, thanks for clarifying your points. 



			
				Reyes said:
			
		

> Apparently a few of our neighbours have used this guy and have been disappointed, either with poor service, or over-charging.?



That's a *very* telling point.



			
				Reyes said:
			
		

> I'm kind of worried about the legal aspect. Can he bring us to court over this?



Unless he is vastly more organised than he appears to be, he would have great difficulty in establishing a case strong enough to bring to court. I think you have little to fear.


----------



## Reyes (12 Jul 2006)

OK, so I think most people I've asked agree that we don't owe this guy anything, and if we do end up paying him, it would be a goodwill gesture to keep the peace so to speak. Thanks a million guys, you've been a great help, I'll let you know how it works out.


----------



## Marion (12 Jul 2006)

Hi Reyes



> and if we do end up paying him, it would be a goodwill gesture to keep the peace so to speak.



Based on the details in this thread, you should not make any payment at all.  You don't need to make goodwill gestures.

Marion


----------



## paddyc (12 Jul 2006)

I know we bought a custom made sofa bed off a company in Glasnevin, paid a deposit of someithng like €100 which we got a receipt for, balance to be paid on delivery.

When the delivery guy came he said we got a good deal as the guy who priced it for us (only a young fella) made a mistake and under charged us by €300. 

As we had a written receipt for the €100 and the balance remaining they didn't look for the extra €300 and would just put it down to experience. 

As you have a signed receipt saying all paid in full then you have "Paid in Full" as far as I would be concerned regardless of €800 being missing from his "accounts" - an excel spreadsheet that would so easy be altered by a 6 year old


----------



## Megan (23 Jul 2006)

Reyes said:
			
		

> We paid €800 cash and €1200 cheque as a deposit one week before the job was done. We paid the balance in cash the day after the job was done. They claim that they credited 2 x €800 to our account rather than just one. However, we got a receipt after each payment, the final receipt saying 'paid in full' in the owner's handwriting.


 
On the day you paid the balance I am sure you would have gone in with an approx. amount due. If the bill was €800 less then that amount wouldn't you have noticed on the day? Was your final reeipt for approx €4,600 i.e. the €4,000 quoted plus the €600 for the garden furniture.
This that make sence or am I miising something.


----------

