# Oil delivered to wrong house - what are our rights?



## TillyD (3 Dec 2021)

An oil company from a border town filled our tank with €400 (500ltrs) of oil by mistake. We know nothing about this company, and they are a distance away from where we live. We didn’t need oil as our tank was over half full (1200ltr tank). 

They want us to pay the full amount with a €30 discount or pay €38 weekly or take the oil back out. We got a docket with someone else’s name on it, the person who the oil was meant for but nothing in our name.

We rang after the event and said we weren’t happy with how this happened and how do we know what was put in, considering everyone has eircodes (detached house) and that we knew nothing about them. We also asked could they verify the amount they were taking back out. Nothing too serious in the lines of conservation, more enquiring. They got very rude and told us to hang up and go and get the oil tested – so my husband hung up!

We don’t want something for nothing. These things happen, we also don’t want a €400 bill before Xmas and we certainly don’t want a €38 payment plan that we never requested. We would be happy for them to take it back but not sure how this would work. Can they measure the amount of oil they take back out? They never answered this.

Today they sent us a ‘sale of goods act’ letter mentioning unsolicited misdelivery saying they could access the property to take it back. This was sent by registered post. Just feel this is very threatening when we did nothing wrong and didn’t say we weren’t going to engage.

Does anyone know what our rights would be in these circumstances?


----------



## noproblem (3 Dec 2021)

I don't know what your rights, are or where you live, even if it's in the south.  If I had a fair idea of how much was in in my tank, like yourself you said you had a half tank, I would see if they might do a deal. Offer them half of what they want if your tank is filled up, otherwise, i'd imagine they can go and jump.
Where did they get your name and address to send you a  letter?


----------



## Pinoy adventure (3 Dec 2021)

It could be a scam.how do you know they put in anything ??


----------



## TillyD (3 Dec 2021)

noproblem, we have no idea where they got our name and address, we're assuming from the person they were meant to deliver to but we don't know for sure.  We are in the South of Ireland (NorthEast). We asked around if anyone heard of the company but no one we know knows them. They are from Blaney in Monaghan 40 odd kms away from us. Their parent company is in Crossmaglen.

When we rang we were willing to sort out a discount payment, a lot more than 30e though.  However, family are saying we are mad. We don't know what they put in our tank, what kind of oil it is (although heating is working away), and we didn't need oil or a payment plan! I'm really annoyed that we got this letter just before XMas too. Think this has annoyed me more than anything, a call to the house from someone to follow up with us would have been a better approach and I have no doubt we would have come to some kind of agreement. However, now I feel like saying take your oil but just prove to us that you are taking exactly what you put in, which we have no evidence to what that is.


----------



## Pinoy adventure (3 Dec 2021)

A call too the house from someone- sure anybody could call into you and tell you they delivered the unwanted oil too you.


----------



## Johnno75 (3 Dec 2021)

Tell them it’s their problem and they should be more careful about where they’re delivering their oil to. 

It could well be a scam. 

The Sale of Goods letter is bogus. They have absolutely no right to access your premises under that legislation. If they do, call the Gardai and treat them as trespassers. It’s no fault of yours they delivered oil to your property. If they even did this. 

This smells very fishy to me.


----------



## murphaph1 (3 Dec 2021)

If it was sand or gravel or something you would be able to tell their property from yours and let them just remove it and clean up the mess. But they have (allegedly) _mixed_ their property with yours, and you are expected to just take their word for it.....

Letting them take it back out is pointless. If it's not proper quality heating oil the damage is already done. If you want to try to verify that it's not a scam and work out a (heavily discounted) payment plan, then ask them to tell you who exactly ordered the oil so you can verify the story with that person at least. If the person is local to you, it's probably a genuine mix-up.


----------



## peemac (3 Dec 2021)

Yes they can request to take the oil back. Once you can verify that they are reputable, then the kerosene will be fine. It's all the same - comes from same refineries with same process.

Thing is, oil prices have dropped dramatically in the last few days and price of 500l will drop below €350 in the next 10 days, so if they can show a docket showing a 500l delivery, you should allow them a supervised withdrawal of an amount that will include a disturbance compensation.

I think 400L is a fair compromise.

The other option is that you offer to pay for the 500L at the 500L price that is pertaining on say 10th January which possibly would be when you would be looking at a delivery. Less a €50 charge for the hassle.

But some agreement has to be made. They are entitled to get their goods back.

Btw, most home heating oil distributors are fairly small companies working on tiny margins, so it's a fair loss for them on top of not delivering to the correct customer but they are handling it wrong.


----------



## noproblem (3 Dec 2021)

TillyD,
Have you dipped your oil tank? Do it, then go to the guards and let them know what those gang are at. No harm to have it logged in case anything strange happens. Reading back on everything, I smell a scam being tried on. Good luck.


----------



## Baby boomer (3 Dec 2021)

On the one hand we've got a fuel company.... border area.... rude, aggressive approach demanding money.... what could possibly be the problem?

Or, alternatively, honest mistake by a reputable company.  

Which is it?  Hard to say, really.  But their approach is poor.  You could tell them they are welcome to collect the oil, but you need them to pay for a mechanical engineer to supervise the process.  Alternatively you might agree to purchase the oil at a discount of about 25%.  That'll cost them €100 or so, but it's their mistake, so that's a reasonable outcome.


----------



## peemac (3 Dec 2021)

noproblem said:


> TillyD,
> Have you dipped your oil tank? Do it, then go to the guards and let them know what those gang are at. No harm to have it logged in case anything strange happens. Reading back on everything, I smell a scam being tried on. Good luck.


Gardai? Ah come on. 

The gardai would have zero interest in this. It's a simple error by a delivery driver who has probably got it in the ear by his employer.

Civil issue.


----------



## Thirsty (4 Dec 2021)

peemac said:


> Gardai? Ah come on.
> 
> The gardai would have zero interest in this. It's a simple error by a delivery driver who has probably got it in the ear by his employer.
> 
> Civil issue.


If it is a scam & it definitely sounds like one to me; it is a criminal matter.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

Thirsty said:


> If it is a scam & it definitely sounds like one to me; it is a criminal matter.


Yes, the offer of a €38 per week instalment arrangement is the dead giveaway.

It sounds like The Great Train Robbery…


----------



## Johnno75 (4 Dec 2021)

The oil company lost its credibility and legal standing once it sent a letter stating that the law allows them to effectively trespass on the OP’s property to get the oil back! Any reputable company would not do this. If it was a mistake, the company should be big and bold enough to absorb the loss (its only a few hundred quid - I’ve lost more on a night out!). Or if it feels really strongly about it, dock the driver’s wages for delivering to the wrong address.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> The oil company lost its credibility and legal standing once it sent a letter stating that the law allows them to effectively trespass on the OP’s property to get the oil back! Any reputable company would not do this. If it was a mistake, the company should be big and bold enough to absorb the loss (its only a few hundred quid - I’ve lost more on a night out!). Or if it feels really strongly about it, dock the driver’s wages for delivering to the wrong address.


That’s great…dock a driver’s wages in the mouth of Christmas for making a mistake.

Margins are tight in that industry, and drivers aren’t exactly getting paid like Premier League footballers.

Mistakes happen and the OP will need the oil in time, just not right now.

At a minimum, pay the €38 a week and move on with your life. You mention that you don’t want a €400 bill before Christmas, which is understandable, but then you do on to say that you certainly don’t want an unsolicited payment plan. 

If money is that tight, think of the upside of the payment plan in January.

There really are only three options, take the discount, take the plan, or let them take it back out. Choose one.


----------



## jpd (4 Dec 2021)

How does the OP know how much was delivered?
I know the delivery slip shows 500L but ...


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Mistakes happen and the OP will need the oil in time, just not right now.


So if someone just left 200 rolls of toilet paper on your doorstep you'd pay for them? I mean you will eventually use the toilet paper, right?

There is some absurd advice on this thread. The OP has had fuel of uncertain provenance added to their tank. There was no contract in place. There was trespass. The OP has no legal or moral obligation to the fuel company whatsoever!

There is zero chance of the fuel company having any legal comeback here. Every firm can lose money due to employee error. Having systems in place to mitigate this risk is their own business, and not the OP's.

Best case it was an error. Worst case it is some kind of scam involving a lower volume or worse quality fuel than what they are claiming.

@TillyD write the company a letter. Make it clear that you had no contract in place for fuel delivery and that they trespassed on your property. And that a minimum they should pay for testing to ensure that the contents of your tank will not compromise your central heating system.


----------



## Shirazman (4 Dec 2021)

If my guess is correct, then the oil company involved has an interesting history.


----------



## PMU (4 Dec 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The OP has no legal or moral obligation to the fuel company whatsoever!


I'm not certain on this.  Must the OP not make a reasonable attempt to return the oil to its owner?  Otherwise is the OP not exposed to a charge of 'larceny by finding'? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/man-sues-state-over-larceny-by-finding-charge-1.245811


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> So if someone just left 200 rolls of toilet paper on your doorstep you'd pay for them? I mean you will eventually use the toilet paper, right?
> 
> There is some absurd advice on this thread. The OP has had fuel of uncertain provenance added to their tank. There was no contract in place. There was trespass. The OP has no legal or moral obligation to the fuel company whatsoever!
> 
> ...


The toilet roll comparison is ridiculous.

If I used oil and a half a tank was delivered by mistake I’d negotiate a discount and get on with my life.

Or ask them to remove it. Or pay in instalments.

They’re the options.

Paying nothing wouldn’t be fair.


----------



## Shirazman (4 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The toilet roll comparison is ridiculous.
> 
> If I used oil and a half a tank was delivered by mistake I’d negotiate a discount and get on with my life.
> 
> ...



So if someone 'accidentally' poured a shot of what they told you was gin into your half-empty G&T glass in a crowded pub, that's what you would do?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

Shirazman said:


> So if someone 'accidentally' poured a shot of what they told you was gin into your half-empty G&T glass in a crowded pub, that's what you would do?


Another ridiculous comparison.


----------



## Thirsty (4 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Another ridiculous comparison.


Well you sure as heck wouldn't drink it would you!


----------



## Johnno75 (4 Dec 2021)

What the issue boils down to is the credibility of the company claiming they accidentally filled the wrong tank. 

If a local reputable company contacts me and says they accidentally filled my tank and I ask some reasonable questions which they deal with to my satisfaction, I would be inclined to take them at their word and allow them to take back the oil. 

It’s all about trust.

In the OPs case, the company is unknown to him/her, not local, unduly hostile to reasonable queries and has sent a registered letter with a false claim that they’re entitled to enter into the OP’s premises to take back the oil. 

If the company was genuine, one would think that they would adopt a more sanguine approach and offer as much detail as to how things went wrong in support of their claim to having made a mistake. 

For me, the trust went out the window with the attitude, hostility and bogus legal letter.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The toilet roll comparison is ridiculous.


It's only ridiculous if you don't use toilet paper


Gordon Gekko said:


> If I used oil and a half a tank was delivered by mistake I’d negotiate a discount and get on with my life.


The OP has no idea if the volume delivered was what has claimed. And no idea as to the quality.

I have a bottle of half-full Jameson at home. If someone walked in off the street and refilled the bottle to full I wouldn't touch it, never mind pay them for the privilege


----------



## Mapara (4 Dec 2021)

This actually happened to me a few years ago..It was in our tank for 3 days before we knew, we were informed by the oil company who basically asked if they could remove the 500lts or if we were interested in buying it at a discounted rate which we did  plus a 20 euro voucher off another fill and everyone was happy with this scenario...it was very cordial outcome from all sides..at the end of the day it was a genuine mistake.and who hasn't made one of them..


----------



## TillyD (4 Dec 2021)

Thank you for the interesting replies 

We have never expected something for nothing only good manners! The attached imagine is the opening line of a registered letter sent to us... not I am writing to apologise etc. This company could have had the courtesy to call to our house on the evening/week it happened. They never tried to contact us. Only this letter. We rang them the day after it happened and they were rude to us so my husband hung up in them. 

The letter doesn't even mention paying in full only installments or take back 500ltrs, which we honestly can't say how much they put in. If they handled the situation a little more professional we might not be second guessing any of this.


----------



## Mapara (4 Dec 2021)

TillyD said:


> Thank you for the interesting replies
> 
> We have never expected something for nothing only good manners! The attached imagine is the opening line of a registered letter sent to us... not I am writing to apologise etc. This company could have had the courtesy to call to our house on the evening/week it happened. They never tried to contact us. Only this letter. We rang them the day after it happened and they were rude to us so my husband hung up in them.
> 
> The letter doesn't even mention paying in full only installments or take back 500ltrs, which we honestly can't say how much they put in. If they handled the situation a little more professional we might not be second guessing any of this.


It seems to me that the oil company has approached this very heavy handed. If it's not too late maybe let them know that you are willing to pay for it at a discounted price which might actually save them money rather than having to arrange and verify the removal..which is what the company involved in our situation had told us.....


----------



## Johnno75 (4 Dec 2021)

_was_


TillyD said:


> Thank you for the interesting replies
> 
> We have never expected something for nothing only good manners! The attached imagine is the opening line of a registered letter sent to us... not I am writing to apologise etc. This company could have had the courtesy to call to our house on the evening/week it happened. They never tried to contact us. Only this letter. We rang them the day after it happened and they were rude to us so my husband hung up in them.
> 
> The letter doesn't even mention paying in full only installments or take back 500ltrs, which we honestly can't say how much they put in. If they handled the situation a little more professional we might not be second guessing any of this.


So the first you hear from them is a letter which makes false representations concerning the Sale of Goods Act and how is applies to their mistake. 

Sorry, this has scam written all over it!


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> _was_
> 
> So the first you hear from them is a letter which makes false representations concerning the Sale of Goods Act and how is applies to their mistake.
> 
> Sorry, this has scam written all over it!


That wasn’t the first the OP heard from them.

There was a phone call.

It reads to me like the OP went on the offensive during that call.

Mistakes happen; how would you know what was put in or how much they’ve taken out? By being there!

There are three reasonable options:

1) Pay for it less discount
2) Pay for it less discount on the drip
3) Let them remove it

In terms of the company, does it have any profile at all? i.e. is it me and my dog and a front for IRA smuggling or is a proper company with an office etc?


----------



## noproblem (4 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> There are three reasonable options:


Reasonable to you maybe. 
Still don't understand why you haven't measured what's in your tank now. Going on what you said, you had half a tank, this company (supposedly) then puts in 500ltrs. Dip with a broom handle and the tank should be up near the top. Then you'll know "something" was put in.


----------



## noproblem (4 Dec 2021)

noproblem said:


> Reasonable to you maybe.
> Still don't understand why you haven't measured what's in your tank now. Going on what you said, you had half a tank, this company (supposedly) then puts in 500ltrs. Dip with a broom handle and the tank should be up near the top. Then you'll know "something" was put in. I must say I'm finding it all very strange.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

noproblem said:


> Reasonable to you maybe.
> Still don't understand why you haven't measured what's in your tank now. Going on what you said, you had half a tank, this company (supposedly) then puts in 500ltrs. Dip with a broom handle and the tank should be up near the top. Then you'll know "something" was put in.


I’m not the OP…I don’t have an oil tank!


----------



## TillyD (4 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> That wasn’t the first the OP heard from them.
> 
> 
> It reads to me like the OP went on the offensive during that call.



The company made no contact with us until we received this letter. You would expect them to call to our house if they did not have our pone number. We phoned them. And yes, we challenged them how they made such a mistake with a detached house when using ericodes because we were doubtful at the time whether it was a mistake. We also pointed out that we did not know anything about them and then they were rude to us.

We do not dispute that some oil was put in our tank but we can't say for sure whether it was 300/400/500.  We do dispute the quality of the oil and how they are handling the situation. That is why we are now looking for advice on how to solve this.


----------



## Shirazman (4 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Another ridiculous comparison.



From which I surmise that you wouldn't dream of either consuming the unwanted product or paying for it.    The only remaining option being to ask the donor to remove it from your glass without contaminating the G&T that was originally there.  

I'm glad you're not my advisor!


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

Shirazman said:


> From which I surmise that you wouldn't dream of either consuming the unwanted product or paying for it.    The only remaining option being to ask the donor to remove it from your glass without contaminating the G&T that was originally there.
> 
> I'm glad you're not my advisor!


Firstly, the comparisons are ridiculous; toilet paper can just be removed and a drink is worth less than a tenner, plus there’s the whole “date rape” aspect to that silly example. 

Again, there are three options, pay, pay on the drip, or have it removed. Some people seem to want to invite drama. Mistakes happen, just get on with it.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

TillyD said:


> The company made no contact with us until we received this letter. You would expect them to call to our house if they did not have our pone number. We phoned them. And yes, we challenged them how they made such a mistake with a detached house when using ericodes because we were doubtful at the time whether it was a mistake. We also pointed out that we did not know anything about them and then they were rude to us.
> 
> We do not dispute that some oil was put in our tank but we can't say for sure whether it was 300/400/500.  We do dispute the quality of the oil and how they are handling the situation. That is why we are now looking for advice on how to solve this.


But you called them? So there was contact. 

It sounds to me like you escalated the situation by turning it into the Spanish Inquisition and being aggressive. “How could this happen?” It was an accident!

People who think it’s a scam really need to get a life; what an ingenious scam. Drive an oil tanker to someone’s house. Pretend to deliver oil by mistake. Then go back and forth debating the matter. Then agree to remove it, accept €38 a week, or discount the oil heavily. The scam of the decade alright!

Is it a real company with an office and an obvious presence and customer-base?


----------



## Clamball (4 Dec 2021)

Imagination working overtime here.  Lorry of 1000L of oil.  Go to 10 random houses in the countryside.  Give them all a top up of 100L.  Demand payment for 500L delivered accidentally.  Wait for the money to roll in. 

It still does not make sense to me.   It just sounds like a genuine error.  Maybe the driver is dyslexic? 

It they had not been rude to you what would you do?  Pay half end of Jan & half end of Feb and expect €100 discount?   Is so offer that.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

Look at it another way. You own an oil delivery company. One of your drivers makes a mistake. The person rings you up and demands to know how it happened, implies that it could be a scam, and suggests that you could have put anything into the tank. There’s a way to handle things from the off.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> The scam of the decade alright!


I mean who ever heard of fuel businesses with operations in Armagh and Monaghan being involved in anything shady, right?

Maybe this was all an innocent mistake. If it was the firm should pay to have the fuel mix tested as a starting point.

@TillyD - invest in a cap with a lock on it. If someone can put fuel in without your knowledge they can take it out too!


----------



## RedOnion (4 Dec 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I mean who ever heard of fuel businesses with operations in Armagh and Monaghan being involved in anything shady, right?


No doubt they're buying expensive road diesel and passing it off as cheaper heating fuel....

If the OP is genuinely concerned about their heating oil having been contaminated with something they shouldn't be using their heating system until they have it tested.


----------



## TillyD (4 Dec 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I mean who ever heard of fuel businesses with operations in Armagh and Monaghan being involved in anything shady, right?
> 
> Maybe this was all an innocent mistake. If it was the firm should pay to have the fuel mix tested as a starting point.
> 
> @TillyD - invest in a cap with a lock on it. If someone can put fuel in without your knowledge they can take it out too!



That is what we are going to do regarding the cap.

We did not suggest it was a scam on the phone. We did question the quality of their oil because we knew nothing about them and then they got rude to us and also said that a discount of 31e was very small.

Cannot understand why they did not contact us before this letter and how rude the letter was and the threatening tone in the letter. There was no effort to come to a mutual agreement before this letter, also no apology. But maybe I'm old fashioned and place too much importance on customer service.

Edited to add: the oil was placed in our tank 5 weeks ago. Letter received yesterday.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Dec 2021)

Is there any information online about them?

Do they have an office and an obvious commercial presence?


----------



## Pinoy adventure (4 Dec 2021)

Could the OP name the company ??


----------



## Johnno75 (4 Dec 2021)

Could the OP show the text of the entire letter received?


----------



## Baby boomer (4 Dec 2021)

TillyD said:


> Thank you for the interesting replies
> 
> We have never expected something for nothing only good manners! The attached imagine is the opening line of a registered letter sent to us... not I am writing to apologise etc. This company could have had the courtesy to call to our house on the evening/week it happened. They never tried to contact us. Only this letter. We rang them the day after it happened and they were rude to us so my husband hung up in them.
> 
> The letter doesn't even mention paying in full only installments or take back 500ltrs, which we honestly can't say how much they put in. If they handled the situation a little more professional we might not be second guessing any of this.


Their letter doesn't appear very professional, it would be interesting to see the full thing.  This is what the Sales of Goods Act actually has to say about "unsolicited goods."

On first reading, and without knowing all the details, it seems like this company may well be guilty of.a criminal offence under subsection 3.


*47.*—(1) Where—(_a_) unsolicited goods are sent to a person with a view to his acquiring them and are received by him, and (_b_) the recipient has neither agreed to acquire nor agreed to return them, and either— (i) during the period of six months following the date of receipt of the goods the sender did not take possession of them and the recipient did not unreasonably refuse to permit the sender to do so, or (ii) not less than 30 days before the expiration of that period the recipient gave notice to the sender and during the following 30 days the sender did not take possession of the goods and the recipient did not unreasonably refuse to permit the sender to do so, then the recipient may treat the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him and any right of the sender to the goods shall be extinguished. (2) The notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall state— (_a_) the recipient's name and address and the address at which the sender may take possession of the goods (if not the same) and (_b_) that the goods are unsolicited. (3) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any business, makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent to another person with a view to his acquiring them, shall be guilty of an offence. (4) A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment in the course of any business and with a view to obtaining any payment for what he knows or ought to know are unsolicited goods— (_a_) threatens to bring any legal proceedings, (_b_) places or causes to be placed the name of any person on a list of defaulters or debtors or threatens to do so, or (_c_) invokes or causes to be invoked any other collection procedure or threatens to do so, shall be guilty of an offence. (5) In this section— “acquire” includes hire, “send” includes deliver, “sender” includes any person on whose behalf or with whose consent the goods are sent and any other person claiming through or under the sender or any such person, “unsolicited” means, in relation to goods sent to any person, that they are sent without any prior request by him or on his behalf. 


----------



## peemac (4 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> The oil company lost its credibility and legal standing once it sent a letter stating that the law allows them to effectively trespass on the OP’s property to get the oil back! Any reputable company would not do this. If it was a mistake, the company should be big and bold enough to absorb the loss (its only a few hundred quid - I’ve lost more on a night out!). Or if it feels really strongly about it, dock the driver’s wages for delivering to the wrong address.


Remember we just have an abridged version of one side of the story.
It is possible that the posters husband got aggressive and told them to take a hike.

It does actually come under the soga in that an error was made / unsolicited goods were delivered.

The company has said that they wish to collect the goods. They may think that they are being frustrated in collecting the goods and they can rightfully suggest that they can / will take legal action.

The question of accessing the property to reclaim their goods is probably for someone with more expertise, but I would suspect that they would be entitled to do so.


----------



## noproblem (4 Dec 2021)

peemac said:


> but I would suspect that they would be entitled to do so.


"would suspect" and "entitled"? Big difference.


----------



## murphaph1 (5 Dec 2021)

The problem is also that the "goods" are now mixed with someone else's property and the only evidence whatsoever as to how much of that mix belongs to this firm is the firm's own delivery docket.

You'd have to wonder at the quality of the oil this firm sells if it is happy to extract 500 l from a private tank with who knows what contaminants inside and then presumably just sell it to their next customer.


----------



## Johnno75 (5 Dec 2021)

peemac said:


> The question of accessing the property to reclaim their goods is probably for someone with more expertise, but I would suspect that they would be entitled to do so.


The only people who are entitled to access any property are the property owners themselves. Or some enforcement arm of the State (eg Gardai, Sheriffs etc in certain circumstances). 

There is no absolutely no question of a private entity being legally permitted to enter into the property of a private individual to remove mistakenly delivered oil from a tank!


----------



## Thirsty (5 Dec 2021)

My final thoughts on this for the OP.

I believe this set up is a scam.

Get your tank dipped, tested and locked.

Do not engage any further with the company.


----------



## Páid (5 Dec 2021)

I also believe it's a scam. 

And I would not under any circumstances enter a payment plan for €38 a week.


----------



## peemac (5 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> The only people who are entitled to access any property are the property owners themselves. Or some enforcement arm of the State (eg Gardai, Sheriffs etc in certain circumstances).
> 
> There is no absolutely no question of a private entity being legally permitted to enter into the property of a private individual to remove mistakenly delivered oil from a tank!


Plenty of people can access a property legally once they have reasonable excuse to enter  As in the grounds not the physical house.

Post and parcel delivery services to start with. Meter readers. Neighbour's contractors if it's an emergency and requires access via your property.

As I said above, someone with legal knowledge is better placed to give the legal standing, but I would think that they would have an entitlement to enter the grounds to retrieve their property.


----------



## Johnno75 (5 Dec 2021)

peemac said:


> Plenty of people can access a property legally once they have reasonable excuse to enter  As in the grounds not the physical house.
> 
> Post and parcel delivery services to start with. Meter readers. Neighbour's contractors if it's an emergency and requires access via your property.
> 
> As I said above, someone with legal knowledge is better placed to give the legal standing, but I would think that they would have an entitlement to enter the grounds to retrieve their property.


You can take my word for it, they have absolutely no grounds to enter the house for the purpose of removing the oil from the tank.


----------



## peemac (5 Dec 2021)

Thirsty said:


> My final thoughts on this for the OP.
> 
> I believe this set up is a scam.
> 
> ...


Happens a lot more often than you think. And there are numerous companies that operate both sides of the border from small distributors to very large ones. Maxol would be a big one, Morgan fuels a mid size and a plethora of small ones. 40km distance is "local" in rural terms. My oil comes from over 25km away. (Naas oil to outside Kildare town)

Margins are miniscule in the business. On 500l it is probably less than €50 gross. The company boss was probably fuming at the driver and had a bad attitude on the phone as the loss is over €350 and has a disgruntled customer that didn't get a delivery.

At the end of the day it has to be sorted somehow - we all make errors.

As for mixed fuel - it is all the same. No "brand" has a different fuel to another. It all comes from one of 3 refineries and the distributors simply get the next lot that comes out.


----------



## peemac (5 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> You can take my word for it, they have absolutely no grounds to enter the house for the purpose of removing the oil from the tank.


Can you give a link to this?
And I am saying the property, as in the grounds not the physical house. There is a big difference.

My angle is that if someone has refused to allow access for return of a mis delivery, (not suggesting that the poster has done this) the company can reasonably enter to extract their goods.

Again, it's my thought process, so would like if someone could give a legal opinion with explanation as we get regularly here.

Think of a neighbour's kid kicking a ball over the wall. If the neighbour refuses to give the ball back, can the kid not reasonably enter the grounds to retrieve the ball?


----------



## Johnno75 (5 Dec 2021)

peemac said:


> if someone could give a legal opinion


You’ve been given one.


----------



## TillyD (5 Dec 2021)

peemac said:


> As for mixed fuel - it is all the same. No "brand" has a different fuel to another. It all comes from one of 3 refineries and the distributors simply get the next lot that comes out.


This is very reassuring, thank you.  We now know the oil was meant for someone in the community, which is also reassuring. 

Still not happy with their approach, but I'm confident we'll come to some mutual agreement. 

Thank you all for your input.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Dec 2021)

TillyD said:


> We now know the oil was meant for someone in the community


I’d say they’re in on the scam as well.

They’ll probably get a cut of the €38 a week instalment arrangement.

It’s what’s called a “long con”.


----------



## murphaph1 (5 Dec 2021)

If you're happy with the bona fides of the intended customer and they have previously used the firm without issue then the oil is very likely kosher. How you proceed from here is then up to you and your conscience really.


----------



## Baby boomer (5 Dec 2021)

peemac said:


> Plenty of people can access a property legally once they have reasonable excuse to enter


No. It doesn't work like that.  They key point is permission, not reasonable excuse.   Permission can be given by the legal occupier of the property.  Entry without permission is trespass. 




peemac said:


> As in the grounds not the physical house.


Irrelevant.  Unless you're a Guard or agent of the State.  A "dwelling" attracts a higher level of constitutional protection than other property and generally speaking, a warrant is required for entry.  There are numerous circumstances set out in legislation allowing for entry onto premises but excluding premises used as a dwelling, eg environmental health officers, health and safety inspectors and suchlike.  



peemac said:


> Post and parcel delivery services to start with.


Implied permission.  Which an occupier is perfectly entitled to withdraw.  At the cost of getting no post.



peemac said:


> Meter readers.


Contractually required if you want electricity.  Again you can withdraw permission but you mightn't like the obvious consequences!



peemac said:


> Neighbour's contractors if it's an emergency and requires access via your property.


Getting one's oil back isn't an emergency!  But, yes, emergency can, sometimes, in some circumstances, justify what would otherwise be an act of trespass, eg to save people or property from a burning building.  That's not what we have here.



peemac said:


> As I said above, someone with legal knowledge is better placed to give the legal standing, but I would think that they would have an entitlement to enter the grounds to retrieve their property.


Absolutely not.   Your don't get to make a "mistake" and then use that mistake to generate an entitlement to enter other people's property and interfere with their stuff.


----------



## Peanuts20 (6 Dec 2021)

I doubt this is a scam and more likely gross incompetence on behalf of the oil company. It's called unsolicited goods and they do have a legal right to try and recover but cannot legally demand payment. They have to give you notice in writing and I would start by trying to figure out how much does your oil tank hold and how much do you reasonable think was added.


----------



## Steven Barrett (6 Dec 2021)

Wow! What a read. God bless anyone who makes a mistake to the contributors to this thread. It's going to cost them! 

The OP has confirmed that oil was put into their tank. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to check the oil levels in a tank. I use a stick .

Just like an oil tank can measure how much oil left the truck and into the tank, they can measure it going the other way. Arrange for them to call to your house and remove it. And that is the end of that. 

They may have handled it better but bad manners doesn't imply criminality. 

As for a scam? Offering to do deals or a discount doesn't seem a great way to scam someone. Couldn't they just call to their property when no one was in and steal all the oil?


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Dec 2021)

There is no "May have handled it better" about it Steven, they absolutely could and should have handled it better. Sending a letter weeks after the fact starting it with "you hold in your possession misplaced goods" is an awful way of trying to resolve the matter. 
It would have been far better to call in person (or at the very least over the phone) to explain their mistake, apologise for it and then discuss how it could be resolved. To compound the matter by then being rude on the phone just worsens an already bad situation.
Also you say it's easy to measure the tank, however you missed the point that the mistaken delivery was 5 weeks prior to the threatening letter so any measurement would be 5 weeks late.
The company need to back down here, apologise for their bad handling of the situation and then discuss how it can be resolved (and they really should be willing to do better than a measly €30 discount!).
Until then the OP is under no obligation to take the next step imho.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Dec 2021)

Didn’t the OP make contact with the supplier first and open discussions by demanding to know how this could have happened, implying that it might be a scam, and questioning the quality of what was put in the tank?

We still have people here who think it’s a scam which is just insane.


----------



## Johnno75 (6 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Didn’t the OP make contact with the supplier first


No. The first the OP heard of this was by letter which prompted the phone call. 

It’s now clear it’s not a scam, but the Oil company didn’t do anything to cover itself on glory in its handling of the thing.


----------



## Steven Barrett (6 Dec 2021)

Ceist Beag said:


> There is no "May have handled it better" about it Steven, they absolutely could and should have handled it better. Sending a letter weeks after the fact starting it with "you hold in your possession misplaced goods" is an awful way of trying to resolve the matter.
> It would have been far better to call in person (or at the very least over the phone) to explain their mistake, apologise for it and then discuss how it could be resolved. To compound the matter by then being rude on the phone just worsens an already bad situation.
> Al*so you say it's easy to measure the tank, however you missed the point that the mistaken delivery was 5 weeks prior to the threatening letter so any measurement would be 5 weeks late.*
> The company need to back down here, apologise for their bad handling of the situation and then discuss how it can be resolved (and they really should be willing to do better than a measly €30 discount!).
> Until then the OP is under no obligation to take the next step imho.


They had over 600 litres of oil in their tank before the delivery. They had over 1,100 after the delivery. Good luck using 500 litres of oil in 5 weeks. it is not in dispute that oil was added to the tank and the OP seems happy that it is ok. What people want is compensation for them being rude!


----------



## Steven Barrett (6 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> No. The first the OP heard of this was by letter which prompted the phone call.


They got the docket for the oil. Seeing as the OP isn't a customer of the oil company, they couldn't have received a call as they wouldn't know their phone number.


----------



## Lambchops65 (6 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> The oil company lost its credibility and legal standing once it sent a letter stating that the law allows them to effectively trespass on the OP’s property to get the oil back! Any reputable company would not do this. If it was a mistake, the company should be big and bold enough to absorb the loss (its only a few hundred quid - I’ve lost more on a night out!). Or if it feels really strongly about it, dock the driver’s wages for delivering to the wrong address.


Agree. The company should be willing to just write this off. Sending that letter was not the right approach and would totally get my back up.


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Dec 2021)

Steven Barrett said:


> They had over 600 litres of oil in their tank before the delivery. They had over 1,100 after the delivery. Good luck using 500 litres of oil in 5 weeks. it is not in dispute that oil was added to the tank and the OP seems happy that it is ok. What people want is compensation for them being rude!


They had over 600 litres but they don't say exactly how much they had (they may not even know for sure). They don't say how much was in the tank 5 weeks later so we can't be sure on that. All they have is a letter from the company stating they delivered 500 litres. Assuming the OP agrees there may have been 500 litres delivered, as someone else said, a fair offer would be to take back 400 litres, once they actually engage properly with the customer and cease threatening them of course!


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> No. The first the OP heard of this was by letter which prompted the phone call.


That isn’t what happened.

How can you have a legitimate view when you don’t even understand the chronology of events?


----------



## Johnno75 (6 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> That isn’t what happened.
> 
> How can you have a legitimate view when you don’t even understand the chronology of events?


Have a read through the OP’s posts.


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Dec 2021)

TBF to Gordon, it is slightly unclear as to the sequence of events here so maybe the OP can clarify.

Was the first the OP knew about this when the registered letter was received (last Friday according to the OP) and was the phone from your husband subsequent to that letter?
Or was the first contact made by you to the company via a phone call?
If the latter then you must have known there was a delivery of oil so when did you know this and how did you know who to contact and did you measure the oil at that time?


----------



## Steven Barrett (6 Dec 2021)

Ceist Beag said:


> They had over 600 litres but they don't say exactly how much they had (they may not even know for sure). They don't say how much was in the tank 5 weeks later so we can't be sure on that. All they have is a letter from the company stating they delivered 500 litres. Assuming the OP agrees there may have been 500 litres delivered, as someone else said, *a fair offer would be to take back 400 litres*, once they actually engage properly with the customer and cease threatening them of course!


Why should the OP get 100 litres of free oil for someone making a mistake? 

Do you believe that everyone who makes a mistake should pay for it?


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Dec 2021)

Steven Barrett said:


> Why should the OP get 100 litres of free oil for someone making a mistake?
> 
> Do you believe that everyone who makes a mistake should pay for it?


Given the approach here then yes I do believe in this case they should be willing to take some loss. Do you believe they should not compensate the OP in any way for their mistake and subsequent poor behaviour?


----------



## Steven Barrett (6 Dec 2021)

Ceist Beag said:


> Given the approach here then yes I do believe in this case they should be willing to take some loss. Do you believe they should not compensate the OP in any way for their mistake and subsequent poor behaviour?


People make mistakes all the time. I don't expect people to pay financially for making one when the OP can go directly back to the situation she was in beforehand without suffering a financial loss herself. 

I also don't believe that people should suffer a financial loss for being rude. Yes, people should treat people nicer (like not trying to make people pay for making a mistake), but it is not a reason to try to get money out of them. 

And remember, the OP also questioned the quality of the firms product. Questioning whether you sell a low quality product is going to annoy anyone.


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Dec 2021)

Steven Barrett said:


> People make mistakes all the time. I don't expect people to pay financially for making one when the OP can go directly back to the situation she was in beforehand without suffering a financial loss herself.
> 
> I also don't believe that people should suffer a financial loss for being rude. Yes, people should treat people nicer (like not trying to make people pay for making a mistake), but it is not a reason to try to get money out of them.
> 
> And remember, the OP also questioned the quality of the firms product. Questioning whether you sell a low quality product is going to annoy anyone.


Fair enough, we won't agree on this one. I think in this case the company (it's a company not a person) should be willing to accept some responsibility here and compensate the OP for the inconvenience. I don't think the cost of 100L would be onerous and it may encourage them to work harder to prevent such a mistake in the future.


----------



## Sunny (6 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> No. The first the OP heard of this was by letter which prompted the phone call.
> 
> It’s now clear it’s not a scam, but the Oil company didn’t do anything to cover itself on glory in its handling of the thing.



No, they got a docket

*We got a docket with someone else’s name on it, the person who the oil was meant for but nothing in our name.

We rang after the event* and said we weren’t happy with how this happened and how do we know what was put in, considering everyone has eircodes (detached house) and that we knew nothing about them. We also asked could they verify the amount they were taking back out. Nothing too serious in the lines of conservation, more enquiring. They got very rude and told us to hang up and go and get the oil tested – so my husband hung up!

*Today they sent us a ‘sale of goods act’ letter mentioning unsolicited misdelivery saying they could access the property to take it back. This was sent by registered post. *Just feel this is very threatening when we did nothing wrong and didn’t say we weren’t going to engage.


There is no need to turn this into an episode of Perry Mason. To be fair to the OP, they seem more than willing to arrange a solution. The company were rude but an innocent mistake was made. If there is a remedy that can suit all parties then what's wrong with that. By all means be careful it is not a scam and by the sounds of it, the company won't win customer service awards but just allow them to their oil or else keep it and pay for it. Talk about legalities is just nonsense.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Dec 2021)

TillyD said:


> An oil company from a border town filled our tank with €400 (500ltrs) of oil by mistake.





TillyD said:


> We rang after the event





TillyD said:


> Today they sent us a ‘sale of goods act’ letter



How exactly is the chronology of events unclear?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> Have a read through the OP’s posts.


I have.

Have you?

(see above)


----------



## Leo (6 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> That isn’t what happened.
> 
> How can you have a legitimate view when you don’t even understand the chronology of events?


The OP stated on page 2:



TillyD said:


> This company could have had the courtesy to call to our house on the evening/week it happened. They never tried to contact us. Only this letter. We rang them the day after it happened and they were rude to us so my husband hung up in them.



And again on page 3....



TillyD said:


> Cannot understand why they did not contact us before this letter and how rude the letter was and the threatening tone in the letter.



Perhaps time for another read.


----------



## Johnno75 (6 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I have.
> 
> Have you?
> 
> (see above)


Gordon. 

When I post on this forum, I always go to great lengths to try to be as accurate as possible based on the information presented. 

I am satisfied that I can stand over everything I’ve posted on this thread. Further, I come from a perspective of trying to be of help to the OP and any readers of the thread. I think questioning the legitimacy of my view because you may disagree with my perspective is unnecessary.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Dec 2021)

Leo said:


> The OP stated on page 2:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By you me thinks Leo.

First contact was made by the OP.

Have a read of it again.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> Gordon.
> 
> When I post on this forum, I always go to great lengths to try to be as accurate as possible based on the information presented.
> 
> I am satisfied that I can stand over everything I’ve posted on this thread. Further, I come from a perspective of trying to be of help to the OP and any readers of the thread. I think questioning the legitimacy of my view because you may disagree with my perspective is unnecessary.


It’s not that I disagree with your perspective.

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.


----------



## Johnno75 (6 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> It’s not that I disagree with your perspective.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.


Lol. That old trope again. 

Here, good luck!


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Dec 2021)

Do you acknowledge that your understanding of the facts was incorrect?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Dec 2021)

Johnno75 said:


> No. The first the OP heard of this was by letter which prompted the phone call.


Fundamentally incorrect.

Completely debunked.

Your own opinion, fine. Your own facts, not fine.


----------



## Leo (6 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Fundamentally incorrect.
> 
> Completely debunked.



Can you point to the post where the OP stated the company made contact with the OP prior to the letter?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (6 Dec 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> We still have people here who think it’s a scam which is just insane.


The OP has subsequently clarified that they have found out for sure that it was intended for neighbours.

Otherwise there were quite a few items in the opening post that would prompt suspicion:



> An oil company *from a border town* filled our tank with €400 (500ltrs) of oil by mistake. *We know nothing about this company*, and *they are a distance away from where we live*. We didn’t need oil as our tank was over half full (1200ltr tank).
> 
> *They want us to pay the full amount with a €30 discount* ........We also asked could they verify the amount they were taking back out. Nothing too serious in the lines of conservation, more enquiring. *They got very rude and told us to hang up and go and get the oil tested *– so my husband hung up!........Today they sent us a ‘sale of goods act’ letter mentioning unsolicited misdelivery saying they could access the property to take it back. This was sent by registered post.


Maybe the OP was a bit muddled on the chronology and/or sensationalised a bit. But on the basis of the opening post I think it was fair to at least raise the possibility of a scam.

The OP seems quite satisfied that it isn't a scam and that should be good enough for all of us by now.


----------



## Sunny (6 Dec 2021)

Leo said:


> Can you point to the post where the OP stated the company made contact with the OP prior to the letter?




This thread is getting beyond pointless. Even the OP seems happy to come up with a solution. The rest of us seem to be so bored that we have resorted to this. 

Anyway, Company delivers oil by mistake and the OP receives a docket in another name



TillyD said:


> We got a docket with someone else’s name on it, the person who the oil was meant for but nothing in our name.



The OP rang the oil company


TillyD said:


> We rang after the event and said we weren’t happy with how this happened



The company then sent a letter


TillyD said:


> Today they sent us a ‘sale of goods act’ letter mentioning unsolicited misdelivery saying they could access the property to take it back.




The OP was in contact with the oil company by phone. They hung up because the company was rude. The company then sent a letter. 

And none of the above matters in the slightest........


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Dec 2021)

That's all folks...

Brendan


----------

