Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 44565	2004-04-23 03:52:00	Is payment acceptance of invoice charge ....	Woof (2402)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
231485	2004-04-23 03:52:00	.... and therefor no refund is due ? I have just been told this by TelstraClear and I strongly disagree. Surely the the charge must be bona fide (genuine) and for actual supply and the mere payment does not legitimise a false or incorrect charge ? Can anyone shed any light on this matter, please.	Woof (2402)
231486	2004-04-23 04:02:00	Sorry I can't give you a conclusive answer, but IIRC, Telecom's Terms and Conditions specify that an invoice must be paid (in full) before any discussions will be entered into, regarding disputed charges. In order to force this, they charge a $6.00 penalty if you are even 1 day late in paying. This penalty is chargeable, even if you are disputing the invoice and have withheld payment for that reason. I wouldn't be too surprised to find that this is the standard for big companies. Cheers Miami	Miami Steve (2128)
231487	2004-04-23 04:29:00	When disputing accounts under these circumstances (pay us or we won't even talk to you) it is best to make payment by personal or bank cheque with a letter attached indicating that the payment is made "without prejudice" to any rights you may have in relation to the substance of your complaint. Keep a photocopy of both the letter and the cheque, then if you finally end up in the disputes tribunal you can prove you were still arguing at time of payment. Alternatively get the name and/or employee number of the person you were dealing with on the phone and write yourelf a record, including date, time and any other relevant information about your complaint. Ideally you tell somebody else the same day and get them to witness your note. This is far from perfect and probably doesn't give you much in the way of legal protection, but most companies will talk reasonably if they see proof of your concerns and your prior contact. Remember PPP :| Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
231488	2004-04-23 08:52:00	Good commonsense advice Billy. The simple answer Woof is "No". The payment could be induced by mistake, duress, or fraud. Mistake would be the most common reason. For example, you have a direct debit set up for payment of your bill. You only get a chance to look at the details some time after the payment has been debited from your account and discover charges for calls you never made. It happens. Some companies have terms of trade which say you have to dispute the account before the banking computers do their thing - otherwise you are deemed to accept the invoice. I seriously doubt that a Judge or Disputes Tribunal Adjudicator would take much notice of these terms. Perhaps if you were trying to argue about a $50 charge 6 months previously it could get sticky but the Statute of Limitations allows 6 years. The Contractual Mistakes Act may vary that - I can't remember. Anyway ignore the protestations of Telstra Clear and argue your case. Politely but firmly. Cheers Winston001	Winston001 (3612)
231489	2004-04-23 09:03:00	gidday people... Winston I didn't realise quote "Statute of Limitations allows 6 years" I was in the understanding that telecom is one company that was exempt from this? as I've been told be telecom staff that they can persue any outstanding bill that they have a record off. Telecom for example handed my name to baycorp for a alledged bill from before '95 wow :)	zminos (5010)
231490	2004-04-23 11:32:00	OK Zminos, the Statute of Limitations says that a claim cannot be sued for more than 6 years after the debt or obligation was last acknowledged by the debtor (defendant) . 12 years in the case of a mortgage or debenture . However, the law doesn't say that the creditor can't try . I well believe Telecom would pursue a debt however old it was if they thought they would get paid . So would plenty of other companies . You need to remember that debt recovery is a job carried out by staff using computer records . They don't know the law outside the court filing procedures and enforcement system . It is up to you to raise the limitation argument . If you are correct, they'll drop the claim . Otherwise you'll have to defend the claim and persuade a Judge . Good luck . Winston001	Winston001 (3612)
231491	2004-04-23 11:37:00	Well done Winston and Godfather, spot on! *as usual :8}* I personally do not think there is any law which governs this exactly. However, I wonder if it's possible for you to tell us what the problem actually is.. what your been overcharged for. Then we might be able to fit it under one of the more specific laws like Fair Trading Act or something like that. Btw, Winston, are you a lawyer or lawyer-to-be?	~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ (2054)
231492	2004-04-24 11:24:00	Well Sy, I have been practising the law for 23 years. Apparantly once I get good enough to actually use the law - then I retire. Weird eh.	Winston001 (3612)
231493	2004-04-24 11:52:00	> Well Sy, I have been practising the law for 23 years . > Apparantly once I get good enough to actually use the > law - then I retire . Weird eh . > This is a quirk of the English language I have never worked out . Doctors and Lawyers both "practise" or "practice" In general I think the Lawyer/Doctor has a "Practice" but then practises . Have I got this right or do I need more practice? Do they both do this until they get it right? God forbid that Truck drivers, Pilots, Engineers etc, ad nuseam "pactise" and charge people while doing so . :-)	Elephant (599)
231494	2004-04-24 12:12:00	> God forbid that Truck drivers, Pilots, Engineers etc, > ad nuseam "pactise" and charge people while doing so . Well, Elephant I hold a "Practising Licence", and I am an Engineer (among various other things as well), and I charge people for my services . So be very afraid . . . Regarding the original subject of the thread, if the debt was established and not disputed or negated at the time, then utility companies do not regard the Statute of Limitations as a barrier to recovering debt . Avoiding or evading payment for the statutory period does not constitute a defence against the existence of the debt in the view of the Utility . If it did, you could buy a new car on credit, then go into hiding with the car for 6 years, and emerge with a free car, if you follow the logic . Your redress is in the validity or lack of in the original claim .	godfather (25)
1 2