PHS Datashred - help please

[SimonGA]

I have just received my very own 'Annual Waste Transfer Note' from PHS Datashred, together with an invoice for £83.94 which amounts to 42% of the original bill that I paid in good faith. It feels like a form of entrapment: You call them to arrange for confidential data to be disposed of. They send you a quotation and a 'contract' to sign. They collect the waste and you then pay the invoice, thinking (perfectly reasonably) that the contract has been fulfilled by both parties. A few weeks later, you get a letter, an 'Annual Waste Transfer Note' that is 'valid for 12 months' and an invoice. The invoice is payable to PHS for the cost to them of keeping a record of the waste "they receive and consign, i.e., the waste transfer note, for a minimum of 2 years". No explicit mention of this charge is made at the time of purchase. I have no intention of paying this. Can anyone provide any advice on what the best legal defence against this would be? I am thinking of FSA Customer Fairness Act or The OFT's successful trading test case that forced banks (in that case) to apply charges in relation to ‘strict proof of loss’ as opposed to a ‘fee for a service’. Many thanks in anticipation.

 

[rennaesp]

We just received the same invoice from them, so I too would like any information if anyone knows how to deal with this! (ie not pay!)

I knew from the terms of our contract that there was an annual waste charge but not the amount, the amount is never disclosed until being invoiced months after signing the contract. (this fee is hidden as a clause and is not quoted as part of your contract price, try asking the sales reps what it is and you don't get a straight answer)

I phoned PHS to ask how the charge was calculated to be £69.95+vat and was told it covers the annual waste transfer note as well as storage costs. In other words a way for them to top up their income. In my experience their fee is significantly higher than other providers, by about 4x. So I feel like it is being done as a hidden charge to make them appear more competitive, when in actuality they've ended up being more expensive!

I've sent a complaint to Citizen's Advice.

 

[SimonGA]

Thanks. It's good to get more of us onto this. It feels like entrapment to me. Your point about the amount not being disclosed is well made. I would expect a judge in court to say to me that I should have read the contract, but since the contract does not state what the charge will be, I feel as if I have a stronger defence. We just need to find evidence that PHS have been unwilling to reveal the price to people who have asked, prior to them signing the contract. Anyone out there that can help with that?

 

[Michael Gerard]

My office also recently received an invoice and here an extract from my reply:

Dear Sirs,

Account Number: XXXX
Invoice Reference: XXXX

We refer to your invoice as refered to above, received at our offices of even date, and return the same.

Your claim is that we are liable for payment in law by virtue of Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended), which you assert necessitates a Waste Transfer Note (“WTN”) being issued on an annual basis. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not liable for the sum claimed either by statute or in contract.

We engaged your services in July 2012 to remove 6 boxes of paper documents from our premises and shred and dispose of the same. The agreed price for this work was £60.00 plus VAT, which was duly paid.

Our obligation under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is to ensure that the waste is transferred to a duly authorised person, whilst the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991requires us to retain a record of the transfer (“the Transfer Note”), for a period of no less than 2 years. The Transfer Note was issued by you to us on 24 July 2012, and it is only this record that must be retained in order to satisfy both the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Regulations. There is therefore no requirement to ‘purchase’ a WTN.

The writer is perturbed that your claim is in all probability a scam and as a Lawyer, he is under an obligation to report your operations under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and to Trading Standards.


Yours faithfully,


I would urge you all to write back to them in the same context and report this company to SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) and to Trading Standards. I would also bet that Watchdog would like to hear about this. This is absolutely outrageous.

 

[SimonGA]

My office also recently received an invoice and here an extract from my reply:

Dear Sirs,

Account Number: XXXX
Invoice Reference: XXXX

We refer to your invoice as refered to above, received at our offices of even date, and return the same.

Your claim is that we are liable for payment in law by virtue of Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended), which you assert necessitates a Waste Transfer Note (“WTN”) being issued on an annual basis. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not liable for the sum claimed either by statute or in contract.

We engaged your services in July 2012 to remove 6 boxes of paper documents from our premises and shred and dispose of the same. The agreed price for this work was £60.00 plus VAT, which was duly paid.

Our obligation under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is to ensure that the waste is transferred to a duly authorised person, whilst the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991requires us to retain a record of the transfer (“the Transfer Note”), for a period of no less than 2 years. The Transfer Note was issued by you to us on 24 July 2012, and it is only this record that must be retained in order to satisfy both the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Regulations. There is therefore no requirement to ‘purchase’ a WTN.

The writer is perturbed that your claim is in all probability a scam and as a Lawyer, he is under an obligation to report your operations under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and to Trading Standards.


Yours faithfully,


I would urge you all to write back to them in the same context and report this company to SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) and to Trading Standards. I would also bet that Watchdog would like to hear about this. This is absolutely outrageous.

Thanks Charlie, glory be. I don;t think I could have wished for a better reply. I will enjoy sending a similar set of words to PHS and will report the response back here for all interested parties to see. It is yet another example of just how vigilant we all have to be when it comes to the small print of contracts. I am much obliged to you. Kind regards, Simon.

 

[Steve Sellers]

I would urge you all to write back to them in the same context and report this company to SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) and to Trading Standards. I would also bet that Watchdog would like to hear about this. This is absolutely outrageous.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Charlie that was one of the best posts I have read in a very long time! Other PHS companies have terrible reputations for this type of behaviour. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18017722


They brought a claim against a friends business for something similar. I pointed out to them all along that their claim was wholly vexatious (and it was), and they continued with it, and dropped out on the day before the hearing. Somebody needs to crack down on these people, placing them on the list of vexatious litigants would be a good start in my honest opinion.