It had to be a re-run because I was going to post this message (from my Drafts file) when it first was televised on 7/8/11:
A homeowner, who has been a customer of Statewide Oil since 2008, is told in May 2010 that her 25 to 30 year old oil boiler is on its last legs and may last only 1 or 2 more years, if that. She claims, and the oil company does not deny, that she was never on any "auto fill" option plan.
The oil tank in nearly empty. In October 2010 she calls for someone to clean and inspect the unit after getting a quote to switch to natural gas from a plumbing dealer. It is not clear if the oil company knows this. But before they send the cleaner/inspector they fill her tank with oil. She calls to complain that she never asked for the oil, that she wanted only someone to determine that status of the boiler. She tells the court that if they say it won't last the season (which they said was possible) she was going to convert to gas and take out the boiler.
After the fill up they send the cleaning/inspection guy who points out there are two nasty, nearly rusted-through spots on her boiler and that it's probably not safe to use anymore. He says it probably won't last the winter if she does. The situation ends up with them placing a lien against her house for both the cost of the oil and the cost of removing the oil.
In court, the oil company finance officer appears with the serviceman but not with the receptionist who took the call or any other proof of a request for a fill. . The judge asks why the person who took the call wasn't there and the finance manager said "We asked he but she doesn't remember that call." The judge asks the finance manager "Can you swear to me that she called and asked your company to "fill her up" and the manager replies "I can't swear to that."
The oil cost around $550 and the removal cost around $538. The oil company has filed suit for both the cost of the oil and its removal, which is done by another company for a total of $1142. The judge establishes that the company did the checkup AFTER the tank was filled, which the company responds to by saying "she called for the fill up" and that they often send the inspection/cleaning person after the oil is delivered.
How do you think the judge ruled?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I disagree. If they told you they wouldn't automatically deliver unless you did X and they delivered without you doing X, they are on the hook for pumping it all out. That's basic contract law. If that were not the case, shady oil companies and just about everyone else would be delivering stuff to you demanding payment whether you ordered it or not. It sounds like oil companies are close to that point, anyway.
But once the oil company removes and resells it, they are liable for anything in that oil. Who knows, maybe her crackhead son was cooking meth or brewing beer in it! (-:
I believe that was immaterial to the case. She didn't ask for oil but did ask for an inspection. She got the oil BEFORE they came and told her the boiler was shot. Their mistake, they eat the cost. While it was a few months ago, I seem to recall her saying that the new guys were going to remove the old boiler and tanks, but that may not even have come up.
The issue here is getting jacked for the price of both delivering and removing oil that was never ordered in the first place and then having a lien thrown against the house. The oil company could neither produce a receipt or a person to confirm she asked for oil, and I kinda believe she wouldn't have with the boiler looking the way it did. There's a picture beginning to emerge of a "pump first, ask questions later" attitude in the heating oil supply business.
-- Bobby G.