Someone on the People's Court said that the oil company charged 500
dollars to fill up her oil tank, and t hen 538 dollars to remove the
oil (because she converted to gas).. The company wants both amounts
and filed a mechanics lien for 1038.
How could this be? They said they contracted the removal out, so I
guess they and the second company are both taking a profit, but
deliveing requires providing a product, and removing gives them a
product that they can resell.
I would gues sthe wholesale price of the oil was 350, the cost of
delivery was 50 and the profit was 100.
During removal the cost of the oil is maybe negative 250, the cost of
removal is50 or 100 and the profit should be the same 100. So she
should get at least 50 or 100 dollars back, but iirrc people get a lot
more than that for selling their oil.
(FWIW She also said she never asked for an oil delivery, waiting until
the boiler cleaning/checkup was complete, since last year they told
her the boilder was rusting.)
The company I used to work for would not resell oil we had recovered
from a customers tank. The problem is that you can never tell if someone
has dumped something else in their fuel oil tank.
We always donated recovered fuel to the local fire department for fire
Simple. The company is free to charge whatever they feel is
a fair price. The homeowner is free to accept that price or
find someone else to do the job. If the homeowner gave the
go ahead on the removal job either knowing the price or not caring
the price, then $538 it is.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:23:14 -0800 (PST), " email@example.com"
I like it when someone else types all the words I was thinking.
[whose oil company emptied my tank for free a few years ago so I could
put in a new tank--- and credited my account with the retail price of
the fuel. They said it was a 'customer service'.]
There is NO LAW that outlaws top-posting. Besides, I like top-posting as
my style, as I think it makes more sense.
Others have the right to NOT top-post. We don't need Al Gore (or others)
to tell us that we must do as THEY prefer.
Law, no, just a strong suggestion from the organizers/originators...
3.1 User Guidelines
3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
enough text of the original to give a context. This will make
sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context
helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!
One would do well to heed the advice therein.
What the hell are you talking about?
You didn't include a any relevant information from whatever you are
replying to. Try to learn a little about how usenet works for your and
everyone's sake. See how I quoted your statement, that is so people
know what I'm talking about.
Do you need anyone to tell you how to use common courtesy? Say you are
on a crowded sidewalk. Pedestrian traffic typically follows the
customary method for driving on the road. So if you are in the US the
stream of traffic will be to the right.
So if things were going well and pedestrian traffic was flowing as I
described you could stay to the left and confront everyone or follow the
others simply out of courtesy and common sense.
If the oil was delivered in error, it was their responsibility to
remove it at no charge.
The problem is, these shows are edited and you don't always see all
the underlying parts that may be important.
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:16:44 -0500, "Robert Green"
I didnt think today's was a rerun, but it might have been. Yes, she
won, and that was the reason. The judge kept making a point of it,
but I thought it was a silly point.
This all happened in the fall, when oil companies run behind doing
servicing, but oil deliveries are usually not running behind, because
they have all summer to fill up people's tanks.
The woman who answers the phone at the oil company doesn't know how
old the furnace is, and certainly doesn't know the customer is
thinking of converting to gas, and funraces don't need replacing most
years She or the person she hands the notes to to schedule
appointments is going to schedule them both independently and as soon
If one wants an inspection before a fill-up, one should call twice,
the first time ONLY for the inspection/cleaning. (That's what this
woman said she did, and it might well have been true, that she didnt'
say anything about a fill-up, but they sent a tank truck anyhow.. One
or two oil companies told me they wouldn't put me on autmatic delivery
unless I filled out some credit information. I never did, but they
came automatically anyhow. They want the business. So I guess she
should have said NO fillup. )
Trader and Jim, she also said they came to remove the oil without her
asking either, without her agreeing to it, when she might have been
able to sell the oil to someone,. As George suggests, she could have
sold or given it to someone who trusts her not to have poisoned it.
She complained about the delivery as soon as she got home and smelled
the oil, so it's not likely she tampered with it.
Bob, the charge could include the removing the tank or the filler, but
it didn't here.
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.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.