CUSTOMER SERVICE? - Everseal

Liz Reeve withheld £616 of the £2,916 she owed to Everseal Double Glazing after being dissatisfied with work. The firm had fitted five windows and a front door at her home in Ashworth Avenue, Chaddesden. After attempts by the company to retrieve the money failed, Mrs Reeve received a fax, written in large bold printed letters on September 15 at her workplace, demanding payment of the debt within 48 hours.

Mrs Reeve was so shocked by the receipt of the fax that she complained to Derby City Council Trading Standards Office, which took the double glazing company to court on a charge of pursuing a debt repayment in a way which would “subject her to alarm, distress and humiliation, contrary to the Administration of Justice Act 1970.” Derby magistrates found Nottinghamshire-based Everseal guilty and ordered it to pay a fine of £500 plus £1,293 costs.

The court was told that the fax had been written in large letters, with a number of words underlined, which the prosecution claimed had been designed to maximise Mrs Reeve’s humiliation and embarrassment in front of colleagues and clients. The company also admitted “supplying a dangerous product” to Mrs Reeve by not installing toughened safety glass in the front door, as required by law, and was fined a further £1,000.

Mrs Reeve, deputy manager of the Training and Business Group Learning Centre in Gower Street, Derby, said after the case, “I am really pleased. They created a lot of hassle for me over a long period of time and I want other people to know that big companies can’t get away with doing this to ordinary people.” Mrs Reeve said that her company is involved in helping people with difficult social or mental backgrounds to get back on track and that a fax showing her to be a debtor could have compromised her position.

She said, “It could have cost me my job. When it arrived, I was in a real state. I was very upset and didn’t know whether to shout in anger or cry.” Mrs Reeve paid £2,000 to Everseal on June 24, 1998, after fitters installed three bedroom windows, a bathroom window, a downstairs bay window and a new front door. She withheld £916 because the bay window had been assembled on site from three separate pieces rather than a single factory-assembled unit, which she claims that the Everseal salesman had originally quoted.

A further £300 was sent the following week but the court heard that Mrs Reeve ignored pleas to pay the remaining £616, despite receiving at least three threats of legal action during August and September, 1998. Tracey Pritchard, credit control manager for Everseal, said that the fax was sent to Mrs Reeve’s workplace because she had failed to respond to other calls and letters. Miss Pritchard told the court, “It wasn’t intended to do any personal damage – it was just a last resort to get a response because we didn’t want to take her to court.”

Prosecuting, Mel Smith, the city council’s trading standards manager, said, “This clearly indicates to companies that they should not step outside normal legal means to pursue people who owe them money for whatever reason.” Mrs Reeve also complained to Everseal about poor rendering and a poorly fitted bathroom window, the court heard. She also had problems opening and closing the front door, which the company took almost six months to fix. Everseal declined to comment on the outcome of the court case.