B.C. movers use 'entirely different' bills to sue customer over $1,300
A litigious B.C. moving company has failed to explain to the small claim court why two bills it presented to a customer were "entirely different" after it tried to sue the client for an extra $1,300.
According to an April 4 B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, 2 Burley Men Moving submitted two waybills as evidence a client owed them an extra $1,271 after the company completed a two-day move.
"Generally, I cannot reconcile Burley’s two waybills and Burley provides no explanation for the discrepancies," the Tribunal ruled. "Burley is a frequent... litigant and I find it is well aware of the obligation to submit relevant evidence to support its claim."
The case involves a two-day move where 2 Burley Men Moving were hired to transport Silvia Morales belongings in June last year.
READ MORE: Litigious B.C. movers lose in court after overcharging $2,300
Morales says she was quoted $3,500 but was presented with a $6,299 bill which she paid.
However, 2 Burley Men Moving disputes this saying there is $1,271 outstanding for the second move day and took her to the online small claims court.
The Victoria-based company is a regular in the small claims court and this is the ninth case so far this year in the Civil Resolution Tribunal. The company also has a couple of cases in the provincial small claims court.
Last year, the company was involved in roughly 35 small claims cases and it's regularly successful and recently won a case over a $3,000 unpaid bill.
It won another recent case, however, the Tribunal still rule it overcharged by $500.
And suing customers doesn't always pay off. In January, it went after an unpaid $800 bill only for the Tribunal to rule it owed the customer $1,800.
The company is sometimes sued by disgruntled customers and recently was found to have overcharged by $1,200 in travel time for a one-kilometre move.
In this current case, the Tribunal highlights that the company doesn't explain the discrepancies between the two bills.
"Burley’s first waybill, dated both June 18 and 19, 2022, has two different inks on it that Burley does not address," the Tribunal ruled. "It also has what appear to be later-added handwritten calculations and annotations for 'day 2' on it, yet the move’s day two was undisputedly June 20, 2022. This waybill also has a June 18, 2022 'date of delivery' which I find cannot be correct given the June 19 and 20, 2022 move dates."
READ MORE: Bride fires Kamloops wedding planner, then sues
The Tribunal goes on to say Morales did not sign the second waybill and points at the discrepancies.
"This second waybill sets out charges for both day one and day two, in entirely different writing than the first waybill. It repeats some but not all of the same figures from the first waybill. Like the first waybill, it appears to reference both $75 and $500 as charges for 'fuel,'" the Tribunal said.
"Burley does not explain the discrepancies between the two waybills," the Tribunal rules.
The Tribunal goes on to criticize the lack of evidence the company submitted.
"Burley submitted no evidence that Ms. Morales ever agreed to play a flat rate for fuel and Burley submitted no evidence of what its actual fuel costs were. I find it unproven Burley is entitled to anything more than the $75 'fuel' charge that was included as part of the move’s day one charges that Ms. Morales paid. Similarly, I find it unproven Ms. Morales ever agreed to an 'ICBC' charge, which Burley did not explain," the Tribunal ruled.
READ MORE: Man buys Delorean in B.C., sues because it doesn't work
Ultimately, the Tribunal says it was unproven that the customer owed anything thing more and dismissed 2 Burley Men's case.
To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.
We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above.
