A BC landscaping company took their fight over a few hundred dollars in unpaid service fees to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal against a homeowner who has since died, but it didn’t work out the way they’d planned.
According to public documents posted online, Sprout Landscapes started lawn-cutting services for the homeowner in 2021, but there was an issue that the work was not done to the woman’s satisfaction.
The company had quoted her $663.60 for fertilizing, over-seeding, and top-dressing work; due to a discount, she was only charged $527.04 for the work on April 7.
She paid for it, but later, another person who spoke on the homeowner’s behalf contacted the company to say they weren’t happy with the results.
“[They] complained that the back lawn was in poor condition and full of moss, clover, and weeds. She said that Sprout had promised that Mrs. Lauer would be pleased with the results, but this was not the case. Mrs. Brynelson went on to say that she had been told numerous times that this would be handled, and the lawn would be over-seeded, but this had not happened. So, she asked Sprout to attend to the matter and ‘make it right,’” the documents read in part.
“It denies that there were any deficiencies in its work and says that it completed the April 7 work properly,” the tribunal said.
According to the documents, they offered her a refund or a re-do, and she accepted the latter, but months later, the work had not been re-done.
The company continued mowing her lawn and then was called back to do pruning work around the property, but the matter of the power raking had not been resolved. In an attempt to get a refund instead, the spokesperson said they were refusing on the homeowner’s behalf to pay the $205.43 for the latest services until the refund was issued for the previous work.
“Sprout’s invoices include fine print at the bottom referring to a 10% recovery fee for any balances outstanding after 30 days. However, a party cannot unilaterally impose contractual terms for late payment or recovery fees,” tribunal member Nav Shukla stated in the decision.
Plus, Shukla found that the landscaping company failed to provide relevant evidence, and therefore, the CRT may draw an “adverse inference,” which is when the CRT assumes that they did not provide that because it would have damaged their case.
“I find an adverse inference is appropriate here. I find that if MJS had not offered Mrs. Lauer the option of a refund or a re-do in July after having obtained management’s approval, Sprout would have provided a witness statement from MJS saying so. In the absence of such evidence, and MJS’s October 13 email in which I find they clearly re-offered Mrs. Lauer a refund instead of a re-do, I find it more likely than not that MJS had the authority to make the October 13 offer on Sprout’s behalf,” the member explained.
Because of that, the landscaping company’s claims were dismissed, and instead, they were ordered to pay the estate of the deceased homeowner $472.88.