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.)

On 11/22/2011 7:18 AM, micky wrote:
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?

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
training.

On 11/22/2011 8:35 AM, J R Ewing wrote:
On 11/22/2011 7:18 AM, micky wrote:
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?

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
training.

Another common one is that they will only recover and deliver it to
another location you designate (so you sell it to a friend or relative
and have them transport it for you).

"micky" wrote in message
...
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.)

IIRC, the oil company lost the case because they delivered BEFORE they were
supposed to do a system check.

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 22, 7:18*am, micky wrote:
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?

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
about
the price, then $538 it is.

removal may include the cost of tank removal, environmental issues, or
just removal of input line so no one can accidently fill the tank or
basement again

micky wrote:

Someone on the People's Court said that the oil company charged
$500 dollars to fill up her oil tank, and then 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?

Because the person that needed to have the oil removed didn't put an ad
on kijiji or craigs list offering free heating oil for anyone with the
right equipment to come and take it away.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 06:23:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 22, 7:18*am, micky wrote:
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?

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
about
the price, then $538 it is.


I like it when someone else types all the words I was thinking.

Jim
[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'.]

I've heard of people taking out the tank, and don't cap the
fill line. Someone comes along, gets the wrong adress. Pumps
250 gal of fuel oil into someone else cellar. No fun at all.

I heard of one delivery guy who found the fill pipe poured
full of cement. Not to be defeated, he chiselled until he
got a hole through the cement and made the delivery anyway.
Know what I mean, Vern?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"bob haller" wrote in message
...
removal may include the cost of tank removal, environmental
issues, or
just removal of input line so no one can accidently fill the
tank or
basement again

If this was recently, you may wish to post the name of that
company. They can appreciate the goodwill, and more
business.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...

Jim
[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'.]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:16:44 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message
.. .
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.)

IIRC, the oil company lost the case because they delivered BEFORE they were
supposed to do a system check.

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
as possible.


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.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:jago3o
:

I've heard of people taking out the tank, and don't cap the
fill line. Someone comes along, gets the wrong adress. Pumps
250 gal of fuel oil into someone else cellar. No fun at all.

I heard of one delivery guy who found the fill pipe poured
full of cement. Not to be defeated, he chiselled until he
got a hole through the cement and made the delivery anyway.
Know what I mean, Vern?



I wouldn't even repost an "I heard" like that. Too stupid.

Christopher Young used improper usenet message composition style by
top-poasting:

I heard of one delivery guy who found the fill pipe poured full of
cement. Not to be defeated, he chiselled until he got a hole through
the cement and made the delivery anyway.

Yes - because every oil-delivery man carries a demolition chisel and
5-lb ball-peen hammer.

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7...9379--,00.html

Heating oil tanks located in basements must have the fill
pipe "blind flanged" (a solid disk inserted at a pipe joint)
to prevent the heating oil from being mistakenly pumped into
the basement if the tank was removed.

(Well, tell that to the State of Michigan.)

http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/air/fs/Oilspill.htm
How home fuel oil spills occur
There are two types of home fuel oil spills, small and
large. Small spills happen when a few drops of fuel oil
drip out of the tank or pipes. Large home fuel oil spills
can occur when basement storage tanks are overfilled, an
attempt is made to fill a tank that has been removed, a tank
has overturned in a flooded basement, or fuel oil is
accidentally put into a septic tank vent or well casing.
All large spills will require some amount of professional
help to clean up.



(Or, Wisconsin.)


--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Red Green" wrote in message
...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote
in news:jago3o
:

I've heard of people taking out the tank, and don't cap
the
fill line. Someone comes along, gets the wrong adress.
Pumps
250 gal of fuel oil into someone else cellar. No fun at
all.

I heard of one delivery guy who found the fill pipe poured
full of cement. Not to be defeated, he chiselled until he
got a hole through the cement and made the delivery
anyway.
Know what I mean, Vern?



I wouldn't even repost an "I heard" like that. Too stupid.

On 11/22/2011 3:34 PM, Red Green wrote:
"Stormin wrote in news:jago3o
:

I've heard of people taking out the tank, and don't cap the
fill line. Someone comes along, gets the wrong adress. Pumps
250 gal of fuel oil into someone else cellar. No fun at all.

I heard of one delivery guy who found the fill pipe poured
full of cement. Not to be defeated, he chiselled until he
got a hole through the cement and made the delivery anyway.
Know what I mean, Vern?



I wouldn't even repost an "I heard" like that. Too stupid.

no ****. didn't happen. sigh isn't the internet great?

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:13:14 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

micky wrote:

Someone on the People's Court said that the oil company charged
$500 dollars to fill up her oil tank, and then 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?

Because the person that needed to have the oil removed didn't put an ad
on kijiji or craigs list offering free heating oil for anyone with the
right equipment to come and take it away.

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 11/22/2011 6:34 PM, Red Green wrote:
"Stormin wrote in news:jago3o
:

I've heard of people taking out the tank, and don't cap the
fill line. Someone comes along, gets the wrong adress. Pumps
250 gal of fuel oil into someone else cellar. No fun at all.

I heard of one delivery guy who found the fill pipe poured
full of cement. Not to be defeated, he chiselled until he
got a hole through the cement and made the delivery anyway.
Know what I mean, Vern?



I wouldn't even repost an "I heard" like that. Too stupid.

I know of the first case which I think was in Philly because there was
media coverage. The driver is supposed to listen for the whistle but
sometimes they stick and take a while to free so the driver might pump
for a short time without hearing it. Modern fuel tankers have a really
high delivery rate. Someone simply removed the oil tank(s) but never
bothered to unscrew the outside fill and replace it with a pipe cap.

I agree that the driver chiseling out concrete version is bizarre.

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.

James

On 11/23/2011 10:01 AM, James wrote:
There is NO LAW that outlaws top-posting. Besides, I like top-posting as
my style, as I think it makes more sense.
....

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!

....

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

One would do well to heed the advice therein.

--

Oh gosh, here comes Al Gore, to tell us how to type our messages !!!

On 11/23/2011 1:57 PM, James wrote:
Oh gosh, here comes Al Gore, to tell us how to type our messages !!!

Far, far, more relevant than Algor is the RFC...

Think of it as why should you be more important than the community with
whom you've chosen to interact?

--

On 11/23/2011 2:57 PM, James wrote:
Oh gosh, here comes Al Gore, to tell us how to type our messages !!!



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.

On 11/23/2011 2:57 PM, James wrote:
Oh gosh, here comes Al Gore, to tell us how to type our messages !!!



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.

On 11/23/2011 3:19 PM, dpb wrote:
On 11/23/2011 1:57 PM, James wrote:
Oh gosh, here comes Al Gore, to tell us how to type our messages !!!

Far, far, more relevant than Algor is the RFC...

Think of it as why should you be more important than the community with
whom you've chosen to interact?

--

Exactly, it is just like being on a busy sidewalk and you decide to
oppose the traffic flow just to annoy everyone.

remove all of the filler pipe completely, and repair wall holes

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:53:24 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:13:14 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

micky wrote:

Someone on the People's Court said that the oil company charged
$500 dollars to fill up her oil tank, and then 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?

Because the person that needed to have the oil removed didn't put an ad
on kijiji or craigs list offering free heating oil for anyone with the
right equipment to come and take it away.

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.

I agree that that can be a big problem.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:18:20 -0500, micky
wrote:

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.)


Of course they could have sold it to a neighbor, just shut off the
valve on the tank, remove the pipe, attach a short piece of pipe, and
move 5 gallons at a time in 5gal gas cans. It's a pain in the ass,
but I'd do that before paying $538 for removal. Sell it to the
neighbor for $350 or $400, help transport it and be done with it.

But if it was filled without authorization, I'd consider that a
gift.... A good judge should do the same.....

"micky" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:16:44 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message
.. .
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.)

IIRC, the oil company lost the case because they delivered BEFORE they
were
supposed to do a system check.

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.

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?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
as possible.

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. )

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.

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.

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! (-:

Bob, the charge could include the removing the tank or the filler, but
it didn't here.

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.

wrote in message

stuff snipped

Of course they could have sold it to a neighbor, just shut off the
valve on the tank, remove the pipe, attach a short piece of pipe, and
move 5 gallons at a time in 5gal gas cans. It's a pain in the ass,
but I'd do that before paying $538 for removal. Sell it to the
neighbor for $350 or $400, help transport it and be done with it.

But if it was filled without authorization, I'd consider that a
gift.... A good judge should do the same.....

It was both filled AND removed without authorization and then a lien put
against the house for $1142 for pumping in, pumping out AND the cost of the
oil. The judge made the oil company eat the entire fee.

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:52:44 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:16:44 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message
.. .
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.)

IIRC, the oil company lost the case because they delivered BEFORE they
were
supposed to do a system check.

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.

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?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
as possible.

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. )

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.

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.

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! (-:

Bob, the charge could include the removing the tank or the filler, but
it didn't here.

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.
And PERHAPS knowing she was talking to the gas company they figured
they'd get the job of replacing the boiler with another oil-fired one
if it was going to cost an extra $1100 to switch to gas- - - - - .

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:57:19 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:




It was both filled AND removed without authorization and then a lien put
against the house for $1142 for pumping in, pumping out AND the cost of the
oil. The judge made the oil company eat the entire fee.


As they should have. Automatic fill usually required a contract and
often monthly budget payments. I did that for a number of years with
my old oil company until they screwed me.

I had a contract for 850 gallons at a fixed price that was in effect
until May 15. During the winter, they delivered about 750 gallons,
leaving another hundred come May. The *******s filled my tank on May
16 and charged full price, not the contracted price for the 100
gallons left on the contract that expired the day before.

It was legal, but I think unethical. After two phone calls and a
letter, they settled for the contracted price on the 100 gallons. It
was the last oil they ever sold me.

I've since installed a new, more efficient boiler and use about 450
gallons a year now.

wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

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.

And PERHAPS knowing she was talking to the gas company they figured
they'd get the job of replacing the boiler with another oil-fired one
if it was going to cost an extra $1100 to switch to gas- - - - - .

I don't believe they knew she was thinking of switching but it does sound
like they were trying to "get their foot in the door" for any heating
remodelling. A heating oil company's version of an "anchor baby."

No matter what their motives, they clearly did things in the wrong order.
Inspect BEFORE you pump in a full tank, not afterwards. I wonder if the
"other company" they had to call to pull the oil out wasn't a wholly-owned
subsidiary. I would have been fuming if I had been charged not only for
the oil, but its removal because I am sure I could have found someone to
pump it out for free and perhaps for a little added cash.

I can't believe they just "dumped" the oil they retrieved from her, either.
I am sure they tried not only billing her $1142 for the fill and removal,
but sold what they pulled from her tank to some other customer without
telling them it was used oil. Who would know? What a deal. Making over
$1500 on one tank.

--
Bobby G.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:57:19 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:




It was both filled AND removed without authorization and then a lien put
against the house for $1142 for pumping in, pumping out AND the cost of
the
oil. The judge made the oil company eat the entire fee.


As they should have. Automatic fill usually required a contract and
often monthly budget payments. I did that for a number of years with
my old oil company until they screwed me.

Gawd. Are they really heating oil companies or professional "butt fu&ers?"
Maybe it's that constant sticking of hoses in holes that turns them to the
Dark Side. They're always out to stick it to someone.

I had a contract for 850 gallons at a fixed price that was in effect
until May 15. During the winter, they delivered about 750 gallons,
leaving another hundred come May. The *******s filled my tank on May
16 and charged full price, not the contracted price for the 100
gallons left on the contract that expired the day before.

It was legal, but I think unethical. After two phone calls and a
letter, they settled for the contracted price on the 100 gallons. It
was the last oil they ever sold me.

Vendors don't seem to understand that by squeezing a customer they risk
losing them for life - and losing referrals, too. There are a number of
companies I'll never deal with again like Citibank. Fool me once, shame on
you, as the saying goes. My boss used to tell the story of how his dad, the
patriarch of a large clan of Irishmen, got screwed by a Ford dealer once for
undercoating he did not request and did not want. No one person in that
whole, huge extended family ever bought a Ford as a result for something
like 40 years afterwards.

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 24, 6:52*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"micky" wrote in message

...





On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:16:44 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message
.. .
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.)

IIRC, the oil company lost the case because they delivered BEFORE they
were
supposed to do a system check.

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.

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?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------





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
as possible.
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. *)

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.

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.

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! *(-:

Bob, the charge could include the removing the tank or the filler, but
it didn't here.

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.- Hide quoted text -


I can see how she won, because the oil company could not show
that she had called for oil. However, I think it's likely she did
call.
Let's look at the facts:

She is told in May that her old boiler may only last another year or
two.

She gets a quote from another company to install a new gas
boiler.

She calls in Oct for routine service on the old oil boiler.


Given that sequence, it seems likely to me that she had seen
the price of a new gas system and decided against it. Otherwise
she would not have called for service on the old one. And
having decided to continue with the existing one, it's not
unreasonable to think that she could have asked for the oil
to be filled at the same time. Or that they asked during that
call if she needed it filled and she said yes, not thinking that
it could be filled and then the boiler is found to be shot so
soon after being last inspected in May.

But since the oil company can't produce a witness who
remembers what happened, they lose.

On Nov 25, 12:49*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

stuff snipped



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.
*And PERHAPS knowing she was talking to the gas company they figured
they'd get the job of replacing the boiler with another oil-fired one
if it was going to cost an extra $1100 to switch to gas- - - - - .

I don't believe they knew she was thinking of switching but it does sound
like they were trying to "get their foot in the door" for any heating
remodelling. *A heating oil company's version of an "anchor baby."

No matter what their motives, they clearly did things in the wrong order.
Inspect BEFORE you pump in a full tank, not afterwards.

I think you have unreasonable expectations. Someone at an oil
company that is scheduling both a routine service call and oil
delivery
aren't responsible for knowing that you might be switching to gas.
Or that you have been told that your furnace is on it's last legs.
How about if the service call is scheduled for next week and she
runs out of oil tomorrow, ruining her hot bath? Then she'd be suing
them for doing that.





I wonder if the
"other company" they had to call to pull the oil out wasn't a wholly-owned
subsidiary. * I would have been fuming if I had been charged not only for
the oil, but its removal because I am sure I could have found someone to
pump it out for free and perhaps for a little added cash.


Which tells you that the woman in question, who best knows the
situation regarding her own boiler, ain't too bright. Just the
kind of person that would call for service and oil and not think about
the order.




I can't believe they just "dumped" the oil they retrieved from her, either.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:58:52 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:57:19 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:




It was both filled AND removed without authorization and then a lien put
against the house for $1142 for pumping in, pumping out AND the cost of
the
oil. The judge made the oil company eat the entire fee.


As they should have. Automatic fill usually required a contract and
often monthly budget payments. I did that for a number of years with
my old oil company until they screwed me.

Gawd. Are they really heating oil companies or professional "butt fu&ers?"
Maybe it's that constant sticking of hoses in holes that turns them to the
Dark Side. They're always out to stick it to someone.

I had a contract for 850 gallons at a fixed price that was in effect
until May 15. During the winter, they delivered about 750 gallons,
leaving another hundred come May. The *******s filled my tank on May
16 and charged full price, not the contracted price for the 100
gallons left on the contract that expired the day before.

It was legal, but I think unethical. After two phone calls and a
letter, they settled for the contracted price on the 100 gallons. It
was the last oil they ever sold me.

Vendors don't seem to understand that by squeezing a customer they risk
losing them for life - and losing referrals, too. There are a number of
companies I'll never deal with again like Citibank. Fool me once, shame on
you, as the saying goes. My boss used to tell the story of how his dad, the
patriarch of a large clan of Irishmen, got screwed by a Ford dealer once for
undercoating he did not request and did not want. No one person in that
whole, huge extended family ever bought a Ford as a result for something
like 40 years afterwards.
No, they bought GMs from the GM dealer owned by the same family in
the next town??

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:59:53 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Nov 25, 12:49Â*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

stuff snipped



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. Â*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. Â*There's a picture
beginning to emerge of a "pump first, ask questions later" attitude in
the
heating oil supply business.
Â*And PERHAPS knowing she was talking to the gas company they figured
they'd get the job of replacing the boiler with another oil-fired one
if it was going to cost an extra $1100 to switch to gas- - - - - .

I don't believe they knew she was thinking of switching but it does sound
like they were trying to "get their foot in the door" for any heating
remodelling. Â*A heating oil company's version of an "anchor baby."

No matter what their motives, they clearly did things in the wrong order.
Inspect BEFORE you pump in a full tank, not afterwards.

I think you have unreasonable expectations. Someone at an oil
company that is scheduling both a routine service call and oil
delivery
aren't responsible for knowing that you might be switching to gas.
Or that you have been told that your furnace is on it's last legs.
How about if the service call is scheduled for next week and she
runs out of oil tomorrow, ruining her hot bath? Then she'd be suing
them for doing that.


I heartilly dissagree.
They've been servicing that furnace and told her last year it was on
it's last legs. She called for an inspection. She did NOT have an
auto-fill contract and did not ask for a fill. If it was two different
companies, the oil company would not have known the service company
was checking out a "bad" furnace - but it was one company. Most
likely one receptionist, and one dispatcher.


I wonder if the
"other company" they had to call to pull the oil out wasn't a wholly-owned
subsidiary. Â* I would have been fuming if I had been charged not only for
the oil, but its removal because I am sure I could have found someone to
pump it out for free and perhaps for a little added cash.


Which tells you that the woman in question, who best knows the
situation regarding her own boiler, ain't too bright. Just the
kind of person that would call for service and oil and not think about
the order.




I can't believe they just "dumped" the oil they retrieved from her, either.
I am sure they tried not only billing her $1142 for the fill and removal,
but sold what they pulled from her tank to some other customer without
telling them it was used oil. Â*Who would know? Â*What a deal. Â*Making over
$1500 on one tank.

--
Bobby G.

How does $1142 come out to making over $1500? They got PAID $1142,
no?
You think the guys who did the work don't get paid? The truck is
free? The
fuel for the truck? All the various insurances? Compliance with all
the EPA rules? The
cost of the oil itself when they bought it? The cost of the
buildings,
real estate taxes, etc?

I seriously doubt they would take that oil and deliver it back to a
customer.
When you pump an old tank like that to the bottom, you get not only
oil,
but also water and crud accumulated for 30 years. They may have a
recycling place that can deal with it and give them something for it.

I'd also like to know if they did any other work besides just
pumping the oil out, like capping off the line or removing the inlet
pipe, etc.

Yeah, it sounds excessive, but I don't see how it equates to the oil
company making $1500.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:03:04 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:18:20 -0500, micky
wrote:

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.)


Of course they could have sold it to a neighbor, just shut off the
valve on the tank, remove the pipe, attach a short piece of pipe, and
move 5 gallons at a time in 5gal gas cans. It's a pain in the ass,
but I'd do that before paying $538 for removal. Sell it to the
neighbor for $350 or $400, help transport it and be done with it.

But if it was filled without authorization, I'd consider that a
gift.... A good judge should do the same.....

"The law abhors a forfeiture", is a general rule, although I don't
know if it applies here.

Bobby G is right too.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:49:18 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:


No matter what their motives, they clearly did things in the wrong order.
Inspect BEFORE you pump in a full tank, not afterwards. I wonder if the
"other company" they had to call to pull the oil out wasn't a wholly-owned
subsidiary.

Agreed.

I would have been fuming if I had been charged not only for
the oil, but its removal because I am sure I could have found someone to
pump it out for free and perhaps for a little added cash.

I can't believe they just "dumped" the oil they retrieved from her, either.

Me neither.
I am sure they tried not only billing her $1142 for the fill and removal,

While it's always conceivalbe that a customer puts crap in the oil,
the odds of it are really low, and at the least they could sell the
oil at a bargain pirce to the owner or someone in his family who has
an oil furnace. Or to an employee. After all, in the slim chance it
hurts that furnace, they can have their own company fix the furnace,
and it would be a true business expense.

but sold what they pulled from her tank to some other customer without
telling them it was used oil. Who would know?

That's possible too. They coul deliver it to someone they knew would
call them if he had furnace problems, maybe someone with an old
furnace, so he wouldn't blame the oil but his furnace.

.. What a deal. Making over
$1500 on one tank.

--

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:52:44 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:16:44 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message
.. .
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.)

IIRC, the oil company lost the case because they delivered BEFORE they
were
supposed to do a system check.

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.

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:

The ohter possibility is that your psychic!

At the very least you're well orgnaized, to find this now.

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?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
as possible.

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. )

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.

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.

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! (-:

Bob, the charge could include the removing the tank or the filler, but
it didn't here.

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.