Date Issued: January 17, 2019

File: SC-2018-002401

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Price’s Alarm Systems (2009) Ltd. v. Jorgenson et al, 2019 BCCRT 69

Between:

Price’s Alarm Systems (2009) Ltd.

Applicant

And:

Anthony Jorgenson and Loresa Jorgenson

Respondents

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a dispute about alarm equipment and monitoring services. The applicant, Price’s Alarm Systems (2009) Ltd., says that the respondents owe it for equipment and services under an agreement. The respondents, Anthony Jorgenson and Loresa Jorgenson, say that they should not have to pay anything to the applicant.

2.      The applicant is represented by an employee. The respondents are self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (tribunal). The tribunal has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (Act). The tribunal’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the tribunal must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

4.      The tribunal has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions, because I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing.

5.      The tribunal may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The tribunal may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

6.      Under tribunal rule 126, in resolving this dispute the tribunal may make one or more of the following orders:

a.    order a party to do or stop doing something;

b.    order a party to pay money;

c.    order any other terms or conditions the tribunal considers appropriate.

ISSUE

7.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondents owe the applicant any money under an alarm system agreement.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      The applicant says that the respondents entered into an agreement for alarm equipment and monitoring services. The equipment was installed, but the respondents asked for it to be removed. Later, the equipment was re-installed. According to the applicant, it issued invoices to the respondents which were not paid. In March of 2018, the applicant cancelled the agreement due to non-payment. It seeks payment for the balance of the agreement, including amounts for equipment, monitoring services, and interest.

9.      The respondents do not dispute that they signed the agreement for alarm monitoring services. Mr. Jorgenson says that they signed up for the service as the sales representative informed them that they could cancel the contract at any time during the first 6 months with no further obligation. However, an employee in the applicant’s billing department later advised that this was not the case. Mr. Jorgenson submits that they should not be liable for the outstanding charges as they were misled at the outset, and then bullied and harassed by representatives of the applicant.

10.   Lorena Jorgenson similarly states that they would not have signed the contract if the applicant’s representative had not misled them about the terms. The respondents provided copies of messenger conversations with the applicant’s sales representative about billing issues, the possibility of cancelling the agreement without charge to the respondents, and the representative’s apparent confusion over the applicant’s cancellation policy.

11.   The written agreement between the parties is dated October 14, 2016. Although the names of both respondents appear on the document, Ms. Jorgenson was the only signatory. The agreement contemplated a monthly monitoring fee of $45.99 for an initial term of 36 months. Ms. Jorgenson placed her initials in boxes next to these terms.

12.   The agreement sets out the general conditions, one of which being that the termination of the agreement may occur with delivery of written notice to the applicant 60 days prior to cancellation. The agreement also states “I understand that I have entered into a contract term for goods and services and that if I cancel or default on payment during the initial term any outstanding monitoring fees up to and including the balance of the contract will be immediately due in full”.

13.   On a separate page, the agreement lists various Terms and Conditions, one of which permits the applicant to terminate the agreement in the event of non-payment. On termination, the agreement states that the customer will pay, “as liquidated damages, an amount equal to that which would have otherwise accrued until the renewal date of the contract”.  

14.   The agreement states in 2 locations that, by signing, the customer acknowledges that they have read and agreed to all pages of the agreement. The agreement also states that it “represents the entire Agreement between the Parties, with no other Terms, Conditions, Products or Services implied”.

15.   Although the respondents may have had a different understanding from their earlier communications with the sales representative, the agreement states explicitly that the customer would bear responsibility for the entire 36-month term, even in the event of cancellation or termination. As Ms. Jorgenson was the only signatory to the agreement, I am satisfied that she alone bears liability for the obligations under it. I find that the respondent Loresa Jorgenson must pay to the applicant all amounts owing under the agreement. The applicant’s claims against Anthony Jorgenson are dismissed.

16.   I acknowledge the respondents’ concerns that the applicant’s calculation of damages did not take into account all payments made under the account. An email chain between the parties shows that there were some issues surrounding billing in the first few months of the agreement that were resolved, and there was no outstanding balance as at July 1, 2017. The evidence establishes that the applicant’s calculation of outstanding monitoring fees relates to invoices for service issued between August of 2017 and March of 2018, and totaling $376.66. I note that the March 1, 2018 invoice appears to contain a credit for two months of service, which accords with the March 2018 termination of the agreement when the applicant stopped providing monitoring services. I find that the evidence supports the applicant’s claim for $376.66 in this regard.

17.   The evidence also supports the applicant’s calculation of the balance of monitoring service owing under the contract at a rate of $45.99 per month, at $820.92, as shown on the March 21, 2018 invoice. Based on the contractual interest rate of 18% per year, the applicant is entitled to interest of $31.39. The total amount owing from Ms. Jorgenson to the applicant under the agreement is $1,228.97.

18.   The applicant is also entitled to pre-judgment interest calculated at the contractual rate, in the amount of $168.91.

19.   Under section 49 of the Act, and tribunal rules, the tribunal will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for tribunal fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $125.00 in tribunal fees. No dispute-related expenses were claimed, and I make no order in this regard.

ORDERS

20.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order the respondent Loresa Jorgenson to pay the applicant a total of $1,522.88, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,228.97 under the agreement,

b.    $168.91 in pre-judgment interest calculated at the contractual rate of 18%, and

c.    $125.00 as reimbursement of tribunal fees.

21.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable. The applicant’s claims against Anthony Jorgenson are dismissed.

22.   Under section 48 of the Act, the tribunal will not provide the parties with the Order giving final effect to this decision until the time for making a notice of objection under section 56.1(2) has expired and no notice of objection has been made. The time for filing a notice of objection is 28 days after the party receives notice of the tribunal’s final decision.

23.   Under section 58.1 of the Act, a validated copy of the tribunal’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. A tribunal order can only be enforced if it is an approved consent resolution order, or, if no objection has been made and the time for filing a notice of objection has passed. Once filed, a tribunal order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.