Date Issued: March 27, 2023

File: SC-2022-006248

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Anderson v. 2 Burley Men Moving Ltd., 2023 BCCRT 254

BETWEEN:

TIM ANDERSON

APPLICANT

AND:

2 BURLEY MEN MOVING LTD.

 

RESPONDENT

 

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Andrea Ritchie, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about storage fees. The applicant, Tim Anderson, says the respondent moving company, 2 Burley Men Moving Ltd (Burley), overcharged him for storage fees. Mr. Anderson claims reimbursement of $2,300.

2.      Burley denies overcharging Mr. Anderson and says it owes nothing.

3.      Mr. Anderson represents himself. Burley is represented by an authorized employee.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT 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.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says that the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says that the CRT 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 CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute, the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money, or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether Burley overcharged for storage fees and, if so, whether Mr. Anderson is entitled to a $2,300 refund.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil claim such as this, the applicant Mr. Anderson must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning “more likely than not”). While I have read all of the parties’ submitted evidence and arguments, I have only addressed those necessary to explain my decision.

10.   Mr. Anderson hired Burley to partially pack up and move his belongings from out-of-province to British Columbia. As Mr. Anderson had not yet secured a new home, the parties agreed Burley would store Mr. Anderson’s belongings.

11.   Burley undisputedly stored Mr. Anderson’s things from the end of October 2021 to sometime in July 2022, for a total of 8 months. Mr. Anderson says the parties’ agreement was that storage would be $1,200 total for the first 6 months. When the 6 months was almost up, Mr. Anderson said he called Burley to get pricing beyond 6 months. He says he was told it was $350 per month after the initial $1,200 for 6 months.

12.   Mr. Anderson says when Burley gave him the invoice, he was charged $4,200 instead of the agreed $1,900. Burley says its initial quote of $1,200 for 6 months was based on an estimated cumulative weight of 2,000 lbs, when in fact the belongings weighed 3,560 lbs. Burley says due to the increased weight, the storage fees increased.

13.   The problem for Burley is there is no evidence the belongings’ weight impacted the storage fees. The waybill in evidence says fees were charged at $950 per 1,000 lbs for moving services, $75 for scale, $1,200 for “transfer up to 6 mths” (what Burley refers to storage as), plus tax.

14.   Further, Burley has not explained how the belongings’ weight ties to the storage costs. Nor has Burley explained how it came up with the $4,200 charge, such as a per month storage fee. Also, as noted, Burley does not address Mr. Anderson’s evidence about when he called to confirm pricing beyond 6 months. There is simply no evidence the parties agreed to anything other than the $1,200 for 6 months, and $350 per month after that.

15.   On balance, I find Burley told Mr. Anderson his storage fees would be $1,200 for the first 6 months and $350 for every month after that. Given Burley undisputedly stored Mr. Anderson’s belongings for 8 months, this would amount to $1,900 in storage costs.

16.   So, I find Burley overcharged Mr. Anderson $2,300 by invoicing him $4,200 for storage fees, contrary to the parties’ agreement. I find Burley must reimburse Mr. Anderson the claimed $2,300.

17.   Mr. Anderson is also entitled to pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act. Calculated from July 16, 2022, the date Mr. Anderson paid the invoice, this amounts to $42.22.

18.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. As Mr. Anderson was successful, I find Burley must reimburse him $125 in paid tribunal fees. Mr. Anderson did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

19.   Within 21 days of the date of this decision, I order Burley to pay Mr. Anderson a total of $2,467.22, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,300 in damages,

b.    $42.22 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act,

c.    $125 in tribunal fees.

20.   Mr. Anderson is also entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

 

21.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.