I have been through similar. Ultimately it ended up in court which I won though it did take 2 years. I fully understand your position of wanting to fight the injustice. When I got my bill I did dispute it at the time and handed a letter to the garage the following day. I also had emails requesting a quote in writing, which never got an answer, before the car was dropped off.

As for the debt collectors, I simply said the bill was in dispute and I was awaiting the garages response to the letter I handed in. I never heard anything further from the debt collectors.

You should put your complaint in writing as soon as possible stating that you are willing to pay the original quote. I would also request their bank details and pay the original quote as soon as possible.

Are you sure you didn't sign anything when the car was dropped off?

Good luck

Was it a quote (i.e. a formal/written offer to provide the service for a given price) or an estimate?  The motor trade normally works with the latter of the two and it makes a big difference.

The culture of car maintenance here is to do a complete job, rather than to do just the essentials to keep the price down (which is one reason why Swiss people value Swiss registered and maintained cars more than those from other places), but they will normally warn you mid-job if the cost is going to rise dramatically.  It could be that the language barrier made them wary of giving you this warning, especially since it's such a small amount.

It's also possible that the language gap prevented you from fully understanding what they were originally offering and what was included in the price.

If you are happy with the work done I would suggest that you pay for it and take this as a small, relatively inexpensive cultural lesson.

It was not a written quote, but a response to my verbal question. 

I'm 90 % sure that I didn't sign anything when dropping the car off. 

It wasn't that the job got more expensive mid way, but that they only bothered with telling me the price of the material and not the work, when I explicitly asked how much the change would cost. 

I'm happy with the work done, but very unhappy about their attitude and willingness to waste my time. 

I havn't had any written communication with them at all, except for their letter to me. 

Wouldn't it be up to them though, to prove that I owe them money?

They mentioned that it would end up at the enforcement authority if I did not pay. Would it be worth waiting to see if they acctually bother with this, or would it add a lot to the bill in the end?

I am unsure how it would work vis-a-vis who proves payment was made. They could reasonably request a receipt is shown or bank statement so that is not a route I would be keen going down. I would strongly suggest that you pay what was originally agreed and deal with the dispute after this is done.

If an enforcement authority is used I can't see it being cheap and would not be surprised if the additional costs would be well in excess of the disputed amounts.

To give you the best chance of defending the case I would say you really ought to pay the original amount and write a letter regarding the disputed amount as soon as possible. At that point, if you do not receive a response from the garage then all you have to say to the enforcement authority is that it is a dispute and you are awaiting the garages response along with a copy of the disputed letter (worked for me anyway). They may send a follow up at which point direct them to the first email. Keep a record of all payment and correspondance.

This is all further down the line though. Pay ASAP the original amount and write the letter first. A word of warning, if it goes all the way it could ultimately cost a lot of money even if you win based on the time spent for court appearances (3 in my case) etc. You may want to write it off even though it is incredably annoying.

In my case, the bill was originally for about 6 times the original quote and I was willing to sacrifice the time, effort and cost (if I lost).

OK: so it seems to have been a misunderstanding on your part.

Where this leaves you is that you have asked them to do some work, they have done it and you have accepted it by taking away your car and, presumably, using it.

Unless they have blatantly inflated their hourly labour rate I can't see how any court or arbitrator would conclude anything other than that you have to pay, which seems fair to me.

I don't know who's right or wrong in your story or what a judge would say, but you asked what's the worst case that can happen if you don't pay the invoice. The worst is simply that it gets to court and a judge decides if you have to pay or not. If she decides you have to pay, there will be some interest and extra fines involved.

Here's how the escalation process works, as far as I know: 

1. Guy sends you an invoice. If you don't pay he sends you 2 more reminders. 

2. If you still don't pay, he opens a "poursuit" againt you. It's a formal request for the authorities to collect the debt. 

3. You'll get a formal letter saying there's a poursuit open against you, and you have 2 options:

- accept the poursuit, in which case you accept the debt and you have to pay it (with interest and penalties)

- reject the poursuit, in which case the topic will end up in court, and the judge decides what she decided. 

That's the process, as far as I know.

I really don't follow the logic here. 

How have I "accepted" anything by taking my car away? (surely I can't leave it there for years until the dispute has gone through the court system)

How is the misunderstanding my fault? They chose to give me a quote in a language they did not master, and later refuse to honour it. Seems like their problem to me. In any case I strongly doubt that language confusion was the real problem. If you ask any seller anywhere in the world how much a service costs, if that seller gives you a price for it, which later turns out to have included only the material and not the labour, you'd think the person is dishonest. Ask any dentist or carpenter if they think they would get away with something similar. Even if that would indeed be the standard practice in the swiss garage culture, I would still dispute the claim, and call the culture flawed, immoral, and in need of a change. 

That's very useful information. 

Does anyone know how much the penalties would be for paying once the claim reaches the authorities? 

Are there any fees the garage has to pay to open up the pursuit? (might lower the likelyhood of them doing so)

Is there a chance that the authorities won't accept the claim, as they have no signature from me ?

I think the cost of opening a poursuit is around chf70-100.

The potential penalties if it gets to court and you lose are: interest on the original debt, the cost of the poursuit, plus a sum the court decides for "wasting its time" (there is of course some fancier name for it) which in small cases would be around chf 100. Might be some more, i aint sure.

when you open a poursuit against someone, the authorities don't take a stance of whether the debt is right or wrong. As long as you provide very basic info (short description of the debt, invoice) the process is opened. The assumption is that if the debt is wrong then the other side will refuse the pousuit and the judge will decide.

Kevin:

Too late for this time, but i recommend getting "legal insurance" For the future. You pay ca chf 150 per year, and then you get a lawyer at your disposal for free. This would have been a classic case where such a lawyer could tell you where you stand, and if justified: send one of those scary lawyer letters to the garage. You can still do all that of course, but without the insurance a good lawyer is very expensive

Like it or not, these are the basic principles of service delivery contracts.  And, yes: a contract exists even without paperwork.

If you ask a professional to do a job for you, in the absence of a formal quote there is an assumption that you will pay for their time and materials.  In some cases you can reject what they have delivered and in your case this would mean telling them within a reasonable time that they need to return your car to its original state.  If you take away your car and continue to use it you would be assumed legally to have accepted the work.

Estimates from garages, plumbers, etc are typically assumed to be subject to variation because of the uncertainty of any individual job. And, yes: dentists and carpenters do this as a matter of course. 

As for the language issue: it may be awkward that they don't speak English, but that's hardly their responsibility.  They could have turned you away because they couldn't have an open discussion with you about their way of working etc, but they chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and do the work in the hope that you would be sensible about it.  Those of us who live and work in many diferent countries rely on this flexibility and goodwill to get things done.  It's possible that they will refuse business from people who don't speak their language in future because of this incident, which is bad for all of us.

Just to be clear: I'm not doing this to give you a hard time.  My intention is to save you wasted time and money, which is where I think you are heading.

I agree that it is important to have some cultural sensitivity and give people the benefit of the doubt, and I normally go to great lengths to do this. However, if you overdo it, and never point out the mistakes your counterpart has made, or question their claims, you may encourage immoral behavior and discrimination when dealing with foreigners. That would also make life harder for all of us. 

I'm leaning towards paying, but I think the mechanic has learnt something from my objections, and  if he is rational he will avoid making the same mistake again.

Thanks for the help! I appreciate your point of view, even if I don't agree with all of it. 

I get your point Andy, but I think as far as unregulated service systems go, garages are the tricksters. I have heard many stories about shaky and just downright immoral behaviour (agreeing upon a price one day, and on delivery claiming a totally lower price because of time leverages). Had this been most other services I might agree, but not with this.

Think of it this way, If I asked how much something was, and you told me a price without another obvious financial factor (in this case the service on top of the materials), then you are being deceitful. This would only not be true if Average Joes were going into that garage and buying just the materials and never the service.

"As for the language issue: it may be awkward that they don't speak English, but that's hardly their responsibility.  They could have turned you away because they couldn't have an open discussion with you about their way of working etc, but they chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and do the work in the hope that you would be sensible about it. "

Writing a contract which doesn't explain the terms clearly due to your use of language does not mean the other person is responsible for said lack of clarity. If the garage couldnt explain themselves properly, then that is their issue. They potentially mis-used words, which is their fault and responsibility.

"Oh did I say 500, I meant 5000, you should have known that silly! Now pay up"

What you are basically saying is that anytime anyone deals with a non german/french speaker, they can later amend the terms to be whatever they like and claim the other person didnt understand them. Which is a slippery slope, especially if word spreads.

I'd like to think that if you cant explain the terms in a way the customer can understand, then that is your issue and you are actually not a particular good salesmen in the long run.

OP - I would pay the original and then see what happens next. But be prepared for the potential outcomes though. 

"Oh did I say 500, I meant 5000, you should have known that silly! Now pay up"

But it wasn't ten times the price: it was what appears to be a normal market rate for the work, which makes a big difference.

"Writing a contract which doesn't explain the terms clearly due to your use of language does not mean the other person is responsible for said lack of clarity. If the garage couldnt explain themselves properly, then that is their issue. They potentially mis-used words, which is their fault and responsibility."

In the case of a written contract you possibly have a point, since a "meeting of the minds" is required, although most countries have a limited list of languages in which you would normally write contracts.  My rental contract is in French, for example, but I don't fancy my chances of contesting it on the grounds that I'm not a fluent French speaker.

Look at the situation this way: Suppose you are driving through rural Hungary, your car breaks down and there is just one car workshop where they speak no English.  Would you rather they refused to help you out of fear that you would contest the price because it wasn't fully agreed in advance, or would you want to muddle through with sign-language, get your car fixed and pay their normal labour rate for it?

Of course there are rip-offs, but my experience is that they are a small minority (especially here).

Agreed, I wouldnt want to fight someone on their homeground so to speak, but with regards to the Hungary example: I would make damn sure we agreed upon a total price. Even if it meant using ridiculous handgestures and pictionary skills, and also being in the middle of a completely foreign country were you dont know anyone is slightly different (more likely to do what it takes).

The 500/5000 was just for effect :) if it was agreed at 300 and then became say... 500, I think that is still too much of a difference. 

I'd say if it really is a small amount, then let it go, as the mental hassle isnt worth it.

Hi Kevin,

Although it's annoying, I do agree with Andy. You must accept that you are in a foreign country and do not speak their language and do not know their culture and must ultimately accept that any misunderstanding is most probably going to be deemed your fault. I've been here for nearly 6 years and have learned to live with it. I even had a similar experience last year. It's just not worth the time, worry and effort to stress about it.

I will say though that I lived for 1 year in central Switzerland and found the regime there very regimented but very honest, and actually usually quite helpful. The same cannot be said in Geneva (where you will most likely be service by a steely-faced french person) and I have now moved back to central Switzerland (even though I still work in Geneva), as I find it less stressful there.

My advice is learn to speak the lingo to avoid similar situations. You'll still end up paying the same but at least you'll be better informed prior to receiving the bill.

Relax and enjoy!

Hi Kevin,

I won't add more comments on your case as other posters have done that. Nir refers to the poursuite procedure which the garage would have to go through to recover a debt from you. The procedure in Geneva is described in some detail (in French) on the OPF website, link here: http://ge.ch/opf/procedure

Regards

Sam

Woodhouse Custom Furniture & Carpentry

www.wood-house.ch

For a small sum, it's not sure that they'll really escalate it through the court system. They'll normally give it to one a collecting company, who will harass you until you pay.

However, it will be noted in the records, and thus you may be defined as a bad payor. E.g. whan getting a new loan you normally need an attestation de non-poursuite.

I've been on the receiving end of these collection companies. From my limited experience they don't really harrass, but just send you 2-3 letters saying you owe money (and often suggesting flexible payment terms). If you still don't pay then these companies also go to the poursuit against you, eventually. 

If you then end up having to pay, the law allows the collection companies to charge you for their services. So you end paying from all angles...(-:

The private debt collection agencies have no right to charge you for the "services". They point you to some provisions in the code of obligations but those do not in reality authorise them to charge over the amount of the debt (plus possible interest, which is low).

From my experience (helping out a couple of my friends) the companies do harass you but have no leverage to claim their "fees" once you paid to the creditor (especially if you paid validly, that is before you got the notice of the claim having been assigned to the collection agency, as the case may be).

In my opinion and depending on the general conditions or just the contents of the principal agreement (of which stems the initial claim), the debt collection agencies are in breach of the law on personal data. Concerning their harassment methods when seeking the payment of the "fees", depending on their intensity and the facts of the case, one may go as far as to argue criminal conduct (fraud) .

To resume, if you validly paid the initial debt, you should be safe.

you are liable for the "frais" of the "acte de poursuite" and interest charges. these are not from a collection agency but the local commune where you live. 

Let me just add that I was on both ends (cf. Nir's comment), that is as the initial creditor as well. Also, as mentioned tawb, there is the risk of your name being swapped among such companies as bed debtor, which may cause you problems in the future (most of the times however it will not have anything to do with attestation de non poursuite). This is illegal (again, depending on how much you agreed to when entering into the initial contract as to the possiblities of the creditor assigning your debt / sharing your personal data with the debt colleciton agencies) but to fight it is tricky and almost never worth the time or money.

Kevin, you can contact me should you wish. I am the owner of a Swiss-based company dealing in Credit Collection and have done this for over twenty years. I'm sure we'll find a solution to your current situation.

Dear all,

I am in a similar situation with a Swiss phone company. They put a clause into the contract where they automatically renew the contract (which I didnt want). I had forgotten about this auto renewal and they did not send a reminder. Instead, I just started racking up bills without knowing it. Worse, they did not send me any invoices, as they had done for years, until three months had lapsed. When they finally did send me two invoices, the latter was stacked with late fees. I disputed the charges, but they have refused to budge, saying that it was all in the contract. Now they have sent a collection agency.

A simple email would have prevented this dispute from the beginning. Legally, if they had an obligation to remind me of the contract termination electronically, then I should not have to pay even one month. If they did not have an obligation to remind me electronically, but did have an obligation to send electronic invoices per established practice, then I would probably have to pay three months (the month of the first invoice notifying me that the contract was still on, plus two more months due to the contract requirement to cancel two months beforehand).

Some of you suggested to Kevin to pay an initial amount - do you advise that I pay 3 months now in order to (1) lessen risk of a lawsuit and (2) give the court (in case of a lawsuit) a more favorable opinion? Or should I hold off since the dispute is already this far? I already offered to pay the company 5 months to settle the dispute, but it refused. 

The big risk is that (1) the company pursues the poursuite and (2) the court ignores all my claims, shouldering me with full responsibility for the dispute, including all court, legal and collection costs. That would cost me 12-24 months or more. What are the chances that the poursuite will happen and the chances that the court will ignore all my claims? Is Geneva understanding of consumer needs, like simple electronic notifications and regular invoicing, or likely to side with the company? Is Geneva likely to protect a foreigner in a dispute with a Swiss company?

Finally, Nir, do you have a link to the legal insurance for Geneva? I may get it to have more help with this kind of thing in the future.

Thanks.

John:

Most big insurance companies offer legal insurance. I happen to use Allianz, but there are many other companies offering legal insurance. 

If you decide to use Allianz, my agent there is Aymeric at [email protected] 

Hi John,

The fact that you are a foreigner versus a Swiss company doesn't have any relevance in a legal dispute. Yet, I would pay the bills if I was you.

1) Even if you dislike this or that clause, you signed the contract, , that is, you accepted willingly to be bound by it;

2) The clause that you dislike has nothing fishy or deceitful. The huge majority of people want their phone subscription renewed automatically so as not to bother about it and risking to forget to renew it and discovering one day that it was terminated just when they have to do this important and urgent phone call. So it looks just normal to me that it's a standatrd clause in the contracts;

3) As you write, YOU forgot the clause and didn't terminate the contract when you wanted it.

Judging by that you write, I would give you 0,000% chance in a court

If your contract says renewal is automatic, and if the phone company doesn't agree to let you off the contract, then I think that:

1. The phone company is likely to take you to court if you refuse to pay.

2. You're likely to lose in court. The judge might agree that the 'nice' thing to do is that the phone company contacts you before your contract expires to warn you the auto renewal is coming up, or that the phone company lets you off the hook when it becomes clear you simply forgot about the auto renewal. But the judge will have to go by what the contract says, not by what's nice.

It sucks, it's un-friendly and it's frustrating, but I think you'll have to pay...)-;

Assuming 

Kevin`s cas was not at all identica to your.

As the guys abve stated, you signed something, you expect them to warrn you that your deadline is coming up of which they are not obliged to....hence your contract renewed.

Whether it is nice or not, it is totally irrelevant.

They assumed that you are an adult ;) who did read what you signed up for.

That being said, perhaps you should review all your paperwork as check the terms. Just in case.

Dear all,

Thank you for your kind responses.

Yes, I could be willing to accept some responsibility (@Reka), which is why I offered to settle. The problem is the unusual business practices. Why not send e-invoices as in every other month for years, just at the end of the contract? Why not send an e-notification, as it regularly does for company updates and invoices? 

These practices fueled the dispute, and look like they were done in bad faith. Had the e-notification been sent or, barring that, had they simply invoiced according to their own standard practices, I could have cancelled the contract earlier and paid the bills without late fees. I can argue that these failures are a breach of contract.

Also, @Bustan, they charge 30-60% more for each month after the automatic renewal - so there is actually little reason anyone would want to renew automatically when they could easily renegotiate or cancel the contract for more favorable terms. It is, however, very much in the interest of the company not to notify the customer, because its profits rise by 30-60% per month. Moreover, the 2-month cancellation rule ensures that it will go on for at least 3 months. In econ, I think they call that a moral hazard no?

@Nir - Thanks a lot for the contact and for answering the questions I posed. I will definitely take your opinions into consideration.

Best to all.

Your case is not that clear. Automatic renewal clauses vis-à-vis "consumers" is a bit of a grey area. 

First thing to check is if it was a personnal phone or a professional phone. 

If it was personnal take your contract and check if the clause was somehow highlighted. If it is not, you might (and I say might because I don't know exactly the contract etc...) actually have some ground to refuse to pay. 

Unusual clauses and business practices vis-à-vis "consumers" (in the legal term) are void in swiss law.

Dear all,

These issues fall within the ambit of Swiss contract law. I am going to speak with a lawyer and see what we can do about it.

Concerned Swiss citizens may wish to speak with their local representatives to legislate against these harmful business practices. (I was informed by a representative of my phone company that all Swiss companies apply the same or similar contract terms.)

Incidentally, if you or anyone reading this post are in similar troubling circumstances, you can get affordable legal help at one of these two services in Geneva: 

Permanance de l'Ordre (45min, 60chf, no appt necessary) 

https://www.odage.ch/particuliers/permanence

Permanence Juridique (45min, 50chf, appt necessary) 

https://www.permanence-juridique.com/

They offer a full range of legal services in English, French and other Swiss languages I believe. I am sorry I do not know the equivalents in other Swiss cities. 

@Yoyo - thanks for taking a look at the "other side" of the dispute - interesting point. And, speaking of opposite sides, thanks @JR for summing both up so well.

Warm regards to all.

There is already a bill in the making at the Federal Parliament. 

The conditions of validity of those "roll-over" clauses are apparently already discussed between lawyers. 

If you can be considered as a consumer under swiss law (your legal council will explain but basically if the contract was made for your personnal use and not professional use), then my advice would be to give a call to the Fédération Romande des Consommateurs (FRC), they are already pretty involved in the matter. 

Contrary to what your operator representative said (sorry no translation in english):

http://www.frc.ch/articles/un-succes-qui-se-repercutera-sur-dautres-branches/

http://www.frc.ch/questions/abonnement-lisez-vos-contrats%E2%80%89/

Good luck !

YoYo:

That's helpful info, thanks!

But from what I read in the articles you shared, the FRC are clearly saying that it's currently legal to have an auto-renewal clause in the contracts, without any obligation from the provider to remind the consumer at any point that the contract is about to re-new. 

That might change in the future, but for now I think John is stuck with having to pay. 

Anyway, for sure doesn't hurt to give FRC a call.

I am not a specialist in consumers rights. Therefore what I am about to say is to be taken with caution. 

Those clauses are not illegal "per se" but raise a lot of questions when they are included in contracts with customers. That's why the FRC was preparing a lawsuit against phone operators. 

And apprently the operators did not take the risk to go for it (which already says something).

The reason is that article 8 of the unfair competition law (LCD in french) states the following (no english translation yet, sorry):

Agit de façon déloyale celui qui, notamment, utilise des conditions générales qui, en contradiction avec les règles de la bonne foi prévoient, au détriment du consommateur, une disproportion notable et injustifiée entre les droits et les obligations découlant du contrat."

Basicly the debate is more about the way they are drafted and/or applied than questionning their existence. 

For example, when dealing with a consumer, is the company obligated to send him a reminder ? Aren't these clauses unusual and if so, shouldn't they be highlighted to be valid ? etc... 

To my knowledge (and once again I am NOT a consumer rights specialist) it's an unsettled matter. When interpretating swiss consumer law, the swiss tribunals often use the EU law as an inspiration. EU law is much more restrictive toward these clauses. 

So from my point of view, if he decides to go and fight it's not necessary a lost cause (actually if there is no precedent and his case becomes one, he might actually help a LOT of people)

But then again, asking both a legal council that will look extensively at the matter and contact the FRC is the first thing to do. 

When I use "customers" one should understand "consumers". It's the key concept here. 

Everyone ssems to be indicating that Switzerland is special in this case. (And I agree that CH legislation tends to be conservative and capitalistically oriented.)

But don't such cases happen everywhere? I've certainly gotten offers in France that are designed to lure me into the same kind of trap.

I think the discussion focused on Switzerland because that's where we live and consume. It's the Swiss laws that will decide if the auto-renewal clause is legal or illigal for most of us, not the French / EU law

@tawb

No, in this case the French law would be notably different: auto-renewal of contracts is allowed but the company must send a reminder in enough time to allow you to cancel. If they don't send a reminder or it arrives too late, you are entitled to cancel the contract at any time. It's called 'Loi Chatel'.