MaltaToday previous editions

Maltatoday 22 October 2017

Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/890548

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 49 of 63

50 maltatoday SUNDAY 22 OCTOBER 2017 T he Small Claims Tribunal ruled that with the expiration of a TV contract, it should not be difficult for a customer to stop the service. This was held in GO plc v Margaret Camilleri, decided on 12th October, 2017, presided by Dr Anna Mallia. In the application, GO plc asked the Court to order the defendant, Margaret Camilleri to pay €700.30 for services provided. Camilleri replied to this claim that she had on a number of occasions informed the company that the service was not required any longer and asked for it to be disconnected. The Tribunal analysed the evidence brought before it. A GO credit control officer testified by means of an affidavit and explained that Camilleri had returned the equipment in part in January 2015 and the last batch in June 2015. The termination took place in January 2015. This was challenged in the testimony of the defendant, Margaret Camilleri, who explained to the Court that her contract with GO plc expired in June 2014, but she had received a letter in May informing her that the service would expire in a month. Ms Camilleri then rang customer care at GO plc informing them that the contract would be renewed. Later on she received other letters informing her of new offers. In July 2014 she rang GO plc to remind the company that the contract was not being renewed. The reply was "all right". In August she decided to visit one of the branches, and again the person who spoke to her said "all right". However, the bills continued to arrive and every month she rang the company until an employee told her that the equipment had to be returned. She complained that she had been ringing for months and nobody informed her. The Tribunal held that the point at issue was whether Camilleri should pay after the contract was terminated, June 2014. The contract states that if the company fails to hear from the customer after its expiration, the service would continue to be given. However, the Tribunal pointed out that this notice does not have to be in writing. The Tribunal commented that this case was one of many where GO plc claim payment after contracts expire and the customers are not informed that they would have to return the equipment for the service to be terminated. The Tribunal held that it believed Camilleri's version of events. The Tribunal criticised the company's practice of not informing customers how to terminate the service. The Tribunal ordered Camilleri to pay for the service given up to 31 July, 2014 and ordered the judgement to be forwarded to the Malta Communications Authority and the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority. Dr Malcolm Mifsud is partner at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Opinion T he Planning Authority granted planning permission for "additions and alterations" to a dwelling located in Triq ir Rokon, Kercem. Following the issuance of the permit, a neighbour lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that the permit should be revoked. In his appeal submissions, the objector made the following arguments: 1. The permit in question was allegedly issued on the basis of 'wrongful or even fraudulent information handed over by the applicant'. To reinforce his argument, appellant stated that the courtyard which separates the applicant's property from that of the neighbour was commonly owned and yet the applicant had given the impression he was the owner; 2. Moreover, the site featured a number of illegalities which included a "franka" wall built along the site periphery; 3. The applicant had also carried out 'considerable engineering works in his property without a planning permit, which works have resulted in a change in topography of the site'. In reply, the Authority held firm to its position, adding that the Tribunal had no competence to entertain revocation requests on the basis of alleged fraudulent information. The case officer went on to explain that according to Article 80 of the Development Planning Act, a request to revoke or modify a permission must be made to the Executive Chairperson who shall in turn prepare a recommendation to the Planning Board as to whether the development permission should be revoked or modified. Such a request could only be entertained in specific circumstances – namely: (i) in the case of fraud, (ii) where the submission of any information, declaration or plan is incorrect or does not reflect the situation on site, (iii) where there is an error on the face of the record or (iv) where public safety is concerned. This meant that a request as aforesaid had to be directed to the Planning Authority and not the Tribunal. With regard to the alleged illegalities, the Authority rebutted that there was no evidence in support of such allegations, adding that the 'illegal wall' had been in existence prior to 1968. On his part, the applicant insisted that the courtyard, which appellant described as common property was 'in actual fact the sole property of his family'. But even so, the applicant claimed that such disputes rest within the competence of the Civil Courts (and not administrative Tribunals). In its assessment, the Tribunal immediately observed that it had no jurisdiction in so far as revocation requests were concerned. In addition, the Tribunal reminded the parties that it lacked jurisdiction over matters involving ownership issues. Concluding, the Tribunal highlighted that there was no evidence to show that the applicant had carried out any illegal works as previously alleged. Against this background, the appeal was rejected. Dr Robert Musumeci is an advocate and a perit Robert Musumeci Malcolm Mifsud When a customer tells a service provider to stop, it means stop Planning Tribunal reluctant to probe into 'civil issues' The Tribunal asserted that it would not enter into the merits as to who actually owned the courtyard

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of MaltaToday previous editions - Maltatoday 22 October 2017