Dispute with dental practice - advice please

I'd blame them for billing it without saying how much it was going to cost. Doing the upsell while the patient is in the chair is reasonably dodgy.
 
Raymond Lin said:
There seem to be 5 outcomes of this

1 - you pay up in full.
2 - you both agree a middle figure
3 - you leave, don't pay and wait to get an invoice and possibly baliffs or claim against you
4 - you leave don't pay, and they don't chase you
5 - they agree you don't have to pay, and continue as a patient

I think Option 2 is most likely, I can't see them agreeing not getting a penny for the work, even though you didn't agree to paying it, but agree to it.
Click to expand...

Bailiffs aren't going to be involved, unless you are referring to debt collectors, which aren't Bailiffs.

What they've sent is a speculative invoice. They aren't going to get far trying to argue that the OP agreed extra works to be carried out, with payment to be discussed months later, without any information on costs at the point of discussion.

They're either trying to rip the OP off, or they've made a mistake, have only just realised it and are trying to get the OP to fix it for them. Because they should have outlined the costs in the first place. The OP has received an invoice previously for an agreed amount and paid it.
 
Unluckyalf said:
I thought a quote was just an estimate of the cost of the work required, not the same as a fixed price or an invoice. You wouldnt expect a builder to offer to do additional work that was required outside of his estimate on an extension he quoted for and not charge for it.

As you said in your OP, your mistake was accepting this additional work. You can hardly blame the surgery for billing you for it. Just treat it as a lesson learnt
Click to expand...

You would however expect a builder to tell you about the associated costs if they were offering you more work, rather than just say nothing about the costs.
 
spoffle said:
Bailiffs aren't going to be involved, unless you are referring to debt collectors, which aren't Bailiffs.

What they've sent is a speculative invoice. They aren't going to get far trying to argue that the OP agreed extra works to be carried out, with payment to be discussed months later, without any information on costs at the point of discussion.

They're either trying to rip the OP off, or they've made a mistake, have only just realised it and are trying to get the OP to fix it for them. Because they should have outlined the costs in the first place. The OP has received an invoice previously for an agreed amount and paid it.
Click to expand...

Baliffs will become involved after judgment.
 
spoffle said:
Bailiffs aren't going to be involved, unless you are referring to debt collectors, which aren't Bailiffs.

What they've sent is a speculative invoice. They aren't going to get far trying to argue that the OP agreed extra works to be carried out, with payment to be discussed months later, without any information on costs at the point of discussion.

They're either trying to rip the OP off, or they've made a mistake, have only just realised it and are trying to get the OP to fix it for them. Because they should have outlined the costs in the first place. The OP has received an invoice previously for an agreed amount and paid it.
Click to expand...

I had three appointments in total. They requested the £280 from me after the first appointment. They never requested any more money from me afterwards.

I did find it unusual that they sent me this 4 months later. The practice manager is going to ask the clinician if she remembers quoting me the additional fee. I question whether she can remember exactly what she said in August.
 
Nazca said:
I had three appointments in total. They requested the £280 from me after the first appointment. They never requested any more money from me afterwards.

I did find it unusual that they sent me this 4 months later. The practice manager is going to ask the clinician if she remembers quoting me the additional fee. I question whether she can remember exactly what she said in August.
Click to expand...

After 4 months, argue as long as you can, it is likely they will settle for a lower figure.
 
so the agreement is just a verbal one, nothing signed for when they completed the original procedure?

If the worst happens and they won't let you back out just ignore there calls and move to another practice.
 
Gman said:
so the agreement is just a verbal one, nothing signed for when they completed the original procedure?

If the worst happens and they won't let you back out just ignore there calls and move to another practice.
Click to expand...

This was just a one off treatment - no problem moving to another dentist.

I am concerned they have my address/phone number so they can pursue me.
 
Nazca said:
I had three appointments in total. They requested the £280 from me after the first appointment. They never requested any more money from me afterwards.

I did find it unusual that they sent me this 4 months later. The practice manager is going to ask the clinician if she remembers quoting me the additional fee. I question whether she can remember exactly what she said in August.
Click to expand...

She will absolutely 'remember' definitely explaining the additional costs to you, followed by them questioning your 4 month recollection of events.
 
spoffle said:
Yes, and a judgement over something like this isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Well, it is diffcult for OP to argue the work didn't take place.

It is easily proven that the work had taken place.

No doubt they can also provide evidence of costs for such work in literature.

The only dispute is whether the dentist mention costs on the chair. From a neutral point of view, there are more evidence that costs should be incurred than not, so on the balance of probability, do you think this would have been free in the first place?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Well, it is diffcult for OP to argue the work didn't take place.

It is easily proven that the work had taken place.

No doubt they can also provide evidence of costs for such work in literature.

The only dispute is whether the dentist mention costs on the chair. From a neutral point of view, there are more evidence that costs should be incurred than not, so on the balance of probability, do you think this would have been free in the first place?
Click to expand...

Of course not, and the OP should have clarified it. However I'm sure that will happen in future as he has experience of knowing what they're like.

But just because work taken place that wouldn't be expected to be free, doesn't mean that they aren't trying to be deceptive in some form. As the fact that no price was discussed, and they took so long to issue an invoice shows that they're either being dishonest, or extremely disorganised, and as such a judgment wouldn't be issued against the OP because of the above.

They are essentially acting out of "character" in that they previously gave the OP a quote for works required that the OP agreed to, and now they are just saying "Fancy one of these M8?" without any sort of formal proceedings related to the work.

It would be extremely difficult to argue that the OP owes them, because they are employing quite different procedures with dealing with arranging work. I would say that trumps the fact that work has been done.
 
Last edited:
spoffle said:
Of course not, and the OP should have clarified it. However I'm sure that will happen in future as he has experience of knowing what they're like.

But just because work taken place that wouldn't be expected to be free, doesn't mean that they aren't trying to be deceptive in some form. As the fact that no price was discussed, and they took so long to issue an invoice shows that they're either being dishonest, or extremely disorganised, and as such a judgment wouldn't be issued against the OP because of the above.
Click to expand...

A judge isn't going to assume a dental practice to be dishonest, there is not track record of that (from what we know here), and not going to prejudice a "busy" dental practice for being disorganised, as the limitation for debt is something like 6 years, so 4 month is hardly out of time.
 
I believe what they should have done was:

-Offer the additional treatment, quote me a cost and have me agree.
-After the treatment was performed, request that I pay for the treatment immediately.

Neither of the above happened.

I think that there was probably some miscommunication between the receptionist, who arranged the appointment and quoted me, and the clinician. There's a possibility that the clinician assumed that I had been quoted the full amount and agreed to pay, so carried out the treatment.

Now they are reconciling their accounts and notice a discrepency which they're trying to rectify.
 
Weird my dentist has a sheet with a diagram and different headings for the different treatments and notes down each after telling you the price and getting your agreement, then you pay £100 deposit and the balance after first appointment at which point the price is locked in and everyone has it on paper.
 
I have never encountered a dentist that doesn't invoice immediately, before you walk out. As such, being offered additional retainer related work, whilst already having retainer work done, with no mention of costs and only the original invoice presented, I would have thought a reasonable case could be made for not expecting additional costs months later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom