OPINION: Retailer’s complaint against Ezeecopy upheld

Pressure is growing against a photocopier hire firm accused of mis-selling services to retailers after another complaint was upheld by investigators at the Financial Ombudsman Service. 

The case, lodged against Ezeecopy, came about after the firm allegedly began charging retailers more than they had expected and above the demand for a photocopier service in their stores. 

RN has already reported on one other case, which was also upheld in an initial report by the Ombudsman’s investigator. 

In this recent case, Jegatheswaran Bramila, owner of Widley Express in Portsmouth, installed the service on the understanding profits from the photocopier would be split 50/50 with Ezeecopy. However, after four months she claims that she began receiving bills of more than £80 per month. When she queried the charge, she says she was told she was required to meet a target of 43 black-and-white copies per day at 10p and six colour copies at 20p, and a termination fee of almost £5,000 would be charged should she wish to exit the contract. 

Mrs Bramila said: “I was so distressed. I couldn’t sleep and I felt so ashamed I’d signed the contract.” 

It wasn’t until Mrs Bramila found other retailers through a WhatsApp group in the same position that she raised the complaint with the Ombudsman Service. 

In conclusion, investigator Howard Jackson said that, on the balance of probabilities, he was not satisfied Ezeecopy had “done everything it needed to do” for Mrs Bramila to be fully informed of the terms of the contract she was signing. He added that, on the basis of the evidence he had seen, it seemed that the company had not been clear on the requirement for minimum copies per day or how this related to a monthly charge. 

Ezeecopy had until the end of last week to provide further evidence in support of its position. During the course of the investigation, Ezeecopy told the investigator that its sales team “talked [Mrs Bramila] through the terms and conditions over the telephone using the Key Points of Agreement for Sales” and that “the agreement was posted to her first class the very same day for her to read and consider in her own time and ask any questions she may have”. 

Meanwhile, the NFRN has also confirmed its legal department is looking at a number of similar cases against Ezeecopy. 

Head of operations Margaret McCloskey advised retailers that if they wanted to unwind their contract with Ezeecopy citing the Misrepresentation Act 1967 they needed to “timely report the misrepresentation” to Ezeecopy and “keep written records of the same”. 

Ezeecopy was contacted but declined to comment.