iData Destruction Reviews 

When they collected the paperwork they did not notify me that they would increase their price. They gave me a sheet stating the amount of paper they had collected. There was no mention of the price, IData have never given any contract or terms and conditions.
I only found out after they sent an invoice with the inflated price. I emailed the owner George Eland as follows: previous agreed commercial arrangement under which services were provided and invoiced at an agreed rate. It was in the form of a previous invoice.

Your invoice was paid in full, thereby discharging the contract in its entirety.

At no point prior to, during, or at completion of the work was any agreement reached for additional or variable pricing.

Accordingly, no contractual basis exists for the subsequent imposition of additional charges.

No valid variation of contract
Any alleged increase in price would amount to a variation of the original agreement.

Under English contract law, a variation requires clear mutual assent.

There is no evidence of any express agreement to a revised price, nor any conduct capable of objectively demonstrating acceptance of a price variation.

Relevant authorities include:

May & Butcher Ltd v R (1934) – contractual terms must be sufficiently certain and agreed
Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd (1932) – terms may only be implied where necessary and consistent with the bargain
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1991] – variations require factual agreement and cannot be imposed unilaterally
A unilateral post-completion adjustment of price is not enforceable.

No entitlement to further payment (including quantum meruit)
Any attempt to characterise the claim as a “reasonable charge” or quantum meruit claim is also rejected.

A claim in quantum meruit can only arise where there is no governing agreed price or where services are provided outside a contractual framework.

Where, as here, a previous contract existed, was fully performed, and has been paid, there is no legal basis to reopen the price after discharge of the agreement.

See British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd [1984].

Conduct and timing
The alleged additional charge was not disclosed at the time of instruction, during performance, or prior to payment of the agreed invoice.

It was only raised after completion and settlement of the account, which confirms it was not part of any agreed arrangement.

Position
In summary:

A previou contract existed and was performed
The agreed invoice was paid in full
No variation was agreed
No legal basis exists for retrospective charges
The alleged debt is therefore denied in full. He took no notice of the facts or the law.

I am writing this review to warn other businesses about the highly unprofessional billing practices of this company. My company, Hirsch & Co Ltd, entered into a clear commercial agreement with them. They provided the services, issued their invoice at the agreed rate, and we paid it in full, successfully concluding the contract.Shockingly, long after the work was completed and paid for, they unilaterally issued a "Final Notice" demanding an additional, unagreed charge of £61.56. At no point before, during, or after the work was any additional pricing mentioned or agreed upon.Under English contract law, a unilateral, post-completion adjustment of a price is completely unenforceable. A variation of a contract requires clear mutual agreement, which never happened here. Notable legal precedents—including May & Butcher Ltd v R (1934) and Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]—confirm that terms must be certain and cannot be imposed unilaterally. Furthermore, because a contract existed and was fully discharged by payment, they have absolutely no legal basis to retrospectively demand a "reasonable charge" or quantum meruit payment (British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge [1984]).We have denied this alleged debt in full. If this company chooses to issue legal proceedings for this unjust £61.56 charge, we will robustly defend the claim in court and invite the Judge to review their hidden billing conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules. Avoid this company if you expect honest, transparent pricing.

We previously dealt with a national company for our shredding but I found them inflexible. If we had more than the specified amount when they called they would not shred it. I understand the administrative reasons for this, but it was very frustrating sometimes!
No problems of that nature with iData Destruction - George and his staff are the most helpful people you could meet. I can recommend them without hesitation.

IN SHORT, FROM THE INITIAL INTRODUCTION TO COLLECTION AND SUBSEQUENT DISPOSAL WE CONSIDER THE ENTIRE OPERATION AS 100% EFFICIENT. OUR FIVE STAR RATING IS FULLY DESERVED.

I have used idata services for several years, initially for confidential shredding, but more recently for collection of cardboard waste.
The confidential shredding is extremely convenient and reliable. sometimes it is collected - but more often I drop it off at the reception center.
The cardboard collection is reliable and courteous, accounting is easy and relations with all staff is cordial.
I have no reservations about recommending the company.
All the best
Tony Brough

Excellent service provided. They always pick up the bags when they say they will.

I data destruction is efficient and I have been a customer for many years, George is always flexible, reliable and I am always impressed with the friendliness of the staff.

First class service. Excellent responsiveness, communication and professionalism. Highly recommended.