A Metro Vancouver woman tried to get thousands of dollars back from a local business over the "pain and suffering " she says she experienced over getting her first tattoo.
The woman said she felt she was entitled to $5,000 from Happy Buddha Tattoo Studio over what she called a "bad experience" with the New Westminster parlour.
The case did not go to court, but instead to B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal, where it was heard by tribunal member Chad McCarthy earlier this month.
Documents outlining the case posted by the CRT state that the woman had a budget for her first tattoo – money she said she'd saved "for a long time," and that the work she had done went over budget before it was finished. She said a deposit she'd put down was never returned, and that she was "very disappointed" overall.
She broke down her claim as follows: $2,300 for "intent to take advantage," $2,300 for "pain and suffering, and a bad experience," $200 for having to pay someone else to finish the tattoo, and $200 for a deposit refund.
According to McCarthy's reasons for his decision, the woman had told HBTS during a consultation she had an inflexible budget of $900, and claims the tattoo studio should have said their artists couldn't do the work for that price, if that was the case.
She said she knew the studio charged $185 per hour for the work, before tax, and that she'd be expected to pay $200 deposits for each appointment required to complete what she'd requested. McCarthy does not say what exactly the woman planned to have tattooed or where on her body.
As the work went on, the price climbed to $1,122.68, according to HBTS. The tattoo itself, though unfinished, is only $22.69 overbudget, according to the studio, but the client also owes $200. That extra cash is for a non-refundable deposit the client put down before deciding to cancel the appointment without notice.
The woman admitted she knew that was the policy, but doesn't think she should have to pay that deposit, since no work was done.
There are no actual records or receipts, so the decision from the CRT was made based on the word of both parties. HBTS said a fire destroyed its records, so there is no proof of what was actually paid, and the client did not provide reciepts. The client said she's paid $1,205.
Also complicating the decision is that there is no written estimate, quote or contract in evidence, and while HBTS doesn't dispute it may have estimated the tattoo could be done for $900, it says that estimate would have been non-binding, and no fixed price was agreed upon.
Another factor is it doesn't seem the client is unhappy with what work was actually done, only that she was overcharged. She claimed the tattoo artist spent time with another client during her appointment, among her other complaints. This is something unproven by evidence presented to the CRT, and denied by the studio.
And when it comes to her claim about being taken advantage of, she said the receptionist at the parlour "saw how much money was in her wallet and so asked her for that amount," something McCarthy called "speculative and unsupported by any evidence."
She also said an offer from her tattoo artist to make a new appointment and take $200 off the total, to account for her deposit, was an attempt to take advantage of her.
What was supported by evidence, according to the tribunal member, was that the client was aware of HBTS's policies on cancellations. Additionally, he said he felt the price the client paid was "reasonably similar" and "not unreasonably excessive" to her budget.
Finally, the CRT member addressed the woman's claim of "pain and suffering." She told the tribunal she's experienced extreme anxiety due to arguments with the tattoo artist and dealing with the situation overall.
But a letter submitted from a doctor didn't give specifics, or even say whether the doctor believed the disagreement actually caused her "unspecified anxiety condition." The client said she'd suffered from stress as early as 2003, and that her mental health deteriorated in 2018.
Her tattoo appointments were in April of this year.
Thus the tribunal member dismissed the woman's claims and the dispute, meaning she will not be getting the money she'd requested.
B.C.'s CRT was the first such dispute resolution option in Canada to be offered online. It's an administrative tribunal, not a court, but is part of the provincial justice system.
The CRT has jurisdiction over most small claims, as well as minor injury disputes relating to motor vehicle collisions. As of 2017, most cases involving small claims up to $5,000 go to the CRT, while cases involving higher claims may go to simplified trial or result in more complicated and formal trials depending on dollar amount.
