Laura and Jarrod Maultby, from Langwarrin, Melbourne, had 26 filthy mattresses dumped on their driveway after posting a bad online review for trash collection company “Junk.”
The dispute turned into a legal battle costing more than $200,000.
It began when they asked Junk to dispose of a small pile of wood in their yard. They were issued a $514 bill for the job. The couple claim they hadn’t expected the bill to be that expensive and didn’t pay.
Junk argued the price had been clearly outlined. In the company’s terms and conditions was a stipulation that if a bill went unpaid, Junk could return ‘an equivalent amount of waste’ to the customer’s property.
Soon after, the Maultbys say 26 dirty mattresses were dumped outside their home.
That’s when Ms Maultby decided to leave negative reviews about her experience with the company.
The dispute snowballed into multiple lawsuits filed by Junk, claiming the reviews had disparaged the business and caused it to lose revenue.
The company filled separate proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), the Queensland District Court, and the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Junk claimed its weekly revenue dropped by more than $25,000 after the Maultbys’ reviews were posted across social media and review sites.
According to court documents, Junk accused the family of posting 6 separate reviews in June last year, including comments that the business ‘rips and scams its customers’ and ‘charges more than its quotes’.
The company also rejected claims that its owner, Richard Furnari, made multiple calls to the couple in a ‘harassing manner’.
This week, the Queensland District Court dismissed one of the cases against the Maultbys’, while the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal also refused to hear duplicate actions.
‘We’ve had a lot of support from our community and now 2 courts have told them Junk there is a more appropriate forum,’ Ms Maultby told Daily Mail Australia.
‘It’s great that VCAT are pushing back against duplicated legal actions and they won’t allow Junk to pursue us in multiple courts. We thank both the District Court of Queensland and VCAT for recognising the importance of keeping this matter confined to one court.’
A Supreme Court case remains active.
‘We hadn’t refused to pay the invoice, we just queried it and wanted to come to a resolution with the business due to confusing quotations,’ she said.
‘We shared our story on social media, asking for help and advice. Our story went viral, and several news outlets covered what had happened.
‘Since then, we’ve received numerous different legal threats from numerous persons and companies associated with the business.’
‘We are now facing the heartbreaking prospect of selling our already mortgaged home simply to defend ourselves and repay the family members who have sacrificed so much to support us,’ she added.
