Oh FFS! Buyer of my car issued court summons!
Discussion
I've just spoken to the court, he didn't pay so the action has been struck out.
What an absolute pain in the arse. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased to not have to go to court, but I was happy to do so as I've done absolutely nothing wrong!
Anyway, thank you all for your help and assistance, I really am very grateful.
What an absolute pain in the arse. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased to not have to go to court, but I was happy to do so as I've done absolutely nothing wrong!
Anyway, thank you all for your help and assistance, I really am very grateful.
RRH said:
I've just spoken to the court, he didn't pay so the action has been struck out.
What an absolute pain in the arse. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased to not have to go to court, but I was happy to do so as I've done absolutely nothing wrong!
Anyway, thank you all for your help and assistance, I really am very grateful.
Good result, but crap end to the story What an absolute pain in the arse. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased to not have to go to court, but I was happy to do so as I've done absolutely nothing wrong!
Anyway, thank you all for your help and assistance, I really am very grateful.
Cyberprog said:
The only downside is that he might start the action back up again at a later date. The County Courts are surprisingly flexible for this sort of thing.
I'd say that's highly unlikely IMHO.My reading of the situation at the start was that the Claimant was in one of two camps:
1) A total shyster knowing he hadn't a legal leg to stand on trying to exert pressure for a payment and playing the odds, or
2) That he thought he had a genuine claim, and thought that firing it off would illicit the payment requested.
If he is a shyster, the logic thing to do would actually be to pay the hearing fee. The message that would send to the OP would be that he will have to go to court and ensure the time and hassle. Many people are scared of 'court' and what it implies, and there's also the possibility that the shyster did not know the OP was being advised, and still may consider paying up before court. This leaves the door open for a settlement in the weeks/days before the hearing.
What I think has happened is that the Claimant is in camp 2). He got a shock when a Defence turned up, and from it started doing some research or got some initial legal advice where he could read from the glances back at him that he'd made a mistake and needs a little education on some basic points of law.
JustinP1 said:
I'd say that's highly unlikely IMHO.
My reading of the situation at the start was that the Claimant was in one of two camps:
1) A total shyster knowing he hadn't a legal leg to stand on trying to exert pressure for a payment and playing the odds, or
2) That he thought he had a genuine claim, and thought that firing it off would illicit the payment requested.
If he is a shyster, the logic thing to do would actually be to pay the hearing fee. The message that would send to the OP would be that he will have to go to court and ensure the time and hassle. Many people are scared of 'court' and what it implies, and there's also the possibility that the shyster did not know the OP was being advised, and still may consider paying up before court. This leaves the door open for a settlement in the weeks/days before the hearing.
What I think has happened is that the Claimant is in camp 2). He got a shock when a Defence turned up, and from it started doing some research or got some initial legal advice where he could read from the glances back at him that he'd made a mistake and needs a little education on some basic points of law.
Or 1) but he's not very good at it!?My reading of the situation at the start was that the Claimant was in one of two camps:
1) A total shyster knowing he hadn't a legal leg to stand on trying to exert pressure for a payment and playing the odds, or
2) That he thought he had a genuine claim, and thought that firing it off would illicit the payment requested.
If he is a shyster, the logic thing to do would actually be to pay the hearing fee. The message that would send to the OP would be that he will have to go to court and ensure the time and hassle. Many people are scared of 'court' and what it implies, and there's also the possibility that the shyster did not know the OP was being advised, and still may consider paying up before court. This leaves the door open for a settlement in the weeks/days before the hearing.
What I think has happened is that the Claimant is in camp 2). He got a shock when a Defence turned up, and from it started doing some research or got some initial legal advice where he could read from the glances back at him that he'd made a mistake and needs a little education on some basic points of law.
JustinP1 said:
My reading of the situation at the start was that the Claimant was in one of two camps:
1) A total shyster knowing he hadn't a legal leg to stand on trying to exert pressure for a payment and playing the odds, or
2) That he thought he had a genuine claim, and thought that firing it off would illicit the payment requested.
If he is a shyster, the logic thing to do would actually be to pay the hearing fee. The message that would send to the OP would be that he will have to go to court and ensure the time and hassle. Many people are scared of 'court' and what it implies, and there's also the possibility that the shyster did not know the OP was being advised, and still may consider paying up before court. This leaves the door open for a settlement in the weeks/days before the hearing.
What I think has happened is that the Claimant is in camp 2). He got a shock when a Defence turned up, and from it started doing some research or got some initial legal advice where he could read from the glances back at him that he'd made a mistake and needs a little education on some basic points of law.
Or 1) A total shyster knowing he hadn't a legal leg to stand on trying to exert pressure for a payment and playing the odds, or
2) That he thought he had a genuine claim, and thought that firing it off would illicit the payment requested.
If he is a shyster, the logic thing to do would actually be to pay the hearing fee. The message that would send to the OP would be that he will have to go to court and ensure the time and hassle. Many people are scared of 'court' and what it implies, and there's also the possibility that the shyster did not know the OP was being advised, and still may consider paying up before court. This leaves the door open for a settlement in the weeks/days before the hearing.
What I think has happened is that the Claimant is in camp 2). He got a shock when a Defence turned up, and from it started doing some research or got some initial legal advice where he could read from the glances back at him that he'd made a mistake and needs a little education on some basic points of law.
3) He's a moron
If his case has been struck out, there may be an order for him to pay your costs. Wait and see what the Court order states and if it mentions anything about him having to pay you your costs, you may want to have some fun, or at the end of the day its all over and you can forget about it.
G
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff