Solicitor to sue an Audi dealer

[Muzzer79]

skwdenyer said:

davidcw58 said:

Litigation is an emotional and time consuming path and I have better things to do on both counts. HOWEVER, I have been very calm and reasonable and they haven't made a proper effort to resolve it so they have pissed me off. The claim will now be in excess of £5000 but less than £10,000. The scope of my original claim was scaled down to make it easier to settle but as they don't want to pay anything or do any rectification works I plan to include all the works, time, car hire, travel, and anything else legitimate.
I could do what used to be called the small claims procedure but I think I need a bit of advice beforehand.
A full claim rather than a small claims procedure will involve more costs for both them and me but might encourage them to settle

From experience, I fear your costs logic is flawed. They will undoubtedly have legal insurance, so their costs are unlikely to factor too much in their decision making.

In my experience, company legal insurance has an excess. Where I previously worked, that excess was £20k so small claims like this were either just settled if we thought the claimant had a hope and/or it was a reasonable settlement.

Depends on what legal advice they take.

As regards to them not turning up, if the cost is being internally allocated to the dealer (which in this case it would be) and it's a reasonable sum, they'll be there if they've got any form of organisation to their operation. They may aswell just settle if they're not going to turn up.

[nikaiyo2]

skwdenyer said:

From experience, I fear your costs logic is flawed. They will undoubtedly have legal insurance, so their costs are unlikely to factor too much in their decision making.

For this level of claim, I’d go the small claims track (that’s both quantum of claim and complexity of case), to protect yourself against the prospect of costs if you lose. Unless you are also insured against legal costs.

Wouldn't the defendants solicitors do all they can to get this moved to the multi track? With a fair chance of success, I would imagine a judge would accept that gearbox sensors, gaskets leaking beyond tolerance etc would require expert testimony.

[Forester1965]

Simpo Two said:

Although unless the solicitors are in-house they will have to pay their bill, so it will cost them some money. I can't see it going beyond dealer level TBH, it's a local scuffle and a very small one.

I hope the OP reports back in due course. He may not have a leg to stand on, or maybe he has, maybe he'll get some satisfaction or maybe he won't. But I have some sympathy because we've al been 'wronged' at times, and sometimes just walking away isn't an answer.

The bill would likely be very small, with a very junior solicitor swatting it away by breakfast.

The idea a dealer principle or his staff are going to be personally or financially inconvenienced by this one is fanciful.

[Vasco]

I can't believe that there is still any ongoing debate needed on this one - the answers are all on page 1.

[KungFuPanda]

nikaiyo2 said:

skwdenyer said:

From experience, I fear your costs logic is flawed. They will undoubtedly have legal insurance, so their costs are unlikely to factor too much in their decision making.

For this level of claim, I’d go the small claims track (that’s both quantum of claim and complexity of case), to protect yourself against the prospect of costs if you lose. Unless you are also insured against legal costs.

Wouldn't the defendants solicitors do all they can to get this moved to the multi track? With a fair chance of success, I would imagine a judge would accept that gearbox sensors, gaskets leaking beyond tolerance etc would require expert testimony.

First of all, why the Multi Track? The Fast Track allows expert evidence.

Notwithstanding the above, its all about proportionality too. When assessing a claim worth only a few grand, a District Judge may not allow expert evidence which may cost a few grand in itself.

If any of the parties feel that expert evidence is required, leave of the Court can be sought and the matter can still remain in the Small Claims Track. If either of the parties in this matter applied to have this transferred to the Multi Track, they'd be laughed out of Court.

[Red Devil]

Simpo Two said:

FMOB said:

If you get a judgement and they don't pay get the baliff to start looking for the server room and pull out anything with a fibre optic cable going into it. Will shut down their operations in minutes and open the cheque book just as quickly.

I greatly enjoyed the one where an airline owed Mrs Miggins a refund - so they went to the airport and closed their check-in desk. That soon got somebody down from an office to pay

But first, you have to get there... (to winning the case, not to the airport)

And the one where the HCEO seized a commercial aircraft. He prevented it from being taken out of the country by the simple expedient of removing its Certificate of Airwothiness from the documentation which has to be carried on board.

[Simpo Two]

Red Devil said:

And the one where the HCEO seized a commercial aircraft. He prevented it from being taken out of the country by the simple expedient of removing its Certificate of Airwothiness from the documentation which has to be carried on board.

Absolutely. Why fk about paying solicitors thousands of pounds when you can get an aeroplane nicked on your behalf for about £100...? (which is added to the claim and the defendant has to pay it if they want their aeroplane back).

[nikaiyo2]

KungFuPanda said:

First of all, why the Multi Track? The Fast Track allows expert evidence.

Notwithstanding the above, its all about proportionality too. When assessing a claim worth only a few grand, a District Judge may not allow expert evidence which may cost a few grand in itself.

If any of the parties feel that expert evidence is required, leave of the Court can be sought and the matter can still remain in the Small Claims Track. If either of the parties in this matter applied to have this transferred to the Multi Track, they'd be laughed out of Court.

Honestly its what I vaguely remember our solicitor doing when we were taken to court, but i might be remembering it incorrectly. I know our legal fees that were awarded against the claimant and were 10x the value of what was being claimed.

[skwdenyer]

Simpo Two said:

Red Devil said:

And the one where the HCEO seized a commercial aircraft. He prevented it from being taken out of the country by the simple expedient of removing its Certificate of Airwothiness from the documentation which has to be carried on board.

Absolutely. Why fk about paying solicitors thousands of pounds when you can get an aeroplane nicked on your behalf for about £100...? (which is added to the claim and the defendant has to pay it if they want their aeroplane back).

You may of course need solicitors to get to that point

[Forester1965]

It's all semantics because the OP is wasting his time.

If he wanted to rely on the Audi dealership's opinion as to the quality of the car he could have bought an approved used one. As it stands he's relying on a second-hand conversation with the service desk receptionist over the phone to establish duty of care in a negligence claim. Two hopes and all that.

[skwdenyer]

Forester1965 said:

It's all semantics because the OP is wasting his time.

If he wanted to rely on the Audi dealership's opinion as to the quality of the car he could have bought an approved used one. As it stands he's relying on a second-hand conversation with the service desk receptionist over the phone to establish duty of care in a negligence claim. Two hopes and all that.

This I agree with. The OP’s recitation of events doesn’t fill me with hope for victory in court. The health check wasn’t a contract between the OP & the dealer, and carries no presumption of benefiting successors in title to the vehicle. The phone advice is going to be very hard to evidence & harder still to prove liability over.

A shake-down might work - issue small claims level proceedings and see if they settle, especially to robustly pursuing ADR to that end.

But in court? The obvious defence would be “did you have the vehicle independently inspected prior to purchase?” followed by “why not?”

A small claims track judge *might* rule in the OP’s favour on a good day. Larger-scale proceedings are IMHO doomed to expensive failure.

Never fight a case on principle unless you’ve money to burn.

[mickythefish]

Probably just posted this so he could tell them he was going "social".

Three brain theory, not always working in sync.

[Simpo Two]

skwdenyer said:

Simpo Two said:

Red Devil said:

And the one where the HCEO seized a commercial aircraft. He prevented it from being taken out of the country by the simple expedient of removing its Certificate of Airwothiness from the documentation which has to be carried on board.

Absolutely. Why fk about paying solicitors thousands of pounds when you can get an aeroplane nicked on your behalf for about £100...? (which is added to the claim and the defendant has to pay it if they want their aeroplane back).

You may of course need solicitors to get to that point

I found that High Court enforcement follows on perfectly from Small Claims which is designed to operate without solicitors. My defendant decided not to pay after getting a CCJ - which is a very silly thing to do when I'm involved. Rather than faff about with all the useless options provided by a normal court I instructed HC bailiffs to recover the debt. They visited the defendant, who pretended to be someone else, that didn't work, bailiffs started taking her car away, she sat on the bonnet screaming, that didn't work - police were called who told her to STFU while the bailiffs got on with it (it's an offence to obstruct a HC bailiff). Car was taken away to auction on a low-loader, money arrived very soon afterwards. Defendant ended up paying 3x more than the original claim. I love HC!