Private seller legal help please
Discussion
Nickyboy said:
You can't, when i was on the receiving end of a small claim i couldn't claim for time off or any defence costs (company paid so that wasn't an issue) I could only claim for reasonable travel expenses
IANAL but when I last took someone to the Small Claims Court the judge was very happy to inflate my travel costs by a large amount, as well as the time I spent there. From recollection the conversation was this: Judge: How did you get here today?
Me: Bus. It cost me £1 each way.
Judge: If you had caught a taxi then how much would it have been?
Me: I don't know. £15?
Judge: Probably. I'm awarding you £30 travel costs. Now how much time have you spent here today?
Me: (Checks Watch) About an hour and a half. Can I claim for that?
Judge: If you spent a day here you could claim £75.
Me: Oh, My professional billing rate is about £275/hour. No matter, I'm working from home today so I'll make it up later.
Judge: This has taken you most of the day - that's £75. I'll award you the sum you seek plus £105 expenses. Are you happy with that?
Me: Thank you very much.
I know, call starry bra but it make me smile!
2Btoo said:
IANAL but when I last took someone to the Small Claims Court the judge was very happy to inflate my travel costs by a large amount, as well as the time I spent there. From recollection the conversation was this:
Judge: How did you get here today?
Me: Bus. It cost me £1 each way.
Judge: If you had caught a taxi then how much would it have been?
Me: I don't know. £15?
Judge: Probably. I'm awarding you £30 travel costs. Now how much time have you spent here today?
Me: (Checks Watch) About an hour and a half. Can I claim for that?
Judge: If you spent a day here you could claim £75.
Me: Oh, My professional billing rate is about £275/hour. No matter, I'm working from home today so I'll make it up later.
Judge: This has taken you most of the day - that's £75. I'll award you the sum you seek plus £105 expenses. Are you happy with that?
Me: Thank you very much.
I know, call starry bra but it make me smile!
As I understand it if you're the defendant you can't get awarded costs if you win but if you're the plaintiff you can!Judge: How did you get here today?
Me: Bus. It cost me £1 each way.
Judge: If you had caught a taxi then how much would it have been?
Me: I don't know. £15?
Judge: Probably. I'm awarding you £30 travel costs. Now how much time have you spent here today?
Me: (Checks Watch) About an hour and a half. Can I claim for that?
Judge: If you spent a day here you could claim £75.
Me: Oh, My professional billing rate is about £275/hour. No matter, I'm working from home today so I'll make it up later.
Judge: This has taken you most of the day - that's £75. I'll award you the sum you seek plus £105 expenses. Are you happy with that?
Me: Thank you very much.
I know, call starry bra but it make me smile!
It's why there's so many chancers out there as once you've paid your court fees you've got nothing to lose, it can get to a point where it's not worth a defendant really trying hard to defend themselves.... I've had a few instances where my lawyer has said "xyz is your defence use it, but it's cheaper for you just to pay the guy than for me to leave the office to represent you as when you win you'd still have to pay my bill".
Marcellus said:
It's why there's so many chancers out there as once you've paid your court fees you've got nothing to lose
I did some research before taking a lawyer to small claims court. Just because your claim is small doesn't guarantee that it immediately gets allocated to the small claims court with the normal low risks.If the defendant counter claims for a chunky amount and there is complexity in considering the case then [a UK lawyer on youtube says that] the matter might be allocated to the normal court where costs escalate and are paid by the loser.
MB140 said:
Wasn’t there another case on here recently where some bloke sold a car to a bloke who put 3500 miles on it over a couple of months or to be more accurate a woman put 3500 miles on it after buying it off the man and then tried taking the original seller to small claims. It was summated they drove it around Europe for a couple of months and then tried demanding there money back when they had finished using it for some random tiny little fault on a car that cost a few grand to start with.
The whole thread smacked of why the f
k are you wasting the court and the sellers time.
Breadvan I would be interested in how these clearly ridiculous claims are even allowed to be started in the first place. Is there no checks and balances at the initial issue stage to make sure there clearly not a complete waste of everybodies time.
The case mentioned above it wasn’t even the person on the receipt as the buyer that started the proceedings against the seller. How can that even be allowed.
Sorry for hijacking the thread a little OP.
Isn't that in essense what small claims is. You make a claim and it's looked at by a judge who make judgement. The whole thread smacked of why the f
k are you wasting the court and the sellers time. Breadvan I would be interested in how these clearly ridiculous claims are even allowed to be started in the first place. Is there no checks and balances at the initial issue stage to make sure there clearly not a complete waste of everybodies time.
The case mentioned above it wasn’t even the person on the receipt as the buyer that started the proceedings against the seller. How can that even be allowed.
Sorry for hijacking the thread a little OP.
It's a very simple and efficient system.
98elise said:
Isn't that in essense what small claims is. You make a claim and it's looked at by a judge who make judgement.
It's a very simple and efficient system.
Yep, the problem I had with it was that it was a bloke who bought the car, he sold it to a woman and that woman took the original seller to court. It's a very simple and efficient system.
The bloke defending the case in small claims had never met or spoke to the woman taking him to court and hadn’t even sold the car to the woman.
My point/question was how are cases like this even allowed to get to court.
MB140 said:
98elise said:
Isn't that in essense what small claims is. You make a claim and it's looked at by a judge who make judgement.
It's a very simple and efficient system.
Yep, the problem I had with it was that it was a bloke who bought the car, he sold it to a woman and that woman took the original seller to court. It's a very simple and efficient system.
The bloke defending the case in small claims had never met or spoke to the woman taking him to court and hadn’t even sold the car to the woman.
My point/question was how are cases like this even allowed to get to court.
Answer. there is a clue in the word 'judge'.
Open access to courts is a cardinal principle of an open society. A manifestly weak case may be struck out before trial, but very strained judicial resources mean that at the bottom end of the civil justice system it is just as quick and resource-efficient to proceed with a brief hearing rather than engage in interlocutory debate.
For some claims, such as applications for judicial review of administrative action, permission to apply must be obtained from a Judge who sifts out weak applications.
A litigant who repeatedly makes weak applications in a particular dispute may be subject to a civil restraint order. A more generally vexatious litigant may, on the application of the Attorney General, be made subject to a more general restriction. The effect of such restrictions is that the person in question needs the prior permission of a judge to make an application or issue a claim.
More generally, orders for costs act as a disciplining process in litigation, but at the small claims level costs orders are rare.
For some claims, such as applications for judicial review of administrative action, permission to apply must be obtained from a Judge who sifts out weak applications.
A litigant who repeatedly makes weak applications in a particular dispute may be subject to a civil restraint order. A more generally vexatious litigant may, on the application of the Attorney General, be made subject to a more general restriction. The effect of such restrictions is that the person in question needs the prior permission of a judge to make an application or issue a claim.
More generally, orders for costs act as a disciplining process in litigation, but at the small claims level costs orders are rare.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th June 13:35
MB140 said:
98elise said:
Isn't that in essense what small claims is. You make a claim and it's looked at by a judge who make judgement.
It's a very simple and efficient system.
Yep, the problem I had with it was that it was a bloke who bought the car, he sold it to a woman and that woman took the original seller to court. It's a very simple and efficient system.
The bloke defending the case in small claims had never met or spoke to the woman taking him to court and hadn’t even sold the car to the woman.
My point/question was how are cases like this even allowed to get to court.
It's not actually held in a court, it's just you, them and the judge sitting in a room. The judge makes sure each gets their say, then makes a decision.
The judge will have already read the evidence and may well have pretty much decided what the outcome will be before either of you says a word.
I found it cheap efficient and fair.
Breadvan72 said:
The room you refer to is a Court. Small claims hearings are dealt with fairly informally, but are still court hearings.
Having never done small claims personally I had it my mind to be like a proper court room with stenographer court assistants etc and was thinking what a huge waste of time and cost it would be. Durzel said:
cologne2792 said:
We bought a diesel 406 with similar mileage and the seller pointed out just that. The biting point was very high and a little rumble from the DMF. When the car eventually died 100,000 miles and seven years later the biting point was still very high and the DMF vibrated just a tiny bit more.
Every car is different of course, and there's no reason a well treated car wouldn't last that long on one clutch, as yours did. I was speaking more in general terms - by and large a car with that high a mileage has a higher probability of clutch maladies imo.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff