Change in county court location
Discussion
Any tips or recommendations on how to approach the courts to obtain a change in location.
I bought an electric bike last year (yes I know they are lazy and not very PH but it was 9000w and would exceed 40mph on the private land around our house!). Well after 60 miles it catostrophically failed (mechanical failure severing the main electrical cables!) and the online seller refused any help. I therefore took it to a local electric bike shop who said the bike was not built properly and was potentially dangerous - not fit for purpose and unsafe to use!. They also asked another frame builder to inspect who confirmed the original technician's view.
I therefore made a requested for a refund which was rejected so made a Moneyclaim. I am comfortable with the claim/case given the background but as the online retailer is an individual and not a company the case has been allocated to his local court which is at the other end of the country. I fully accept that there are always 2 views to a situation and that one of us needs to travel and will be able to recover (some of) their costs but was hoping that it could be local to me (and the bike or paperweight as I now call it!) and therefore the specialist could also attend (the local court is just around the corner). I doubt they will want to travel - they have already provided me with a written report which should be sufficient.
I am prepared to travel to present my case (although frustrated I need to given the facts) but I am going to ask the court to consider the location so the specialist can join me but wonder if anyone can provide any suggestions/advice on which angle to approach them with to increase my chances of moving.
The claim has just been transferred to the defendants local court for allocation.
Thanks in advance.
I bought an electric bike last year (yes I know they are lazy and not very PH but it was 9000w and would exceed 40mph on the private land around our house!). Well after 60 miles it catostrophically failed (mechanical failure severing the main electrical cables!) and the online seller refused any help. I therefore took it to a local electric bike shop who said the bike was not built properly and was potentially dangerous - not fit for purpose and unsafe to use!. They also asked another frame builder to inspect who confirmed the original technician's view.
I therefore made a requested for a refund which was rejected so made a Moneyclaim. I am comfortable with the claim/case given the background but as the online retailer is an individual and not a company the case has been allocated to his local court which is at the other end of the country. I fully accept that there are always 2 views to a situation and that one of us needs to travel and will be able to recover (some of) their costs but was hoping that it could be local to me (and the bike or paperweight as I now call it!) and therefore the specialist could also attend (the local court is just around the corner). I doubt they will want to travel - they have already provided me with a written report which should be sufficient.
I am prepared to travel to present my case (although frustrated I need to given the facts) but I am going to ask the court to consider the location so the specialist can join me but wonder if anyone can provide any suggestions/advice on which angle to approach them with to increase my chances of moving.
The claim has just been transferred to the defendants local court for allocation.
Thanks in advance.
You could try arguing that it would be disproportionate, given the amount at stake, for your third party witness to be expected to travel to the distant court. How large or small is the business that you are suing? If the seller is a small business, the relative inconvenience may be much the same on both sides.
It sounds like the seller is a private individual and not a business? Is he a sole trader? Does his online presence suggest a business enterprise or is it literally a Facebook marketplace store or something?
Playing Devil’s Advocate - he’s the one who has to do all of the work defending the case lest he get a CCJ, with a potentially significant legal expense if he chooses to instruct counsel that he won’t be able to recover in small claims court. Why should he be the one who also has to travel across the country to defend himself?
EDIT: Did you both decline mediation?
Playing Devil’s Advocate - he’s the one who has to do all of the work defending the case lest he get a CCJ, with a potentially significant legal expense if he chooses to instruct counsel that he won’t be able to recover in small claims court. Why should he be the one who also has to travel across the country to defend himself?
EDIT: Did you both decline mediation?
Edited by Durzel on Monday 14th October 07:47
Trials whether Small Claims or Fast Track cannot be done vie conference call.
The claim is almost always transferred to the Defendant's home Court if they request it. This is due to the fact that they didn't request that proceedings are issued against them so the Court system makes it more convenient for the Defendant.
If this is a Small Claim, have you asked the Court for permission to rely on expert evidence? Is it CPR Part 35 compliant?
The claim is almost always transferred to the Defendant's home Court if they request it. This is due to the fact that they didn't request that proceedings are issued against them so the Court system makes it more convenient for the Defendant.
If this is a Small Claim, have you asked the Court for permission to rely on expert evidence? Is it CPR Part 35 compliant?
Thanks - I have already declined mediation as the seller had not engaged in any meaningful dialogue before I took action and basically I lost any trust that he would do the right thing.
After I began proceedings he then decided he had been hasty in declining any warranty work and wanted me to return the bike to him at my cost (It is very heavy and at other end of the country) where he would inspect and if the damage was down to him he would then repair - it was already at a local specialist at this time. He also offered me a settlement but that was significantly below the price I paid and again I had to return the bike at my own cost before he would inspect. I refused although did counter that he could collect the bike after he settled with his offer price - he ignored me.
Whilst I originally ask for warranty repair this is no longer an acceptable option to me as 2 experts have concluded that the design/build of the bike was just not safe so a repair would not resolve this. I therefore rejected the bike under CRA and asked for a full refund and it is on this basis that I made the claim. He has continued to refuse making all sorts of excuses and misleading claims including in his defence. I clearly don't want an unsafe electric bike - it probably wants destroying or returning to be broken for parts.
I have the specialists brief report in writing (which was referred to and included with my allocation questionnaire) which clearly states that the bike is dangerous for a number of provided reasons (and hence I have not had it repaired or used since). But clearly I would prefer them to attend in person as I am sure they would add more credibility in person. I also added them as a witness to the questionnaire.
I will write to the court once allocated but quite prepared to travel as I am not going to let the seller get away with ignoring his responsibilities and I don't want a dangerous bike. I can always ask the specialist to add further detail to his report if necessary.
It is frustrating that I have been sold an expensive bike yet have to travel to the other end of the country to get my money back when it is clearly not fit for purpose - the seller appears to have decent credentials but it is clear from our correspondence that this particular model has issues with design and sub-standard parts. The bike failed within a very limited period of use and has a number of other potentially dangerous design/build issues as confirmed by the failure itself and the specialist review.
It could have been worse and someone could have been injured but fortunately not. I will update once allocated.
After I began proceedings he then decided he had been hasty in declining any warranty work and wanted me to return the bike to him at my cost (It is very heavy and at other end of the country) where he would inspect and if the damage was down to him he would then repair - it was already at a local specialist at this time. He also offered me a settlement but that was significantly below the price I paid and again I had to return the bike at my own cost before he would inspect. I refused although did counter that he could collect the bike after he settled with his offer price - he ignored me.
Whilst I originally ask for warranty repair this is no longer an acceptable option to me as 2 experts have concluded that the design/build of the bike was just not safe so a repair would not resolve this. I therefore rejected the bike under CRA and asked for a full refund and it is on this basis that I made the claim. He has continued to refuse making all sorts of excuses and misleading claims including in his defence. I clearly don't want an unsafe electric bike - it probably wants destroying or returning to be broken for parts.
I have the specialists brief report in writing (which was referred to and included with my allocation questionnaire) which clearly states that the bike is dangerous for a number of provided reasons (and hence I have not had it repaired or used since). But clearly I would prefer them to attend in person as I am sure they would add more credibility in person. I also added them as a witness to the questionnaire.
I will write to the court once allocated but quite prepared to travel as I am not going to let the seller get away with ignoring his responsibilities and I don't want a dangerous bike. I can always ask the specialist to add further detail to his report if necessary.
It is frustrating that I have been sold an expensive bike yet have to travel to the other end of the country to get my money back when it is clearly not fit for purpose - the seller appears to have decent credentials but it is clear from our correspondence that this particular model has issues with design and sub-standard parts. The bike failed within a very limited period of use and has a number of other potentially dangerous design/build issues as confirmed by the failure itself and the specialist review.
It could have been worse and someone could have been injured but fortunately not. I will update once allocated.
IANAL but a judge will look at the case in terms of how reasonable the parties have been. Declining formal mediation - even if your position is resolute - is not a good sign. Nor is declining a settlement that might be considered reasonable. Judges will look at the conduct of both parties and consider whether either or both have made an effort to avoid it getting to court, and that may weigh on a decision.
What you think you're entitled to vs what a court thinks is reasonable might be some distance apart.
In terms of fitness for purpose - I suspect this won't be a slam dunk either. I bought a mini quad for my niece some time ago, it cost a relatively small amount of money and broke down after a few sessions. I took it to a local bike shop and they basically said it was "Chinese made crap". A correspondingly "British" (so by definition amazing and guaranteed never to break I suspect) quad would have cost significantly more.
My point with this is expectations, design and build are somewhat nebulous concepts and will be price driven in many circumstances. Is the bike manifestly unsafe, or does it just not have as many safeguards as other more expensive bikes? The fact you did 60 miles on it without being fried suggests it is not manifestly unsafe.
The above all said if you have a report from a credible expert that says the bike is objectively unsafe, then perhaps you have a strong case. I don't think it will be as slam dunk as you might perhaps think it is though, ending up before a judge never is.
What you think you're entitled to vs what a court thinks is reasonable might be some distance apart.
In terms of fitness for purpose - I suspect this won't be a slam dunk either. I bought a mini quad for my niece some time ago, it cost a relatively small amount of money and broke down after a few sessions. I took it to a local bike shop and they basically said it was "Chinese made crap". A correspondingly "British" (so by definition amazing and guaranteed never to break I suspect) quad would have cost significantly more.
My point with this is expectations, design and build are somewhat nebulous concepts and will be price driven in many circumstances. Is the bike manifestly unsafe, or does it just not have as many safeguards as other more expensive bikes? The fact you did 60 miles on it without being fried suggests it is not manifestly unsafe.
The above all said if you have a report from a credible expert that says the bike is objectively unsafe, then perhaps you have a strong case. I don't think it will be as slam dunk as you might perhaps think it is though, ending up before a judge never is.
Fully understand the point on mediation. Also on the reasonable point but the defendant refused to engage prior to legal action and only made unreasonable offers afterwards. Court paperwork was very clear that the mediation decision would in no way affect the court process and was purely voluntary. I also offer to settle which was ignored so quite happy to demonstrate how reasonable I have been.
The bike is manifestly unsafe which is supported by the specialist report - risk of the rear wheel/hub failing (bad design and can't really be repair - wrong frame/hub combination) and coming off and risk of electrocution!
I believe this is both a breach of the CRA and also the Bike Safety Regulations so should hopefully have the law on my side although accept that in the small claims court it could be down to the judge on the day and nothing is certain.
However if I lose I still have the bike and just need to cover the costs which is a risk I am quite prepared to take. I have written the bike off in my own mind already.
The bike is manifestly unsafe which is supported by the specialist report - risk of the rear wheel/hub failing (bad design and can't really be repair - wrong frame/hub combination) and coming off and risk of electrocution!
I believe this is both a breach of the CRA and also the Bike Safety Regulations so should hopefully have the law on my side although accept that in the small claims court it could be down to the judge on the day and nothing is certain.
However if I lose I still have the bike and just need to cover the costs which is a risk I am quite prepared to take. I have written the bike off in my own mind already.
CarbonV12V said:
Fully understand the point on mediation. Also on the reasonable point but the defendant refused to engage prior to legal action and only made unreasonable offers afterwards. Court paperwork was very clear that the mediation decision would in no way affect the court process and was purely voluntary. I also offer to settle which was ignored so quite happy to demonstrate how reasonable I have been.
The bike is manifestly unsafe which is supported by the specialist report - risk of the rear wheel/hub failing (bad design and can't really be repair - wrong frame/hub combination) and coming off and risk of electrocution!
I believe this is both a breach of the CRA and also the Bike Safety Regulations so should hopefully have the law on my side although accept that in the small claims court it could be down to the judge on the day and nothing is certain.
However if I lose I still have the bike and just need to cover the costs which is a risk I am quite prepared to take. I have written the bike off in my own mind already.
The Judge will still follow the law and if the product is defective you will prevail. I assume you have a report from the repair shop? That will most likely seal the case for you. Claim all reasonable travel costs and loss of earnings. Take a pay slip. You may not get much though. The defendant is banking on you not turning up. Good luckThe bike is manifestly unsafe which is supported by the specialist report - risk of the rear wheel/hub failing (bad design and can't really be repair - wrong frame/hub combination) and coming off and risk of electrocution!
I believe this is both a breach of the CRA and also the Bike Safety Regulations so should hopefully have the law on my side although accept that in the small claims court it could be down to the judge on the day and nothing is certain.
However if I lose I still have the bike and just need to cover the costs which is a risk I am quite prepared to take. I have written the bike off in my own mind already.
CarbonV12V said:
Fully understand the point on mediation. Also on the reasonable point but the defendant refused to engage prior to legal action and only made unreasonable offers afterwards. Court paperwork was very clear that the mediation decision would in no way affect the court process and was purely voluntary.
You don’t have to agree to any proposal put forward in mediation. You can go into it not expecting to alter your position. The key thing is to appear at the very least to be trying to avoid court.It sounds counter-intuitive but a solicitor would’ve advised you to agree to mediation for this reason, regardless of how strong your case is. Courts take a dim view of uncooperative litigants.
agtlaw said:
Burwood said:
Claim ... loss of earnings.
Limited to £95 per day due to attending court or staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing.Do not go to a mediation expecting not to alter your position. Take off your War face and go with an open mind, seeking a deal.
Once on a big snow day some people travelled with difficulty from Stuttgart to a mediation in London just so that they could say “f
k off” to my side, but that sort of mediation should be rare. My lot subsequently lost at trial but won on appeal. The case should have settled.
Once on a big snow day some people travelled with difficulty from Stuttgart to a mediation in London just so that they could say “f
k off” to my side, but that sort of mediation should be rare. My lot subsequently lost at trial but won on appeal. The case should have settled.Breadvan72 said:
Do not go to a mediation expecting not to alter your position. Take off your War face and go with an open mind, seeking a deal.
Once on a big snow day some people travelled with difficulty from Stuttgart to a mediation in London just so that they could say “fk off” to my side, but that sort of mediation should be rare. My lot subsequently lost at trial but won on appeal. The case should have settled.
Mediation on the MCOL service is done over the telephone, not in person. Neither litigant speaks to eachother, the mediator speaks to both parties and puts eachothers points across. Importantly if no agreement is reached the matter proceeds to court with the contents of that mediation call being inadmissable in court.Once on a big snow day some people travelled with difficulty from Stuttgart to a mediation in London just so that they could say “f
k off” to my side, but that sort of mediation should be rare. My lot subsequently lost at trial but won on appeal. The case should have settled.Obviously you know a lot more about this, but if one party believes the other has an unwinnable case, and is essentially just trying to force a "lesser of two evils" payout through bringing a spurious case that they know will cost a significant sum to defend with no ability to recover costs, then surely that party has every right to merely pay lip service to mediation, don't they? Why should someone settle a completely vexatious claim?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff