Small claims court/solicitor question
Discussion
Can anyone help re a question about small claims court.
Brother in law.....electrician.
Did a job....customer refused to pay.
Bro in law saw solicitor...did small claim court thing.
Won.
But on the judgement there is no mention of legal fees (which come to the amount he was taking the customer to court for...900 quid).
He spoke to solicitor and the solicitor said he has to pay them himself!
Is this right?
Doesn't the loser pay the other's costs in such a case?
Has the solitor forgotten to claim the fees in the case etc?
(it was the solitor who handled the case).
Any advice/help appreciated.
Thanks.
>> Edited by pm99 on Monday 13th February 10:43
Brother in law.....electrician.
Did a job....customer refused to pay.
Bro in law saw solicitor...did small claim court thing.
Won.
But on the judgement there is no mention of legal fees (which come to the amount he was taking the customer to court for...900 quid).
He spoke to solicitor and the solicitor said he has to pay them himself!
Is this right?
Doesn't the loser pay the other's costs in such a case?
Has the solitor forgotten to claim the fees in the case etc?
(it was the solitor who handled the case).
Any advice/help appreciated.
Thanks.
>> Edited by pm99 on Monday 13th February 10:43
The small claims track has very little ability (virtually nil) to claim back the winners costs (and in general outside of small claims you'd be lucky to see 75% recovery of fees these days). This should have been clearly explained by the solicitor at the outset of any litigation.
There should have been a client care (rule 15) letter at the beginning which set out the hourly rates, any likely disbursements and any costs estimate/cap etc. If the solicitor failed to do that the Law Society's approach is that it is very difficult for the solicitor to enforce payment of his bill.
There should have been a client care (rule 15) letter at the beginning which set out the hourly rates, any likely disbursements and any costs estimate/cap etc. If the solicitor failed to do that the Law Society's approach is that it is very difficult for the solicitor to enforce payment of his bill.
Piglet said:
The small claims track has very little ability (virtually nil) to claim back the winners costs (and in general outside of small claims you'd be lucky to see 75% recovery of fees these days). This should have been clearly explained by the solicitor at the outset of any litigation.
There should have been a client care (rule 15) letter at the beginning which set out the hourly rates, any likely disbursements and any costs estimate/cap etc. If the solicitor failed to do that the Law Society's approach is that it is very difficult for the solicitor to enforce payment of his bill.
To clarify....
1) are you saying that in most cases costs are not awarded even if you win?
2) and that he should have received something in writing stating this fact?
Thanks for your help.
>> Edited by pm99 on Monday 13th February 11:26
pm99 said:
The small claims track has very little ability (virtually nil) to claim back the winners costs (and in general outside of small claims you'd be lucky to see 75% recovery of fees these days). This should have been clearly explained by the solicitor at the outset of any litigation.
There should have been a client care (rule 15) letter at the beginning which set out the hourly rates, any likely disbursements and any costs estimate/cap etc. If the solicitor failed to do that the Law Society's approach is that it is very difficult for the solicitor to enforce payment of his bill.
To clarify....
1) are you saying that in most cases costs are not awarded even if you win?
2) and that he should have received something in writing stating this fact?
Thanks for your help.
>> Edited by pm99 on Monday 13th February 11:26
Yes - 1) is different if it is fast or multi track rather than small claims but if this was small claims then there is virtually no recovery of costs (I think there are some provisions relating to travel costs or similar but not for legal costs).
This should have been made VERY clear to him upfront. Most small claims cases are not worth pursuing through a solicitor and when I did this kind of work it was something I stated very clearly to the client on a number of occasions and definatly in writing.
Piglet said:
The small claims track has very little ability (virtually nil) to claim back the winners costs (and in general outside of small claims you'd be lucky to see 75% recovery of fees these days). This should have been clearly explained by the solicitor at the outset of any litigation.
There should have been a client care (rule 15) letter at the beginning which set out the hourly rates, any likely disbursements and any costs estimate/cap etc. If the solicitor failed to do that the Law Society's approach is that it is very difficult for the solicitor to enforce payment of his bill.
To clarify....
1) are you saying that in most cases costs are not awarded even if you win?
2) and that he should have received something in writing stating this fact?
Thanks for your help.
>> Edited by pm99 on Monday 13th February 11:26
Yes - 1) is different if it is fast or multi track rather than small claims but if this was small claims then there is virtually no recovery of costs (I think there are some provisions relating to travel costs or similar but not for legal costs).
This should have been made VERY clear to him upfront. Most small claims cases are not worth pursuing through a solicitor and when I did this kind of work it was something I stated very clearly to the client on a number of occasions and definatly in writing.
Ok...thanks...in that case.....if he never received anything in writing stating this and in fact he reckons he was told that costs would be paid by the loser (but again nothing in writing)...is there a specific act/law, etc that he should point out to his solicitor regards this?
I'd be afraid that his solitor would just turn around and say...'rubbish...pay up..' etc and basically scare bro in law into paying anyways.
Obviously one route would be to get another solicitor...but at soem point you have to stop spending money.
Anyways...that's enough of these questions....i start to feel guilty that i'm eekign out a free consultation or something, etc!
>> Edited by pm99 on Monday 13th February 11:47
Tuska said:
Also, in my experience the fact that he has won does not mean the customer will pay. Its a fairly toothless system.
If someone refuses to pay though, they get a CCJ dont they? A CCJ is no big deal to some people, but for us decent folk who value our credit records, paying up to avoid the CCJ IS the reason most people end up paying, i think?
He needs to have a chat with the Law Society - the Solicitors Professional Conduct Rules state that a solicitor must confirm certain information to a client at the outset (Rule 15). This should also include the complaints procedure!
Their current view is that if this hasn't been done, it makes it very difficult for the solicitor to enforce his invoice.
Have a look here
www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing.law
Good luck!
(and yes, I didn't like to touch on the difficulties in getting a judgment enforced - has the customer actually paid?)
Their current view is that if this hasn't been done, it makes it very difficult for the solicitor to enforce his invoice.
Have a look here
www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing.law
Good luck!
(and yes, I didn't like to touch on the difficulties in getting a judgment enforced - has the customer actually paid?)
Parrot of Doom said:
Parties pay their own costs in the Small Claims Court.
Is that true?
Yep - the idea being that it avoids the risk of having to pay the winners costs if you lose so the risk of bringing litigation is avoided. The system is in theory designed to allow an individual to bring their own litigation without having to pay lawyers.
Piglet said:
He needs to have a chat with the Law Society - the Solicitors Professional Conduct Rules state that a solicitor must confirm certain information to a client at the outset (Rule 15). This should also include the complaints procedure!
Their current view is that if this hasn't been done, it makes it very difficult for the solicitor to enforce his invoice.
Have a look here
www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing.law
Good luck!
(and yes, I didn't like to touch on the difficulties in getting a judgment enforced - has the customer actually paid?)
Thanks alot for the great info....
No payment as yet.
And the guy has since retired.
So not sure if that is good news etc. 2 quid a month for how long?!
If he owns property you can get a charge over it - it's pretty straight foward - this often focuses their mind!
The court will be able to put you in touch with bailiffs and they can be quite helpful if letting you know some of the options.
He should have been clearly warned of the risk of winning but not being paid. Sounds to me like he's had a bum deal.
The court will be able to put you in touch with bailiffs and they can be quite helpful if letting you know some of the options.
He should have been clearly warned of the risk of winning but not being paid. Sounds to me like he's had a bum deal.
Piglet said:
Parties pay their own costs in the Small Claims Court.
Is that true?
Yep - the idea being that it avoids the risk of having to pay the winners costs if you lose so the risk of bringing litigation is avoided. The system is in theory designed to allow an individual to bring their own litigation without having to pay lawyers.
Good, because I owe a company £35 - not paid it for extremely poor service. I posted here a while back, but if its correct that it'll cost him more than he'll gain by winning, then I think I'll forget about it.
Thanks piglet, this has been very helpful to me too.
I have a relative who had a solicitor act on her behalf and wouldn't give her an estimate of costs, despite her asking on numerous occasions. So she was a little shocked when he recently told her she was up to £10k and they still haven't come to a complete resolution with the other side, could take a few more months and £xxxx?? the solicitor said.
I have a relative who had a solicitor act on her behalf and wouldn't give her an estimate of costs, despite her asking on numerous occasions. So she was a little shocked when he recently told her she was up to £10k and they still haven't come to a complete resolution with the other side, could take a few more months and £xxxx?? the solicitor said.
If you make a claim through HMCS' Money Claim Online then you can add your legal fees onto the claim amount so that, effectively, if you win you get your costs back.
Can't comment on Small Claims, but I think Piglet has already answered that anyway.
Can't comment on Small Claims, but I think Piglet has already answered that anyway.
UKbob said:
Also, in my experience the fact that he has won does not mean the customer will pay. Its a fairly toothless system.
If someone refuses to pay though, they get a CCJ dont they? A CCJ is no big deal to some people, but for us decent folk who value our credit records, paying up to avoid the CCJ IS the reason most people end up paying, i think?
I agree that the avoidance of CCJ is the reason you expect people to pay up, but in my experience the people who are willing to go this far either CANT pay or WONT pay.
The CANTS will plead poverty and be asked to pay a fiver a week. This will stop after 3 payments and you have to go back to court for further enforcement.
The WONTS may have a legitimate beef with the work done or service provided but more often than not are just scum who also wont care about a CCJ.
My tactic in the past has been to type up my own small claims form and POST date it by a week. I then send a photocopy to the debtor (recorded delivery) stating that if he doesnt pay within those seven days then i will submit the form to the court. On the form i add costs and interest to bump the amount up. Most pay straight away. Those that CANT pay come on and plead poverty to me, which allows me to do a deal (which at least may cover my costs). Those that WONT pay i forget about and put down to experience. At least it hasn't cost me any more. The form is never submitted either way.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff