Small claims court

[Whereditgo]

Does anyone have any experience of using this? I don’t really want to go into specifics on a public forum, but if anyone could throw some light on any of the queries below it could be helpful:

Is there risk of counter claim for costs in the event the court rejects your claim?

Can the decision be appealed?

Does the court only make a decision on the full amount disputed, or can they reduce the liability?

Is it worthwhile, or even permissible, to have legal representation to submit your claim and represent you at any hearing?

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Does anyone have any experience of using this? I don’t really want to go into specifics on a public forum, but if anyone could throw some light on any of the queries below it could be helpful:

Is there risk of counter claim for costs in the event the court rejects your claim?

Can the decision be appealed?

Does the court only make a decision on the full amount disputed, or can they reduce the liability?

Is it worthwhile, or even permissible, to have legal representation to submit your claim and represent you at any hearing?

1, Yes if you lose your case, costs can be awarded, but the whole purpose of a small claims court is that costs are kept low
Someone could claim for a days lost earnings, etc

2, You can only appeal against a small claims court ruling, if there has been an irregularity or you believe a mistake in law has been made,
if you just dont agree with the decision, then it goes to the court up the food chain, and thats where costs start to rise.

3, The court can award what it thinks is fit, this may or may not be the full sum of your claim

4, Yes you can appoint a brief to represent you, again this will cost and there is no guarantee the court will award additional costs , so you may win, but have to pay out a big chunk for legal representation

The whole point of the system is to try and avoid long and costly litigation, quick settlement of a dispute is the principle here

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I can't better Fragger's post but I would emphasise his last point. The whole concept is designed to be quick and inexpensive. We have used it at work, successfully, and it was very painless. Saying that, our cases were clear cut. The point is though, it shouldn't be expensive unless you make it so.

 

[RichA]

If it's a consumer v trader issue, then it's worth finding out if the other party will engage in alternative dispute resolution. Even less time and cost than small claims and if you've suggested and they've declined then it's 1-0 to you for trying, when you get to court.

 

[DanFST]

If they are a dodgy outfit, you won't ever be able to recover the funds.

 

[Whereditgo]

Thanks for the responses guys.

It's not quite as simple as consumer vs trader unfortunately.

There have been attempts to resolve the dispute, however the other party denies the debt and have threatened to counter claim with their legal costs if the matter is taken further.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

what proof do you have that the debt exists?

 

[Whereditgo]

what proof do you have that the debt exists?

I'll respond to that by pm.......

 

[KenL]

Have you considered Judge Rinder? ?

 

[chrisd]

Fraggers post is really informative and quite correct. I'd not be frightened off if you're sure of your case, I did several cases and won most. The key is being able to properly present your case, the judge will obviously consider any legal doctrine but he/she is able to find in favour of the person who they believe to be the most truthful on the day as most cases are contested with no witnesses . If you win, have an ask for costs, I once faced a barrister when I took MFI to court, she argued against costs but I did get my days work paid for as I said I'd taken a days holiday to attend.

Good luck

 

[Whereditgo]

Fraggers post is really informative and quite correct. I'd not be frightened off if you're sure of your case, I did several cases and won most. The key is being able to properly present your case, the judge will obviously consider any legal doctrine but he/she is able to find in favour of the person who they believe to be the most truthful on the day as most cases are contested with no witnesses . If you win, have an ask for costs, I once faced a barrister when I took MFI to court, she argued against costs but I did get my days work paid for as I said I'd taken a days holiday to attend.

Good luck

Morally we are 100% sure of our case, however, the main piece of evidence may not have been worded correctly (in legalese). Hence my questions regarding the potential for costs being awarded against. The other side have threatened to counter claim with their legal costs should we proceed.

 

[Neilds]

Morally we are 100% sure of our case, however, the main piece of evidence may not have been worded correctly (in legalese). Hence my questions regarding the potential for costs being awarded against. The other side have threatened to counter claim with their legal costs should we proceed.

Sometimes it is better to put it down to experience and walk away - if you can afford to. If it gets messy and lawyers get involved, only one side will come out with the money and it wouldn’t be either claimant

 

[jim8flog]

One thing, winning in court does not necessarily mean you will get paid.

It may take further action involving debt recovery agents, bailiffs and or high court sheriffs.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

One thing, winning in court does not necessarily mean you will get paid.

It may take further action involving debt recovery agents, bailiffs and or high court sheriffs.

Those costs should be recoverable though, assuming the person/company doesn't go into bankruptcy.

 

[rulefan]

This may be of help
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

 

[Whereditgo]

Sometimes it is better to put it down to experience and walk away - if you can afford to. If it gets messy and lawyers get involved, only one side will come out with the money and it wouldn’t be either claimant

Hence exploring the small claims court route. Which obviously indicates it's not a 'life changing' amount, but it is towards the top end of what can be dealt with in the small claims courts

 

[chrisd]

Morally we are 100% sure of our case, however, the main piece of evidence may not have been worded correctly (in legalese). Hence my questions regarding the potential for costs being awarded against. The other side have threatened to counter claim with their legal costs should we proceed.

Costs against will be a possibility, but generally low and dependant on the details of the case. If you lose you will not get the costs of issue of the summons etc etc but you do need to look at your case and whether you have a REAL case to present to the court. I can only see the judge awarding high costs if he/she were to deem your case vexatious, and only you know whether it is or not. Legalese is not necessary, the small claims court is meant for non legal people to resolve arguments and the judge will not expect you to act like a solicitor. The judge will decide the case on its merits, he is not (as far as I can remember) bound by evidence as these cases are your word against theirs. It is important to send vopies of everything you will rely on in court to the defendant.

 

[Mike79]

Check if you have legal protection with your home insurance - if you do you can get some advice from a solicitor through your insurance co.