You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I’m being taken to a small claims court over a disputed sum of money. Obviously both parties think they are right, and I’m happy to pay up if I’m found to be in the wrong, but it doesn’t appear to be as simple as if I lose to say ‘Fair enough judge, here’s the money. No hard feelings’. As far as I can see, who wins will be a subjective decision based on the interpretation of the meaning of ‘unreasonable’, so it could go either way, or one of the sides will have done something to fall foul of an obscure legal trap and have to pay.
Have I anything to lose, other than the disputed sum, by defending the claim. What are the implications of losing – a ‘judgement’ against me [CCJ?], bad credit reference, etc.
At what stage in the process does the action get recorded against me, i.e. how far can I fight it until it has ‘implications’. The sum involved doesn’t warrant a bad credit rating, etc.
[E.g. we’ve just had an unrelated insurance form to fill in and it asks about CCJ’s and current and pending cases].
I’m seriously thinking of paying the money to the other party and then starting a small claims against them.
Is it better to be the claimant or the defendant?
You only get a ccj if the case goes against you and you don't pay.
I'm not sure about having a judgement against you if you have to declare it.
Take all documentation, correspondence and any other details you have over the dispute. Have them organised and ready for the judge to look at. It's usually just a case of hearing both sides of the argument and reaching an agreement. Don't be smart or awkward and just state the case as you see it, if you wanted a compromise agreement then make it known at the start. Solicitors in a small claims aren't welcome by the judge as the small claims is designed to quick and cheap.
Have you counterclaimed?
Or are you just denying the debt.
You probably need to be a bit more specific regarding what it's over, supply of goods or services subsequently defective?
It's better to be neither defendant nor claimant, it's better to sort it out between you.
If he gets judgement you can say you'll pay at 50p a week and drag it out forever.
If he loses, he gets nothing, perhaps better settle for less in a negotiated settlement on the court steps so to speak.
You appear to feel you owe something, but not as much as asked in which case you could lose. Value isn't part of the law, the law just wants to decide wether it's been broken, i.e. a contractual agreement dishonoured.
The sum involved doesn’t warrant a bad credit rating, etc
If you can afford it and you're dragging this out because you're pig headed/principled then it may be easier paying up because in my experience it's who's face fits on the day unless there is a blatant breach of a black or white contract.
if you lose and pay within 7 days the CCJ isn't registered, but pay on the day to prevent the court admin from 'forgetting about it' because once it's registered you've no hope of getting credit even with a certificate of satisfaction.
Your issues on losing will be:
1) Paying their costs, which while limited could still be significant.
2) If you do not pay the costs and the sum owed in 30 days then you get a CCJ. (edit - above it says 7 days, I can't remember, but best to check with the judge. I paid mine in cash under his beak to the claimant as I didn't trust them)
3) Wishing you hadn't bothered fighting as the costs are nearly as much as the original sum owed..
I've been to small claims a few times and lost when I thought I would win, and won when I had been convinced by an experienced lawyer that I was going to lose..
Some good info. Thanks.
The matter is a transaction which has gone sour, I was the purchaser, they were the seller. A 'fee' was payable by me if the deal went sour, except if they were at fault - the word 'unreasonable' was used in the agreement. I honestly think they have been unreasonable, they think they haven't - solicitors aren't giving guidance, so it appears that small claims is the only way to settle it. They don't appear to be interested in negotiating.
I accept that I may be told my expectations of reasonableness are to high - this is what I thought our respective solicitors would decide, but it didn't work out like that.
Plus, the agreement started out flawed, was 'clarified' during the process and the sellers are now not recognising the later 'clarifications'. You couldn't make it up.
It's not that I feel I owe something, more that I accept I could lose as it's not a cut and dry, yes or no, situation.
It sounds like there are no lasting effects if I were to lose and pay up, so the issues toys19 raises need thinking about, plus the time and effort I'll have to put in getting my 'defence' together.
Thanks again.
it's exceptional to be awarded cost in a SCC.....
If you lose the judge normally awards each party to cover their own costs. It depends on the figure, someone must have brought this to court and put a figure on what they are suing for. You don't to to SCC for honour only money.
it's exceptional to be awarded cost in a SCC.....If you lose the judge normally awards each party to cover their own costs.
I find this contrary to my experience,and contrary to all the advice I've ever been given, by lawyers, barristers, court staff, the small claims court website.
In fact if your assertion were true I can see it undermining the whole legal system.
I would ask how you know this golden nugget?
+1 loser pays IME, but the sums aren't huge. that's the whole point really, to get a dispute settled quickly and easily so folk don't resort to doing it 'another way'. you will be urged to come to agreement before it actually goes to court, but you can have your day if you want it to go that way. good luck.
oh, and FWIW, i had to pay, despite a couple of solicitors telling me i had solid grounds for not doing so. i have faith in the legal system, it's just solicitors i can't abide now...
The problem with SCC is that the " judge" isn't one.
Have a look on www.consumeractiongroup.com
There should be info on costs and so on on the net. costs are limited and small - you will not have to end up paying thousands for their lawyers - they will not get that money back. The whole point of small claims is that its supposed to be able to be done without lawyers to keep costs down.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/small_claims.htm