Procedures and an incompetent defendant

[Ian Jackson]

I recently made a claim against what seems to be a smallish UK company
in Liverpool. Goods not as described. My claim was for: price
originally paid (L28); anticipated return postage (L4); court fee
(MCOL - L25); fixed commencement costs (L33). (Rather than sending
the goods back immediately, in my claim I undertook to send the goods
back if paid; this is because they didn't clearly state the address to
use and authorise the return; some companies still reject all
unanticipated deliveries.)

They have admitted the price originally paid (L28) and sent a cheque
for that amount.

Their defence for the remainder is (omitting irrelevancies):
- they tried to phone me up several times
- they tried to refund to my credit card but it had expired
They say don't intend to pay any court fees etc.

I may be able to collect some evidence to refute (a). Re (b) it is
true that my credit card had expired by the time of my claim (but not
by the time of my original rejection email) but that is hardly an
excuse.

Their defence encloses a copy of my detailed particulars of claim,
which I served separately. I think from looking at it that it is the
very copy I sent them so they probably haven't got a copy any more.
They're obviously muppets. I suspect that they may not have sent
their part admission and part defence to the court.

I want to avoid wasted effort, pointless hearings, etc. I intend to:

* Send a copy of their defence form to the court
* Bank their cheque
* Post the goods back (I will have to guess at the delivery address;
my original rejection email asked for them to confirm the address)
* Post them back another copy of the particulars of claim so
they can't claim they were confused and didn't have it

* All of this with a cover letter warning them that they are onto a
hiding to nothing and that if this goes to a hearing and the judge
agrees with me it will just add to the `fees' which they are
trying to get out of paying.

Questions which seem to arise:

* Is any of the above a bad idea and am I missing anything ?

* Me travelling to Liverpool for a hearing (assuming it gets
transferred to their court) seems disproportionate. Can I
suggest (eg in an allocation questionnaire) that I would like
the matter dealt with by telephone ?

* Is that wise, given that the main part of the dispute is going to
be about whether I, or they, made proper efforts to settle before
litigation ? I anticipate that they might want to claim to the
judge that I didn't in fact send the emails I did, or that my paper
letter before claim didn't reach them.

* Is the judge going to be sympathetic to "we tried phoning up"
(supposing he believes it) as a defence to a claim whose disputed
part is now for court fees and postage ?

* If I do have to travel to Liverpool I'm bloody well going to do it
and try to get opponents to pay for my fare. My view is that they
deliberately ignored me, and were hoping I would go away, until I
sued.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

[Norman Wells]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:e4x*8C...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

It's ALL totally disproportionate. Making expensive legal claims over something so
small is not only a waste of your time but the court's as well. And now the
defendants have got you hopping all over the place dancing to their tune, trying to
prove this, establish that, attend hearings etc etc.

You should never have started your claim in the first place but written it off to
experience if and when it was clear you weren't going to get anywhere. You should
now swallow your pride and abandon it, writing it off to even more experience,
resolving if you can not to get in this position again.

You may win if you continue, I don't know, but it will cost you far more in time and
effort than it's worth.

[The Todal]

It should already have gone to the court and you can assume it has. You
could phone the court to check (if you can get through to any sentient
life form at the Money Claims Centre). If they haven't sent it to the
court a better strategy would be to apply for judgment.


> * Bank their cheque

Fine

> * Post the goods back (I will have to guess at the delivery address;
> my original rejection email asked for them to confirm the address)

I don't think that really makes any difference to your claim. I'd be
inclined to ask them whether they intend to collect the goods or whether
they can send you a prepaid postal label.

> * Post them back another copy of the particulars of claim so
> they can't claim they were confused and didn't have it

No need.

>
> * All of this with a cover letter warning them that they are onto a
> hiding to nothing and that if this goes to a hearing and the judge
> agrees with me it will just add to the `fees' which they are
> trying to get out of paying.

No need.

They will be aware already that it will cost them more to defend the
claim than to pay up. They may be hoping that a judge will rule in their
favour without the need for any hearing. That isn't likely to happen. If
anything he'd be more likely to give summary judgment in your favour.
Next step, you'll be ordered to file directions questionnares. Many
litigants in person bungle this step by getting intimidated by the form
and failing to submit it in time. If that happens you'll get summary
judgment in your favour. Let them gradually work out for themselves that
if they pay a solicitor to help them it will cost them more than the sum
you're claiming.

>
> Questions which seem to arise:
>
> * Is any of the above a bad idea and am I missing anything ?
>
> * Me travelling to Liverpool for a hearing (assuming it gets
> transferred to their court) seems disproportionate. Can I
> suggest (eg in an allocation questionnaire) that I would like
> the matter dealt with by telephone ?

You can ask for a hearing to be by telephone. Only an interlocutory
hearing, not a trial/disposal hearing.

Ask on your directions questionnaire for the case to be heard at your
local court. You may get lucky.

>
> * Is that wise, given that the main part of the dispute is going to
> be about whether I, or they, made proper efforts to settle before
> litigation ? I anticipate that they might want to claim to the
> judge that I didn't in fact send the emails I did, or that my paper
> letter before claim didn't reach them.

You can, long before trial, get them to disclose all documents on which
they rely including correspondence with you.

>
> * Is the judge going to be sympathetic to "we tried phoning up"
> (supposing he believes it) as a defence to a claim whose disputed
> part is now for court fees and postage ?

No, probably not.

>
> * If I do have to travel to Liverpool I'm bloody well going to do it
> and try to get opponents to pay for my fare. My view is that they
> deliberately ignored me, and were hoping I would go away, until I
> sued.
>

Quite so - I'd do the same. And it will cost them more than it costs you
anyway - whether in lawyers' fees, or the time spent by an employee who
is diverted from his normal work.

[The Todal]

On 05/09/2015 09:19, Norman Wells wrote:

>
> It's ALL totally disproportionate. Making expensive legal claims over
> something so small is not only a waste of your time but the court's as
> well. And now the defendants have got you hopping all over the place
> dancing to their tune, trying to prove this, establish that, attend
> hearings etc etc.
>
> You should never have started your claim in the first place but written
> it off to experience if and when it was clear you weren't going to get
> anywhere. You should now swallow your pride and abandon it, writing it
> off to even more experience, resolving if you can not to get in this
> position again.
>
> You may win if you continue, I don't know, but it will cost you far more
> in time and effort than it's worth.

Joshua/WOPR: Greetings, Professor Falken.
Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
Joshua/WOPR: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How
about a nice game of chess?

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:19:29 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>It's ALL totally disproportionate. Making expensive legal claims over something so
>small is not only a waste of your time but the court's as well. And now the
>defendants have got you hopping all over the place dancing to their tune, trying to
>prove this, establish that, attend hearings etc etc.

I entirely disagree. Small sums of money are precisely what MCOL is
designed for. If Ian wins it will cost him nothing, and yet cost the
supplier considerably more than it would have cost them to admit their
fault and accept their obligations under SoGA. That would be an excellent
result all round, not just for Ian but for anyone else who may have
suffered at the hands of the same supplier.

>You should never have started your claim in the first place but written it off to
>experience if and when it was clear you weren't going to get anywhere. You should
>now swallow your pride and abandon it, writing it off to even more experience,
>resolving if you can not to get in this position again.
>
>You may win if you continue, I don't know, but it will cost you far more in time and
>effort than it's worth.

Time and effort aren't always amenable to a simple financial calculation.
Nor is the sense of satisfaction at a successful outcome.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk

[Norman Wells]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dsilua5585m5hdsuq...@news.markshouse.net...

It's exactly the sort of situation for which the expression 'cutting off your nose
to spite your face' was invented.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2015-09-05, The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> wrote:
> It should already have gone to the court and you can assume it has. You
> could phone the court to check (if you can get through to any sentient
> life form at the Money Claims Centre).

In my experience getting through to the CCMCC on the phone is easy
and getting the answers to simple questions like "what's the deadline
for <x>?" or "has a defence been filed?" is not a problem.

[Robin]

Norman Wells wrote:
> It's exactly the sort of situation for which the expression 'cutting
> off your nose to spite your face' was invented.

OTOH many advise that a hobby is good for your physical and mental
health :)
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[David L. Martel]

Ian,

You paid L28 (in total). The seller has sent you a check for L28. It's
not clear from your post whether they wish you to return the goods. They've
not supplied you with a return address or an RMA number.
So, you've been made whole, yes?
Trying to collect L4 in anticipated return shipping does not make sense.
You haven't paid L4.
Store the item for a few months and e-mail an offer to return the goods.
Mention the cost of shipping.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <msertt$njc$1...@dont-email.me>,

David L. Martel <mart...@frontier.com> wrote:
> You paid L28 (in total). The seller has sent you a check for L28. It's
>not clear from your post whether they wish you to return the goods. They've
>not supplied you with a return address or an RMA number.

It's not clear from their defence whether they wish me to return the
goods. Part of their defence is "no tracking number for return" which
makes no sense because my claim doesn't say I've sent the goods back.

> So, you've been made whole, yes?
> Trying to collect L4 in anticipated return shipping does not make sense.
>You haven't paid L4.

If they had paid (which is what I expected) I could have posted the
goods back and then that would have been the end of the matter.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <d4vse4...@mid.individual.net>,

The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> wrote:
>On 04/09/2015 23:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I want to avoid wasted effort, pointless hearings, etc. I intend to:
>>
>> * Send a copy of their defence form to the court
>
>It should already have gone to the court and you can assume it has. You
>could phone the court to check (if you can get through to any sentient
>life form at the Money Claims Centre). If they haven't sent it to the
>court a better strategy would be to apply for judgment.

I guess. It seems like procedural trickery. Won't they maybe be able
to get judgement set aside on the grounds that they're a LIP and have
no idea what they're doing ?

>I don't think that really makes any difference to your claim. I'd be
>inclined to ask them whether they intend to collect the goods or whether
>they can send you a prepaid postal label.

That's a reasonable idea.

>They will be aware already that it will cost them more to defend the
>claim than to pay up. They may be hoping that a judge will rule in their
>favour without the need for any hearing. That isn't likely to happen. If
>anything he'd be more likely to give summary judgment in your favour.
>Next step, you'll be ordered to file directions questionnares. Many
>litigants in person bungle this step by getting intimidated by the form
>and failing to submit it in time. If that happens you'll get summary
>judgment in your favour. Let them gradually work out for themselves that
>if they pay a solicitor to help them it will cost them more than the sum
>you're claiming.

Thanks for the advice.

>> * Me travelling to Liverpool for a hearing (assuming it gets
>> transferred to their court) seems disproportionate. Can I
>> suggest (eg in an allocation questionnaire) that I would like
>> the matter dealt with by telephone ?
>
>You can ask for a hearing to be by telephone. Only an interlocutory
>hearing, not a trial/disposal hearing.

I hope this case won't need a interlocutory hearing!

>Ask on your directions questionnaire for the case to be heard at your
>local court. You may get lucky.

God idea, thanks.

>> * Is that wise, given that the main part of the dispute is going to
>> be about whether I, or they, made proper efforts to settle before
>> litigation ? I anticipate that they might want to claim to the
>> judge that I didn't in fact send the emails I did, or that my paper
>> letter before claim didn't reach them.
>
>You can, long before trial, get them to disclose all documents on which
>they rely including correspondence with you.

Yes, but if they fail to do that and come up with some cock and bull
story, is the judge bound to say "too late" or "we'll have to postpone
the hearing" rather than going ahead without me being able to properly
rebut it ?

>> * Is the judge going to be sympathetic to "we tried phoning up"
>> (supposing he believes it) as a defence to a claim whose disputed
>> part is now for court fees and postage ?
>
>No, probably not.

Good.

Thanks.

[Roger Hayter]

Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <msertt$njc$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David L. Martel <mart...@frontier.com> wrote:
> > You paid L28 (in total). The seller has sent you a check for L28. It's
> >not clear from your post whether they wish you to return the goods. They've
> >not supplied you with a return address or an RMA number.
>
> It's not clear from their defence whether they wish me to return the
> goods. Part of their defence is "no tracking number for return" which
> makes no sense because my claim doesn't say I've sent the goods back.
>
> > So, you've been made whole, yes?
> > Trying to collect L4 in anticipated return shipping does not make sense.
> >You haven't paid L4.
>
> If they had paid (which is what I expected) I could have posted the
> goods back and then that would have been the end of the matter.

Equally, they could say they don't want them, and that would also
dispose of the claim, assuming the goods are not going to cose money to
dispose of. They do need to say something relevant. Perhaps you need
to ask them a straight question. "Do you want the goods back and, if
so, what arrangements do intend to make for their return?"
--
Roger Hayter

[GB]

I think you are forgetting that Ian has paid Ł25 court fees, which he
wants back. Plus his fixed commencement costs that he's entitled to.
This is one of those cases where the expenses are more than the original
claim.

As to location of hearing, Ian said the defendant is a company. Is that
a sole trader, a partnership, or a ltd co? I thought that, if the
defendant is a ltd co and the claimant an individual, the case will be
heard in the claimant's local court?

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 21:27:22 +0100, GB put finger to keyboard and typed:

>On 05/09/2015 19:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <msertt$njc$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> David L. Martel <mart...@frontier.com> wrote:
>>>> You paid L28 (in total). The seller has sent you a check for L28. It's
>>>> not clear from your post whether they wish you to return the goods. They've
>>>> not supplied you with a return address or an RMA number.
>>>
>>> It's not clear from their defence whether they wish me to return the
>>> goods. Part of their defence is "no tracking number for return" which
>>> makes no sense because my claim doesn't say I've sent the goods back.
>>>
>>>> So, you've been made whole, yes?
>>>> Trying to collect L4 in anticipated return shipping does not make sense.
>>>> You haven't paid L4.
>>>
>>> If they had paid (which is what I expected) I could have posted the
>>> goods back and then that would have been the end of the matter.
>>
>> Equally, they could say they don't want them, and that would also
>> dispose of the claim, assuming the goods are not going to cose money to
>> dispose of. They do need to say something relevant. Perhaps you need
>> to ask them a straight question. "Do you want the goods back and, if
>> so, what arrangements do intend to make for their return?"
>>

>I think you are forgetting that Ian has paid £25 court fees, which he

>wants back. Plus his fixed commencement costs that he's entitled to.

Yes, that's the key point. Had the defendant paid the £28 value of the
goods before Ian submitted the claim, then it is arguable that the £4
return costs are irrelevent - if they don't pay them, then Ian is free to
dispose of the goods and he will not be out of pocket anyway. But, once
proceedings have started and costs been incurred, the defendant can't avoid
those costs by capitulating on the substantive issue prior to the hearing.

>As to location of hearing, Ian said the defendant is a company. Is that
>a sole trader, a partnership, or a ltd co? I thought that, if the
>defendant is a ltd co and the claimant an individual, the case will be
>heard in the claimant's local court?

That's my understanding, although I think the claimant has to ask for that
to happen - it isn't automatic.

[David L. Martel]

GB,

No, I'm not forgetting the court fees or the fixed commencement costs.
Ian seems to be suing for money that is not owed. He has not shipped the
goods back so he is not owed shipping. Thus there is no basis for suit. It
would be very unjust to expect the company to pay any costs or fees for such
a suit. Indeed, the court may award the business costs. I'm not sure Ian has
explained his suit well or explained why this defendant is incompetent.


Good luck,
Dave M.

[The Todal]

On 05/09/2015 17:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <d4vse4...@mid.individual.net>,
> The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> wrote:

>>
>> You can, long before trial, get them to disclose all documents on which
>> they rely including correspondence with you.
>
> Yes, but if they fail to do that and come up with some cock and bull
> story, is the judge bound to say "too late" or "we'll have to postpone
> the hearing" rather than going ahead without me being able to properly
> rebut it ?

You can disclose copies of whatever documents you sent to them and
attendance notes of any phone calls with them.

Those documents should go in the bundle for any trial/disposal hearing
and so should any documents your opponents wish to produce.

If they were to say that they hadn't received a letter the presumption
will be that if it was sent to them it will have reached them. With such
a small claim the judge certainly won't postpone the hearing merely
because of an argument about whether a document was or was not received.

A smallish UK company isn't going to get the sort of sympathy and help
from the judge that a litigant in person might get. And litigants in
person don't get a huge amount of help. In a case known to me, about a
fortnight ago an old lady, as a litigant in person, suing her council
for damages for a pavement trip lost her case and was ordered to pay
over 10k in costs. The judge expressed some polite sympathy for her but
wasn't going to let her off any of the costs.

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 09:17:20 -0400, David L. Martel wrote...

>
> No, I'm not forgetting the court fees or the fixed commencement costs.
> Ian seems to be suing for money that is not owed. He has not shipped the
> goods back so he is not owed shipping.

His claim for the anticipated shipping costs is premature, I agree. If
they actually ask for the goods to be returned, that would be the time
to say "yes, if you agree to pay for shipping".

> Thus there is no basis for suit.

As I understood it, the basis for suit was to obtain a refund of the £28
Ian paid for the goods, which weren't as described. I think they didn't
pay up until after Ian had sued them?

> It
> would be very unjust to expect the company to pay any costs or fees for such
> a suit.

Not if they'd had adequate notice of the problem and failed to do
anything about it. I imagine the court would be looking for a suitably
clear letter before action with a reasonable period for response, and
presumably Ian did send one.

>From previous discussions, I get the impression that, while most of us
would attempt to resolve such matters informally before taking legal
action, Ian doesn't have much time for that. So he ends up in a
situation where he also needs to claim the legal costs. Yes, he might
be entitled to them, but one could debate whether it's the best
approach.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Ian Jackson]

In article <msfj3v$jgg$1...@dont-email.me>, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>I think you are forgetting that Ian has paid L25 court fees, which he

>wants back. Plus his fixed commencement costs that he's entitled to.
>This is one of those cases where the expenses are more than the original
>claim.

Indeed.

>As to location of hearing, Ian said the defendant is a company. Is that
>a sole trader, a partnership, or a ltd co? I thought that, if the
>defendant is a ltd co and the claimant an individual, the case will be
>heard in the claimant's local court?

It's an ordinary Ltd.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <MPG.30567b2cd...@text.usenet.plus.net>,

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>As I understood it, the basis for suit was to obtain a refund of the £28
>Ian paid for the goods, which weren't as described. I think they didn't
>pay up until after Ian had sued them?

Indeed.

>His claim for the anticipated shipping costs is premature, I agree. If
>they actually ask for the goods to be returned, that would be the time
>to say "yes, if you agree to pay for shipping".

I will ask them whether the intend to collect the goods or allow me to
dispose of them, and in offer that either of those cases I'll be happy
to settle for my claim minus the anticipated postage costs.

>Not if they'd had adequate notice of the problem and failed to do
>anything about it. I imagine the court would be looking for a suitably
>clear letter before action with a reasonable period for response, and
>presumably Ian did send one.

Indeed.

>>From previous discussions, I get the impression that, while most of us
>would attempt to resolve such matters informally before taking legal
>action, Ian doesn't have much time for that.

I sent them two emails, one polite one, one rather more tetchy, which
they simply ignored. They say now that they tried to phone me, and
tried to refund to my credit card, which had expired by then. (The
credit card expired after the first of my two emails but before the
second.)

(Before someone implicates my spamfilter: I obviously don't give
companies I order stuff from spamfiltered addresses. I give them
addresses which entirely bypass my mail rejection agent.)

> So he ends up in a situation where he also needs to claim the legal
>costs. Yes, he might be entitled to them, but one could debate
>whether it's the best approach.

Perhaps I should have phoned them up to chase up my emails, but
really, I would have thought that a letter before legal action ought
to produce better attempts at communication than (allegedly) trying
without success to phone me (the number I gave them has voicemail, so
if they did phone me they didn't leave any voicemails).

[Tim Jackson]

On 06 Sep 2015 22:46:12 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...

> I sent them two emails, one polite one, one rather more tetchy, which

> they simply ignored. [snip]

>
> Perhaps I should have phoned them up to chase up my emails, but
> really, I would have thought that a letter before legal action ought
> to produce better attempts at communication than (allegedly) trying
> without success to phone me (the number I gave them has voicemail, so
> if they did phone me they didn't leave any voicemails).

I think I would have tried to phone them and speak to someone with
authority to act (i.e. not the first rep to answer the phone). In a
busy sales/service department emails which are "too difficult" easily
slip down to the bottom of the inbox without being seen by anyone with
authority.

Nevertheless, what you did does sound like a reasonable attempt to let
them resolve the problem before resorting to legal action. I
acknowledge that phoning in addition might not have worked either. It's
not your fault they don't have a decent system for dealing with
complaints.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <0Hp*j0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>
> I sent them two emails, one polite one, one rather more tetchy, which
> they simply ignored. They say now that they tried to phone me, and
> tried to refund to my credit card, which had expired by then. (The
> credit card expired after the first of my two emails but before the
> second.)
>

The one and only time I've used MCOL to (sucessfully) sue someone, our
solicitor told me that a letter before action must be sent by post or
fax, emails alone do not count. I haven't checked up to see whether
that is true, but decided not to take the chance.

> (Before someone implicates my spamfilter: I obviously don't give
> companies I order stuff from spamfiltered addresses. I give them
> addresses which entirely bypass my mail rejection agent.)
>
> > So he ends up in a situation where he also needs to claim the legal
> >costs. Yes, he might be entitled to them, but one could debate
> >whether it's the best approach.
>
> Perhaps I should have phoned them up to chase up my emails, but
> really, I would have thought that a letter before legal action ought
> to produce better attempts at communication than (allegedly) trying
> without success to phone me (the number I gave them has voicemail, so
> if they did phone me they didn't leave any voicemails).

Was the LBA only sent by email?

[Ian Jackson]

In article <070920150634204355%sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>,

Sara Merriman <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <0Hp*j0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>The one and only time I've used MCOL to (sucessfully) sue someone, our
>solicitor told me that a letter before action must be sent by post or
>fax, emails alone do not count. I haven't checked up to see whether
>that is true, but decided not to take the chance.

...

>Was the LBA only sent by email?

No, paper. Two informal but clear emails, and one paper LBA.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2015-09-07, Sara Merriman <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <0Hp*j0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> I sent them two emails, one polite one, one rather more tetchy, which
>> they simply ignored. They say now that they tried to phone me, and
>> tried to refund to my credit card, which had expired by then. (The
>> credit card expired after the first of my two emails but before the
>> second.)
>>
> The one and only time I've used MCOL to (sucessfully) sue someone, our
> solicitor told me that a letter before action must be sent by post or
> fax, emails alone do not count. I haven't checked up to see whether
> that is true, but decided not to take the chance.

I do not think it is true. It is my opinion than solicitors tend to
suffer from an abundance of caution, which coincidentally often
results in them doing more work, and hence billing more hours, than
might strictly be considered necessary.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <slrnmur2uq.d...@frosty.unequivocal.co.uk>, Jon

In this case she was only advising me (for a fixed rate) on how not to
screw it all up. It would be interesting to know definitively one way
or the other though.

--
Armagedon is tiny

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2015-09-07, Sara Merriman <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrnmur2uq.d...@frosty.unequivocal.co.uk>, Jon
> Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-07, Sara Merriman <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > The one and only time I've used MCOL to (sucessfully) sue someone, our
>> > solicitor told me that a letter before action must be sent by post or
>> > fax, emails alone do not count. I haven't checked up to see whether
>> > that is true, but decided not to take the chance.
>>
>> I do not think it is true. It is my opinion than solicitors tend to
>> suffer from an abundance of caution, which coincidentally often
>> results in them doing more work, and hence billing more hours, than
>> might strictly be considered necessary.
>
> In this case she was only advising me (for a fixed rate) on how not to
> screw it all up.

Yes, I am not saying that they necessarily do it consciously, I think
it's just the culture of the profession to be conservative and
over-cautious. This isn't necessarily a bad thing for the clients.
It certainly isn't a bad thing for the solicitors though ;-)

> It would be interesting to know definitively one way or the other
> though.

I haven't managed to find anything definitive, but the civil procedure
rules certainly talk about service by e-mail and "other electronic
means". If you had reason to believe that the person or company you
are corresponding with uses email as part of their usual
communications (e.g. an email address is listed on their web site,
or you have communicated with them that way before) I would be
surprised if a judge were to decide an emailed letter before action
was invalid.

[The Todal]

I wouldn't be surprised at all. Email is a very unreliable method of
communication and the court rules require that it should only be used if
the recipient has stated that documents can be served by email. It is
common knowledge that if you send a letter or fax it will be seen by
anyone who opens the post or takes letters from the fax machine, and if
the recipient happens to be on holiday it will, in a well-run
organisation, be given to the person's secretary or assistant.

Emails often go only to the personal mailbox of the recipient where
nobody else can see them. They might also be rejected by spam filters,
or find their way into junk email boxes.

Of course if the recipient acknowledges your email, even in an automated
read-receipt, you will have a greater chance of persuading the judge
that the email was received.

The suggestion that solicitors make more money by using letters rather
than email is wrong. An email is charged at exactly the same rate as a
letter. Therefore a solicitor sending a letter by post is actually
making less money than the solicitor who sends the communication by
email, because he has to pay for a stamp and the process of preparing
the letter, if it involves a typist, might involve more work.

[The Todal]

I don't agree. There is a Civil Procedure Rule which says that if you
post a letter by first class post it is deemed to be delivered the
second day after it is posted. The onus is therefore on the recipient to
prove that he didn't receive it.

Sending by email doesn't constitute good service unless the recipient
has stated clearly that email addresses can be used for service.

If you ask your opponent if he's willing to accept a letter before
action by email, chances are that he'll ignore you or be rude.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2015-09-07, The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't be surprised at all. Email is a very unreliable method of
> communication and the court rules require that it should only be used if
> the recipient has stated that documents can be served by email.

We're not talking about the service of documents though.

> The suggestion that solicitors make more money by using letters rather
> than email is wrong.

I didn't suggest that.

[The Todal]

On 07/09/2015 18:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2015-09-07, The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> I wouldn't be surprised at all. Email is a very unreliable method of
>> communication and the court rules require that it should only be used if
>> the recipient has stated that documents can be served by email.
>
> We're not talking about the service of documents though.

A letter before action is a document and it must be served. Failure to
serve it can have major repercussions in relation to costs.

[Jon Ribbens]

Ok fair enough.

[Roland Perry]

In message <d55u00...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:57:36 on Mon, 7 Sep
2015, The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> remarked:

>An email is charged at exactly the same rate as a letter. Therefore a
>solicitor sending a letter by post is actually making less money than
>the solicitor who sends the communication by email, because he has to
>pay for a stamp and the process of preparing the letter, if it involves
>a typist, might involve more work.

There are still people who can type their own emails but can't find the
"print" button, and need a typist to hand-transcribe them onto bits of
dead tree?
--
Roland Perry

[The Todal]

Working in a law firm, I continue to be surprised to see people
*dictating* emails for their secretary to type for them. The same people
of course dictate letters, and what are called "attendance notes" of
telephone conversations.

It's mainly an age thing. Elderly people of 45 or more are reluctant to
do their own typing.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-09-05, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:19:29 +0100, Norman Wells put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>It's ALL totally disproportionate. Making expensive legal claims over something so
>>small is not only a waste of your time but the court's as well. And now the
>>defendants have got you hopping all over the place dancing to their tune, trying to
>>prove this, establish that, attend hearings etc etc.
>
> I entirely disagree. Small sums of money are precisely what MCOL is
> designed for. If Ian wins it will cost him nothing, and yet cost the
> supplier considerably more than it would have cost them to admit their
> fault and accept their obligations under SoGA. That would be an excellent
> result all round, not just for Ian but for anyone else who may have
> suffered at the hands of the same supplier.

I agree. Otherwise it's possible to run a profitable "salami" business
model based on ripping off large numbers of people for small amounts.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 21:07:48 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and

That reminds me of a story I heard, possibly apocryphal, of a certain
vendor of "adult" material which, back in the era before the Internet and
widespread credit card use, sold by mail order via adverts in the, er,
usual magazines. They regularly used to undercut their competitors in terms
of price, so of course people ordered from them. And the goods arrived
promptly, and were of suitable quality, so there was no cause for complaint
in that respect.

However, almost all orders for multiple items came back with at least one
item missing, accompanied by an apologetic note saying that they were out
of stock of that item, were unlikely to have any more in the immediate
future, and so were refunding the value of the missing items. A cheque for
the value of the refund was enclosed.

Because this was pre-Internet, and they were selling to people engaged in a
primarily solitary pursuit, it took some time before it became apparent
that this was, in fact a key part of their business model.

The reason they were able to offer such low prices, and yet still maintain
such good customer service, was because they were banking - literally - on
the fact that most of their customers would be too embarrassed to cash a
relatively low value cheque drawn on the account of the "Erotic
Publications and Sexual Aids Company Ltd".

[Roland Perry]

In message <d58hc2...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:40:34 on Tue, 8 Sep

2015, The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> remarked:
>>> An email is charged at exactly the same rate as a letter. Therefore a
>>> solicitor sending a letter by post is actually making less money than
>>> the solicitor who sends the communication by email, because he has to
>>> pay for a stamp and the process of preparing the letter, if it
>>> involves a typist, might involve more work.
>>
>> There are still people who can type their own emails but can't find the
>> "print" button, and need a typist to hand-transcribe them onto bits of
>> dead tree?
>
>Working in a law firm, I continue to be surprised to see people
>*dictating* emails for their secretary to type for them. The same
>people of course dictate letters, and what are called "attendance
>notes" of telephone conversations.

Dictating is much faster than typing - unless perhaps you are a fierce
touch typist.

>It's mainly an age thing. Elderly people of 45 or more are reluctant to
>do their own typing.

65 perhaps. The Amstrad PCW is having its 30th anniversary this month,
which means 45 year olds were still at school when it came out.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jEv3bLUjJ$7VF...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <d58hc2...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:40:34 on Tue, 8 Sep 2015, The
> Todal <thet...@beeb.net> remarked:
>>>> An email is charged at exactly the same rate as a letter. Therefore a
>>>> solicitor sending a letter by post is actually making less money than
>>>> the solicitor who sends the communication by email, because he has to
>>>> pay for a stamp and the process of preparing the letter, if it
>>>> involves a typist, might involve more work.
>>>
>>> There are still people who can type their own emails but can't find the
>>> "print" button, and need a typist to hand-transcribe them onto bits of
>>> dead tree?
>>
>>Working in a law firm, I continue to be surprised to see people *dictating* emails
>>for their secretary to type for them. The same people of course dictate letters,
>>and what are called "attendance notes" of telephone conversations.
>
> Dictating is much faster than typing - unless perhaps you are a fierce touch
> typist.

But the process takes two people, both of whom have to be paid for, the typed result
has to be gone through again by the originator, meaning he has to consider it twice,
both of which have to be paid for, and he has to be good to dictate faultlessly so
it doesn't have to be substantially corrected or re-ordered later, which is not the
case if he typed it directly.

It's highly inefficient, and rather costly for the poor client, don't you think?

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-09-09, Mark Goodge wrote:

> That reminds me of a story I heard, possibly apocryphal, of a certain
> vendor of "adult" material which, back in the era before the Internet and
> widespread credit card use, sold by mail order via adverts in the, er,
> usual magazines. They regularly used to undercut their competitors in terms
> of price, so of course people ordered from them. And the goods arrived
> promptly, and were of suitable quality, so there was no cause for complaint
> in that respect.
>
> However, almost all orders for multiple items came back with at least one
> item missing, accompanied by an apologetic note saying that they were out
> of stock of that item, were unlikely to have any more in the immediate
> future, and so were refunding the value of the missing items. A cheque for
> the value of the refund was enclosed.
>
> Because this was pre-Internet, and they were selling to people engaged in a
> primarily solitary pursuit, it took some time before it became apparent
> that this was, in fact a key part of their business model.
>
> The reason they were able to offer such low prices, and yet still maintain
> such good customer service, was because they were banking

I see what you did there.

> - literally - on
> the fact that most of their customers would be too embarrassed to cash a
> relatively low value cheque drawn on the account of the "Erotic
> Publications and Sexual Aids Company Ltd".

That reminds me of a subplot of the book _Eureka Street_: one
character gets the initial capital for his business by advertising
giant dildos with "limited supply --- order now". He has exactly one
to sell, banks all the cheques, & uses a "GIANT DILDO REFUND" stamp on
the refund cheques he sends back.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <gfjvuad31g0a5gdf5...@news.markshouse.net>,

It was also used in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels as a suggested
way of making money.

--
Armagedon is tiny

[Roland Perry]

In message <d5ai6f...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:06:51 on Wed, 9 Sep
2015, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>Working in a law firm, I continue to be surprised to see people
>>>*dictating* emails for their secretary to type for them. The same
>>>people of course dictate letters, and what are called "attendance
>>>notes" of telephone conversations.
>>
>> Dictating is much faster than typing - unless perhaps you are a
>>fierce touch typist.
>
>But the process takes two people, both of whom have to be paid for, the
>typed result has to be gone through again by the originator, meaning he
>has to consider it twice, both of which have to be paid for, and he has
>to be good to dictate faultlessly

It's not a difficult skill to dictate in ways that reduce the
possibility for errors.

>so it doesn't have to be substantially corrected or re-ordered later,
>which is not the case if he typed it directly.

Letters I get from the likes of hospital consultants often end "dictated
by and signed in his absence", so as long as his secretary thinks it
looks reasonable, it probably isn't being double-checked by him. But
even it is was, it'd only take a minute a page, if that.

>It's highly inefficient, and rather costly for the poor client, don't you think?

A friend-of-a-friend works from home transcribing medical reports
dictated by hospital doctors. She's on minimum wage and they on more
than £100k.
--
Roland Perry

[Scion]

Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:

Would that be legal? If not, why not?

[GB]

On 06/09/2015 22:39, Ian Jackson wrote:

>> As to location of hearing, Ian said the defendant is a company. Is that
>> a sole trader, a partnership, or a ltd co? I thought that, if the
>> defendant is a ltd co and the claimant an individual, the case will be
>> heard in the claimant's local court?
>
> It's an ordinary Ltd.
>

In that case, I think you can have the hearing located near where you
live (and far, far away from the defendants!). I notice that Mark Goodge
thinks that's correct, but I can't find a reference for it anywhere.
Hopefully, the court staff will know.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-09-09, Scion wrote:

> Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:

>> That reminds me of a subplot of the book _Eureka Street_: one character
>> gets the initial capital for his business by advertising giant dildos
>> with "limited supply --- order now". He has exactly one to sell, banks
>> all the cheques, & uses a "GIANT DILDO REFUND" stamp on the refund
>> cheques he sends back.
>
> Would that be legal? If not, why not?

I don't know. Actually I meant to post that very question when I read
the book a few months ago, but forgot until now. It seems obvious
that it *should* be illegal, but I'm not sure how it *is*.

[Scion]

Roland Perry put finger to keyboard:

<snip>

> A friend-of-a-friend works from home transcribing medical reports
> dictated by hospital doctors. She's on minimum wage and they on more
> than £100k.

A nice little anecdote about a medical transcription service: All was OK
until they got to one patient's report which stated "This patient has
pholenfrometry". The transcriber tried to look up the condition to get the
spelling right, only to find it didn't exist. Tried different spellings,
asking other transcribers, everything. Eventually they had to go back to
the doctor, who very clearly and slowly said
"This...patient...has...fallen...from...a...tree."

[The Todal]

I agree with you, except that it isn't costly for the client.

I can type out a long email quite rapidly - I learned to touch-type and
worked as a typist in a pool, many decades ago. But young people who
never learned to touch type (ie to know which keys to press without
staring at the keyboard) also seem able to type very rapidly with few
errors.

That produces the quickest most proactive service for a client. Whereas
the process of sending it to a typist and then checking the result and
making corrections can delay matters by at least a day, sometimes three
days.

However the client pays the same either way. The downside is the cost to
the employer of employing typists, and the disappointment of a client
when there is a delay in responding to his query.

[Norman Wells]

"The Todal" <thet...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:d5b5p1...@mid.individual.net...

It costs the firm much less if they don't employ an army of typists. It's basic
economics that they should therefore be able to do the same job cheaper, and some of
that cost saving should be passed to the client. If they don't, the competition
will.

[Roland Perry]

In message <d5b9l0...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:47:06 on Wed, 9 Sep

2015, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> However the client pays the same either way. The downside is the cost
>>to the employer of employing typists, and the disappointment of a
>>client when there is a delay in responding to his query.
>
>It costs the firm much less if they don't employ an army of typists.

Yes, the cost will be less, but the lawyers will be spending half their
time typing and hence billing half as much.

>It's basic economics that they should therefore be able to do the same
>job cheaper, and some of that cost saving should be passed to the
>client. If they don't, the competition will.

--
Roland Perry

[The Todal]

Yes, in other words the firm can undercut the competition when tendering
for work, or make a bigger profit by charging the same.

Either way, it makes good sense.

Nowadays there is no longer a career to be made as a "legal secretary".
The salaries for such people are very low and many firms choose to send
the audio dictation to typists who work from home and therefore can save
on travel expenses - they might then be paid say 12k a year instead of
the 28k that some used to be paid as secretaries in law firms.

[The Todal]

On 09/09/2015 19:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <d5b9l0...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:47:06 on Wed, 9 Sep
> 2015, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> However the client pays the same either way. The downside is the cost
>>> to the employer of employing typists, and the disappointment of a
>>> client when there is a delay in responding to his query.
>>
>> It costs the firm much less if they don't employ an army of typists.
>
> Yes, the cost will be less, but the lawyers will be spending half their
> time typing and hence billing half as much.

That's what the lawyers would say, to be sure. They would say that their
time is better spent thinking and dictating rather than typing.

And it's probably true to say that a slow fee earner who is unfamiliar
with keyboards and typewriters will take twice as long, at least, to
produce a letter. He could then charge that time to the file and nobody
would be any the wiser. To anyone auditing the file it would be a long
letter that took half an hour to compose, not half an hour to type.

Nowadays case management systems offer a large range of boilerplate
letters which can be generated with a few keystrokes. Particularly in
conveyancing, where most of the work involves exactly the same letters.

In a typical firm the secretaries are kept on to service the elderly
dinosaur lawyers who prefer not to use any case management system. Such
lawyers tend to have generous salaries and to be in peril of redundancy
unless they are exceptionally good at generating fee income.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:23:06 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
typed:

It would be an offence under the Consumer Protection
from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Schedule 1 paragraph 5, "Bait
advertising".

The company in the story I quoted would probaby have been able to get away
with claiming that they had enough for most customers, but that
unexpectedly high demand exceeded supply. But you certainly wouldn't be
able to get away with that if there was really only one item available.

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:zJgjokDA...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <d5b9l0...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:47:06 on Wed, 9 Sep 2015,
> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> However the client pays the same either way. The downside is the cost to the
>>> employer of employing typists, and the disappointment of a client when there is
>>> a delay in responding to his query.
>>
>>It costs the firm much less if they don't employ an army of typists.
>
> Yes, the cost will be less, but the lawyers will be spending half their time
> typing and hence billing half as much.

But from that time 'typing', which includes a lot of the thinking anyway, you have
to deduct the time taken in chatting the secretary up, dictating, checking and
revising whatever you dictate. It's much more efficient to get something difficult
into final form if you have it on the screen in front of you rather than just in
your head, and knowing that when you press print, that's what you want and what
you're happy with.

Keyboard skills are an absolutely vital part of any office job, including that of a
lawyer. Those who don't have them are frankly a drag on the business.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:57:06 +0100, GB put finger to keyboard and typed:

Once all parties have filed their questionnaire the case will be
transferred to the mediator / local court to continue. If you are making
a claim against an individual, the claim will be transferred to their
local court. If you are making a claim against a company, the claim will
be transferred to your local court, or to your solicitor’s local court.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/mcol-quickstart-guide.pdf
"Proceeding with a defended case", page 16.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <kk51valieg1sivc77...@news.markshouse.net>,

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> Once all parties have filed their questionnaire the case will be
> transferred to the mediator / local court to continue. If you are making
> a claim against an individual, the claim will be transferred to their
> local court. If you are making a claim against a company, the claim will
> be transferred to your local court, or to your solicitor’s local court.
>
>https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/mcol-quickstart-guide.pdf
>"Proceeding with a defended case", page 16.

Interesting. I wonder if that is actually authoritative. The CPR
seem much more vague:

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part26#26.2A

(4) Subject to paragraph (5), in any other claim to which this rule
applies, the court will, at the relevant time, send the claim to the
preferred court.

(5) If a defendant under paragraph (3) or a claimant under paragraph
(4) has specified a court other than the preferred court on their
directions questionnaire, the claim will be sent to that court.

AFAICT the `preferred court' is the Northampton CCBC.

It doesn't seem to be clear about what happens if both claimant and
defendant want the case in their home court.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/

[Martin Bonner]

On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 14:28:38 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:jEv3bLUjJ$7VF...@perry.co.uk...
> > In message <d58hc2...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:40:34 on Tue, 8 Sep 2015, The
> > Todal <thet...@beeb.net> remarked:
> >>>> An email is charged at exactly the same rate as a letter. Therefore a
> >>>> solicitor sending a letter by post is actually making less money than
> >>>> the solicitor who sends the communication by email, because he has to
> >>>> pay for a stamp and the process of preparing the letter, if it
> >>>> involves a typist, might involve more work.
> >>>
> >>> There are still people who can type their own emails but can't find the
> >>> "print" button, and need a typist to hand-transcribe them onto bits of
> >>> dead tree?
> >>
> >>Working in a law firm, I continue to be surprised to see people *dictating*
> >>emails for their secretary to type for them. The same people of course dictate
> >>letters, and what are called "attendance notes" of telephone conversations.
> >
> > Dictating is much faster than typing - unless perhaps you are a fierce touch
> > typist.
>
> But the process takes two people, both of whom have to be paid for,

One rather less than the other.

> the typed result has to be gone through again by the originator,
> meaning he has to consider it twice,

Considering a letter twice is good practise anyway.

> both of which have to be paid for, and he has to be good to dictate
> faultlessly so it doesn't have to be substantially corrected or re-ordered
> later, which is not the case if he typed it directly.

Err. You are assuming that the secretary doesn't play a significant part
in composing a dictated letter. I think they usually did.

> It's highly inefficient, and rather costly for the poor client,
> don't you think?

Yes. But I learnt to touch type nearly 40 years ago.

[Roland Perry]

In message <d5birn...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:24:16 on Wed, 9 Sep

2015, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>> However the client pays the same either way. The downside is the
>>>>cost to the employer of employing typists, and the disappointment
>>>>of a client when there is a delay in responding to his query.
>>>
>>>It costs the firm much less if they don't employ an army of typists.
>>
>> Yes, the cost will be less, but the lawyers will be spending half
>>their time typing and hence billing half as much.
>
>But from that time 'typing', which includes a lot of the thinking
>anyway, you have to deduct the time taken in chatting the secretary up,

That's a bit sexist.

>dictating, checking and revising whatever you dictate.

A good secretary will draft something appropriate if told "send him the
f-off-politely no3 letter".
--
Roland Perry

[Sara Merriman]

In article <X-p*mT...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson

If one is a company and one is a person, the person wins.

--
Armagedon is tiny

[The Todal]

Nothing ever stays in Northampton - it's just a centre for issuing and
then allocating cases.

You should state in your directions questionnaire why you believe it
should be allocated to your local court. Apart from convenience to you
and saving on travel expenses, you could say that the contract (if
contract is the issue) was made in your home, from your computer. That
might perhaps tend to sway the judge in your favour.

[Mark Goodge]

On 10 Sep 2015 12:44:49 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In article <kk51valieg1sivc77...@news.markshouse.net>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> Once all parties have filed their questionnaire the case will be
>> transferred to the mediator / local court to continue. If you are making
>> a claim against an individual, the claim will be transferred to their
>> local court. If you are making a claim against a company, the claim will
>> be transferred to your local court, or to your solicitor’s local court.
>>
>>https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/mcol-quickstart-guide.pdf
>>"Proceeding with a defended case", page 16.
>
>Interesting. I wonder if that is actually authoritative. The CPR
>seem much more vague:
>
>https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part26#26.2A
>
> (4) Subject to paragraph (5), in any other claim to which this rule
> applies, the court will, at the relevant time, send the claim to the
> preferred court.
>
> (5) If a defendant under paragraph (3) or a claimant under paragraph
> (4) has specified a court other than the preferred court on their
> directions questionnaire, the claim will be sent to that court.
>
>AFAICT the `preferred court' is the Northampton CCBC.

I think the key here is in paragraph 2:

the court officer may send the proceedings to the preferred court or the
defendant's home court or *such other court as may be appropriate*

(my emphasis)

In the case of a claim initially made via MCOL, it won't stay in
Northampton as otherwise the court there would be overwhelmed with cases.
So it has to go somewhere. And the rule of thumb is that, unless the
defendant has the right to have it transferred to their local court, it
will go to the claimant's local court, on the basis that that's where it
would have been heard had it been processed the offline way rather than
using MCOL. And that in turn is to ensure that claimants are not penalised
by using MCOL instead of filing the claim directly with their local court.

>It doesn't seem to be clear about what happens if both claimant and
>defendant want the case in their home court.

Under normal circumstances, a defendant who is an individual gets to choose
the court. A defendant who is an organisation may ask for the case to be
transferred to their chosen court, but that's unlikely to be granted where
the claimaint is an individual.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <d5dr1a...@mid.individual.net>,

The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> wrote:
>You should state in your directions questionnaire why you believe it
>should be allocated to your local court. Apart from convenience to you
>and saving on travel expenses, you could say that the contract (if
>contract is the issue) was made in your home, from your computer. That
>might perhaps tend to sway the judge in your favour.

Thanks, I will do that. It is indeed a contract dispute.


I sent them letter saying I'd be happy to settle for my claim minus
the return postage if they told me they didn't want the goods back, or
that they intended to collect them.

They have replied saying that I absolutely must send the goods back.
Having confirmation that that's what they want done I think it's
probably sensible to do that and expect the judge to award me the
postage from my original claim.

They also say that if I pursue this case I'm going to be billed
hundreds of pounds for their lawyers. (They give actual figures of
various kinds, including hourly rate for two laywers attending court.)
They also say they never pay return postage unless the goods are
faulty, and that their laywers agree with them about that. (My claim,
clearly stated of course, is that the goods were not as described.)

This letter seemed quite abusive (by which I mean improper, rather
than rude) to me but I doubt that there is anything more I can do to
punish them for it.

Having read it, in conjunction with recent posts here about which
court it's likely to end up in, I'm almost disappointed that I'm not
likely to get a trip to Liverpool at my opponents' expense.

(I think their substantive case is legally quite hopeless, and they're
really taking the piss.)

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-09-09, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:23:06 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>On 2015-09-09, Scion wrote:
>>
>>> Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:
>>
>>>> That reminds me of a subplot of the book _Eureka Street_: one character
>>>> gets the initial capital for his business by advertising giant dildos
>>>> with "limited supply --- order now". He has exactly one to sell, banks
>>>> all the cheques, & uses a "GIANT DILDO REFUND" stamp on the refund
>>>> cheques he sends back.
>>>
>>> Would that be legal? If not, why not?
>>
>>I don't know. Actually I meant to post that very question when I read
>>the book a few months ago, but forgot until now. It seems obvious
>>that it *should* be illegal, but I'm not sure how it *is*.
>
> It would be an offence under the Consumer Protection
> from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Schedule 1 paragraph 5, "Bait
> advertising".

OK, that makes sense, but it would be difficult to prove unless a lot
of customers complained, wouldn't it? Also, is the silly stamp on the
cheque legal?

> The company in the story I quoted would probaby have been able to get away
> with claiming that they had enough for most customers, but that
> unexpectedly high demand exceeded supply. But you certainly wouldn't be
> able to get away with that if there was really only one item available.

Right.

[Tim Jackson]

On 11 Sep 2015 01:20:31 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...

> They have replied saying that I absolutely must send the goods back.
> Having confirmation that that's what they want done I think it's
> probably sensible to do that and expect the judge to award me the
> postage from my original claim.

Don't forget that if this actually gets as far as a hearing, you will
need evidence that the goods were not as described. Presumably the
defendants have not admitted that, even though all you are arguing about
might be who pays for the return postage and the legal costs.

This means you could have to show the actual goods in court, or have
them examined by an expert witness (whose charges you would also want to
claim). But if you've sent them back you would have to rely on the
defendants to produce them. Maybe you could take photos before you
return them, but how effective would that be if they dispute it?

I would tell them that if they are not willing to admit your claim, then
you will only be able to return the goods after the case is over. If
there is a genuine dispute about whether the goods were as described,
you may need to make arrangements for them to inspect them. But this is
all completely over the top for such a low value claim.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Adam Funk]

One I've seen, although this might have been done by ASR (automated
speech recognition): "patient is allergic to shrimp crabs and
mobster".

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:59:14 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and

typed:

>On 2015-09-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:23:06 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>>On 2015-09-09, Scion wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:
>>>
>>>>> That reminds me of a subplot of the book _Eureka Street_: one character
>>>>> gets the initial capital for his business by advertising giant dildos
>>>>> with "limited supply --- order now". He has exactly one to sell, banks
>>>>> all the cheques, & uses a "GIANT DILDO REFUND" stamp on the refund
>>>>> cheques he sends back.
>>>>
>>>> Would that be legal? If not, why not?
>>>
>>>I don't know. Actually I meant to post that very question when I read
>>>the book a few months ago, but forgot until now. It seems obvious
>>>that it *should* be illegal, but I'm not sure how it *is*.
>>
>> It would be an offence under the Consumer Protection
>> from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Schedule 1 paragraph 5, "Bait
>> advertising".
>
>OK, that makes sense, but it would be difficult to prove unless a lot
>of customers complained, wouldn't it?

A lot of what might be generically described as "trading standards"
offences require there to be multiple complainants, because that's one of
the key pieces of evidence that demonstrates the difference between cock-up
and conspiracy.

>Also, is the silly stamp on the cheque legal?

Yes; you can put pretty much anything you want on a cheque so long as it
doesn't obscure the contractually relevant information.

Back in ye olde days when cheques were the only significant form of remote
payment, stamping a cheque with what it was for was a common technique used
by senders to minimise the prospect of the recipient inadvertantly
ascribing it to the wrong client account. I'm old enough to remember seeing
a rubber stamp in the accounts department in my first job which had one of
those rotating rubber alphanumeric sections which allowed the clerk to
print the words 'Ref xxxx' on every outgoing cheque, where xxxx was the
invoice number that was being paid.

[Roland Perry]

In message <41e6vapjrs6kqq563...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:38:18 on Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>> It would be an offence under the Consumer Protection
>>> from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Schedule 1 paragraph 5, "Bait
>>> advertising".
>>
>>OK, that makes sense, but it would be difficult to prove unless a lot
>>of customers complained, wouldn't it?
>
>A lot of what might be generically described as "trading standards"
>offences require there to be multiple complainants, because that's one of
>the key pieces of evidence that demonstrates the difference between cock-up
>and conspiracy.

The only thing about it which requires multiple complainants is getting
TS motivated to do something about it.

Thus when I was in a well known DIY shed a couple of weeks ago and
bought a roll of wallpaper marked on the shelf as £10, and the till
charged me £13 I was wide enough awake to catch it. They sent someone
off to confirm, and weren't the slightest bit apologetic, rather they
seemed irritated at being called out.

You'd only have to go back the next day to see if they'd fixed that
(whether to the shelf label or the till's database) to take out a
prosecution.

>>Also, is the silly stamp on the cheque legal?
>
>Yes; you can put pretty much anything you want on a cheque so long as it
>doesn't obscure the contractually relevant information.
>
>Back in ye olde days when cheques were the only significant form of remote
>payment, stamping a cheque with what it was for was a common technique used
>by senders to minimise the prospect of the recipient inadvertantly
>ascribing it to the wrong client account. I'm old enough to remember seeing
>a rubber stamp in the accounts department in my first job which had one of
>those rotating rubber alphanumeric sections which allowed the clerk to
>print the words 'Ref xxxx' on every outgoing cheque, where xxxx was the
>invoice number that was being paid.

And it's not long since credit card companies required one to write
their card number on the front of the monthly cheque, in some empty
space.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <MPG.305d12cb9...@text.usenet.plus.net>,

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>Don't forget that if this actually gets as far as a hearing, you will
>need evidence that the goods were not as described. Presumably the
>defendants have not admitted that, even though all you are arguing about
>might be who pays for the return postage and the legal costs.

They haven't denied it either, and according to the CPR that means
they're taken to have admitted it, AFAICT. But yes, I do intend to
prove it.

>This means you could have to show the actual goods in court, or have
>them examined by an expert witness (whose charges you would also want to
>claim). But if you've sent them back you would have to rely on the
>defendants to produce them. Maybe you could take photos before you
>return them, but how effective would that be if they dispute it?

The goods are quite portable enough to bring to a court. I also have
a screenshot of the website with the incorrect description.

>I would tell them that if they are not willing to admit your claim, then
>you will only be able to return the goods after the case is over. If
>there is a genuine dispute about whether the goods were as described,
>you may need to make arrangements for them to inspect them. But this is
>all completely over the top for such a low value claim.

This is a good point.

[Tim Jackson]

On 12 Sep 2015 02:33:05 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...

>
> In article <MPG.305d12cb9...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

[snipped and re-ordered]

> >I would tell them that if they are not willing to admit your claim,
then
> >you will only be able to return the goods after the case is over.
>

> This is a good point.

They don't owe you for the return postage until you've actually paid for
it. If we ignore the postage for a minute, apparently they've admitted
liability for the purchase price of the goods, and all you're now
claiming is your legal costs. See CPR Rule 15.10. The court should ask
you whether you want to continue.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15

> >Don't forget that if this actually gets as far as a hearing, you will
> >need evidence that the goods were not as described. Presumably the
> >defendants have not admitted that, even though all you are arguing about
> >might be who pays for the return postage and the legal costs.
>
> They haven't denied it either, and according to the CPR that means
> they're taken to have admitted it, AFAICT. But yes, I do intend to
> prove it.

I'm not sure why the absence of a denial should be taken as an admission
that the goods were not as described. However, I suppose their
admission of liability for the purchase price could be taken that way.
But I would want to be certain before I parted company with a key part
of the evidence.

It seems they've not thought things through. If they had explicitly
admitted that the goods were not as described, then they wouldn't be
able to defend the rest of your claim. If they were denying that, then
they wouldn't have admitted that they were liable for the purchase price
- they could have offered a settlement without admitting liability.

So it's possible that they've neither admitted nor denied that the goods
were not as described. Unless that is clarified, I think you may have
the burden to prove it.

Note that even then, admissions can be withdrawn with the permission of
the court (Practice Direction 14, points 7.1 and 7.2).

[Roland Perry]

In message <MPG.305e3ef93...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at
14:58:53 on Sat, 12 Sep 2015, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
remarked:

>> >Don't forget that if this actually gets as far as a hearing, you will
>> >need evidence that the goods were not as described. Presumably the
>> >defendants have not admitted that, even though all you are arguing about
>> >might be who pays for the return postage and the legal costs.
>>
>> They haven't denied it either, and according to the CPR that means
>> they're taken to have admitted it, AFAICT. But yes, I do intend to
>> prove it.
>
>I'm not sure why the absence of a denial should be taken as an admission
>that the goods were not as described.

The handful of times I've been accused on eBay of selling something was
"not as described", the complainant was "having a laugh".

The most recent was someone who claimed a retro item I sold was a repro,
when I remember it being delivered to my parents' house in the 60's.

One before that said some shoes for sale were not the size I'd said; but
as they were my son's, and his shoe size was a particular known
quantity, I have no idea why they said that. Return postage would be
almost as much as they had sold for.

There comes a point when you can't fix stupid, and the best response is
to write it off as a cost of doing business (although in my case they
are all personal items I no longer need, not trading).

Not saying Ian is stupid, but his complaint may have been filed as that
in the retailer's head.
--
Roland Perry

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 14:58:53 +0100
Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

> On 12 Sep 2015 02:33:05 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...
> >
> > In article <MPG.305d12cb9...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> > Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
> [snipped and re-ordered]
>
> > >I would tell them that if they are not willing to admit your
> > >claim,
> then
> > >you will only be able to return the goods after the case is over.
> >
> > This is a good point.
>
> They don't owe you for the return postage until you've actually paid
> for it.

AIUI having rejected the goods he's not required to return them,
just make them available for collection. If he does send them back
he's doing the seller a favour and might reasonably expect to be paid
in advance.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-09-11, Roland Perry wrote:

> Mark Goodge wrote:

>>Yes; you can put pretty much anything you want on a cheque so long as it
>>doesn't obscure the contractually relevant information.
>>
>>Back in ye olde days when cheques were the only significant form of remote
>>payment, stamping a cheque with what it was for was a common technique used
>>by senders to minimise the prospect of the recipient inadvertantly
>>ascribing it to the wrong client account. I'm old enough to remember seeing
>>a rubber stamp in the accounts department in my first job which had one of
>>those rotating rubber alphanumeric sections which allowed the clerk to
>>print the words 'Ref xxxx' on every outgoing cheque, where xxxx was the
>>invoice number that was being paid.
>
> And it's not long since credit card companies required one to write
> their card number on the front of the monthly cheque, in some empty
> space.

One thing that has always struck me as peculiar in this country is
that there is no designated space on cheques for writing account or
invoice numbers or other information; as far as I can recall, my
American checks (from 4 or more different financial institutions)
always had a space on the front with "Memo:" followed by a blank line,
long enough to write at least 16 digits.

[Adam Funk]

On 2015-09-11, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:59:14 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>>On 2015-09-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:23:06 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
>>> typed:
>>>>On 2015-09-09, Scion wrote:
>>>>> Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:

>>>>>> That reminds me of a subplot of the book _Eureka Street_: one character
>>>>>> gets the initial capital for his business by advertising giant dildos
>>>>>> with "limited supply --- order now". He has exactly one to sell, banks
>>>>>> all the cheques, & uses a "GIANT DILDO REFUND" stamp on the refund
>>>>>> cheques he sends back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would that be legal? If not, why not?

...

>>Also, is the silly stamp on the cheque legal?
>
> Yes; you can put pretty much anything you want on a cheque so long as it
> doesn't obscure the contractually relevant information.

Even if it's clearly intended to embarrass the payee into not banking
it?

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 21:16:24 +0100, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and

I think it would be very hard to make that stick in court. The person in
receipt of the cheque did, after all, order a giant dildo.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <MPG.305e3ef93...@text.usenet.plus.net>,

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>On 12 Sep 2015 02:33:05 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...

>> This is a good point.
>
>They don't owe you for the return postage until you've actually paid for
>it.

Which is why I have made them a settlement offer, as I wrote earlier:

I sent them letter saying I'd be happy to settle for my claim minus
the return postage if they told me they didn't want the goods back, or
that they intended to collect them.

They have rejected this offer and said I must send the goods back
(implicitly, at my expense). Of course if it actually goes to a
hearing I will bring the goods with me and then I don't expect the
judge to award me the postage. But I don't expect the judge to punish
me in costs given that I offered my opponents precisely that remedy.

The reason I claiming the postage originally is that most defendants,
when sued, simply pay the full amount of the claim. If they had done
that but I hadn't included the postage I would still have the goods,
which I would have a duty to take care of, and I would still have the
practical hassle of dealing with the return to my opponents (who might
well at that point demand that I pay to post the goods back, leading
to an impasse).

> If we ignore the postage for a minute, apparently they've admitted
>liability for the purchase price of the goods, and all you're now
>claiming is your legal costs. See CPR Rule 15.10. The court should ask
>you whether you want to continue.
>https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15

The court has, and I have ticked the `I do not accept' box.

>> >Don't forget that if this actually gets as far as a hearing, you will
>> >need evidence that the goods were not as described. Presumably the
>> >defendants have not admitted that, even though all you are arguing about
>> >might be who pays for the return postage and the legal costs.
>>
>> They haven't denied it either, and according to the CPR that means
>> they're taken to have admitted it, AFAICT. But yes, I do intend to
>> prove it.
>
>I'm not sure why the absence of a denial should be taken as an admission
>that the goods were not as described.

CPR 16.5(5). But, as I say, I am prepared for the judge to let my
opponents off the hook on that.

>So it's possible that they've neither admitted nor denied that the goods
>were not as described.

Contrary to CPR 16.5(1) of course.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <nks2jn42...@perry.co.uk>,

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>Not saying Ian is stupid, but his complaint may have been filed as that
>in the retailer's head.

It's possible. But in that case, they should at least have treated my
original email as a request for a DSR ^W CCIwhateverR return. They
could have argued about the postage and I might even have let them off
the L3.90 for the sake of an easy life. But they simply ignored both
emails and the letter before action.

_Maybe_ they are prone to losing track of things but their very prompt
responses to the actual court documents suggest that at the very least
my complaint has been, how shall we say, reprioritised. And their
horrible bluster suggests that at the very least they have a very poor
understanding of the law which is probably leading them to violations
of other customers' rights too.

[Tim Jackson]

On 12 Sep 2015 23:14:14 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson wrote...

>
> In article <MPG.305e3ef93...@text.usenet.plus.net>,
> Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >I'm not sure why the absence of a denial should be taken as an admission
> >that the goods were not as described.
>
> CPR 16.5(5).

Yes, but 16.5(5) is subject to 16.5(3):

===[quote]==========
(3) A defendant who –

(a) fails to deal with an allegation; but

(b) has set out in his defence the nature of his case in relation to the
issue to which that allegation is relevant,

shall be taken to require that allegation to be proved.
===[end quote]=======

Your defendants have evidently failed to deal with your allegation that
the goods were not as described. But arguably they have set out the
nature of their case, namely that they're not liable for your return
postage and legal costs. OK, that might not be a very sound case, but
they have set out the nature of it.

> But, as I say, I am prepared for the judge to let my
> opponents off the hook on that.

Fair enough, but all the more reason why you need to hang on to the
goods as evidence (as I understand you now plan to do).

>
> >So it's possible that they've neither admitted nor denied that the goods
> >were not as described.
>
> Contrary to CPR 16.5(1) of course.

Indeed. So at some point the court may require them to be more
specific, and they might then deny it.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nVt*HO...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 23:34:45 on Sat,
12 Sep 2015, Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>>Not saying Ian is stupid, but his complaint may have been filed as that
>>in the retailer's head.
>
>It's possible. But in that case, they should at least have treated my
>original email as a request for a DSR ^W CCIwhateverR return. They
>could have argued about the postage and I might even have let them off
>the L3.90 for the sake of an easy life. But they simply ignored both
>emails and the letter before action.
>
>_Maybe_ they are prone to losing track of things but their very prompt
>responses to the actual court documents suggest that at the very least
>my complaint has been, how shall we say, reprioritised. And their
>horrible bluster suggests that at the very least they have a very poor
>understanding of the law which is probably leading them to violations
>of other customers' rights too.

I don't think you ever said what it was about the item which is
non-compliant. They may think you are being over-pedantic on the matter.

I'm currently having a minor spat with the supplier of a mobile phone
(it's so cheap it's not worth posting back, and in fact the spat itself
has more value to me in my day job as an anecdote than as a working
phone).

It's advertised as working on 2G only - which is fair enough. What they
don't say, until you complain, is that it won't work[1] with most SIMs
that would provide 3G access if put in a 2G/3G phone.

They apparently regard this as "obvious" (in discussion with their
helpdesk), whereas I think that such SIMs are probably unobtainable
today and I'm lucky to have some 5yr-old ones which work.

[1] Co-incidentally, I have one of the country's leading GSM phone
designers (now retired) dropping round for tea this afternoon. I'll ask
him if he's had any experience of this failure mode.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <MPG.305ee75a9...@text.usenet.plus.net>,

Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>Your defendants have evidently failed to deal with your allegation that
>the goods were not as described. But arguably they have set out the
>nature of their case, namely that they're not liable for your return
>postage and legal costs. OK, that might not be a very sound case, but
>they have set out the nature of it.

By that interpretation, simply writing "we deny liability" would serve
to count as a denial of all the facts alleged in a claim. I'm sure
that in a Fast or Multi Track claim, where both sides were properly
represented, the CPR would not be interpreted so loosely. The
defendants would have to apply to amend their defence so as to include
the rebuttal which might not be permitted (especially after recent
reforms) and would of course have costs consequences.

>> But, as I say, I am prepared for the judge to let my
>> opponents off the hook on that.
>
>Fair enough, but all the more reason why you need to hang on to the
>goods as evidence (as I understand you now plan to do).

Yes, thanks.

>> >So it's possible that they've neither admitted nor denied that the goods
>> >were not as described.
>>
>> Contrary to CPR 16.5(1) of course.
>
>Indeed. So at some point the court may require them to be more
>specific, and they might then deny it.

We'll see.

[Scion]

Adam Funk put finger to keyboard:

:-)

Or possibly by spell-checking software.

A few years back I had a T9 text mobile phone (i.e. no alpha keyboard,
instead the letters are on the numeric keys. Press '2' twice for 'b' etc.)

It had predictive text so you could press each key once and it would work
out the word you wanted. I managed to invite someone out for a 'neck'.

[Ian Jackson]

I have received my Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims
Track with a Directions Questionnaire.

I am thinking of ticking the box consenting to mediation. I don't
think it's likely to do any harm. In mediation I'll have to explain
everything to the defendants but this may result in them simply paying
up.

I guess there's no harm in it ?

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Norman Wells]

"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3ov*zH...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

>I have received my Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims
> Track with a Directions Questionnaire.
>
> I am thinking of ticking the box consenting to mediation. I don't
> think it's likely to do any harm. In mediation I'll have to explain
> everything to the defendants but this may result in them simply paying
> up.
>
> I guess there's no harm in it ?

Apart of course from the cost of the time and effort the mediator has to put in,
which alone will greatly exceed the amount of the original claim (£28?).

[The Todal]

On 18/09/2015 20:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have received my Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims
> Track with a Directions Questionnaire.
>
> I am thinking of ticking the box consenting to mediation. I don't
> think it's likely to do any harm. In mediation I'll have to explain
> everything to the defendants but this may result in them simply paying
> up.
>
> I guess there's no harm in it ?
>

Probably no harm, unless the mediation is to take place at a court far
away from where you live.

Although the courts encourage litigants to exchange directions
questionnaires, best not to. The defendant might not know how to fill
it in, and if he sees yours he'll just copy it. If he fails to file it,
you might get judgment.

[Zapp_Brannigan]

On 05/09/2015 13:30, Norman Wells wrote:

> It's exactly the sort of situation for which the expression 'cutting off
> your nose to spite your face' was invented.

Challenging a bad trader who refuses to meet their legal obligations is
an act of service to the community.

So it's 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' in the same way as
giving money to a charity.

Thank you for this Ian, and good luck!

[Norman Wells]

"Zapp_Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote in message
news:mti32u$cfq$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 05/09/2015 13:30, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> It's exactly the sort of situation for which the expression 'cutting off
>> your nose to spite your face' was invented.
>
> Challenging a bad trader who refuses to meet their legal obligations is an act of
> service to the community.

Going to mediation as is now proposed, however, is hardly challenging him.

Moreover, public expenditure cannot be justified on trivial civil disputes.

[Roger Hayter]

The remedy for that is for the loser to pay for it, not to forbid the
raising of *trivial* disputes. It takes two to make a dispute, and
there should be a proper way to resolve it.

--
Roger Hayter

[Ian Jackson]

In article <d63gig...@mid.individual.net>,

The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> wrote:
>On 18/09/2015 20:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I have received my Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims
>> Track with a Directions Questionnaire.
>>

>> I am thinking of ticking the box consenting to mediation. [...]

>>
>> I guess there's no harm in it ?
>
>Probably no harm, unless the mediation is to take place at a court far
>away from where you live.

It's to be done by telephone. A one hour time-limited appointment,
apparently. Given that the remaining dispute is solely about costs
and the cost of returning the goods, showing willing by consenting to
mediation might be likely to incline the judge more favourably towards
me ?

If I do consent to mediation I don't intend to give any ground. I
assume the court doesn't get a report from the mediators saying
`claimant was a stubborn so-and-so'.

>Although the courts encourage litigants to exchange directions
>questionnaires, best not to. The defendant might not know how to fill
>it in, and if he sees yours he'll just copy it. If he fails to file it,
>you might get judgment.

The form says that it must be served on the other parties.

The last time I had a defended case I got an allocation questionnaire
which asked things like what were the areas in dispute etc. This one
doesn't (N180 [1]) - it's all administrative.

[1] http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n180-eng.pdf

I was hoping to be able to put forward my case for summary judgement
somewhere.

[Norman Wells]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1mazs2r.184hdf1deuji8N%ro...@hayter.org...

No, that's far too accommodating.

Instead of mediation or a trial, I think low value cases should be automatically
referred to the Bash Your Head Against the Wall Until You See Sense and Withdraw
Service (first 5 minutes free).

It would also be designated to handle all libel cases.

[Judith]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:19:29 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

<snip>


>You should never have started your claim in the first place but written it off to
>experience if and when it was clear you weren't going to get anywhere.

So you are quite happy for such companies to rip of Mr Jackson and other people
are you? Fortunately many people are not.

In my experience, one of the reasons such things happen is because some
suppliers believe that they can get away with such things. Mr Jackson is
doing precisely the right thing - as I would also do - in making sure that they
are not going to get way with such with me. It is the only way that they will
change their attitude.

Unless of course you have other different direct experience of dealing with
such things - do you?

[Judith]

I wonder have you had direct experience of that approach: if so, what was the
result?

[The Todal]

Low value cases are usually allocated to the small claims track. It
means that if either side decides to use lawyers they won't get those
lawyers' fees paid by their opponent even if they win. So anyone
litigating on the small claims track has to put a lot of time and effort
into it, and in particular to complete the correct forms within the
prescribed time limits.

To strike out all low value claims and all libel cases would of course
be unreasonable and no doubt you were speaking tongue in cheek. But the
courts regularly have to deal with *weak* claims pursued by litigants in
person and it is very difficult to devise a procedure which strikes them
out without giving the litigant ample opportunity to correct his errors.

Seriously, would you argue that claims below a particular value must not
be allowed in our courts? If so, what would that value have to be, in
your opinion?

I am reminded that I am about to sue a firm of solicitors for 250
pounds. I think that must be comfortably above any limit that you'd want
to impose.

[Norman Wells]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qqrqva1r6v921onc9...@4ax.com...

I know, unfortunately, that there are many people who are prepared to go to any
lengths, regardless of the cost to others, to get whatever trivial recompense they
think is their right. But they're just a pain in the bum to everyone else,
especially to those who at least partially fund the expensive process through their
taxes.

Courts and court time do not come free.

[Steve Walker]

On 19/09/2015 18:14, Norman Wells wrote:

> I know, unfortunately, that there are many people who are prepared to go
> to any lengths, regardless of the cost to others, to get whatever
> trivial recompense they think is their right. But they're just a pain
> in the bum to everyone else, especially to those who at least partially
> fund the expensive process through their taxes.
>
> Courts and court time do not come free.

The cost of investigating most thefts and robberies must often be far
higher than the value of the stolen goods. The cost of detecting,
prosecuting and imprisoning a burglar will be greater than the
replacement of what he stole. For petty shoplifting matters, the cost of
even filing a crime report would be uneconomic.

Perhaps we should stop wasting Police and Court resources on these
matters too.

[Petar Perry]

Nothing is for free; but if by public support for the system that
supports the cost of the few such cases, that same public will not be
fleeced by a thousand cuts with the sharp practices of the companies
involved - why there is a saving to us all.

Of course someone may question whether the potential savings outweigh the
cost in any particular case, though in the instant one I rather think the
balance falls on Mr. Jackson's side.

The only other argument I can see one of wanting to pay as little as
possible and nothing for matters that do not affect one personally; and
of course with that as a stance all the balances fall on one's own side.

[Norman Wells]

"The Todal" <thet...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:d65bde...@mid.individual.net...

Quite right too. And if they don't they should have their case struck out.

> To strike out all low value claims and all libel cases would of course be
> unreasonable and no doubt you were speaking tongue in cheek. But the courts
> regularly have to deal with *weak* claims pursued by litigants in person and it is
> very difficult to devise a procedure which strikes them out without giving the
> litigant ample opportunity to correct his errors.

There shouldn't be ample opportunity to correct errors; in fact there shouldn't be
any opportunity at all. For tiny claims, it should be get it right or lose. The
courts don't have the time to mess about.

> Seriously, would you argue that claims below a particular value must not be
> allowed in our courts? If so, what would that value have to be, in your opinion?

I have no objection to people fighting if they want to over something trivial. What
I don't want as a taxpayer is to have to bear any of the cost whatsoever. And I
don't want the courts to be clogged up with trivia either, when they could be
dealing with proper matters.

> I am reminded that I am about to sue a firm of solicitors for 250 pounds. I think
> that must be comfortably above any limit that you'd want to impose.

You can sue for whatever amount you choose. It doesn't mean you're entitled to it
or will get it. If you don't, in full, you should pay at least part of the
realistic cost in order to discourage excessive claims and deter bringing trivial
ones.

Maybe we need a further layer as a subdivision of the small claims track called the
pitifully small claims track where volunteers from any walk of life who are prepared
to do it come to random decisions (a bit like magistrates).

[Judith]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 10:54:14 +0100, The Todal <thet...@beeb.net> wrote:

>On 04/09/2015 23:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I recently made a claim against what seems to be a smallish UK company
>> in Liverpool. Goods not as described. My claim was for: price
>> originally paid (L28); anticipated return postage (L4); court fee
>> (MCOL - L25); fixed commencement costs (L33). (Rather than sending
>> the goods back immediately, in my claim I undertook to send the goods
>> back if paid; this is because they didn't clearly state the address to
>> use and authorise the return; some companies still reject all
>> unanticipated deliveries.)
>>
>> They have admitted the price originally paid (L28) and sent a cheque
>> for that amount.
>>
>> Their defence for the remainder is (omitting irrelevancies):
>> - they tried to phone me up several times
>> - they tried to refund to my credit card but it had expired
>> They say don't intend to pay any court fees etc.
>>
>> I may be able to collect some evidence to refute (a). Re (b) it is
>> true that my credit card had expired by the time of my claim (but not
>> by the time of my original rejection email) but that is hardly an
>> excuse.
>>
>> Their defence encloses a copy of my detailed particulars of claim,
>> which I served separately. I think from looking at it that it is the
>> very copy I sent them so they probably haven't got a copy any more.
>> They're obviously muppets. I suspect that they may not have sent
>> their part admission and part defence to the court.
>>
>> I want to avoid wasted effort, pointless hearings, etc. I intend to:
>>
>> * Send a copy of their defence form to the court
>
>It should already have gone to the court and you can assume it has. You
>could phone the court to check (if you can get through to any sentient
>life form at the Money Claims Centre). If they haven't sent it to the
>court a better strategy would be to apply for judgment.
>
>
>> * Bank their cheque
>
>Fine
>
>> * Post the goods back (I will have to guess at the delivery address;
>> my original rejection email asked for them to confirm the address)
>
>I don't think that really makes any difference to your claim. I'd be
>inclined to ask them whether they intend to collect the goods or whether
>they can send you a prepaid postal label.
>
>
>> * Post them back another copy of the particulars of claim so
>> they can't claim they were confused and didn't have it
>
>No need.
>
>>
>> * All of this with a cover letter warning them that they are onto a
>> hiding to nothing and that if this goes to a hearing and the judge
>> agrees with me it will just add to the `fees' which they are
>> trying to get out of paying.
>
>No need.
>
>They will be aware already that it will cost them more to defend the
>claim than to pay up. They may be hoping that a judge will rule in their
>favour without the need for any hearing. That isn't likely to happen. If
>anything he'd be more likely to give summary judgment in your favour.
>Next step, you'll be ordered to file directions questionnares. Many
>litigants in person bungle this step by getting intimidated by the form
>and failing to submit it in time. If that happens you'll get summary
>judgment in your favour. Let them gradually work out for themselves that
>if they pay a solicitor to help them it will cost them more than the sum
>you're claiming.
>
>>
>> Questions which seem to arise:
>>
>> * Is any of the above a bad idea and am I missing anything ?
>>
>> * Me travelling to Liverpool for a hearing (assuming it gets
>> transferred to their court) seems disproportionate. Can I
>> suggest (eg in an allocation questionnaire) that I would like
>> the matter dealt with by telephone ?
>
>You can ask for a hearing to be by telephone. Only an interlocutory
>hearing, not a trial/disposal hearing.
>
>Ask on your directions questionnaire for the case to be heard at your
>local court. You may get lucky.


I have made a number of claims which have been allocated to Small Claims track:
they were all allocated to the County Court nearest to where I live; have I
just been lucky or is it the norm?

[Roger Hayter]

Of course, some claims may not be valid. But, if they are, do you not
feel it more appropriate to blame the commercial oranisation which is
willing to brazenly cheat customers out of their rights in order to
increase profits? This is unfair to their competitors, too.

--
Roger Hayter

[Prate Perry]

How about this then:

Take the money that would be spent on such vain pursuits and pay the
burglars and thieves directly. You have to know how many there are, and
who, of course; so some sort of registration is necessary; and some sort
of control on who and how many can register - call it the Thieves Guild.

Now for this to make economic sense the thieves can't actually steal
anything. Not that they will have nothing to do, though. What they do
instead of actually thieving is to protect their Guild, looking for
people who are not on the list doing a little thieving on the side. Of
course, if they find out that someone is thieving without a licence they
have to have a procedure for persuading them to stop.

In fact it is possible that a great many of the small crimes we see would
be better dealt with in such fashion. Indeed such a system might even be
better overall if ALL crimes were handled so, even major ones - economies
of scale and all that. I believe a certain north-american country lying
south of the United States has this, though they call their Thieves Guild
the Police.

[Norman Wells]

"Steve Walker" <persi...@byzantium.invalid> wrote in message
news:d65l2k...@mid.individual.net...

Your examples are all of criminal behaviour, which there are means of stopping, at
least temporarily, by imprisonment.

The same does not apply to trivial civil claims.

[Norman Wells]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:83arva5ugvftoqqif...@4ax.com...

> I have made a number of claims which have been allocated to Small Claims track:
> they were all allocated to the County Court nearest to where I live; have I
> just been lucky or is it the norm?

Most people in their lives make no such claims.

Why are you so different?

[Norman Wells]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message

news:1mb0jir.vjydmt16jrhtuN%ro...@hayter.org...

It's a waste of court time, and taxpayers' money, for cases to be heard the value of
which is way below the overall cost of dealing with them.

[Norman Wells]

"Prate Perry" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:mtkecf$ai3$1...@dont-email.me...

Write to Lord Vetinari. I'm sure he'll be interested in your ideas, even if they
are a bit old hat.

[The Todal]

So now all you need is a definition of "trivial" or a process whereby a
judge rules a dispute to be trivial.

Neighbours arguing about a six inch strip of land? Two foot strip? Four
foot?

Getting a refund for a DVD which is found to be scratched - would the
retail value have to be over 30 quid for the court to be willing to hear
the claim and if not, would the buyer simply have to accept that he's
been swindled and buy another?

>
>> I am reminded that I am about to sue a firm of solicitors for 250
>> pounds. I think that must be comfortably above any limit that you'd
>> want to impose.
>
> You can sue for whatever amount you choose. It doesn't mean you're
> entitled to it or will get it. If you don't, in full, you should pay at
> least part of the realistic cost in order to discourage excessive claims
> and deter bringing trivial ones.

That's dealt with by the parties making offers and at the end of the
case the judge deciding whether an unreasonable rejection of an offer
should result in the party being penalised in costs.

>
> Maybe we need a further layer as a subdivision of the small claims track
> called the pitifully small claims track where volunteers from any walk
> of life who are prepared to do it come to random decisions (a bit like
> magistrates).

Or maybe if the nation can't afford to offer a civil court system to its
citizens the task could be taken on by Sharia courts or Beth Din courts.
If necessary on payment of a fee which goes towards the greater
glorification of the relevant God.

[The Todal]

Good question.

I've said for years that our schools should be teaching kids about the
law and the courts system, rather than about (say) religion. If you
teach kids that there is a system, open to all, for resolving disputes
peacefully rather than with weapons and threats, we might have fewer crimes.

Everyone should have at least one civil court action. If you've never
sued someone or threatened to sue someone, why are you so different?