Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 27th Jun 16, 9:28 PM
    • 420Posts
    • 63Thanks
    maddogb
    "Esure vs me" court date
    • #1
    • 27th Jun 16, 9:28 PM
    "Esure vs me" court date 27th Jun 16 at 9:28 PM
    can't find the old thread that got shut down but anyway got my court date today 1/11/2016, watch this space!


    it's actually the 4th Nov...oops
    Last edited by maddogb; 17-10-2016 at 12:35 PM.
Page 2
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 7th Jul 16, 12:31 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    November?
    Jesus that's ages away!!!!!!
    Originally posted by arcon5

    tell me about it, ofc I wasted 3 months with the useless ombudsman. but it will probably mean a year without a decent car.
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 12th Oct 16, 3:43 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    Well as expected last minute after a nearly a year they are offering to settle, lots of sabre rattling, threats etc. very professional not...
    It does have my curiosity piqued as to whether a judge will value a full settlement without admission of liability the same as a simple full settlement?
    • Nobbie1967
    • By Nobbie1967 12th Oct 16, 4:44 PM
    • 562 Posts
    • 685 Thanks
    Nobbie1967
    Well as expected last minute after a nearly a year they are offering to settle, lots of sabre rattling, threats etc. very professional not...
    It does have my curiosity piqued as to whether a judge will value a full settlement without admission of liability the same as a simple full settlement?
    Originally posted by maddogb
    Yes,

    if it went to trial, esure would still not admit liability, but a judge could find them liable for the full amount. Ensure are effectively saying that they'll pay you the money before judgement is made. If you continue to court having been offered the full settlement, you will likely be made liable for costs.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 12th Oct 16, 4:48 PM
    • 596 Posts
    • 362 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    insurers are making tens of thousands each day from this scam, they sure as hell won't settle and will attempt to delay any final judgment as long as possible.
    Originally posted by maddogb
    If they think there is any chance they will lose, they will settle before court to ensure no precedent is set that can be relied on by others.
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 12th Oct 16, 4:51 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    A winning party will be made liable for costs?? Are you sure about that? Sounds a bit ridiculous.
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 12th Oct 16, 4:53 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    Some one else on here said a precedent cannot be set in small claims.
    • dacouch
    • By dacouch 12th Oct 16, 5:34 PM
    • 19,734 Posts
    • 12,104 Thanks
    dacouch
    If they think there is any chance they will lose, they will settle before court to ensure no precedent is set that can be relied on by others.
    Originally posted by Mercdriver
    There is no precedent set in county court.

    The "Judges" in effect make their own decision based on the evidence provided and in effect who they find is the most believable witness.

    They do take note of higher courts prededents but tend not to take notice of other county court judgements as they know each cc judge has judged on the case presented before them.
    • agrinnall
    • By agrinnall 12th Oct 16, 5:38 PM
    • 15,621 Posts
    • 11,329 Thanks
    agrinnall
    A winning party will be made liable for costs?? Are you sure about that? Sounds a bit ridiculous.
    Originally posted by maddogb
    But you would be responsible for the costs, if you'd accepted the settlement there would have been no costs.
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 12th Oct 16, 5:38 PM
    • 8,693 Posts
    • 9,755 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    A winning party will be made liable for costs?? Are you sure about that? Sounds a bit ridiculous.
    Originally posted by maddogb
    It's not "will be" but "may be".
    If you were taking Esure to court for £X amount and before the court date they offered to pay this to you but you refused it, opting to continue to court instead, a judge could decide that your behaviour was unreasonable.
    If they thought that your unreasonableness cost Esure money and wasted court time just to get a monetary payment that would be no higher than the amount already offered to you then I believe that you could be made liable for costs.
    • dacouch
    • By dacouch 12th Oct 16, 5:39 PM
    • 19,734 Posts
    • 12,104 Thanks
    dacouch
    A winning party will be made liable for costs?? Are you sure about that? Sounds a bit ridiculous.
    Originally posted by maddogb
    You would most likely be made liable for the costs including Esure's if they had made an offer in full but still taken it to court and won.

    County Courts prefer negotiation before and see the actual court date as to be avoided if reasobaly possible. Thus if you're offered the full amount before the court date and continue with the case the court see it as having been avoidable and creating additional costs for the defendant so they generally (Not always) award some or all of the costs against you
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 12th Oct 16, 9:00 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    You would most likely be made liable for the costs including Esure's if they had made an offer in full but still taken it to court and won.

    County Courts prefer negotiation before and see the actual court date as to be avoided if reasobaly possible. Thus if you're offered the full amount before the court date and continue with the case the court see it as having been avoidable and creating additional costs for the defendant so they generally (Not always) award some or all of the costs against you
    Originally posted by dacouch

    Your first sentence isn't very clear, you mean I would be liable for cost whoever won?


    It's also a bit more complex as I had put in an application for an amendments to the claim, part of this application was accepted but part was dismissed so I have appealed against that and asked for the order to be varied as is allowed via the order.
    This means that the hearing fee has to be paid by the 21st which is also the final day allowed to try and claim a refund of that fee if the hearing is to be vacated hence as this company have not been as good in their word in past events, I am reluctant to announce the claim as settled until the money is cleared in the bank.
    This in essence means they have not paid the full claim which is implied as paying all court fees so is in reality merely an offer close to the claim.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 12th Oct 16, 9:17 PM
    • 596 Posts
    • 362 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    A winning party will be made liable for costs?? Are you sure about that? Sounds a bit ridiculous.
    Originally posted by maddogb
    At the moment, I am suing a property surveyor (well effectively his insurer) for negligence. Our costs are already at £55k the othe side projects double that from their side, though we think that was scare tactics. We have just come through mediation which resulted in no settlement. Be aware that if the other side put a sum of money 'into court', as a proposed settlement that even if you are successful you will be responsible for most if not all costs, from BOTH sides.

    If the court thinks you have declined a reasonable offer, be prepared even if you win to be responsible for all costs. Yes it does happen.
    Last edited by Mercdriver; 12-10-2016 at 9:22 PM.
    • Mercdriver
    • By Mercdriver 12th Oct 16, 9:28 PM
    • 596 Posts
    • 362 Thanks
    Mercdriver
    There is no precedent set in county court.

    The "Judges" in effect make their own decision based on the evidence provided and in effect who they find is the most believable witness.

    They do take note of higher courts prededents but tend not to take notice of other county court judgements as they know each cc judge has judged on the case presented before them.
    Originally posted by dacouch
    Indeed no precedents are set in county court, but if this is a sure fire earner for the defendants as the OP maintains, then the defendants may decide to take it to a higher court on appeal if they wee to lose. IANAL, but I have read that in higher courts on appeal, it can then become a precedent.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 13th Oct 16, 9:03 AM
    • 995 Posts
    • 908 Thanks
    DoaM
    Small claims outcomes do not set precedents ... they can however be persuasive in other small claims hearings.

    Rulings at the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court do set precedents and are binding on equal or lower courts.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 14th Oct 16, 1:02 AM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    Indeed no precedents are set in county court, but if this is a sure fire earner for the defendants as the OP maintains, then the defendants may decide to take it to a higher court on appeal if they wee to lose. IANAL, but I have read that in higher courts on appeal, it can then become a precedent.
    Originally posted by Mercdriver

    well I found a published figure of 800,000 cars written off each year, the maths looks promising even if they only manage to knock a few quid off each claim.
    I have offered several times to reconsider the claim if they will explain to me how they are meeting this law.
    They simply won't or can't considering the amount of nasty threats I am currently getting off their solicitor I tend to think it's the latter...
    • straighttalker
    • By straighttalker 14th Oct 16, 1:35 AM
    • 701 Posts
    • 557 Thanks
    straighttalker
    At the moment, I am suing a property surveyor (well effectively his insurer) for negligence. Our costs are already at £55k the othe side projects double that from their side, though we think that was scare tactics. We have just come through mediation which resulted in no settlement. Be aware that if the other side put a sum of money 'into court', as a proposed settlement that even if you are successful you will be responsible for most if not all costs, from BOTH sides.

    If the court thinks you have declined a reasonable offer, be prepared even if you win to be responsible for all costs. Yes it does happen.
    Originally posted by Mercdriver
    Your comment needs some clarification. If the Defendant makes a Part 36 offer (payments into Court are no longer made) and you fail to better that offer in Court, you are liable for their costs from the date which their offer expires i.e. 28 days after the offer was made.

    For example if the Defendant makes a Part 36 offer to settle your claim in the sum of £40k 2 months before trial and you fail to beat that at trial and are awarded £38k, you are liable for their costs from 28 days after their offer was made and up to and including their costs of trial.
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 14th Oct 16, 10:57 AM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    Your comment needs some clarification. If the Defendant makes a Part 36 offer (payments into Court are no longer made) and you fail to better that offer in Court, you are liable for their costs from the date which their offer expires i.e. 28 days after the offer was made.

    For example if the Defendant makes a Part 36 offer to settle your claim in the sum of £40k 2 months before trial and you fail to beat that at trial and are awarded £38k, you are liable for their costs from 28 days after their offer was made and up to and including their costs of trial.
    Originally posted by straighttalker

    wow is it just me or does anyone else consider the CPRs a beast that is getting out of hand..
    thought the overriding objective was to place parties on equal footing, the complexity of the CPRs seem to be negating that.
    this is relevantly small, claim equates to about £2500 although I am attempting to claim for exemplary damages as well but one of the judges dealing with amendments seems resistant to this and rejected it initially so I am having to ask for that to be varied.
    • straighttalker
    • By straighttalker 14th Oct 16, 2:16 PM
    • 701 Posts
    • 557 Thanks
    straighttalker
    Have a look at Qualified One Way Costs Shifting for PI claims if you think the CPR is getting far too complex!
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 17th Oct 16, 12:33 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    Have a look at Qualified One Way Costs Shifting for PI claims if you think the CPR is getting far too complex!
    Originally posted by straighttalker

    isn't that just a part of the CPRs tho?


    cannot believe how screwed up my head was with all this, only just realised that when I got the original order scheduling a date for the hearing I immediately copied it and worked from a copy which the cat knocked some coffee onto.
    Now I get out the original and realise the 1st Nov is actually the 4th
    • maddogb
    • By maddogb 19th Oct 16, 12:54 AM
    • 420 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    maddogb
    out of curiosity does anyone know if I cash a cheque enclosed with a letter stating "full and final settlement" is that acceptance in full? or can I just send a letter stating accepted as part of settlement?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,726Posts Today

7,126Users online

Martin's Twitter