Taking a 'friend' to court for a small claim - advice please

woody01

There is no way on earth you can force them to pay this money back with ROCK HARD evidence you lent it to them in the first place.

Contracts, as stated, can also be verbal, but if you try proving this in your case, you will just being throwing more money down the drain.

You could always employ someone to 'lean' on them and, believe me, this gets great results.

jamesdrew

This one is very simple, because the debt is over £1,500, send them a statutory demand for payment, you can get everything you need online. It warns them that if they don't pay in 21 days you will apply for bankruptcy petition against them. I did this with my father in law who owed me a lot more than this and miraculously he had a sudden "maturity of a long term savings plan" and paid in full! Trust me, it's very simple and it works. Make sure you send it recorded delivery or RMSD. Good luck . . .

olly300

woody01 wrote: »

There is no way on earth you can force them to pay this money back with ROCK HARD evidence you lent it to them in the first place.

Contracts, as stated, can also be verbal, but if you try proving this in your case, you will just being throwing more money down the drain.
s.

Civil action is based on the balance of probabilities.

The OP has a bank transaction showing that the money went into the "friend's" bank account. Therefore it's up to the friend to argue that the money was a gift but their conduct hasn't help them so far.

Someone I was close to was involved in this sort of incident and took their "friend" to court.

In short we discovered judges are use to this and it's normal after months of silence for the defendant to turn around once court action has been initiated to say the money lent to them was a gift. The reason why the judge didn't accept this is if someone gave you a gift you don't go silent then try and avoid them for months.

If you suddenly turn around and say the person was harassing you that's why you went silent the judge will ask for evidence of the harassment i.e. text messages, emails, letters or evidence you reported them to the police.

[Deleted User]

I wouldn't go as formal as people suggest on here.

Send them an informal email, along the lines of 'come on mate, pay me back the money I lent you' and try to trap them into replying to acknowledge the debt.

That's all you need.

If you sound all formal they might suss what you're doing and ignore you.

ILW

I am getting a little confused here.
Many threads on this site seem to be saying that if you take out a loan with a bank, and then it is found that the agreement does not conform with the law, or the agreement cannot be found, then the loan is unenforceable. Yet in this case posters are saying that a written agreement does not even have to exist and the loan is enforceable. Am I just being thick or is there a difference?

[Deleted User]

ILW, there is surely a few key differences.

Firstly, how many people are really getting loans 'written off' on the grounds of unenforceability?

Of those that are, what is the relationship between bank and customer? The balance is power is not quite the same as this case, where the lender and debtor are friends and on equal terms.

The whole enforceability argues stems from the jurisprudential argument that the state ought to intervene to protect smaller parties in legal agreements where the power is not held equally. e.g. protect the David (customer) against the Goliath (bank). In a lending contract, the bank holds the power as they control the terms - there is no room for negotiation, for example.

That's the rationale BEHIND the law in which people are trying to challenge their credit agreements, and it's the rationale that the judges have in the back of their minds when reviewing credit agreements. Are they FAIR? Fairness = balance of power, basically.

Here we have two equal parties who each have equal power and can each amend/change the agreement pre-signing (if such a signature existed). There's no reason for the state to intervene in their private transaction, as no party requires protection.

That said, even with the banks vs customers, just because a loan is not enforceable doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that customers are not obliged to pay the money back. It just means the banks can't enforce it

Here, in the OP's case, we have a private contract to lend money in return for repayment at a later date. I give you £100 and in consideration for this I am granted as IOU for repayment, possibly at a premium. You can infer the contract from standard terms and behaviour between the parties.

The reason this inference isn't drawn in the case of banks vs customers is because to do so would be seen to get too close to the Goliath and not protect the David. The state sides with the small guy. The OP is not a small guy.

billy_bulldog

Well an update - I had a reply in the post, they stupidly accepted the debt AND at the higher amount (I bet they were so blase about getting away with it for so long that they even forgot the original amount!). Of course there are all kinds of excuses about being made redundant, how it was a gamble on my part to lend a friend cash etc etc - basically they are squirming and trying to somehow make this out to be my fault for even daring to ask for it back. They have made a derisory offer of £10 per month which would take at least 16 years to pay off :mad:

What can I do now - can i reject their offer and send it off to the court for them to decide, or should i personally negotiate for more? (They say they are on JSA of £240 per month and connot afford any more, frankly though, at this point that is not really my concern, and I'd be looking for them to make a better offer than that).

As always, advice is welcomed and very much appreciated.

Alias_Omega

1) Small Claims Court
2) Win Small Claims Court (I bet they dont acknowledge the claim, and you win by default)
3) Send in the Bailiffs..

The reality is that this is going to be complete after christmas, even better if they have bought a new PS3 etc.

These people will find the cash to buy lots of expensive presents, but not to pay you back.

ALIBOBSY

Be aware if they defended and/or ask for time to pay the court could well force you to accept their £10 a month offer, especially if they are really on benefits.
Obviously as AO points out if they just ignore the claim and you win by default you can send the baliffs in, but are you sure they have anything worth taking to sell?

How far away do they live? May be worth a drive/walk by, by you or better a pal they don't know just to see what sort of life style they are living.

Instead of court action you could ask they to sign to agree to say £20 per month, but only for the next 6 months or they start work (whichever comes first) after which the amount would need to be reviewed? This is what most banks would do. You could also ask to see proof they are on benefits (do they live alone or have a partner who works?). Question how they finished work (if they were made redundant did they get a pay off?).

They are either in debt up to their eyeballs and in big trouble on benefits (in which case the chances of getting all your cash back quickly is low) and it may be worth just getting what you can back whilst they are offering. Or they are lying scumbags who just don't want to pay you back. If they were a mate you may well have an idea which is more likely.

You need to way up if the court action is worth it.

Either way good luck

ali x

Xbigman

Another option is to accept the £10 offer and review it in a years time. If you can prove they even paid one payment it strenghens your hand in court.
Regards



X