Advice with Court Claim received please?

usefulmale

Make sure you get the claim moved to your local court too.

RFW

usefulmale wrote: »

Make sure you get the claim moved to your local court too.

That happens automatically now, unless the claimant has a good objection as to why it shouldn't.

RMS2

Well, a few thoughts here. Who gave advice that hasn't actually been in the county court or defended a small claims?


Secondly, I'm not sure how the satnav could have been analogue, unless it's about 30 years old.


So, that is misleading, what seems to be the problem (although I don't have all the facts) is that the charging cable is incorrect and the unit needs replacing, a new cable needs to be supplied or both parties need to come to an agreement.


The other party has made you an offer and you have decided to turn it down. I think that the judge will decide that you have sold a defective or incomplete item and therefore are liable.


I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here, you supplied a defective item and are not willing to rectify the problem to his satisfaction. I think the buyer was reasonable to accept £40 for a cable that is going to cost £60 and should have been complete with the item in the first place.


BTW, a word of warning, not all county court appointments are seen in an old room with a kindly old judge the other side of the desk. These days, they can be seen by a district judge in the magistrates (for civil use) court.

RFW

RMS2 wrote: »

Well, a few thoughts here. Who gave advice that hasn't actually been in the county court or defended a small claims?

That's one of the problems I have with internet advice, I could claim to have a myriad of legal qualifications and experience and just make a load of nonsense up.
A quick check on previous posts by some on this thread will show other threads asking for advice on bailiffs turning up after a CCJ was issued, as well as a repossessed vehicle. The threads were not long enough ago for any lessons to have been learned imo.

My thoughts are that any mention of how much another cable is or of a previous offer to pay for it is an admission of liability. I don't think a judge would expect someone to shop around for an item they shouldn't have needed to purchase in the first place. I'd guess most judges don't use comparison websites. Halfords would seem to be a reliable company for a car accessory that Ebay and Amazon are not. A judge would know Halfords and not consider them to be an extreme place to shop.
"I could get it cheaper m'lud" will probably get the judge saying "well why didn't you then?".

gazfocus

RMS2 wrote: »

So, that is misleading, what seems to be the problem (although I don't have all the facts) is that the charging cable is incorrect and the unit needs replacing, a new cable needs to be supplied or both parties need to come to an agreement.

That's the point though, the cable supplied is the cable supplied by Garmin with the Sat Nav I sold. It's not an aftermarket or replacement cable, it is the original cable.

The issue has come about because the buyer was expecting a different cable and now wants me to purchase the cable he was expecting in addition to him keeping the original cable. That's just not fair and it's certainly not right that I should have to pay him £100 for a cable when he only paid £200 for the Sat Nav (and the Sat Nav retails at £280).

Therefore, why is it that the buyer should be allowed to refuse to return the sat nav TWICE and hit me with a court claim for 50% of the cost of the sat nav plus court fees?

gazfocus

RFW wrote: »

That's one of the problems I have with internet advice, I could claim to have a myriad of legal qualifications and experience and just make a load of nonsense up.
A quick check on previous posts by some on this thread will show other threads asking for advice on bailiffs turning up after a CCJ was issued, as well as a repossessed vehicle. The threads were not long enough ago for any lessons to have been learned imo.

My thoughts are that any mention of how much another cable is or of a previous offer to pay for it is an admission of liability. I don't think a judge would expect someone to shop around for an item they shouldn't have needed to purchase in the first place. I'd guess most judges don't use comparison websites. Halfords would seem to be a reliable company for a car accessory that Ebay and Amazon are not. A judge would know Halfords and not consider them to be an extreme place to shop.
"I could get it cheaper m'lud" will probably get the judge saying "well why didn't you then?".

The point is, I offered the buyer a full refund on two occasions. He chose to not accept this and instead decided to file a court claim, showing that he has not made the effort to resolve the issue out of court.

From looking on the justice.gov.uk website, it says "If you choose to go ahead with a court claim then you should ensure you comply with the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) Practice Direction for ‘pre-action conduct’ before issuing the claim. Failure to do so could impact on (and in some cases invalidate) your claim."

It also states

".1 Before starting proceedings –
(1) the claimant should set out the details of the matter in writing by sending a letter before claim to the defendant. This letter before claim is not the start of proceedings; and
(2) the defendant should give a full written response within a reasonable period, preceded, if appropriate, by a written acknowledgment of the letter before claim"

I don't believe the buyer did this as all he did was sent an email basically saying make it £40 or he'll take legal action.

martindow

Are you absolutely sure that your buyer has paid and opened a claim? You can go to MCOL fill in forms and print them off without paying the fee. If a claim has been opened you will be sent an official copy from the court. Has this happened? If you have only been sent the papers by the buyer I would not do anything.

This printing out strategy has been mentioned previously by people trying to frighten creditors into paying up at no cost to themselves apart from a stamp.

gazfocus

martindow wrote: »

Are you absolutely sure that your buyer has paid and opened a claim? You can go to MCOL fill in forms and print them off without paying the fee. If a claim has been opened you will be sent an official copy from the court. Has this happened? If you have only been sent the papers by the buyer I would not do anything.

This printing out strategy has been mentioned previously by people trying to frighten creditors into paying up at no cost to themselves apart from a stamp.

Yeah, the papers came from the court and had a password on to access the claim on the moneyclaim website.

RMS2

gazfocus wrote: »

That's the point though, the cable supplied is the cable supplied by Garmin with the Sat Nav I sold. It's not an aftermarket or replacement cable, it is the original cable.

But that is exactly my point. That is between you and Garmin, not you and the buyer (and if it is Garmin, then it's likely to be a GPS rather than satnav). The buyer (and the judge) have no interest about your issues with Garmin and if you attempt to bring them up, he'll (the judge) stop you, because it is irrelevant to the claim.

gazfocus wrote: »

The issue has come about because the buyer was expecting a different cable and now wants me to purchase the cable he was expecting in addition to him keeping the original cable. That's just not fair and it's certainly not right that I should have to pay him £100 for a cable when he only paid £200 for the Sat Nav (and the Sat Nav retails at £280).

I can see you heading for a fall, fair or unfair does not come into it, you sold a defective item and are not willing to put the situation right. The only way out of this is, to see if Garmin have supplied the right cable and you have passed it on, but you have admitted that it isn't the right cable.Something sounds wrong about the cable, because one going from the cigarette socket is just a charger and it shouldn't matter. If however he is talking about the cable to the laptop, then that is a different matter, because it may not load the map software that Garmin have.

gazfocus wrote: »

Therefore, why is it that the buyer should be allowed to refuse to return the sat nav TWICE and hit me with a court claim for 50% of the cost of the sat nav plus court fees?

You didn't mention that you offered to have the item returned (twice), you are moving the goal posts now, do you have this in writing showing that the buyer received a copy of your offer? Otherwise it will be dismissed. Did you offer to pay his return postage and put him back in his original position?


He hasn't hit you with a court claim for 50%, he's taking action as a last resort because you refuse to supply the cable and didn't agree to his offer of £40.


Forget Garmin, forget unfair, forget 50%, forget fluffy puppies and cute kittens. Get him back to where he was, sort the cable or come to an agreement on an offer.


If you do end up going to court (which I think you'll lose), get your facts right about analogue/digital, don't cloud the argument with non issues. Don't bring up things you haven't put in your response (like I offered him a refund twice, but I forgot to mention it) and make sure you have evidence to back it up.


Please don't go into court saying, Garmin blub let me down, not fair blub, not my fault blub, buyer being unreasonable blub, offered him money back but have no evidence blub. And expect some Santa Claus type bespeckled character that says, I know it wasn't your fault, I'll sort it all out, because you're in for a bit of a shock.

tomtontom

RMS2 has offered excellent advice. The facts of this case are very clear - you did not provide what was advertised, you need to do this.

The only point that is not clear is whether the buyer has refused to send the analogue cable back to you. The court would not allow him to keep both - that would be betterment. I would suggest contacting the buyer and offering to supply the correct cable (without delay - how you get this cable is for you to sort out) in exchange for the existing cable. You could suggest that he sends this cable (by a traceable means, and at your expense) upon receipt of the new cable.

And don't think a court will throw out a case because the claimant has tried to claim a more expensive cable. The most the judge will do is award the correct (lower) amount, and you'll still be liable for costs.