Is a claim for compensation a fine ?

NoviceAngel

Hi All,

A question to ponder -

I'm aware of one case, I've heard about almost a year to this day I posted

I now have a copy of the order and it states

Before Deputy Judge xxxxxx sitting at Northampton (CCBC) County Court, 4th Floor St Katharines's House, 21-27 St Katharines's street, Northampton NN1 2LH on the 3rd December 2013

I am writing with regard to the above claim.

Please note that Deputy District Judge xxxxxx has considered the claim, and has commented as follows:-

Claim does not comply with Money Claim on Line claim - struck out

it's as ambiguous as that!

It seems that MCOL after speaking to them again today cannot deal with cases for Compensation. They can however deal with cases that concern a fine for a fixed amount.

I've stumbled on another case, where the airline wrote to the Courts asking the case to be stuck out because MCOL was NOT the appropriate track for Compensation Claims, this is the Courts response.

HM_Courts_&_Tribunals_Service wrote:

Dear Sir,

I am writing with regard to the above claim.

Please note that the Deputy District Judge XXXXXXX has considered the claim, and has commented as follows :-

'It is a claim for a fixed sum (£602) & not for general damages so it is a fine. '

If you require any further information please email us or contact our helpdesk on the number above.

After a call to MCOL, they said that the case COULD go ahead and that the DDJ had indicted as such.

So we often talk about claiming compensation, should we change the wording to a fine?

I'm confused by this... any pointers ??

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

JPears

This sounds like complete bollox to me. MCOL is not just for fines.
If i order a TV and it arrives defective and I need to take supplier to court to get refund that is not a fine but a perfectly valid reason for using MCOL.
There must be more to those particular cases, or someone is just being plain stupid.

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

This sounds like complete bollox to me. MCOL is not just for fines.
If i order a TV and it arrives defective and I need to take supplier to court to get refund that is not a fine but a perfectly valid reason for using MCOL.
There must be more to those particular cases, or someone is just being plain stupid.

Probably the latter of your two suggestions.

The first case, I'm guessing here - may have been chucked out because the word compensation so the DDJ wrongly chucked it out.

The second case the DDJ correctly realised that the claim for compensation was for a fixed amount although he/she decided to call it a fine.

So I want to claim damages because I'm upset at the way the airline has treated me , MCOL cannot be used. Fair enough

But because EC261/2004 has pre-defined amounts the claim can go through MCOL.

I've been informed again today by MCOL staff, that ANY claim for COMPENSATION is refereed to a DJ before the case is transferred out!

It's NOT that it has to be a fine to go through MCOL but rather it cannot be for a random amount of Compensation.

NoviceAngel

NoviceAngel wrote:

'It is a claim for a fixed sum (£602) & not for general damages so it is a fine. '

Thought I would leave this all in for amusement. The text above was re-typed into an email I received, now after reading the actual Court scanned copy it actually says:

'It is a claim for a fixed sum (£602) & not for general damages so it is fine '

What a difference an a makes!:D Ooops!

Apologies

NoviceAngel