CCJ for Waste Removal after house sale?????

AdrianC

chopsmcgee wrote: »

Can anyone offer any advice on how this can be handled?

He has several options.

He can pay up.
He can move the stuff himself and apologise profusely.
He can pay somebody to shift it for him.
The second and third option may have already been removed from him, if the stuff has already been removed. He should have moved it before completion.

Is he entitled to ask for reciepts as proof?

No. It is a reasonable cost.

Does he have to pay?

At the moment, all that's happened is that he's received notification of being taken to court to recover the money. He can go to court and explain why he shouldn't have to pay - but he's unlikely to win. He was contractually obliged to remove the stuff before completion.

W"hat happens if he doesnt pay?

If he loses in court, he will have a CCJ lodged against him, which will damage his credit record, and may eventually result in bailiffs coming to recover property from him to clear the debt plus costs.

In short, if the stuff's still there, get round ASAP and clear it. If it's already gone, pay.

Oh, and if you can get skips for £90, I'll have one, please.

wwl

Some councils will collect large waste items for free. If this is the case in the area concerned, there may be an argument that they have failed to mitigate the costs by not using this service.
Also, was a letter before action received? If not is there scope to dismiss the claim on the basis that the pre-action protocol was not followed?

wwl

AdrianC wrote: »

He has several options.
If he loses in court, he will have a CCJ lodged against him, which will damage his credit record, and may eventually result in bailiffs coming to recover property from him to clear the debt plus costs.
.

Only if the judgement isn't paid.

Dan-Dan

wwl wrote: »

Some councils will collect large waste items for free. If this is the case in the area concerned, there may be an argument that they have failed to mitigate the costs by not using this service.

Not so easy in these times of austerity

wwl

For example. Redbridge council :
http://www2.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/parking_rubbish_and_streets/rubbish_and_recycling/bulky_waste.aspx

Guest101

wwl wrote: »

Some councils will collect large waste items for free. If this is the case in the area concerned, there may be an argument that they have failed to mitigate the costs by not using this service.
Also, was a letter before action received? If not is there scope to dismiss the claim on the basis that the pre-action protocol was not followed?

1: Solicitors notified the seller. No LBA required.
2: Even without an LBA a claim wont be dismissed. Just costs probably wouldn't be allowed.
3: Reasonably mitigate losses / costs. Does not mean get the cheapest.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

AdrianC wrote: »

No. It is a reasonable cost.

Why is the answer to that no?

It was my understanding that one of the principles of small claims is to mitigate your losses.

If the seller put in writing they will pay as requested upon a copy of the costs and the new owner refuses then they aren't mitigating their losses.

If it did get to court (shouldn't it go to mediation first?) the new owner would presumably need to demonstrate their costs to the court any way.

Guest101

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

Why is the answer to that no?

It was my understanding that one of the principles of small claims is to mitigate your losses.

If the seller put in writing they will pay as requested upon a copy of the costs and the new owner refuses then they aren't mitigating their losses.

If it did get to court (shouldn't it go to mediation first?) the new owner would presumably need to demonstrate their costs to the court any way.

It's about reasonableness.


You do not have to get the cheapest alternative, just that you have not been excessive.


Mitigating your loss is a principal, not just of small claims, but of civil law in general.


The buyer does not have to provide receipts, but obviously it helps their case to do so. A judge can take a statement and accept on the basis of probabilities the costs are reasonable and truthful.


It does not have to go to mediation before court

silvercar

How many of us have found stuff left by previous occupants?

I certainly have and had it been the stuff mentioned by OP I would have put on facebook or freecycle that there are fence panels and a bed available to anyone who wanted to collect for free. I would have then stuck the black bags in the wheelie bin and thought no more of it.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Guest101 wrote: »

It's about reasonableness.


You do not have to get the cheapest alternative, just that you have not been excessive.


Mitigating your loss is a principal, not just of small claims, but of civil law in general.


The buyer does not have to provide receipts, but obviously it helps their case to do so. A judge can take a statement and accept on the basis of probabilities the costs are reasonable and truthful.


It does not have to go to mediation before court

Thank you for explaining, assuming OP's story is correct and the amount of rubbish not understated, is £220 for moving a bed, 2 bags and few fence panels from A-B on the same property not excessive?

To me, either there was more rubbish, the buyer is claiming more than paid or somebody really overcharged the buyer to move the rubbish.