"Esure vs me" court date

maddogb

arcon5 wrote: »

Is it monday the hearing

no mate it's Friday

Stevie_Palimo

maddogb wrote: »

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?

I had a case ages ago and the Company in question prior to me taking legal action sent me out a small cheque with full and final settlement listed on the letter, I banked the cheque and used this money that they paid me to take the case to small claims Court, I did win my case much to the bemusement of the said Company that had also used a Barrister and sent me various legal threats about costs and so on, In my view it was about bullying tactics so I stood my ground and won with clear and concise evidence that backed up my case.

Moral of my case was that having deeper pockets did not give them a better chance so if you strongly believe that you are correct here then I wish you the best of luck as it is a very good feeling to wipe the smug grin of a big Companies face.

maddogb

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

I had a case ages ago and the Company in question prior to me taking legal action sent me out a small cheque with full and final settlement listed on the letter, I banked the cheque and used this money that they paid me to take the case to small claims Court, I did win my case much to the bemusement of the said Company that had also used a Barrister and sent me various legal threats about costs and so on, In my view it was about bullying tactics so I stood my ground and won with clear and concise evidence that backed up my case.

Moral of my case was that having deeper pockets did not give them a better chance so if you strongly believe that you are correct here then I wish you the best of luck as it is a very good feeling to wipe the smug grin of a big Companies face.

yeah their recent "harassment" was to send me the estimate of costs for their client Esure for attending an application hearing on the morning of the main hearing, was about a thousand.
This combined with their previous email putting me on notice of being expected to pay costs if I did not notify the court of settlement is borderline intimidation, amazing they are allowed to do this.

Stevie_Palimo

maddogb wrote: »

yeah their recent "harassment" was to send me the estimate of costs for their client Esure for attending an application hearing on the morning of the main hearing, was about a thousand.
This combined with their previous email putting me on notice of being expected to pay costs if I did not notify the court of settlement is borderline intimidation, amazing they are allowed to do this.

Without knowing the in's and outs of your case and remember there are always two sides to it, This does sound similar to my one to a degree whereby the Company believe that having money makes them powerful enough to frighten you.

As I said previously if you are 100% sure which being honest at this stage in the day seems like you have no choice I would say go all the way unless a payment is offered to you prior to the cases hearing, Even if this amount is offered on a without prejudice basis and not accepting liability then for me I would strongly suggest that you take it from them, You may think that no I would not want this as I believe the hearing will go my way but remember the Courts weigh things up on the balance of probabilities so there is not a guarantee that either side will win hands down here.

maddogb

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

Without knowing the in's and outs of your case and remember there are always two sides to it, This does sound similar to my one to a degree whereby the Company believe that having money makes them powerful enough to frighten you.

As I said previously if you are 100% sure which being honest at this stage in the day seems like you have no choice I would say go all the way unless a payment is offered to you prior to the cases hearing, Even if this amount is offered on a without prejudice basis and not accepting liability then for me I would strongly suggest that you take it from them, You may think that no I would not want this as I believe the hearing will go my way but remember the Courts weigh things up on the balance of probabilities so there is not a guarantee that either side will win hands down here.

the case is not overly complex, where an insurer elects to pay damages(your payout) on a vehicle following an incident, the amount of damages has minimal protection in law, they can pretty much give you what they can justify with a load of BS.
This is because they state in their policies "market value" and have evolved a complex distraction method to work this angle and increase profits, the indicator for this is one question.


30.3 million cars on the road at the end of 2015, how many people knew the amount of payout they would receive if their car was written off a day after insuring?


insurers will provide a million reasons for this but none hold water.


There is only one law can help you here if you are unfortunate enough to be short changed for whatever reason and Esure choose to ignore this law, this can be proven even using the literal rule so balance of probabilities won't enter into it.

Stevie_Palimo

maddogb having been in Court on numerous occasions with a couple of my own cases and then assisting a friend plus another against my Company all of these were in Small claims Courts the judge states on the balance of probability regardless of what part of the law was used in the actual cases, Yours will be no different and a judge will look at the balance of probabilities as I stated in my prior post.

DoaM

Small claims are always judged on the balance of probabilities. There is no "beyond reasonable doubt" with small claims.

Of course, one side's case my be damning and a sure thing, but the outcome will still be on the balance of probabilities.

Tothepoint.

DoaM wrote: »

Small claims are always judged on the balance of probabilities. There is no "beyond reasonable doubt" with small claims.

Of course, one side's case my be damning and a sure thing, but the outcome will still be on the balance of probabilities.

Looks like there's an echo on here tonight.

DoaM

Looks like there's actually someone contributing to the thread by reinforcing another poster's comment ... rather than making irrelevant remarks trying to score points for some bizarre reason.

maddogb

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

maddogb having been in Court on numerous occasions with a couple of my own cases and then assisting a friend plus another against my Company all of these were in Small claims Courts the judge states on the balance of probability regardless of what part of the law was used in the actual cases, Yours will be no different and a judge will look at the balance of probabilities as I stated in my prior post.

DoaM wrote: »

Small claims are always judged on the balance of probabilities. There is no "beyond reasonable doubt" with small claims.

Of course, one side's case my be damning and a sure thing, but the outcome will still be on the balance of probabilities.

Think you guys are a little confused with a subtle difference.
Small claims cases like any other are decided on what the law is, evidence may be weighed by the balance of probabilities and that may decide if or not a law has been broken but will only come into play if there is no concrete evidence.