Small court claim - can we contest once judgement is in?

Aquamania

EagerLearner wrote: »

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I am assisting someone who was taken to court, in a nutshell, over placement of an employee who *had* initially liaised with an agency but he specifically did not want them to place him in the position as he found the agency unsatisfactory and wanted no further work from them.

He was hired only on the proviso that it was his decision to do this and that he applied directly to a subsequent advert. Maybe the company were naive? He must have then told the agency this because they then sent a flurry of emails, the company defended the employee position and theirs which was to refuse payment of the fees suggested. In weirder developments, he was not great once hired and as such only worked a few days.

The agency took the company to court over their viewed 'fee' (very high) and although this was defended by the company, it would seem the defense paperwork never arrived at the court (and the person handling it was lax on admin so never chased/checked court info), and so the company was not aware of this until too late and judgement was already made against them by default.

They have immediately paid the fee (several thousands), and requested proof that it is no longer on their record.

Question is, what can they do now? They never got the chance to defend themselves due to an admin error, and possibly, they would have not won anyway? Any thoughts gratefully received.

So are you saying judgement was given in default?

If so, it's quite easy to apply to set the judgement aside. See here for details how to do that
https://www.gov.uk/county-court-judgments-ccj-for-debt/if-you-dont-owe-the-money

If the application is made, it is almost always granted in such circumstanmces, and the case will then he heard as usual.

(I'm not going to attempt to give any legal advice on the matter itself - if that is needed I suggest a solicitor is asked; the internet really is no place to seek independent legal advice)

Voyager2002

I second the advice to see a solicitor about the case. However, I also suggest a visit to the court for a chat with the Clerk. Court officials cannot give legal advice but can be very helpful about the kind of circumstances when judgment can be set aside and the rules under which courts operate.

I am also puzzled that you mention several thousand pounds: that would hardly be a realistic fee due to an agency for introducing someone whose work was not satisfactory.

Savvy_Sue

unforeseen wrote: »

It is normal in agency contracts that a fee is payable if somebody introduced by them subsequently gets recruited directly by the company.

This appears to be what the agency have invoked

And IMO quite reasonably and defensibly: you can usually negotiate such fees with an agency, but if you engage an agency and subsequently employ someone who was on their books at the time, you pay their fee. The fact that the employee no longer wants anything to do with the agency is neither here nor there.

A similar contract is normal with estate agencies. Engage an agency, sell your house direct to someone who was on their books, and you pay the agency fee, even if the buyer wanted nothing to do with the agency any more.

If you think about it, it's not unreasonable. If it were possible to say "oh, I didn't actually hear about this job / house through the agency and they weren't very organised so you shouldn't have to pay their fee" isn't that what we'd all do?

EagerLearner wrote: »

Thanks unforeseen, I guess what they need to establish now is that due to poor agency performance the person made it clear they no longer wished to go through them, they have his emails stating this. As such he lost his chance at the original job, but yes by then he knew who the company were.

If the company reads the contract they signed, I think they'll find that the views of the jobseeker about the agency's performance are irrelevant.

Voyager2002 wrote: »

I am also puzzled that you mention several thousand pounds: that would hardly be a realistic fee due to an agency for introducing someone whose work was not satisfactory.

Actually, if they hadn't contested the fee, then they might have been able to pay less because the employee wasn't satisfactory! The fee is usually only due after a satisfactory period in the job.

jexygirl

Agree with Sue. Regardless of outcome, the original intro was via an agency, and thus, regardless of the employee wanting out, the agency still made the initial introduction so the fees are enforceable.
We once put our house up for sale with an agent, in the meantime, we told our neighbours we were selling, arranged a time for them to view, discussed a deal \and agreed it, all without the agent - however, the buyer thought they had better inform the agent that they had made an acceptable offer. The record of that one phone call cost me £1850 in agency fees, despite them doing nothing at all... they had a record of that phone call which justified contact and fee...
The agency did their job, as requested originally by the company who engaged them.

EagerLearner

Hi all thank you for your replies, all very valid points :T
I have recommended they take legal advice already yes, definitely makes sense.

I would add that the agency did not even supply the person for interview - and aside from sending his cv to the company (no doubt un-named) and messing up dates, so an interview never took place. As the company did not know this person existed, they feel he was not ever 'introduced' to them. Does this make sense?
They only knew about him & his name when he applied for another job around a month later, presumably that was when he mentioned the prev job agency, trying to apply previously etc. I thought I would clarify this in case it helps, but likely the law is with the agency simply because they had him on their books and the Company worked with them.

I should also clarify that the Company did email the agency, contesting the invoice for several thousands of pounds fee *especially* because the agency 'guessed' at what salary he had subsequently been employed at and so the fee was exorbitant.

The judgement has been entered by default and the company panicked not wanting a CCJ so have paid instantly but are understandably fuming at how the agency refused to acknowledge their concerns, and ended up winning by default. I am just trying to understand how to get them a fair review... maybe it's not possible now it has been paid? As others have said maybe high court is the only option.
I will call the court and see what else I can find, if there are any thoughts do let me know thanks so much :T:T:T.

unforeseen

But why didn't the company defend the action in the first place? Head in the sand syndrome?

By not defending a default judgement was virtually guaranteed.

They still had time to get it set aside but didn't. It sounds like the company's legal dept/advice was inept

EagerLearner

Hi Unforeseen, not sure if you have read my OP.
They did defend, however the person who posted it neither sent it recorded delivery, nor submitted online. This has resulted in an unfortunate perfect storm for the agency to get away with this.
They are a small-ish company, and do not have a big legal department.

EagerLearner

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Actually, if they hadn't contested the fee, then they might have been able to pay less because the employee wasn't satisfactory! The fee is usually only due after a satisfactory period in the job.

It's a crazy situation I agree. They had to contest the amount for sure, I think though that they were perhaps naiive and unaware how bully-like these agencies can be. Bear in mind they have used agencies before, with great success, and paid fees - they know how things *should* go. Therefore never had a situation like this one...