Small claims court question

Janeuk

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

How did you pay him? Cash? If not you must have some sort of receipt with a name on? (Hopefully...)

Cash, my bank statement shows that I withdrew that amount on the day. I was given a card which I had to return to get my phone back.

Manxman_in_exile

That's the problem with cash payments and no receipt - you don't know who you paid.


Does the card have a name on it?

Janeuk

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

That's the problem with cash payments and no receipt - you don't know who you paid.
Does the card have a name on it?

Just the name of the business, address, etc. not an actual name.

Manxman_in_exile

But you don't have the card any more (ie no evidence of the transaction at all) and you may not remember the name of the business either.


But as others have said, it's not the business (or shop) you need to be suing - it's the (presumably) sole trader who did the repair. That's the person you paid for the repair.


Sorry - I'm not being much help - I'm no expert in this area except knowing you have to claim against the right person.


If it's any consolation, I expect 100s of potential claimants have this sort of problem every week.


(PS - no disrespect intended to the members of this forum, but you may want to try posting on the Consumeractiongroup forum under "General Legal Issues". To me they seem to be very good on court procedure etc. and help to guide many claimants through the process. I'm sure I've also seen threads where they've advised as to how to identify the correct person to claim against. I know there are many members on this forum who are members there too.)

Janeuk

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

But you don't have the card any more (ie no evidence of the transaction at all) and you may not remember the name of the business either.
But as others have said, it's not the business (or shop) you need to be suing - it's the (presumably) sole trader who did the repair. That's the person you paid for the repair.

I do have a like loyalty card with a stamp on it which says I can get 10% off my next service, but it has no information of what I had paid for or myself, would that be helpful at all?

arcon5

A judge would amend the name if needed. I've had it before where the judge firstly went about establishing whom the contract was with as I named two persons and a business name.
It wouldn't be struck out in my experience if the defendant showed up.

Can you find his name on facebook or anything? It would be better to have his name personally aswell as his business name as the defendant. But ultimately just his business name would be sufficient, it just gets complicated enforcing it against him if for example he changed the name and he wasn't personally on the writ.

Janeuk

arcon5 wrote: »

Can you find his name on facebook or anything? It would be better to have his name personally aswell as his business name as the defendant. But ultimately just his business name would be sufficient, it just gets complicated enforcing it against him if for example he changed the name and he wasn't personally on the writ.

Thanks for your response. What would happen if I put the business name on the claim, it goes to a hearing, and no one shows up? Would the judge be able to make a decision against the business name, even though it's a sole trader small business?

arcon5

Janeuk wrote: »

Thanks for your response. What would happen if I put the business name on the claim, it goes to a hearing, and no one shows up? Would the judge be able to make a decision against the business name, even though it's a sole trader small business?

If he didn't respond to the claim or turn up you would get judgement by default

Janeuk

arcon5 wrote: »

If he didn't respond to the claim or turn up you would get judgement by default

That's great to hear. How would I go about enforcing the judgement when I don't have the sole trader's name?

societys_child

You need his name, otherwise the papers can't be served.

There's no 'enforcing the judgement' if he doesn't show up at court because the papers weren't served . . .