Small Claims Court Interest Question

Les79

SmallClaimQuestion wrote: »

Thanks, I am not claiming he owes for all the deductions, just 50%. I would actually like to contact his parents, as I have to take things at face value from him that are likely to be untrue, and I know they would pay in a second. I worry that is a kind of nuclear option though, is that kind of thing considered ok by courts?

No idea, which is why I said "seek professional advice"

CarlMBrighton

hmm ok there a problem here - it seems as though u both have personal differences n a good deal of anger towards each other, but the difference is that u are attempting to use legal action to service ur side of that anger, which is very different to u reasonably attempting to get money ur owed. the courts really aren't for that, especially in the case of a fella who sounds quite unwell n has no money. by stating your goal is u want a ccj, this is very different to the goal in which you have been discussing I.e reclaim monies owed, n this could ultimately make you appear to act in way that puts you in a bad light, and makes that goal obvious

the first thing I would say here is to stay away from the contacting parents idea ,especially if u have already filed suit. if his health really is as described, this would clearly be seen as attempting to embarrass, harass or threaten him outside of suit, n honestly it seems that is partially what u would be trying to do, n could be seen as 'contempt of court. if u have filed a small claim, the details you are leveraging against him is the evidence of the claim, n he has a chance 2 react to that thru legal channels (who knows - just taking the action might spring him in 2 action). attempting to harass to get additional leverage outside the scope of the claim, is just plain bananas.

furthermore, you mention his "generous parents", and also that u think his health situation is credibly as described, have experience of him being ill for a number of years etc. do you know for a fact that his parents are wealthy? how old are they? what I mean is, they could be pensioners who helped their ill son in a time of hardship, in which case you could be seen to be harassing and threatening them as well, plus the entire goal of going into this whole new stressful endeavour could be null in that they don't pay you, either because they can't or because u have a suit with their son (who, if he is ill and impoverished, they are going to see you as a antagonistic)

about 5 years ago me n my wife lived in Glasgow (dont judge!) n we had a lodger in her mid 20s who had mental health problems that we were unaware of when moving in. she had a bad depressive episode, stopped working n fell behind in her rent / bills etc. for a while she attempted to stay afloat with the stress of claiming benefits etc n I know this is very stressful for someone in that situation, even without any personal differences. the stress on her of owing money n being in a tenuous living situation (coz we warned nicely we would have 2 eventually act) appeared to be just as devastating on her mental health as her depression. she left leavin about £1800 of debt to us in back payment of rent n bills, which we decided to claim after 6 mths of not hearing back. CAB advised us on making a small claim, n the court's default position was really to give her time to pay back, as she complied, due to her health, n eventually we got the money back. contacting her family or harassing her would have killed our case - n it's not like it was 20k owed, n we were broke n she had money

point is, playing devils advocat, ur point appears to be that you want to use legal pressure to bring further harm to a person deemed 'at risk' with a history of fiscal and medical issues, to settle personal differences. the personal difference that he owes u funds is dealt with in the legal action you into/have taken. the personal difference that you have had a stressful history of bickering is unfortunate, and might be as equal to you as it is to him. this is very different to asking whether you should at interest to a debt claim. this is not what the legal system is for,n on paper seems to almost give credence to the way the fella is acting towards u

if u have filed a claim, n want to reclaim the money, then I would wait to see what happens. it's will be a long time, after a lot of stones have been unturned, before contacting parents etc outside the court is a reasonable step. this isn't a builder who has done a runner w/out doing a job n has run to the next town to set up a new ltd co. that seems like a last hope solution to take if litigation goes badly, or if he doesn't honour the courts judgment

CarlMBrighton

Oh n re "when I say it would look bad on u in court", I mean there is no way, if he offered to pay the full amount without interest, either in full or in installments, there is no way that the court wouldn't have said that. u say u have no doubt his financial situation is legitimate - if it is the case, basically in this situation the court would view anything other than offering £1 as a massive act of good faith on his part, especially if his financials show he offering above n beyond to resolve. Also if he has offered this kind of repayment, or been open to anything similar, prior to suit then you should accept b4 filing as basically any fees n court costs he can say he already tried to repay. the court will see u as filing a suit to get a repayment already offered to you.

as for whether u would "lose" in the sense of it being ruled u don't owe the money, there is 0 chance of that happening. U have evidence that the chap owes you, n it sounds like he has agreed to it in correspondence n that him contesting the original debt is not the issue. so there is no grounds for it

CarlMBrighton

I have to take things at face value from him that are likely untrue

I am.interested. could you give an example? what is he saying that you have to take at face value that his likely untrue, n how can this info help. it seems like you have a small claim n the main issue is the claimed financial hardship. if it is true he will have documentation, for example, if is he claiming to be unemployed n off work sick, n you appear to think that is true, then he will be receiving esa, dole money or universal credit. inherent in eligibility for those will be a financial situation similar to as described that is already vetted with proof. if he is in debt or under a debt management plan, he will have documentation of this. if he is telling the truth, he will be able to prove it in court with 3 or 4 simple documents, bank statements etc which he will likely submit with a claim. what can his parents tell u about that that the court process n it's first level of evidentiary tests in the claims process won't, n would that be worth almost certainly damaging yr case?

U mention the fella having expensive personal possessions. this could be an issue u can use, but really only if he is not offering to pay. if he has cars, yachts, jewellery, property, designer
clothes, expensive leather couches etc, this is evidence that his status is not has described n he is pulling a fast one, plus u can reasonably ask, if it goes to a court hearing, that he sell something. if he just has personal items, such as a surf board, computer, personal trade or hobby items (other than, say, something of ridiculous value such as an antique collection), then really he would not be asked to sell them, especially if he already offering to repay through some other source - all debt advice generally states that u should ignore creditors asking to sell important personal items. u can recommend to him or offer advice that he does as it could help him clear the debt quicker, but those kinds of items are generally only at risk at the bailiff stage, and even then any equipment for educational or trade purposes would be protected. if he is offerin 2 pay & maintained payments agreed with u or approved by court then it won't ever get 2 that stage

SmallClaimQuestion

thanks,

I am not using the legal process to service my anger. Above all else, I believe my claim is fair and that he can pay it. To clarify, I do not want him to get a CCJ, I just want my money back and hope the prospect of a CCJ will motivate him, if he choses not to (and it would be a choice) he should get a CCJ. I think this is a standard thing of taking someone to court, if he can afford to pay to avoid the CCJ he will and so that is what I am hoping he will do.

I think the interest is fair as while he never agreed to interest on the bills (he did on the loan) I was given no choice to cover those bills, he forced it on me, he didn't agree to interest I didn't agree to debt full stop. So simple pay back doesn't make it right, there does need to be some compensatory element and the standard interest seems appropriate. Having lived with him and knowing his situation, spending, financial support, and assets well, I absolutely know he could pay if he wanted (selling a couple of items, or asking his parents to lend to him, they guaranteed his tenancy agreement this is small potatoes in comparison). When I say I am acting on principle, I mean I think my claim is entirely reasonable and am willing to risk not succeeding because of that. Even though I do have personal differences with him I would think the claim is fair regardless (really it is an artificial distinction, my personal differences are because of this debt, the abuse since has added to it)

CarlMBrighton

Well, that seems reasonable. so what would u get out of contacting the fella's parents, outside the court, in relation to my last post above? have u filed a claim against him yet? if so, you really really should just let him respond to that, and see if he offers a satisfactory repayment. going to his parents seems like is a bad move, definitely a nuclear option that could be employed in extreme circumstances, not something at the beginning. ur suit is with him, ask him to ask his parents if u think they can pay, sell him on the idea, but the suit is not with them, allow him to deal with it. he might be working out an offer, n already be in the process of using them as cash source. if you contact them that could mess it up, would be seen as messing with the suit n harassing - u will hav legally stated u are requesting funds from him, with the threat/penalty being of court action, but now u r giving him a penalty anyway but getting into a family situation. devils advocat again, but if that was me n u did that - i.e filed a claim I was trying to reply to and repay, but u went straight to me Mam before I could offer to resolve the claim - i would think u were f'ing me around, tryna damage my family situation n would push giving you nothing as far as I could, n the court would likely be sympathetic. the claim u stated was not an ultimatum to give all the money in a few days or I will pester yr parents.

If u don't mind me asking, what

Bermonia

Hmmmm not sure what you’re hoping to achieve by deleting your posts that clearly indicate that your intention is to be petty and vindictive and merely adding a post saying that you are not trying to be these things.

Me thinks you may have clocked that if these posts were to be presented by someone in court then it would case a very dim light on your actions.

CarlMBrighton

I have screenshots

CarlMBrighton

yeah I wondered about that - I got screenshots as there were a couple of posts where he appeared to really be showing a vindictive intent n misuse of court, which is my I probed the fella on it

SmallClaimQuestion

Hi Bermonia,

I could see how it looks like that to an outsider but you do not know all the details, I think it is a little unfair to say my intention is to be petty and vindictive. I think it was clear from my posts that I believe I am clearly owed this money, that claiming the interest is reasonable, and that I have good reasons to believe he can afford it, and that I am happy for the courts to decide if I am wrong.

Yes I do have personal differences with him, I think the electronic record of our communications shows he is the one more at fault here. Yes my personal disagreements with him make me more likely to pursue this as far as possible, but wanting to get my money back, or for there to be consequences for him if he choses to not repay (and it would be a choice) is an entirely reasonable for someone in my position.

I am sure the courts are not interested in the rights and wrongs of personal disagreements, and are only interested in if the claim is fair or not fair, I believe it to be fair regardless of personal disagreements.

My former housemate has treated me very badly, nothing wrong with blowing of some steam about it. I decided to delete my posts because I know if he finds them he will try and use them against me and further the antagonism I have been experiencing from him. I don't think I said anything that suggests I think my claim is not entirely fair.

Could I ask you how you would feel in my position. You lend a friend all your savings in good faith for a month, they make no attempt to pay it back over three years. You feel trapped because by the point it has sunken the situation is not going to change there is a backlog of bills in your name that are the priority. Eventually he stops keeping up with these entirely, leading to threats of debt collection and reporting to credit agencies in your name. The whole time he maintains a comfortable spending, makes expensive purchases, numerous trips abroad. After moving out ignoring the final bills forcing you to pay them against your will, and relocating abroad. Making no attempt to pay for another year, finally in a response to your letter before action trying to blame it on your 'autism problems'. He then agrees to pay and asks for 2 weeks to do so, then changes his mind at the last moment (when you know for a fact he could repay if he wanted to). Would it be petty and vindictive to want to take the legal process as far as it will go to get your money back? I don't think it would be, I think it would be entirely proportionate.