Small Claims

da_rule

waamo wrote: »

They can sue in Scotland but it isn't as easy as they are making out. They can't use Simple Procedures which is the usual Scottish method.

Why can’t they? There is an entire part of the Simple Procedure Rules (part 19 - https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/sheriff-court/simple-procedure-rules/schedule-1/19-part-19.pdf?sfvrsn=6#page2) which deals with how to serve claim forms in England and Wales. Essentially it would be by recorded post.

Is there another part I’ve missed that would prevent someone using the Simple Procedures?

waamo

da_rule wrote: »

Why can’t they? There is an entire part of the Simple Procedure Rules (part 19 - https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/sheriff-court/simple-procedure-rules/schedule-1/19-part-19.pdf?sfvrsn=6#page2) which deals with how to serve claim forms in England and Wales. Essentially it would be by recorded post.

Is there another part I’ve missed that would prevent someone using the Simple Procedures?

Sorry yes my mistake.

DoaM

There'll be a similar arrangement for people in England serving claims on Scottish residents ... it can't be done via MCOL so has to be a paper claim via Northampton.

One thing the OP should check though ... when a claim is between private individuals, is the claim heard in the claimant's local court or the defendant's?

reggie

I'm not sure where it would be held - the buyer seems to think we would have to travel to Scotland, but some websites seem to indicate it is where we reside but seems to assume we would be in Scotland; I can't find anything about where it would be heard when cross border.

waamo

reggie wrote: »

I'm not sure where it would be held - the buyer seems to think we would have to travel to Scotland, but some websites seem to indicate it is where we reside but seems to assume we would be in Scotland; I can't find anything about where it would be heard when cross border.

I wouldn't worry about it. Threatening to make a claim a few weeks after buying something is a common ploy by con artists who want an easy "discount".

They are trying it on. Assuming this is a private sale (you haven't said) then they wouldn't have a hope anyway.

reggie

It is a private sale. We're trying not to worry, not easy! Thanks to everyone for helping.

reggie

Further update. When the buyer initially contacted my husband at work, he was shocked and concerned that he may have been unaware of a fault and looked into cost of repairs - despite the time elapsed. When he had time to revisit the advert - he could see that the photo showed the lens not to have this fault and was relieved that he hadn't overlooked anything, hence he felt absolved of any responsibility. This appears now to be what the buyer is basing his claim on - that as my husband initially offered to look in to repairs but then retracted, he must have known the lens was faulty as he sees this as an admission of guilt. All I can say is my husband is the total opposite of what the buyer is stating - couldn't find a more decent, honest person. Can I assume this is his last throw of the dice and not grounds for court?

waamo

Offering to assist someone is not an admission of guilt. Not even close. They are a con artist plain and simple. They either want a "discount" or plan to sell the camera on at a profit.

reggie

It does seem like he's trying to make it so uncomfortable and stressful for us that we will pay to make it just go away.
Thanks for all the help and replies.

lincroft1710

reggie wrote: »

It does seem like he's trying to make it so uncomfortable and stressful for us that we will pay to make it just go away.

And if you do, that's encouraging the buyer to try it on with someone else