Small claims court - defendant is threatening to counter claim if I dont accept his offer

unholyangel

OP look up the consumer contracts (information, cancellation & additional charges) regulations 2013.

The trader is required to give you certain information before you are bound by the contract. Part of that information is the total price (or if its not possible to calculate a total, then how that total will be calculated). Any information that was given in relation to the price is to be treated as a term of the contract and a change to that information is not effective unless expressly agreed.

That applies regardless of whether the contract was a distance, off-premises or on-premises.

However if you entered into the contract off-premises (ie he visited your house) or by distance then the above information needs to have been provided in a durable medium.

Crazy_Jamie

waamo wrote: »

The actual phrase is "ill founded". Practice Direction 3a allows dismissal of a case purely because it's ill founded. Spending £50 to recover £45 is both (arguably) ill founded and frivolous.

It's highly discretionary, some judges may let the case proceed, some may declare it ill founded and/or frivolous.

Again, no. This is not arguable, and this is not something that any Judge would do unless they're in the mood to make a glaring error of law.

PD3A doesn't "allow" the court to do anything. The power to strike out is at CPR r.3.4(2), and a case can be struck out on the basis that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, that it is an abuse of process, or that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order. Both the White Book commentary and the Practice Direction confirm that the abuse of process ground includes claims that are vexatious, scurrilous, or obviously ill founded.

Quite apart from the fact that the word 'disproportionate', which you've focused on up to now, is very different from the words 'obviously ill founded', the reality is that the words 'obviously ill founded' refer to the merits of the claim, and not whether or not it is proportionate to bring it. As much as the OP has been (rightly) advised as to the risk of continuing this case to trial, there is absolutely no chance of the OP turning up to trial and the Judge deciding to strike the claim out on the basis of r.3.4(2)(b). It may be an ill advised claim for a number of reasons, but it is not 'obviously ill founded'. Indeed, there is a decent chance that the OP 'wins' and is awarded £45, or possibly more. Being awarded £45 may have consequences in and of itself given the offer that has been made, but that is still a 'win' for the purposes of the law. So to suggest that this claim may be struck out for being ill founded is simply not correct. On what we've been told, this is not an ill founded claim.

I do apologise for being so direct about this. I know you're trying to help and that you're doing your best, and you obviously have some knowledge of the CPR if you even knew about PD3A. But as much as it is right to warn the OP about genuine and realistic risks, it is equally important to highlight errors in advice that people give, both for the OP's sake and for the sake of those who may be reading this thread further down the line. And to suggest that there is any chance at all that the Judge will strike out the claim solely on the basis that it has been brought for a small amount of money, I'm afraid, is wrong.