Small Claims Courts - how does it work?

DoctorStrange

Hi.

I'm about to start proceedings against a company for negligence which led to damage of my property.

Can I include items such as compensation and loss of earnings, on top of the repair costs? If I did and the judge disagreed with my figures would the whole case be thrown out or just the parts they don't agree with?

For example, let's say the damage is £2k but I want £3k (£500 loss of earnings and £500 compensation for the hassle) and let's imagine the Judge thinks the extra £1k is unreasonable. Does he say I get nothing, or does he adjust the figure down?

I'm trying to work out of its best to include the "extras" as there's nothing to lose, or if by doing so there's a bigger chance I'll get nothing.

Anyone with any experience to share would be really helpful

George333

You wont get £500 for the hassle only for your quantifiable loss.

DoctorStrange

Does loss of earnings count as a quantifiable loss i.e. time taken off work to arrange quotes etc?

Or if interest, why isn't stress and inconvenience taken into account?

waamo

DoctorStrange wrote: »

Does loss of earnings count as a quantifiable loss i.e. time taken off work to arrange quotes etc?

Or if interest, why isn't stress and inconvenience taken into account?

How much has the stress cost? Have you got receipts for the cost of the stress?

As above you need to be able to put a value on your loss and be able to prove that value. There are a few exceptions to this but they are rare and in rather specific situations.

Generally you can't claim for time off. You are required to claim the absolute minimum. That includes taking positive action to minimise your losses so you get quotes on your normal day off or at a time after work.

In order to claim for time off you would need to show a very, very good reason why you couldn't arrange a quote when you are off. Merely being inconvenient doesn't cut it.

You can only claim for the lowest quote too. You are also expected to shop around for the best price.

DoctorStrange

The lowest quote guy was unprofessional in my opinion (and I never take the lowest quote as a matter of course).

Surely the middle quote is more representative?


I'm not sure I like the "positive action to minimise their costs" either - they're the ones who caused all this mess in the first place and haven't even apologised!

DoctorStrange

Not saying you're wrong, just don't like the approach it seems I need to take!

bris

DoctorStrange wrote: »

Surely the middle quote is more representative?

Seriously? Then why would anyone bother getting 3 quotes.


The lowest quote is mitigating your losses, the middle quote is not, the judge will not allow it.


Anything you claim for needs proof.

waamo

DoctorStrange wrote: »

Not saying you're wrong, just don't like the approach it seems I need to take!

You might not like it but it's what you need to do. If the cheapest guy was unprofessional then find someone professional at the same price. At least you know the figure to aim for.

Aylesbury_Duck

You can't go wrong if you restrict your claim to your genuine, quantifiable and reasonable losses. Be self-critical and test each element of your claim against those adjectives.

unholyangel

Inconvenience/distress can only be claimed in a handful of situations - usually only in contract law. In negligence (tort), you can only claim for negligently inflicted physical or mental harm. Actual harm. As in, you feared for your life, it wakes you up with nightmares etc. Its expected that any breach of contract could come with inconvenience or stress.

The judge will allow or disallow as they see fit. They may allow it in full or they may reduce the award.

Mitigation is not necessarily taking the cheapest route possible. Its taking reasonable steps to minimise your losses and not taking unreasonable steps to increase them. Failing to mitigate doesn't mean you can't claim. It just means the judge will make an award as if you had mitigated. Its for the other party to prove you failed to mitigate.

Claims under negligence require a duty of care, that they breached that duty, that the breach was negligent, that the breach caused the damage and that the damage is not too remote. It needs to satisfy all elements to succeed.

steampowered

DoctorStrange wrote: »

Or if interest, why isn't stress and inconvenience taken into account?

The courts have taken the view that you can only claim for stress/inconvenient where the purpose of the contract was pleasure - e.g. a holiday.

In all other cases, you can generally only claim for quantifiable financial loss. The courts have taken that view over time for public policy reasons.

Loss of earnings if you had to take a day off can be a quantifiable loss though.