Small Claims Court - Claimant's Legal Fees?

Bvincen4_2

I have an ongoing claim with a garage which has been rejected by the motor ombudsman. It was my intention to use the county court and was advised to send the garage a letter before small claims outlining my case. Today I received a response from the garage which appears to come from a legal representative. The letter is strong and basically states that if I choose to proceed then they will seek to recover their costs if I lose. The wording does its best to scare me and it has. The legal costs for a claim around £1,000 with a chance of these cost may not be worth it or is this a usual behaviour? Can they do this? Is it typical for a judge to award legal costs? Is there someone who I can see for free legal advise? 

MattMattMattUK

Bvincen4_2 said:

The legal costs for a claim around £1,000 with a chance of these cost may not be worth it or is this a usual behaviour? Can they do this? 

Yes the can, it is fairly standard.

Bvincen4_2 said:

Is it typical for a judge to award legal costs?

That depends, it depends on the method and channel, it depends if the judge thinks your claim is vexatious. It is probably more likely that the judge will view your claim dimly if not proven and if you have already had your claim thrown out by the ombudsman, you also need to think of your odds of success as your claim has already been rejected by a regulatory body.

Bvincen4_2 said:

Is there someone who I can see for free legal advise? 

Not really, you can speak to Citizen's Advice, but I do not think they will really add anything, as your claim was rejected by the ombudsman then if you wanted to stand any chance of winning you would probably need a solicitor with knowledge of the case and that will not be free and quite possibly be very expensive and IF you win you might still not be awarded costs.

It is highly unlikely you will win a case when the ombudsman has ruled against you, it is even less likely you will win without proper legal advice, you should question why you are continuing, both on cost grounds and on a rational basis.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Generally speaking the costs awarded are very limited, OP's issue with the car appears to be detailed here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6224479/issue-with-garage-sale-repair-has-anyone-had-issues-with-diesel-particulate-filter#latest

I believe that I was wrongly advised to buy a diesel vehicle, the result of this and my low mileage is that the diesel particulate filter blocked and I broke down. This was after two previous visits to the garage asking them to investigate a fault. I am disabled and both times was advised that the car was safe to drive, the last was two days before the last breakdown. After the breakdown I researched DPFs and it appears that if you travel low mileage then a diesel engine it not advised. Therefore my case being that I was ill advised. However, surely the garage should have detected this fault or fully investigated this on the previous visits? 

What are you claiming for OP? The cost of the car or it's repairs? 

Sandtree

If it is small track then the fees and costs elements they can claim are relatively modest however judges have discretion in what they award and so if they feel the claim is vexatious or frivolous then they can exercise that discretion.

The other risk is that despite its low value the claim could be assigned to a higher tier due to its complexity and the higher the tier the more legal fees become allowable.  The general push on the courts is to keep things in the lowest track possible but you do occasionally see things moving up into Fast Track that are well within the Small Track limit.

MattMattMattUK

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Generally speaking the costs awarded are very limited, OP's issue with the car appears to be detailed here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6224479/issue-with-garage-sale-repair-has-anyone-had-issues-with-diesel-particulate-filter#latest

I believe that I was wrongly advised to buy a diesel vehicle, the result of this and my low mileage is that the diesel particulate filter blocked and I broke down. This was after two previous visits to the garage asking them to investigate a fault. I am disabled and both times was advised that the car was safe to drive, the last was two days before the last breakdown. After the breakdown I researched DPFs and it appears that if you travel low mileage then a diesel engine it not advised. Therefore my case being that I was ill advised. However, surely the garage should have detected this fault or fully investigated this on the previous visits? 

What are you claiming for OP? The cost of the car or it's repairs? 

There is not a chance in hell that they would win then and the judge would be likely to classify it as vexatious, which would mean costs awarded to the other party. 

missile

It is possible, but I believe it is unlikely that you would win unless you can prove you were ill advised. Do you have evidence in writing to show you were ill advised?
It is possible, but I believe unlikely that this would be deemed to be a vexatious case and thus each party will be responsible for their own costs.
What is the car? DPF can be cleaned or replaced :-)

unholyangel

MattMattMattUK said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Generally speaking the costs awarded are very limited, OP's issue with the car appears to be detailed here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6224479/issue-with-garage-sale-repair-has-anyone-had-issues-with-diesel-particulate-filter#latest

I believe that I was wrongly advised to buy a diesel vehicle, the result of this and my low mileage is that the diesel particulate filter blocked and I broke down. This was after two previous visits to the garage asking them to investigate a fault. I am disabled and both times was advised that the car was safe to drive, the last was two days before the last breakdown. After the breakdown I researched DPFs and it appears that if you travel low mileage then a diesel engine it not advised. Therefore my case being that I was ill advised. However, surely the garage should have detected this fault or fully investigated this on the previous visits? 

What are you claiming for OP? The cost of the car or it's repairs? 

There is not a chance in hell that they would win then and the judge would be likely to classify it as vexatious, which would mean costs awarded to the other party. 

So, what makes it a vexatious claim and why do you think there isn't a chance in hell they would win? 

If the OP approached the dealer to suggest a car and, knowing of OP's low miles, they suggested a diesel....it sounds like the goods possibly aren't fit for purpose. 

The bar to have more than the fixed costs awarded is very high. Such as making a claim with absolutely no legal basis, that never had any prospect of success and then not showing for the hearing, purely just to cause inconvenience or harm to the other party. You're not going to be penalised just because you misunderstood the law or the merit of your claim. 

bris

You have to do your own due diligence when buying anything. The fault lies with the OP and proving otherwise on a he said she said basis would be difficult 
The costs would be limited though, solicitors don't normally get involved with the small claims court as it was intended for normal people to bring a claim without the worry of huge legal fees. 

missile

bris said:

You have to do your own due diligence when buying anything. The fault lies with the OP and proving otherwise on a he said she said basis would be difficult 
The costs would be limited though, solicitors don't normally get involved with the small claims court as it was intended for normal people to bring a claim without the worry of huge legal fees. 

I have been to court three times and each time the other party employed a solicitor. I won two out of three :-) 

MattMattMattUK

missile said:

I have been to court three times and each time the other party employed a solicitor. I won two out of three :-) 

I have taken people to court nine times, six I obtained a CCJ with standard presentation of evidence (however the facts were not in dispute), three the dispute was raised to a High Court, I employed a solicitor, I won all three.

You can take someone to court, a solicitor can help, if your case is a complicated area of law or facts are in dispute and you need to cite various precedents, however if your case is down to opinion, or indeed claims without supporting evidence you will likely to lose regardless, the only difference is having a solicitor might mean that they advice you to not go to court as you will in all likelihood loose. 

MattMattMattUK

unholyangel said:

So, what makes it a vexatious claim and why do you think there isn't a chance in hell they would win?  

The claim, from what they have said here seems to have no merit, they asked someone for an opinion, they did not do any research themselves, they do not have evidence of either what questions they asked, what information they provided, or what opinion was provided in return. The opinion/advice was not regulated and there are not professional guidelines for the transaction or opinion/advice. They have already gone through a complaints procedure with the supplier, they have then gone to the ombudsman, who has again ruled against them, they are now looking to bring a claim on something which has no legal standing, that would be deemed vexatious. 

unholyangel said:

If the OP approached the dealer to suggest a car and, knowing of OP's low miles, they suggested a diesel....it sounds like the goods possibly aren't fit for purpose. 

Used car salesmen are notorious for a reason, but as per my above paragraph we do not know if, nor is there supporting evidence that a conversation about low mileage was even entered into. The car was also road legal and fully functional, functioning as the manufacturer intended, using a vehicle in a sub optimal way does not make it "not fit for purpose".

unholyangel said:

The bar to have more than the fixed costs awarded is very high. Such as making a claim with absolutely no legal basis, that never had any prospect of success and then not showing for the hearing, purely just to cause inconvenience or harm to the other party. You're not going to be penalised just because you misunderstood the law or the merit of your claim. 

The bar to have legal costs awarded is high, but from the information we have here it would appear that there is no legal basis for the case, in which case (reasonable) costs will likely be awarded to the defending party. The claimant has not made clear exactly how much (or even on what basis) they plan to take the action, my guess would be under £10,000 so probably small claims, in which case costs would only be awarded if it is deemed vexatious, however it could also be awarded to another track where costs are awarded by default.

I have taken legal action in the past, I have always had sound legal grounds, full supporting evidence and I was absolutely clear what I wanted to achieve, taking legal action on any other basis is a hiding to nothing.