Abuse of Court processes by Firms

KLinNorth

An illustration through my recent experience.
After purchasing goods online (Christmas) - the goods received from a company based in Edinburgh were fit only for the bin, and I wanted my money back.
The firm - Clan.com - warned that returns are not permitted. This could go either way depending on whether they are interpreted as 'personalised'. Nonetheless - I sued through the Scottish Sheriff Court 'Simple Procedure' (SP) for my money back because the goods are not fit for purpose and simply shoddy rubbish.  
I sent my claim and photo evidence to the court. Unfortunately, the SP is not so simple and the court requested an in-person hearing. I asked the court why I could not post the goods. No direct response to this.  
The goods cost £132. To go to the hearing would cost £250 plus lost time. 
Of course, the firm understands the process and has requested an in court hearing - understanding how this is a deterrent to a claimant.  

The point being - before entering into a court process - be aware of judicial processes - that are set up to protect business and not consumers. 
(I have had a similar experience with the English Employment Tribunal. )
The Court systems in the UK are a corrupted disgrace. 

user1977

Seems a bit of an overstatement - it's always been the case that if you want to "have your day in court", you need to be prepared to cancel whatever else you had planned for that day and travel to court! It's even more of an issue for corporate bodies like the company, as they'd have to pay for their solicitor's time to attend court - so if anything this favours party litigants.

eskbanker

It should be obvious that anyone considering embarking on a court process should understand what it entails, and https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/simple-procedure does suggest that a court hearing ought to be expected as a possible outcome:

You may not need to attend court if:

• The respondent has not sent a response form
• The respondent has settled the claim before the last date for a response
• The claimant and the respondent have agreed payment terms about the payment of the claim

You may need to attend court if:

• The claimant has not accepted the offer of payment detailed in a response form
• The respondent wishes to defend all or part of the claim
• The sheriff or summary sheriff wishes to discuss certain matters about the claim

KLinNorth said:

To go to the hearing would cost £250 plus lost time.

Why would it be so expensive?  If you don't live anywhere near the court then clearly you'd need to factor that into your thinking when bringing the claim there.

KLinNorth said:

Of course, the firm understands the process and has requested an in court hearing - understanding how this is a deterrent to a claimant.  

The point being - before entering into a court process - be aware of judicial processes - that are set up to protect business and not consumers.

Attending court hearings is time-consuming and expensive for businesses too, so it's unclear why you believe that the "corrupt" process is skewed towards businesses?  If the company is choosing to defend the case, as is their right, then it would appear that there are two sides to the story and therefore that a court needs to hear both, which doesn't seem like 'abuse' of processes to me....

Undervalued

eskbanker said:

It should be obvious that anyone considering embarking on a court process should understand what it entails, and https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/simple-procedure does suggest that a court hearing ought to be expected as a possible outcome:

You may not need to attend court if:

• The respondent has not sent a response form
• The respondent has settled the claim before the last date for a response
• The claimant and the respondent have agreed payment terms about the payment of the claim

You may need to attend court if:

• The claimant has not accepted the offer of payment detailed in a response form
• The respondent wishes to defend all or part of the claim
• The sheriff or summary sheriff wishes to discuss certain matters about the claim

KLinNorth said:

To go to the hearing would cost £250 plus lost time.

Why would it be so expensive?  If you don't live anywhere near the court then clearly you'd need to factor that into your thinking when bringing the claim there.

KLinNorth said:

Of course, the firm understands the process and has requested an in court hearing - understanding how this is a deterrent to a claimant.  

The point being - before entering into a court process - be aware of judicial processes - that are set up to protect business and not consumers.

Attending court hearings is time-consuming and expensive for businesses too, so it's unclear why you believe that the "corrupt" process is skewed towards businesses?  If the company is choosing to defend the case, as is their right, then it would appear that there are two sides to the story and therefore that a court needs to hear both, which doesn't seem like 'abuse' of processes to me....

Maybe it is different in Scotland but in England a consumer bringing a case against a company can normally have it heard at their nearest court. Generally it is the larger organisation that is expected to travel.

bris

You add the expense's to the claim. The losing side tends to take the brunt of it.

Grumpy_chap

Undervalued said:

Maybe it is different in Scotland but in England a consumer bringing a case against a company can normally have it heard at their nearest court. Generally it is the larger organisation that is expected to travel.

I understood that it was the defendant that could choose which court should hear the case, meaning it is the claimant that can be made to travel.

eskbanker

The page linked earlier states:

You will need to decide in which of the 39 sheriff courts in Scotland your claim should be brought. In most cases, the court which will hear the claim will be the one within whose area the person the claim is to be made against ( the respondent) lives or has a place of business.

Manxman_in_exile

Grumpy_chap said:

Undervalued said:

Maybe it is different in Scotland but in England a consumer bringing a case against a company can normally have it heard at their nearest court. Generally it is the larger organisation that is expected to travel.

I understood that it was the defendant that could choose which court should hear the case, meaning it is the claimant that can be made to travel.

My understanding is that in England, if one of the two parties is a consumer and the other is a business, the consumer can insist on a hearing in a court local to them

sheramber

Undervalued said:

eskbanker said:

It should be obvious that anyone considering embarking on a court process should understand what it entails, and https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/simple-procedure does suggest that a court hearing ought to be expected as a possible outcome:

You may not need to attend court if:

• The respondent has not sent a response form
• The respondent has settled the claim before the last date for a response
• The claimant and the respondent have agreed payment terms about the payment of the claim

You may need to attend court if:

• The claimant has not accepted the offer of payment detailed in a response form
• The respondent wishes to defend all or part of the claim
• The sheriff or summary sheriff wishes to discuss certain matters about the claim

KLinNorth said:

To go to the hearing would cost £250 plus lost time.

Why would it be so expensive?  If you don't live anywhere near the court then clearly you'd need to factor that into your thinking when bringing the claim there.

KLinNorth said:

Of course, the firm understands the process and has requested an in court hearing - understanding how this is a deterrent to a claimant.  

The point being - before entering into a court process - be aware of judicial processes - that are set up to protect business and not consumers.

Attending court hearings is time-consuming and expensive for businesses too, so it's unclear why you believe that the "corrupt" process is skewed towards businesses?  If the company is choosing to defend the case, as is their right, then it would appear that there are two sides to the story and therefore that a court needs to hear both, which doesn't seem like 'abuse' of processes to me....

Maybe it is different in Scotland but in England a consumer bringing a case against a company can normally have it heard at their nearest court. Generally it is the larger organisation that is expected to travel.

But a Scottish case would not be  dealt with In England.

Undervalued

sheramber said:

Undervalued said:

eskbanker said:

It should be obvious that anyone considering embarking on a court process should understand what it entails, and https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/taking-action/simple-procedure does suggest that a court hearing ought to be expected as a possible outcome:

You may not need to attend court if:

• The respondent has not sent a response form
• The respondent has settled the claim before the last date for a response
• The claimant and the respondent have agreed payment terms about the payment of the claim

You may need to attend court if:

• The claimant has not accepted the offer of payment detailed in a response form
• The respondent wishes to defend all or part of the claim
• The sheriff or summary sheriff wishes to discuss certain matters about the claim

KLinNorth said:

To go to the hearing would cost £250 plus lost time.

Why would it be so expensive?  If you don't live anywhere near the court then clearly you'd need to factor that into your thinking when bringing the claim there.

KLinNorth said:

Of course, the firm understands the process and has requested an in court hearing - understanding how this is a deterrent to a claimant.  

The point being - before entering into a court process - be aware of judicial processes - that are set up to protect business and not consumers.

Attending court hearings is time-consuming and expensive for businesses too, so it's unclear why you believe that the "corrupt" process is skewed towards businesses?  If the company is choosing to defend the case, as is their right, then it would appear that there are two sides to the story and therefore that a court needs to hear both, which doesn't seem like 'abuse' of processes to me....

Maybe it is different in Scotland but in England a consumer bringing a case against a company can normally have it heard at their nearest court. Generally it is the larger organisation that is expected to travel.

But a Scottish case would not be  dealt with In England.

Oh dear! I am not for one moment suggesting it would be.

That is why I said "Maybe it is different in Scotland"

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Undervalued said:

Maybe it is different in Scotland but in England a consumer bringing a case against a company can normally have it heard at their nearest court. Generally it is the larger organisation that is expected to travel.

I understood that it was the defendant that could choose which court should hear the case, meaning it is the claimant that can be made to travel.

My understanding is that in England, if one of the two parties is a consumer and the other is a business, the consumer can insist on a hearing in a court local to them

That is my understanding too.