Small claims court proceedings issued in wrong name

CFWJOB

An unhappy consumer has issued proceedings in the small claims court.  He's issued them in the wrong business name; eg 'Smith Jones' instead of 'Smith Jones Products Ltd'. We have defended the claim and pointed out in our papers that the claim has been issued against an entity which does not exist.  We assumed he would be required to resubmit the claim in the correct name, but the case has now been passed to an in-person hearing without any changes.
 
We fully expect to successfully defend our claim.  The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment.  The claimant, however, says that this is unacceptable and that we owe him an exact replacement from our own stock (we don't hold any) and, failing this, we need to pay the current sales value as advertised by another retailer. This is significantly more than the original price and it's also a point of principle for us- we don't believe the consumer is entitled to demand payment of the current market price.  He was not intending to re-sell the item so has not suffered any financial loss, only reduced enjoyment.

We don't want to spend money on legal costs- it's not worth it for a claim of this size. I understand that the Small Claims process is meant to be simple and accessible and that the parties should not be relying on legal technicalities in order to win their case. However, the  guidance to claimants says quite clearly that if the claim is made in the wrong name then it needs to be resubmitted before it can proceed.  I'm now not sure whether the papers have been reviewed by the court and someone has decided the claim can proceed even if the name is wrong or whether this has simply been overlooked. It seems like a potential waste of time for everyone to turn up when the judgement (if it goes against us) would actually be legally unenforceable. 

I've tried to phone the Small Claims helpline but they told me they couldn't help.  Can anyone advise?

user1977

Did someone advise you to submit a defence? I'd be more inclined to ignore it on the basis it isn't a claim against you, but against some other entity.

Aylesbury_Duck

CFWJOB said:

An unhappy consumer has issued proceedings in the small claims court.  He's issued them in the wrong business name; eg 'Smith Jones' instead of 'Smith Jones Products Ltd'. We have defended the claim and pointed out in our papers that the claim has been issued against an entity which does not exist.  We assumed he would be required to resubmit the claim in the correct name, but the case has now been passed to an in-person hearing without any changes.
 
We fully expect to successfully defend our claim.  The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment.  The claimant, however, says that this is unacceptable and that we owe him an exact replacement from our own stock (we don't hold any) and, failing this, we need to pay the current sales value as advertised by another retailer. This is significantly more than the original price and it's also a point of principle for us- we don't believe the consumer is entitled to demand payment of the current market price.  He was not intending to re-sell the item so has not suffered any financial loss, only reduced enjoyment.

We don't want to spend money on legal costs- it's not worth it for a claim of this size. I understand that the Small Claims process is meant to be simple and accessible and that the parties should not be relying on legal technicalities in order to win their case. However, the  guidance to claimants says quite clearly that if the claim is made in the wrong name then it needs to be resubmitted before it can proceed.  I'm now not sure whether the papers have been reviewed by the court and someone has decided the claim can proceed even if the name is wrong or whether this has simply been overlooked. It seems like a potential waste of time for everyone to turn up when the judgement (if it goes against us) would actually be legally unenforceable. 

I've tried to phone the Small Claims helpline but they told me they couldn't help.  Can anyone advise?

How much are we talking about here?  From your description, it sounds like the claimant has totally unrealistic expectations, but from your bold text, it seems there may only be a small sum involved.  Principles can be expensive to pursue.  In the absence of anyone from the helpline being able to advise, aren't you best off just allowing it to run its course?  From the account you've given, it seems a certainty that you'll win, even if the court accepts you are the named party for some reason.  And even if you didn't, what's your potential exposure here?

Grumpy_chap

CFWJOB said:

 
We fully expect to successfully defend our claim.  The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment.  The claimant, however, says that this is unacceptable and that we owe him an exact replacement from our own stock (we don't hold any) and, failing this, we need to pay the current sales value as advertised by another retailer. This is significantly more than the original price 

Obviously, after ten years of inflation, the price will be much higher.

You seem to have made a very generous offer as normal consumer rights would mean any refund after a prolonged period of time from original purchase would be reduced to reflect the period of beneficial use that the purchase gained from the item.

What sort of item and value is this that the purchaser is making such a claim, presumably with a straight face?

CFWJOB

user1977 said:

Did someone advise you to submit a defence? I'd be more inclined to ignore it on the basis it isn't a claim against you, but against some other entity.

Yes; it was informal advice suggesting that the Small Claims is designed for non-professionals so it could be held against us if we failed to engage on the basis of the wrong name.  It's fairly obvious who the claimant meant to cite, but they got it wrong. 

CFWJOB

Grumpy_chap said:

CFWJOB said:

 
We fully expect to successfully defend our claim.  The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment.  The claimant, however, says that this is unacceptable and that we owe him an exact replacement from our own stock (we don't hold any) and, failing this, we need to pay the current sales value as advertised by another retailer. This is significantly more than the original price 

Obviously, after ten years of inflation, the price will be much higher.

You seem to have made a very generous offer as normal consumer rights would mean any refund after a prolonged period of time from original purchase would be reduced to reflect the period of beneficial use that the purchase gained from the item.

What sort of item and value is this that the purchaser is making such a claim, presumably with a straight face?

He didn't have much beneficial use- it was a faulty bottle of wine which was sold for laying down drinking and not for trading!  Original cost was c£100 and current market value is somewhere between £300 and £700, depending on which international wine trade index you look at. 

Aylesbury_Duck

You've already offered to fully compensate his loss.  I'd let things run on and see what happens.  Hopefully his claim fails on the identity test, and if not, it fails for being unreasonable. 

CFWJOB

Aylesbury_Duck said:

CFWJOB said:

An unhappy consumer has issued proceedings in the small claims court.  He's issued them in the wrong business name; eg 'Smith Jones' instead of 'Smith Jones Products Ltd'. We have defended the claim and pointed out in our papers that the claim has been issued against an entity which does not exist.  We assumed he would be required to resubmit the claim in the correct name, but the case has now been passed to an in-person hearing without any changes.
 
We fully expect to successfully defend our claim.  The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment.  The claimant, however, says that this is unacceptable and that we owe him an exact replacement from our own stock (we don't hold any) and, failing this, we need to pay the current sales value as advertised by another retailer. This is significantly more than the original price and it's also a point of principle for us- we don't believe the consumer is entitled to demand payment of the current market price.  He was not intending to re-sell the item so has not suffered any financial loss, only reduced enjoyment.

We don't want to spend money on legal costs- it's not worth it for a claim of this size. I understand that the Small Claims process is meant to be simple and accessible and that the parties should not be relying on legal technicalities in order to win their case. However, the  guidance to claimants says quite clearly that if the claim is made in the wrong name then it needs to be resubmitted before it can proceed.  I'm now not sure whether the papers have been reviewed by the court and someone has decided the claim can proceed even if the name is wrong or whether this has simply been overlooked. It seems like a potential waste of time for everyone to turn up when the judgement (if it goes against us) would actually be legally unenforceable. 

I've tried to phone the Small Claims helpline but they told me they couldn't help.  Can anyone advise?

How much are we talking about here?  From your description, it sounds like the claimant has totally unrealistic expectations, but from your bold text, it seems there may only be a small sum involved.  Principles can be expensive to pursue.  In the absence of anyone from the helpline being able to advise, aren't you best off just allowing it to run its course?  From the account you've given, it seems a certainty that you'll win, even if the court accepts you are the named party for some reason.  And even if you didn't, what's your potential exposure here?

We are talking about - maybe - £500.  I would  prefer to write this off rather than give in to unwarranted bullying. The claimant's approach has been unnecessarily aggressive, telling us he is an experienced lawyer who has won plenty of cases.  I am not overly concerned about the outcome except that it's now been scheduled for a rather inconvenient day.  I don't want to turn up and then find that the whole thing has to be scrapped because it's only at this point that the court realises that 'Smith Jones' is not a legal entity. 

Aylesbury_Duck

CFWJOB said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

CFWJOB said:

An unhappy consumer has issued proceedings in the small claims court.  He's issued them in the wrong business name; eg 'Smith Jones' instead of 'Smith Jones Products Ltd'. We have defended the claim and pointed out in our papers that the claim has been issued against an entity which does not exist.  We assumed he would be required to resubmit the claim in the correct name, but the case has now been passed to an in-person hearing without any changes.
 
We fully expect to successfully defend our claim.  The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment.  The claimant, however, says that this is unacceptable and that we owe him an exact replacement from our own stock (we don't hold any) and, failing this, we need to pay the current sales value as advertised by another retailer. This is significantly more than the original price and it's also a point of principle for us- we don't believe the consumer is entitled to demand payment of the current market price.  He was not intending to re-sell the item so has not suffered any financial loss, only reduced enjoyment.

We don't want to spend money on legal costs- it's not worth it for a claim of this size. I understand that the Small Claims process is meant to be simple and accessible and that the parties should not be relying on legal technicalities in order to win their case. However, the  guidance to claimants says quite clearly that if the claim is made in the wrong name then it needs to be resubmitted before it can proceed.  I'm now not sure whether the papers have been reviewed by the court and someone has decided the claim can proceed even if the name is wrong or whether this has simply been overlooked. It seems like a potential waste of time for everyone to turn up when the judgement (if it goes against us) would actually be legally unenforceable. 

I've tried to phone the Small Claims helpline but they told me they couldn't help.  Can anyone advise?

How much are we talking about here?  From your description, it sounds like the claimant has totally unrealistic expectations, but from your bold text, it seems there may only be a small sum involved.  Principles can be expensive to pursue.  In the absence of anyone from the helpline being able to advise, aren't you best off just allowing it to run its course?  From the account you've given, it seems a certainty that you'll win, even if the court accepts you are the named party for some reason.  And even if you didn't, what's your potential exposure here?

We are talking about - maybe - £500.  I would  prefer to write this off rather than give in to unwarranted bullying. The claimant's approach has been unnecessarily aggressive, telling us he is an experienced lawyer who has won plenty of cases.  I am not overly concerned about the outcome except that it's now been scheduled for a rather inconvenient day.  I don't want to turn up and then find that the whole thing has to be scrapped because it's only at this point that the court realises that 'Smith Jones' is not a legal entity. 

I'd have thought he'll bite your hand off if you offered him £500 now, but in your shoes I'd be loathe to do so.  From an outsider's perspective, making that offer would be giving in to unwarranted bullying.  I don't believe his boasts about being an experienced lawyer - an experienced lawyer would establish the correct name of the entity he was suing.

However, it's your business and only you can determine whether giving him £500 to go away is better than the headache of a potential court hearing and being told to give him the £100 purchase price, or more.

lincroft1710

An experienced lawyer who can't even get the correct name of the entity he's trying to sue?

Aylesbury_Duck

lincroft1710 said:

An experienced lawyer who can't even get the correct name of the entity he's trying to sue?

Perhaps he's indulging too much in his hobby/investments/business.