MSE in court,,,

Murtle

OMG - why did I read that ......

grayme-m

ShelfStacker wrote: »

Terms and conditions are legal documents, which you agreed to. You didn't read them. You failed.

It's not that simple.

Freddie_Snowbits

grayme-m wrote: »

It's not that simple.

Round and Round the Mulberry Bush we go!]
:beer::beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

grayme-m

All the while ICE has made its sale and happily keeps the money.

My point was that T&Cs on their own are not the end of it; sending back a 'faulty' item rather than trying to have your cake (keep the item) and eat it (and get a refund) would seem simple.

Still, it's not you that needs convincing.

mdbarber

Sorry Hev but that lost post seemed slightly at odds with earlier posts and I appreciate the possibility of that being the "reality" of the situation but really?

"It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong."
" It doesn't matter if the District Judge gets it wrong."
It doesn't matter if the whole of case and statute law is behind you."
"Stuff principle"

Call me naive surely those are the things that should matter?

" What matters is that you can end up paying out more in costs than the original unit cost. You can end up paying out more in costs than the cost of the original unit plus replacement plus professional fitting."

Can you give me any more info?, both TS's and CAB claim it's very rare for costs to be given in awarded in small claims, are the court offices obliged to give any info on this subject?, maybe a "Right To Know" applies here?

hev_2

mdbarber wrote: »

Sorry Hev but that lost post seemed slightly at odds with earlier posts and I appreciate the possibility of that being the "reality" of the situation but really?

"It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong."
" It doesn't matter if the District Judge gets it wrong."
It doesn't matter if the whole of case and statute law is behind you."
"Stuff principle"

Call me naive surely those are the things that should matter?

" What matters is that you can end up paying out more in costs than the original unit cost. You can end up paying out more in costs than the cost of the original unit plus replacement plus professional fitting."

Can you give me any more info?, both TS's and CAB claim it's very rare for costs to be given in awarded in small claims, are the court offices obliged to give any info on this subject?, maybe a "Right To Know" applies here?

If it goes to a hearing and you lose and costs are awarded against you, you will only get a small amount awarded against you. It's in the small claims court, under £5k, no problem.

If you appeal, then it comes out of the small claims court and the costs are potentially horrific. That's when it starts to get scary with the costs. The court staff will assume that you understand the implications of costs and have no duty to warn you.

I don't understand exactly what you mean by 'Right to Know'. Costs are at a judge's discretion, limited to a relatively low amount in the small claims court. The court staff will be able to tell you the current maximum if you ask. It's ages since I was dealing with these, so my info is definitely out of date on figures. It is not a secret.

If it leaves the court due to there being an appeal then costs are still at the judge's discretion but are not capped. The judge would normally say after an appeal that they awarded x amount of costs to which side or that they awarded taxed costs to which side. Taxed costs are usually more expensive and the solicitors send into court a schedule of what they consider the case has cost them and the judge decides whether or not to allow all the costs claimed. I have never dealt with taxed costs, and I am not legally trained so I can't give much help there except nearly twenty years ago the solicitors sending in the taxed costs had to pay a fee of 5% of the amount claimed and one fee cheque was over £500. Solicitors that do court work normally charge a minimum of £120 per hour (including travelling time and waiting time) plus VAT and if things go wrong and you are ordered to pay for the costs of ICE employing a solicitor then it could get expensive.

If you get satisfaction in the small claims then you will not have to worry. If you appeal, then you need to be aware of the matter of costs.

I'm being very vague about this particular case but I have seen a series of appeals that started in a similar way to yours and ended with the person involved losing their house and, in my opinion, their sanity. I have been increasingly concerned about the apparent similarity in world view which has led me to post. I don't normally admit to once having served in the Court Service (or Lord Chancellor's Department as was).

Also re 'Right to Know' which I don't really understand - the court staff cannot give you advice or warn you about potential pitfalls. They can answer questions about procedure and let you know if the forms have been correctly completed and that the fee is correct. They are not legally trained and most of the court staff, including management, started as filing clerks with a requirement of two GCSE's or equivalent. In fact they can face disciplinary action if they are seen to be less than impartial.

It is always worth asking them for an opinion, you will usually only get a cagey response. If they repeatedly suggest that you seek legal advice that is a very clear indication that you are in murky waters.

As to the 'does it matter if it is right or wrong'. This is not something that will re-write the law books. It will not help others, who would just have sent it back. You are not Nelson Mandela. This is about defining what you want as an outcome. Forget 'shoulds' and 'oughts' but think about what you actually want as an end result. This is what has made some solicitors very well off indeed.

I really hope my input has been of help, but I think I had best bow out. I shall, however, watch developments with interest.

Freddie_Snowbits

hev wrote: »

If it goes to a hearing and you lose and costs are awarded against you

Hey, Hev. Give up man, the rest of us have. and for gawds sake, do not call OP a loser!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mdbarber

Thanks hev ! pretty much the same as what i've been told already there, but at this point, as you said why worry about appeals and on-going cases, as far as i can tell there is no reason to suspect it going that far.
I received another letter from the courts this morning with a copy of a letter from incarexpress where they basically refused to comply with the judges suggestions.
The longer this goes on the more convinced I am that these people are somewhat less than law abiding(proven fact already trolls) and that so far i have made absolutely the right moves and choices.
Will keep you informed.

Sorry forgot to explain what i meant by "Right To Know", i was assuming that there are statistics collected on court cases and hoped in there somewhere may be a stat on percentage of cases where costs were awarded against losing claimants.
Usually documented information like this is available to the public.

hev_2

mdbarber wrote: »

Thanks hev ! pretty much the same as what i've been told already there, but at this point, as you said why worry about appeals and on-going cases, as far as i can tell there is no reason to suspect it going that far.
I received another letter from the courts this morning with a copy of a letter from incarexpress where they basically refused to comply with the judges suggestions.
The longer this goes on the more convinced I am that these people are somewhat less than law abiding(proven fact already trolls) and that so far i have made absolutely the right moves and choices.
Will keep you informed.

Sorry forgot to explain what i meant by "Right To Know", i was assuming that there are statistics collected on court cases and hoped in there somewhere may be a stat on percentage of cases where costs were awarded against losing claimants.
Usually documented information like this is available to the public.

Sorry, in my day such statistics weren't collected, at least by the Court Staff. Even if they are now the court would have to be meticulous to anonymise the data as these cases are not held in public and the results should only be disclosed to the parties involved. You can ask at the Court, but they used to collect records of how many claims were issued rather than the results of those claims.

I can only remember one or two cases out of literally thousands of cases I have seen where the losing party didn't pay costs. It is an automatic assumption that the losing party will pay costs, whether Claimant or Defendant. If it stays in the small claims court then the costs will be very small. They used to be limited to around £100 (if I remember right, it was years ago), and the court staff will be able to tell you the current limit.

I am going to regret this, but what was the suggestion made by ICE?

dangeroussports

Does anyone know if this is legal?