MSE in court,,,

mdbarber

hev wrote: »

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?

They just said they were unable to accept the judges suggestion. they felt it made no allowance for the possibility that the goods were not faulty or that i had damaged them (same old nonsense) and again asked that i be ordered to return the item for "testing".
Truth is the law makes plenty of allowance for those items, they can sue me if they feel that way and that is what i shall put in my response.
Talk about me being Mandela, they seem to be the ones wanting to rewrite the law because it doesn't suit them.
Shall now take your previous advice and request a hearing without further delay as per the mentioned act dictating court procedures.

@dangeroussports, is what legal?

dangeroussports

I dont know.

Who won the ashes?

superscaper

hev wrote: »

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.

Are you sure it's as rare as that? Of the few cases I know of personally (people I know who brought cases), not a single time has the plaintiff had to pay costs if they lost (other than the fee cost of bringing the case in the first instance).

hev_2

superscaper wrote: »

Are you sure it's as rare as that? Of the few cases I know of personally (people I know who brought cases), not a single time has the plaintiff had to pay costs if they lost (other than the fee cost of bringing the case in the first instance).

Well it's ages since I worked at the courts, but I spent one year on a section that concentrated on drawing orders and it was an extremely large court. If it stays in the small claims or the judge feels that the defendant is technically right but bloody minded then it is possible that no costs be awarded (don't remember that many of these). However I genuinely can only remember ever seeing one or two cases where the party who had lost did not have to pay costs if costs were awarded.

If it is in the small claims then the cost of bringing the action, if you win, should be paid by the defendant so that is considered part of the costs and the fees these days for larger actions are a lot higher than they used to be, plus any fees for hearings etc. Then there is a capped limit of extra that can be added on to represent solicitors fees, travelling costs etc. It is only once you leave the small claims court that the costs for solicitors etc starts really climbing.

If I was in the position of mdbarber, I'd walk away.

Freddie_Snowbits

hev wrote: »

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

BINGO :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

mdbarber

oh hev???????, you would let a firm take £87 off you and not supply goods fit for purpose without even putting up a fight?
Either you have been beaten into a submissive nature or are much wealthier than the rest of us!

hev_2

mdbarber wrote: »

oh hev???????, you would let a firm take £87 off you and not supply goods fit for purpose without even putting up a fight?
Either you have been beaten into a submissive nature or are much wealthier than the rest of us!

Or I put a higher premium on my time, energy and mental health than you do and I have watched some solicitors grow very rich following the principle of knowing when to quit.

Whichever way you look at it, it's your call. I hope it all works out for you.

grayme-m

Yet another person is wrong mdb?

stugib

mdbarber wrote: »

oh hev???????, you would let a firm take £87 off you and not supply goods fit for purpose without even putting up a fight?
Either you have been beaten into a submissive nature or are much wealthier than the rest of us!

That's an entirely unfair summary from my recollection.

Freddie_Snowbits

I have a vision. The Post Office where MD lives has a real wicked woman who wears horn tipped rose tinted glasses and high heels, and hates men.

I cannot think of any other way why MD just does not pay £4.60 is recorded delivery so ICE can test the box. That way, he would go some way to getting his money back!

Perhaps he has no money!