Legal fees in small claims court

Wquirke1234

Hi

I am pursuing a claim in the small claims court. The case has been adjourned until a further hearing.

The defendant who is an international retail store have insisted to me in private by letter that if i don't drop my case immediately they will pursue me for their own legal fees for defending the case.

Am i correct in thinking this is not allowed and illegal and outside the rules of the small claims procedure in the district court

Thanks

my3cents

The whole point of the SCC is that its simple and doesn't involve costs. As a result there is a cap to how much you can claim.

They can pursue you all they like but the SCC won't be granting them any money. They could take a case of their own against you but I don't see that going down well with the court when the SCC is supposed to have resolved the case.

I would pass a copy of the private letter on to the SCC because that sort of letter isn't going to win them any favours with the judge.

Wquirke1234

Thanks for that. I was surprised when I received the letter from them. As far as I know they didn't cc a copy to the court.

dudara

It seems like they’re trying to intimidate you. Poor form on their part. I’d definitely introduce that as evidence into the case.

L1011

Costs cannot be awarded against the claimant. If an actual solicitor wrote that letter I'd be reporting them to the Law Society also

Wquirke1234

Thing is the letter is from their own legal department within the company. So they themselves deal with matters like this internally on a regular basis. Not their solicitor i presume

banie01

Was the letter from the Store received after you had initiated your claim?

Once the claim is active, all correspondence should be via the registrar.
If once the claim the defendant contacted you directly and in a somewhat intimidating fashion, I would be forwarding that to the registrar for their attention.

There are some multinational retailers operating in Ireland who seem to take a very loose approach to both the SCC and SOGA.

Wquirke1234

They have written to me directly several time and after the first time I requested the registrar to instruct them to stop. However, still getting direct correspondence.

I still to proceed with the next hearing

banie01

Wquirke1234 wrote: »

Thing is the letter is from their own legal department within the company. So they themselves deal with matters like this internally on a regular basis. Not their solicitor i presume

Quite often a company will have in house legal counsel but will instruct an external company for SCC appearance.
That is entirely their own choice however.
The cost of defending an SCC claim are not recoverable from the claimant.
Dismissal of your claim is the best they can hope for.

Quite often as issuing instructions can cost @€;600 it is more economical to negotiate a settlement than defend a claim.
All correspondence from the point of claim on however should be via the registrar.

Wquirke1234

They didn't even appear in court for first hearing.

banie01

Wquirke1234 wrote: »

They have written to me directly several times directly and after the first time I requested the registrar to instruct them to stop. However, still getting direct correspondence.

They are flouting the process rules in that case.
I would highlight to the registrar that they are doing this, I would also forward any response you wish to issue directly to the registrar for them to forward to the defendant.
Many of the registrar's dealing with SCC are quite happy to chat if you get them on the phone too

banie01

Wquirke1234 wrote: »

They didn't even appear in court for first hearing.

If they didn't appear, I am very surprised that judgement wasn't issued immediately in your favour?

Very odd.

Wquirke1234

The registrar im dealing with in this case is very helpful.

For alot of people to receive this sort of letter would make them think twice about pursuing the case

Wquirke1234

I was surprised too. They claimed they didn't receive hearing date letter although this is disputed. Now they have the adjournment date they still don't want to argue their case in court

banie01

I take it they have marked the letters forwarded to you as privileged? Or without prejudice?

Forward every bit of correspondence they send you onto the registrar and only reply to them via the registrar.

It's quite a strange tactic for a company to pursue, but the likelihood is that they also won't turn up for the adjourned hearing.
However, treat it as if they will and follow the procedure.
Good luck with it, and don't worry about the attempted intimidation.
Should you lose, the loss on your part is solely the court of €25.

Wquirke1234

banie01 wrote: »

I take it they have marked the letters forwarded to you as privileged? Or without prejudice?

Forward every bit of correspondence they send you onto the registrar and only reply to them via the registrar.

It's quite a strange tactic for a company to pursue, but the likelihood is that they also won't turn up for the adjourned hearing.

However, treat it as if they will and follow the procedure.
Good luck with it, and don't worry about the attempted intimidation.
Should you lose, the loss on your part is solely the court of €25.

Thanks, it wasn't the 25 euro i was concerned about it was the possibility they could pursue me for their legal costs if they won

banie01

Wquirke1234 wrote: »

Thanks, it wasn't the 25 euro i was concerned about it was the possibility they could pursue me for their legal costs if they won

Winning for them, amounts to being found not liable for your claim.
There are no punitive damages, no cost awards and no exemplary awards and no scope for consequential costs via the SCC.
The claim is limited to the cost of whatever item or service you are claiming for or certain vouched repair costs, and your liability should your claim fail is limited to your €25.

Pay their waffle no heed, forward their letters and your response to the registrar and wait for the court date.

If you have a stateable case, and they continue dicking around you will have a judgement awarded fairly quickly.
That said, enforcing that judgement could be tricky if the company is already being this awkward.
But happy to say the registrar will advise you of enforcement options.

Wquirke1234

banie01 wrote: »

Winning for them, amounts to being found not liable for your claim.
There are no punitive damages, no cost awards and no exemplary awards and no scope for consequential costs via the SCC.
The claim is limited to the cost of whatever item or service you are claiming for or certain vouched repair costs, and your liability should your claim fail is limited to your €25.

Pay their waffle no heed, forward their letters and your response to the registrar and wait for the court date.

If you have a stateable case, and they continue dicking around you will have a judgement awarded fairly quickly.
That said, enforcing that judgement could be tricky if the company is already being this awkward.
But happy to say the registrar will advise you of enforcement options.

Thanks banie01

Darc19

In another thread you said that the retailer asked for you to provide a report that it was an inherent fault.

At the hearing, the judge adjourned it and asked you to provide an independent report. (info from your posts)

Possibly they gave a written submission?

As the company asked for this in the first place and you did not provide it, they MAY look at pursuing costs as they asked for the same requirements as the judge has asked you for.


This is the problem about doing what someone on a public forum tells you to do - it can cause you to jump the gun and any form of court action should always be a last resort.

L1011

They can look but there's no mechanism to do so. It's also clear they don't understand the process to begin with

my3cents

L1011 wrote: »

They can look but there's no mechanism to do so. It's also clear they don't understand the process to begin with

I think they do understand the process.

They have already managed to get an adjournment which I think is unusual, they have contacted the OP outside the SCC system and they have made the OP think twice about continuing.

Wquirke1234

Darc19 wrote: »

In another thread you said that the retailer asked for you to provide a report that it was an inherent fault.

At the hearing, the judge adjourned it and asked you to provide an independent report. (info from your posts)

Possibly they gave a written submission?

As the company asked for this in the first place and you did not provide it, they MAY look at pursuing costs as they asked for the same requirements as the judge has asked you for.


This is the problem about doing what someone on a public forum tells you to do - it can cause you to jump the gun and any form of court action should always be a last resort.

The basis of the claim was that when the product developed the fault, the retailer would not deal with me but instead referred me to manufacturer. In their written submission they claimed the fault (product stopped working) could only be through my misuse or negligence

Wquirke1234

If the company had listened to my reported fault with the product day 1, and assisted me in rectifying it by contacting the manufacturer with the fault description, the case would have been avoided.

Is that not the point of the soga act 1980, that my contract is with the seller, not the manufacturer.

I know some people might see it as petty that i just didn't go straight to the manufacturer with the fault. But why should i have to? It would completely exonorate the seller of any responsibility to the consumer if a fault develops outside 6 months and then the consumer must chase the manufacturer at his or her own expense.

Darc19

I'm no expert at soga, but I would assume that contacting the manufacturer / distributor speeds up a resolution, but does not exonerate the retail store.

At the end of the day, the store would still be contacting the manufacturer / distributor to get an issue rectified.

I think the law requires you to show that the fault was caused by a manufacturing defect, hence by contacting the manufacturer you would probably be able to get a quicker answer on whether it is a valid claim.

Usually in scc the decision is skewed towards the consumer, by adjourning it and asking you to provide a report that was asked for by the retail store would suggest that it may find in favor of the store.

Any chance you can say the product and the alledged fault?

Sleeper12

Wquirke1234 wrote:

I know some people might see it as petty that i just didn't go straight to the manufacturer with the fault. But why should i have to? It would completely exonorate the seller of any responsibility to the consumer if a fault develops outside 6 months and then the consumer must chase the manufacturer at his or her own expense.

You contract is with the seller BUT sometimes it is far easier to avail of maintenance warranty. It is offered on top of your rights, not instead of.

Wquirke1234

Darc19 wrote: »

I'm no expert at soga, but I would assume that contacting the manufacturer / distributor speeds up a resolution, but does not exonerate the retail store.

At the end of the day, the store would still be contacting the manufacturer / distributor to get an issue rectified.

I think the law requires you to show that the fault was caused by a manufacturing defect, hence by contacting the manufacturer you would probably be able to get a quicker answer on whether it is a valid claim.

Usually in scc the decision is skewed towards the consumer, by adjourning it and asking you to provide a report that was asked for by the retail store would suggest that it may find in favor of the store.

Any chance you can say the product and the alledged fault?

The company categorically stated the only way the product could be stopped working after a year was down to my misuse or negligence. However, The fault was shown to be a faulty battery by an independent report. Which is covered by the manufacturer guarantee, which I got in writing from manufacturer subsequently.

Wquirke1234

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You contract is with the seller BUT sometimes it is far easier to avail of maintenance warranty. It is offered on top of your rights, not instead of.

I understand that. I admit i am stubborn. But the seller should be willing to listen or help consumers in cases of product faults.

Wquirke1234

The company's attitude in opinion is that they just sell it, with practically no come back if u find a problem after 6 months. The company says they don't have any expertise themselves. If the consumer discovers a fault, it's up to the consumer to prove what the fault is, it was caused by the consumer negligence and also it's up to the consumer to directly contact the manufacturer about the matter..... I. E, the seller is under no obligation to assist the consumer in the event of a fault

Wquirke1234

I have looked up another electrical good seller, for example, did electrical... Where a fault under warranty is identified, they will deal with the manufacturer on your behalf....... That is an example of a seller being helpful, understanding towards consumers with faulty goods

Darc19

I only ever buy from DID, even if the item is a little more expensive sometimes. And that's almost 30 years of being a customer.

Their after sales service is top notch.

Battery issue is almost always a manufacturer defect.

I'll guess that the store name could be something you'd eat after a few pints.


So, correct that it's a valid issue, but dealing with the manufacturer probably have sorted it out.

I think both the store and you were stubborn

I now reckon store will lose.

Wquirke1234

Darc19 wrote: »

I only ever buy from DID, even if the item is a little more expensive sometimes. And that's almost 30 years of being a customer.

Their after sales service is top notch.

Battery issue is almost always a manufacturer defect.

I'll guess that the store name could be something you'd eat after a few pints.


So, correct that it's a valid issue, but dealing with the manufacturer probably have sorted it out.

I think both the store and you were stubborn

I now reckon store will lose.

Lol... DID electrical i looked up randomly and they appeared fair about faulty items to be honest..... After the courts decides the outcome i will gladly let as many people as possible know who the UK seller is i have being with.

Rows Grower

Wquirke1234 wrote: »

I understand that. I admit i am stubborn. But the seller should be willing to listen or help consumers in cases of product faults.

You're dead right in what you are doing and fair play to ya, it'd be no harm if more consumers had the same attitude instead of paying heed to the big companies procedures which are really only makey uppy laws.

Sleeper12

Wquirke1234 wrote:

I understand that. I admit i am stubborn. But the seller should be willing to listen or help consumers in cases of product faults.

My business is shower repair and installation. If an shower fails after a few months I am entitled to an opportunity to repair or replace the shower. If it's a Triton shower then Triton are my agents. If it's Mira then mira are my agents. Refusing me or my agents the opportunity to rectify the issue can hampered any small claims court case you bring against me. It's perfectly acceptable for the retailer to allow the manicure rectify the problem under warranty. There is no law that states that the retailer has to fix the issue themselves. So long as the retailer acts then they are doing nothing wrong. They are entitled to use agents.

Wquirke1234

Sleeper12 wrote: »

My business is shower repair and installation. If an shower fails after a few months I am entitled to an opportunity to repair or replace the shower. If it's a Triton shower then Triton are my agents. If it's Mira then mira are my agents. Refusing me or my agents the opportunity to rectify the issue can hampered any small claims court case you bring against me. It's perfectly acceptable for the retailer to allow the manicure rectify the problem under warranty. There is no law that states that the retailer has to fix the issue themselves. So long as the retailer acts then they are doing nothing wrong. They are entitled to use agents.

I wouldn't be expecting a retailer to diagnose and fix the problem. I would expect them to listen to me and assist me in engaging with the manufacturer. In my case they have refused to engage with me but instead told me take any problem up directly with the manufacturer.

Sleeper12

Wquirke1234 wrote:

I wouldn't be expecting a retailer to diagnose and fix the problem. I would expect them to listen to me and assist me in engaging with the manufacturer. In my case they have refused to engage with me but instead told me take any problem up directly with the manufacturer.

I hope I don't come across as arguing with you. That's not my intention and I don't know anything about your particular case or how you were treated.

Wquirke1234

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I hope I don't come across as arguing with you. That's not my intention and I don't know anything about your particular case or how you were treated.

Not at all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion

rock22

Wquirke1234 wrote: »

Lol... DID electrical i looked up randomly and they appeared fair about faulty items to be honest..... After the courts decides the outcome i will gladly let as many people as possible know who the UK seller is i have being with.

I would be grateful if you would also write to TD's and let them know how many of these large multinationals deal with consumer issues.
It should be an offence to mislead consumers into chasing manufacturers and distributors.