Brian Kirby Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I think this is a Motorhome Matter, though its implications are much wider reaching, and it is not at all motorhome specific. The Department of Justice has a consultation out at present on changes to the County Courts civil cases procedures: the small claims courts etc. See here: http://tinyurl.com/3uncpuv The proposals deal with a number of issues, among which is a proposal to increase the present financial threshold for the small claims procedure from £5,000, to £10,000 or £15,000. Considering motorhomes, their cost, and the cost of items liable to be disputed, this seems potentially a move in the right direction. Other proposals are to improve the means for successful claimants to actually secure payment from defendants, where, too often, Court judgements are ignored. The main problem here is that responsibility for enforcement falls onto the successful litigant, often involving additional expense and long delays in gaining satisfaction. However, for anyone with the patience and determination, it seems an opportunity that should be grasped, with the possibility that if enough have the time to spare, a beneficial change may be secured. I have two problems with the legislation as it stands, both present and proposed. First, it seems to me that tying the small claims procedure to the value of the disputed goods is unfair to many, especially those buying goods such as motorhomes, where the ticket price is high, but the buyer has limited means to pursue a claim against a seller if that ultimately becomes is his only option for redress. It seems to me it would be much fairer if the circumstances, and financial status, of the Complainant were given weight rather then the cost of his purchase. It is as though the assumption is that those who buy expensive items, can also afford expensive litigation. I'm sure many here will see this to be a false assumption. Second, in respect of debt recovery (which include sums owed following a court case), all that is proposed is a series of measures to make it easier for the successful litigant to obtain redress for himself. Here, it seems to me, it should be for the Court to enforce its own judgement. That is to say that once the case is settled, and the sum due determined, the Court should demand payment of its costs, and those awarded under the judgement, from the debtor. Where the debtor can demonstrate inability to pay it should be the court that establishes how much the debtor can afford, and the time over which they can be allowed to pay and, if and as necessary, depending on circumstances, can also apply attachments from earnings, sequester funds from bank balances, require the sale of property, or whatever is required to secure payments, in all cases adding the court's costs to the debt. If both the above could be achieved, it seems to me, those few recalcitrant dealers who presently rely on their customer's fear of the cost of suing them outside the small claims procedure, and so get away with selling defective goods, would have serious pause for thought. The more so, if they also had to take into account that if they lost, it would be the Court that pursued them for settlement, rather than their poor impoverished customer. That just might bring the few bad ones to book, make life a bit easier for the remainder whose face unfair competition from the unscrupulous, and result in an improvement in standards all round. I don't expect everyone, by any means, to agree with my analysis but, whatever your view, it seems worthwhile making your feelings felt. It might work, it might not, but the only certainty is that if you keep your view to yourself, it cannot be taken into account. Have fun, y'all! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 There's a related article on http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/may/29/small-claims-court-limit-rise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Oh Brian, why o why are you wasting your time on this type of post. Look at the more positive sides of Motor Homing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 postnote - 2011-05-31 10:57 AM Oh Brian, why o why are you wasting your time on this type of post. Look at the more positive sides of Motor Homing. Didn't think it would be too long before one of the resident muppets bobbed up! :-) Because, my dear little chucklehead, for some, the positive side turns into the negative side, and these things suddenly become very important for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Brian, A thousand thanks for that extremely relevant post. As an ex- Citizen's Advice Bureau advisor/money advice specialist/session supervisor for twenty years, I can only say " More power to your (and everyone elses) elbow" This is something that my old organization has been campaigning about for years (specifically the raising of the threshold) so any move in that direction is to be heartily applauded. I believe your analysis to be totally sound, but doubt very much whether the Civil courts will be persuaded of the neccessity ( and, therefore, the expense) of taking on enforcement action themselves, more's the pity. All of us are consumers/purchasers of various products -- I guess very few of us have not had cause to want/need redress for poor quality goods/rip-off services at some time or other -- so your comments are helpful pragmatism for all of us -- not 'negative' at all! Isn't it a pity that forums sometimes seem to attract: "Bears of little brain" -- but I suppose that that is a "Cross that we all have to bear" in an open and (hopefully) tolerant arena like this! Cheers, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-05-31 11:34 AM the positive side turns into the negative side,. Oi!.... Brian thats nearly my tag line 8-) ...........................I'm going to Sue :D ........................ ..........................and Sue said I'm a muppet 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-05-31 11:34 AM Didn't think it would be too long before one of the resident muppets bobbed up! :-) Because, my dear little chucklehead, for some, the positive side turns into the negative side, and these things suddenly become very important for them. If people were interested they would have surfed the next, just because you are good at plagiarism. And for out two chocolate drops above, "this is a form of cheating because it's copying or stealing another person's articles etc" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 postnote - 2011-05-31 1:00 PM If people were interested they would have surfed the next, just because you are good at plagiarism. And for out two chocolate drops above, "this is a form of cheating because it's copying or stealing another person's articles etc" What total, utter,and complete rubbish! (Misspelled, ungrammatical and incoherent -- as seems to be usual with you, 'postnote') Surely the intelligent dissemination of information in the public domain should brook no argument. Brian has done us all a service -- anyway, if we do not know that the change is proposed, what kind of surfing would we be able to do? It seems to me that one of the best features of this forum is the steady flow of useful facts and general information (not always directly motor home related) from such wise counsellors as : Clive H (money matters) Euroserve (all matters technical) and Brian Kirby (everything!) -- to name but a few -- apologies to those that I have ommitted! Cheers, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Postnote: It's certainly NOT plagiarism to refer readers to a published source, and then summarise its content & comment on it yourself - which is what Brian did. Rather. it's a helpful way of helping some of us distil the important bits out of all the Government-speak! As for people who are interested "surfing the next(?) themselves," when we do that we find a whole mixture of material of varying degrees of reliability, most of it anonymous (like yours!). Whereas on here there are several identifiable people - including Brian - whose judgements and motives we've learned to trust, whether or not we always agree with their opinions. If I need information like this, and can't make sense of the "official" sources (not uncommon!), I'd rather come here and get it from the likes of Brian (or Clive, or Dave, or Derek, or Don, etc etc, according to speciality) than go and "surf the next" for myself, not knowing who had written what - or why. So Postnote, if you don't want to read some of these helpful posts, then don't, but please don't lash out at people who make far more useful contributions than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 'Right on', Tony, I totally agree,you have succinctly put the case better than I ever could! Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Jeez, and to think I actually bother to wave to some of you motorhomers *-) Brian has taken the time to type out an informative post for the benefit of anyone who was interested. Obviously, it wont appeal to everyone, but if not, why in God's name do you feel the need to have to criticise the contents or the author, and in addition, have a disection and post mortem about it, it is either of interest to you or it is not. Who cares if someone's grammar isn't perfect, or someone else thinks Brian should live his life never talking about anything other than motorhomes. It's of relevance to me being a business owner, and in all honesty should be of (even) minimal interest to everyone. They say chatterbox is argumentative, MM is getting just as bad. *-) , and not a soul can blame me for any of it. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I too echo Brian's sentiments and thank him for taking the trouble to keep us informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Postnote - as a relative 'newcomer' to this forum you seem to have a style very similar to others who end up labelled as forum trolls? They appear from time to time and seem to have nothing better to do than to crticise others whilst offering nothing of value or constructive themselves - and all from the safety of hiding behind the anonymity that this free forum provides. Everyone is welcomed on here but in the interests of a quiet life you may wish to consider how you say what you say in the future please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Thanks for that info Brian (or is it Barry nowadays). The years have turned me into a right old cynic and I suspect the proposals will be watered down to suit everyone but the complainants. I sincerely hope not as it is long overdue. Now, can you find out the best way to get rid of irritating pests. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Aw, c'mon guys! You are way too kind, and the poor guy can't help it, it's just the way he was born. We mustn't discriminate, now, must we, so play nicely with the strange one! :-D PS. A special mention here for Donna, with whom I have had various "robust" discussions in the past, for her exemplary even handedness, er, I think! :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I completely agree with your 'P.S.', Brian, but will take up one point with you Donna. I could well become one of the Spelling/grammar 'Police' (something to do with my age, perhaps?) but it isn't that that I was complaining about -- just that I couldn't understand the meaning of the post. This just speaks to me of sheer laziness, because the poster obviously did not proof-read his copy before sending it.We can all be guilty of trypo's, even I'm not immune! :-D , but posting gibberish is just sloppy -- isn't it? Cheers, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Dearly Beloved, before we all get too caught up with the Strange One's general inability to read, or write, in his (presumed) mother tongue, may I point out that my original post was to draw attention to a consultation that is open to the public for responses. I have responded, using the on-line form, along the lines in my post, to the consultation. It takes a bit of reading through, and a lot of the first part is preoccupied with road traffic accidents but, if it helps, around para 105 of the case, and question 25 of the response document, it gets to the bits that interested me, and again at para 185 of the case and question 45 of the response document on debt recovery. I offered no comment at all to the other sections, so stated this in the first question in case someone assumed it was an entirely blank response, submitted as a time-waster. So, in case this message gets lost in all the fun above, this is a public consultation, and the public are entitled to respond. Most such consultations only get responses from the insurers and the legal profession, and sometimes from the likes of Which?, but very few from Joe Public, so no-one knows what we think, or want. Time to tell them? 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophie Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 It's unhelpful and destructive comments from the likes of "Postnote" that cause one to wonder (for a moment anyway! ) as to the merits of signing up to Forums such as this. I'm happy that I take sufficient useful information from the Forum that far outweighs the irrelevant and childish retort from Postnote, who should learn to keep his/her counsel when tempted to "speak" for others. Thank you Brian for a helpful Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gboden65 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 So,Coln, lucky you being able to spell, many of us dont do too well, its called dyslexia, if that is how it is spellt, so think on before you rabbit on about spelling,how do I spell condesending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aultymer Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 gboden, you do a terrible disservice to those of us who have been diagnosed as being in the dyslexic spectrum. Most 'sufferers' can develop strategies to overcome the problem. However the lazyness which affect many posters - ie, they just can't be arsed to use 'spellcheck' should not be confused with dyslexia. Nor should lack of education be used as an excuse - if you can work a computer enough to join a forum then you can use all the facilities to make sure your post is readable. I imagine that most people post in order that their utterances are read - therefore they should take enough care to ensure that people (who may have their own problems reading ) can make sense of the post. Bugger - I am not sure I understand the above!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 Yes, yes! But have you all responded to the consultation? Never mind the forum battles. Come on, chop, chop, it closes end June! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Tracker - 2011-05-31 3:03 PM Postnote - as a relative 'newcomer' to this forum you seem to have a style very similar to others who end up labelled as forum trolls? They appear from time to time and seem to have nothing better to do than to crticise others whilst offering nothing of value or constructive themselves - and all from the safety of hiding behind the anonymity that this free forum provides. Everyone is welcomed on here but in the interests of a quiet life you may wish to consider how you say what you say in the future please? It sounds as though you are the type that tries to suppress free speech; this is Britain matey, the land of free speech. I suppose you want to make this dictatorial forum, speak when only spoken too. Yes let’s give Brian a clap; he is always right, bet he walks on water. Follow like lambs and the end of free speech if you listen to Dictator Tracker And who are you gives you the right Tracker to throw insults at Trolls? Maybe being a thargonious gives you that right 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.