# Private individual being sued in the Small Claims Court



## delgirl (17 Sep 2021)

A friend, who is a private individual not a business, sold a second hand car in May 2021 and has received a summons in August from the Small Claims Court as the buyer, also a private individual, is no longer happy with the car!  It's my understanding from the Citizens Information website and the Consumers' Association of Ireland that a private individual cannot be sued in the Small Claims Court, it's only for a Consumer vs a Business or Business Owner.

Here's the exerpt from the CAI website
"You can claim against a person or company for goods or services you purchased from them for private use, providing they were acting in the capacity of a business.  If you bought goods or services from a person under a private, informal arrangement, the court won’t be able to take your claim."

My friend has responded to the summons, her response was sent to the Claimant, the Claimant responded to the Court that they did not accept the Respondant's claim to be a Private individual and that the car was sold under a private, informal arrangement.  Now the Small Claims Court is asking my friend for an offer of settlement within 14 days or a court date will be issued.

Surely this is not correct?  How can you prove to the Court Registrar that you are indeed a private individual and are not a business in order to stop the case proceeding to Court?

The car was sold privately from her house, she is a PAYE employee and doesn't have any other sort of business and can't understand why this is going to court.  The car was sold on a "SOLD AS SEEN" basis 3 months prior to the summons arriving.  The buyer chose not to bring a qualified mechanic, drove the car, was happy with it and paid in cash.

Grateful for any insight or experience anyone has had with a similar case.


----------



## RedOnion (17 Sep 2021)

Is this the only car your friend, or any members of her household, has sold recently?


----------



## delgirl (17 Sep 2021)

Yes, she lives alone and had the car for about 3 years before she sold it.


----------



## cremeegg (17 Sep 2021)

A person can make any claim they wish, in this case the buyer is claiming that your friend is in business as a car dealer. Your friend will have to go to court to deny this, there is no pre-court tribunal for the small claims court to determine that matter.


----------



## delgirl (17 Sep 2021)

Thank you cremeegg.  She's perplexed as to why this is happening and is very anxious about going to court.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Sep 2021)

It's very annoying 

The first thing is that she can tell the judge she is not a business and he should throw the case out.

The worst outcome is that the judge doesn't believe her and awards the maximum compensation of €2,000 against her.

Brendan


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (17 Sep 2021)

Have we really come to this as a society its simply mind boggling. Even if that girl isn't liable shes anxious,  has to take time off work , the cost to the taxpayer won't be cheap because nothing is here.

I'm all for the rights of people but this to me is just another example of the entitlement culture. 

Surely if the claimant loses due to what appears to be a bogus claim that person needs to foot the bill? Its ludicrous.


----------



## peemac (17 Sep 2021)

Shows how some people abuse the SCC process.

Maybe someone else can answer, but could she sign an affidavit stating that she is not and has not traded any vehicle in a business capacity and that this vehicle was her private vehicle for the past 3 years.

Maybe a counter claim for the stress this false and defamatory action is causing her? 


But, being devils advocate, is there another side to the story?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Sep 2021)

Hi Paul

We have not heard the other side of the story. 

I doubt it's a question of "she is just not happy with the car". 

We don't know if she tried to resolve the issue with the seller. 

There could be something serious wrong with it.  She doesn't realise that the Small Claims Court is not the way to go.

Brendan


----------



## mathepac (17 Sep 2021)

I suspect that this may be a case of a "private individual" selling multiple cars / computers / other hardware under the same user-name on some of the "buy-and-sell" type web-sites.

I have complained to the site owners and operators that these "private individuals" are in fact small-time dealers trying to deprive consumers of their rights in relation to warranties and after sales service. When they copped out on a "not our problem" line and "read out T&Cs" nonsense, I started asking the questions of the "private individual" advertisers. For my trouble I got banned from commenting on ads from certain retailers, proof positive that for a number of the sites concerned revenue comes first and consumer rights don't matter.

Any possibility this might be the case with OP's friend's car?


----------



## delgirl (18 Sep 2021)

mathepac said:


> I suspect that this may be a case of a "private individual" selling multiple cars / computers / other hardware under the same user-name on some of the "buy-and-sell" type web-sites.
> 
> I have complained to the site owners and operators that these "private individuals" are in fact small-time dealers trying to deprive consumers of their rights in relation to warranties and after sales service. When they copped out on a "not our problem" line and "read out T&Cs" nonsense, I started asking the questions of the "private individual" advertisers. For my trouble I got banned from commenting on ads from certain retailers, proof positive that for a number of the sites concerned revenue comes first and consumer rights don't matter.
> 
> Any possibility this might be the case with OP's friend's car?


Thanks everyone for their input.  It is indeed shocking that someone can be taken to the SCC when they have done absolutely nothing wrong!

This lady is a nurse, works full time, shift work and overtime and is a PAYE employee.  She's in her early 60's and is not internet savvy and doesn't sell anything online as she lives alone and doesn't want 'strangers' coming to her house.  She's had this car for 3 years, we live in a smallish town and I've seen her driving the car for around that length of time, and has the documentation to prove it.

The purchaser is a young 20 year old man who contacted her approximately 3 months after the purchase to say that he wasn't happy with the car ' the way it was running' and he wanted his money back.  She explained to him that he had purchased the car 'as seen', test drove the car and was happy with it then.  She also pointed out that he could have brought a motor mechanic or someone else with some knowledge of cars when he came to make the purchase.  His argument is that she didn't offer him that option!!!!  

The young man has claimed that since he purchased the vehicle in May 2021, the car has been undriveable and off the road.  Fortunately, a lot of young people live their lives on Social Media and I have found photos and videos on Instagram and Facebook of him indeed driving the car and attenting various events with friends.  I have screen shot the photos and downloaded the videos for her to use as evidence in court.

AFAIK the onus is on the buyer, caveat emptor, to ensure that the 2nd hand item they are purchasing is in good order and particularly for 2nd hand cars, one should always bring a mechanic.

Someone may have told him to just go online, pay €25 and you can make a claim agaist her and this is what he has done.  He's inferring that she's a business person, which is totally incorrect, but as cremeegg said earlier there's no mechanism available in the SCC prior to the actual hearing to ascertain if this is true or not.

She's now collating payslips for the past 6 months, has asked her employer for a letter stating that she has been a PAYE employee for the past 12 years at this particular nursing home and is printing copies of bank statements to show her income as a nurse and no other sources of income.
She's also calling the CRO to see if they can issue a letter stating that there are no companies registered at her home address or no businesses registered in her name.

She also knows where he works and is planning to wait outside his place of work to photograph him arriving in the car with the date and time stamp on the photo to prove he is in fact still driving the car and will do this for numerous days if his start time doesn't overlap with her working hours.

It's shocking to me that someone  in their 60's would have to go to these lengths to prove that they're not operating a business.  Besides the fact that he bought the car 'as seen' 3 months prior to complaining and didn't have it inspected by a mechanic.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (18 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> Thanks everyone for their input.  It is indeed shocking that someone can be taken to the SCC when they have done absolutely nothing wrong!
> 
> This lady is a nurse, works full time, shift work and overtime and is a PAYE employee.  She's in her early 60's and is not internet savvy and doesn't sell anything online as she lives alone and doesn't want 'strangers' coming to her house.  She's had this car for 3 years, we live in a smallish town and I've seen her driving the car for around that length of time, and has the documentation to prove it.
> 
> ...


She has no need to all that,  tell the buyer that she'll get the car checked out by an independent mechanic and send on the report.

My critical mind says if it was off the road there shouldn't be any mileage added, and if he claims its not driving well ,how does he know if it "was off the road"?
Is the car taxed?

Believe it or not ye can check this,  my money is that it isn't.

She has right on her side use it. Be seen to do all the right things to resolve all the issues,  the truth will out.

If the buyer is local has the car been seen on the road?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (18 Sep 2021)

Thirsty said:


> The good news is that minors cannot be sued, it has to be done through their parents.
> 
> From the OP however, I believe this is an adult woman.
> 
> Even with a solid case the small claims procedure is grindingly slow; I wouldn't give it headspace at this time.


I call all females "girls " even if they are older. LOL


----------



## RedOnion (18 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> She's had this car for 3 years, we live in a smallish town and I've seen her driving the car for around that length of time, and has the documentation to prove it.


That's really all she needs. If she has tax / insurance/ nct letters showing the car was in her name for 3 years, that's all I'd be bothering with. Send it back - while there isn't a mechanism to mediate small claims, the clerk does have to power to strike out a claim that doesn't meet the small claims criteria.

It sounds like the buyer is chancing their arm.


----------



## RedOnion (18 Sep 2021)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> She has no need to all that, tell the buyer that she'll get the car checked out by an independent mechanic and send on the report.


No. It'd be better not to engage rather than inadvertently admit liability.


----------



## delgirl (18 Sep 2021)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> She has no need to all that,  tell the buyer that she'll get the car checked out by an independent mechanic and send on the report.
> 
> My critical mind says if it was off the road there shouldn't be any mileage added, and if he claims its not driving well ,how does he know if it "was off the road"?
> Is the car taxed?
> ...


Thanks Paul.  However, why should she tell the buyer she'll get a mechanic to look at it when he purchased it 3 months prior to complaining and God knows what he's been doing with it during that time.  I feel it's no longer her responsability - if he thought there was something wrong with it, he should have let her know immediately and he should have had it checked by a mechanic at the time of purchase.

She has the mileage when the car was sold, but of course doesn't have access to it now to check the current mileage.

Didn't know you could check the tax, but if it's not taxed, he'll probably just say it was off the road?

He has been seen driving in the town and she has now asked friends to take a photo of the car and the shop or whatever it's outside of to prove that he's driving it.

She literally can't sleep as she's never had so much as a speeding ticket and has never been to court in her life.


----------



## kinnjohn (18 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> Yes, she lives alone and had the car for about 3 years before she sold it.


Was the change of ownership from her name to the new owners or was it in another person name for all or part of the last 3 years, before transfer of ownership,


----------



## delgirl (18 Sep 2021)

RedOnion said:


> No. It'd be better not to engage rather than inadvertently admit liability.


I agree and thanks for the advice.  She's in such a state that she's going to go in with all the paperwork, photos etc. she can get her hands on to be sure the Judge believes her.


----------



## delgirl (18 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> Was the change of ownership from her name to the new owners or was it in another person name for all or part of the last 3 years,


Straight from her name into the young man's name and it was in her name only for the 3 years.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (18 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> Thanks Paul.  However, why should she tell the buyer she'll get a mechanic to look at it when he purchased it 3 months prior to complaining and God knows what he's been doing with it during that time.  I feel it's no longer her responsability - if he thought there was something wrong with it, he should have let her know immediately and he should have had it checked by a mechanic at the time of purchase.
> 
> She has the mileage when the car was sold, but of course doesn't have access to it now to check the current mileage.
> 
> ...


I always think solutions outside of courts are less arduous.  If shes struggling with this I'd get her to the doctor immediately and record the effects this is having on her ......


----------



## mathepac (18 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> It's shocking to me that someone in their 60's would have to go to these lengths to prove that they're not operating a business. Besides the fact that he bought the car 'as seen' 3 months prior to complaining and didn't have it inspected by a mechanic.


That seems clear enough. However, this is one of those situations where a Bill of Sale, old maintenance invoices, old NCT certs and the stamped service booklet for the car as well as credit card or bank statements showing payments for routine servicing/maintenance present a powerful history of the car being in one person's sole beneficial ownership.

There are a few Bill of Sale templates available on the net.  Even if the buyer refuses to sign a Bill of Sale, the vendor should read the document to  the buyer and note on their own copy the buyer's refusal to sign or accept a copy, as appropriate.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (18 Sep 2021)

Why on earth would she start engaging with mechanics etc?

The Small Claims Court isn’t relevant in these circumstances.

She should bring some sort of proof that she bought the car three years ago and perhaps her Nursing Board membership.

Then at the outset just say “this shouldn’t be in the Small Claims Court; I’m a private citizen and a practicing nurse who owned the car for three years and sold it to this person in good faith.”

End of story.


----------



## Horatio (18 Sep 2021)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I'm all for the rights of people but this to me is just another example of the entitlement culture.


Hear hear.

I'd be seeking to pursue for costs as I'd be sending a Solicitor to represent rather than attending in person. I assume that is permissible.


----------



## Salvadore (19 Sep 2021)

She should avoid making any efforts to determine whether or not the car is currently being driven. That conveys the impression that the condition of the car is relevant.

It isn’t. She simply needs to show that she’s not a business person. As has been said, proof of ownership of the car and of employee status should be enough.

Hopefully it will be seen for the vexatious attempt it is. She could consider a counter action against the nuisance and upset the buyer has unnecessarily caused.


----------



## ClubMan (19 Sep 2021)

This suggests that the small claims court *can* be used in this context although, in my opinion, the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on given that private car sales are "sold as seen" and he took it for a test drive before agreeing to buy it. I think that only if it was not roadworthy would he maybe have a case but it doesn't sound like that was the case.





						Problem with a used car
					

You have legal rights if you bought a used car and something has gone wrong. You may be entitled to a repair or some or all of your money back. Find out about your rights when you buy a used car from a car dealer, at auction or from a private seller.




					www.citizensinformation.ie
				





> *I bought my car from a private seller*
> ...You should still contact the seller to try to work out a solution to the problem. If you can’t resolve the problem you can take a civil case or use the small claims procedure.


----------



## delgirl (21 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> She should avoid making any efforts to determine whether or not the car is currently being driven. That conveys the impression that the condition of the car is relevant.
> 
> It isn’t. She simply needs to show that she’s not a business person. As has been said, proof of ownership of the car and of employee status should be enough.
> 
> Hopefully it will be seen for the vexatious attempt it is. She could consider a counter action against the nuisance and upset the buyer has unnecessarily caused.


She's photographing the car being driven, and we've downloaded various photos and video from his SM with dates and time, as the buyer has lied in both statements declaring the car "undriveable" and "off the road".  It's more to prove that he's dishonest rather than to do with the condition of the car.

It is indeed a vexatious attempt to elicit money from an innocent party 3 months after the purchase!


----------



## delgirl (21 Sep 2021)

ClubMan said:


> This suggests that the small claims court *can* be used in this context although, in my opinion, the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on given that private car sales are "sold as seen" and he took it for a test drive before agreeing to buy it. I think that only if it was not roadworthy would he maybe have a case but it doesn't sound like that was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From the Consumers' Association of Ireland:-

*Am I Eligible?*​"You can claim against a person or company for goods or services you purchased from them for private use, *providing they were acting in the capacity of a business*.  If you bought goods or services from a person* under a private, informal arrangement*, the court won’t be able to take your claim.

*If the person or company is not legally trading and is not registered with the CRO*, the Judge might decide that the claim cannot be dealt with."

This seems very clear to me, unfortunately because this  young man is insisting that she is a business person, I think he knows he can't sue a private individual, the Registrar has accepted the claim and the Seller has been informed that a court date will be set.  She's going to call the Registrar of the SCC this morning to see if they can give her a week or so to come up with the confirmation from the CRO that there is no business name or company registered in her name or at her home address, plus letter from her employer, plus payslips, bank statements, etc.   Hopefull the Registrar will allow her some time to collate this evidence and will strike out the case.


----------



## RedOnion (21 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> see if they can give her a week or so to come up with the confirmation from the CRO that there is no business name or company registered in her name or at her home address,


I'm not entirely convinced this alone would see it struck out. The buyer could argue that she's operating in a business capacity even without a registered business name or company - "she sells loads of cars all the time, I thought she ran a garage..."

I would have thought the proof of ownership and tax / maintenance of the car for 3 years would be a much stronger argument?  Or maybe there's a benefit to having both.

Did she give him a receipt for the money when he bought the car?

Even if it's not struck out, if it gets to a hearing based on what you've said the buyer doesn't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## delgirl (21 Sep 2021)

RedOnion said:


> I'm not entirely convinced this alone would see it struck out. The buyer could argue that she's operating in a business capacity even without a registered business name or company - "she sells loads of cars all the time, I thought she ran a garage..."
> 
> I would have thought the proof of ownership and tax / maintenance of the car for 3 years would be a much stronger argument?  Or maybe there's a benefit to having both.
> 
> ...


Thank you RedOnion, she's going to send all proof of ownership of the vehicle too, she's got the registration, NCT reports, tax discs, Garage service invoices, etc.   Hopefully that will be sufficient to convince the Registrar that this shouldn't be heard in the SCC.

The lady asked the buyer if he wanted a receipt and he declined saying he had the log book transferring the ownership and was happy with that. She should of course have given him a detailed receipt "sold as seen" for her own protection, but doesn't have much experience in selling cars and had no idea that this would come back to bite her.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> From the Consumers' Association of Ireland:-


I wouldn't take what the CAI say at face value especially when it differs from what more authoritative *official* sources say. Anyway, seems like the small claims application has not been rejected yet which might contradict the CAI's opinion. I guess that the court itself could yet rule that it doesn't have jurisdiction though. In any case, if they don't, then I would be surprised if they upheld the claim based on the info posted to date.


----------



## Leo (21 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> She's going to call the Registrar of the SCC this morning to see if they can give her a week or so to come up with the confirmation from the CRO that there is no business name or company registered in her name or at her home address, plus letter from her employer, plus payslips, bank statements, etc.


Note, just because someone is in a full-time PAYE job does not in any way prove they are not also running a sideline business. Many people in full time employment have secondary income. 

As also stated earlier, just because someone isn't registered with the CRO does not prove they are not operating as a trader. There are many selling via the online classified websites that by the letter of the law should be registered but are flying under the radar. 

The onus is on the claimant to prove their case. It might be more effective just tell the Registrar that she isn't operating as a business and can prove she had owned the car in question for the previous three years. However, if the claimant has stated in their claim that she is operating a business, then it's only the judge who can decide.


----------



## time to plan (21 Sep 2021)

ClubMan said:


> This suggests that the small claims court *can* be used in this context although, in my opinion, the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on given that private car sales are "sold as seen" and he took it for a test drive before agreeing to buy it. I think that only if it was not roadworthy would he maybe have a case but it doesn't sound like that was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Above that it says:



> You have very few legal protections when you buy a car from a private seller. Irish and EU consumer laws only apply to deals between a _consumer_ (a person who buys a good or service for personal use or consumption) and a _trader_ (a person acting for purposes related to their trade, business or profession). It does not apply when you buy from a private individual who is not a trader (for example, someone who is selling their own car to you but who does not sell cars as a profession)
> 
> You should still contact the seller to try to work out a solution to the problem. If you can’t resolve the problem you can take a civil case or use the small claims procedure.


----------



## time to plan (21 Sep 2021)

Leo said:


> Note, just because someone is in a full-time PAYE job does not in any way prove they are not also running a sideline business. Many people in full time employment have secondary income.
> 
> As also stated earlier, just because someone isn't registered with the CRO does not prove they are not operating as a trader. There are many selling via the online classified websites that by the letter of the law should be registered but are flying under the radar.
> 
> The onus is on the claimant to prove their case. It might be more effective just tell the Registrar that she isn't operating as a business and can prove she had owned the car in question for the previous three years. However, if the claimant has stated in their claim that she is operating a business, then it's only the judge who can decide.


I would put is a subject access request under GDPR to the Driver and Vehicle Computer Services Division of the Department of Transport, requesting a complete list of all vehicles I had owned, bought and sold over the last 10 years.


----------



## delgirl (21 Sep 2021)

time to plan said:


> I would put is a subject access request under GDPR to the Driver and Vehicle Computer Services Division of the Department of Transport, requesting a complete list of all vehicles I had owned, bought and sold over the last 10 years.


Thank you _time to plan_, didn't think of that.  We'll try that as well.  The more evidence we have, the better.
She now has confirmation from the CRO that there is no record of any business name or company at present or in the past registered in her name.
She has been trying to contact the Court Registrar since yesterday morning and has left messages, but no response so far to 3 phone calls.  They must be very busy.


----------



## time to plan (21 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> Thank you _time to plan_, didn't think of that.  We'll try that as well.  The more evidence we have, the better.
> She now has confirmation from the CRO that there is no record of any business name or company at present or in the past registered in her name.
> She has been trying to contact the Court Registrar since yesterday morning and has left messages, but no response so far to 3 phone calls.  They must be very busy.


I've been trying to get a District Court case heard for 2 years. Covid has not improved matters.


----------



## delgirl (21 Sep 2021)

time to plan said:


> You have very few legal protections when you buy a car from a private seller. Irish and EU consumer laws only apply to deals between a _consumer_ (a person who buys a good or service for personal use or consumption) and a _trader_ (a person acting for purposes related to their trade, business or profession). It does not apply when you buy from a private individual who is not a trader (for example, someone who is selling their own car to you but who does not sell cars as a profession)



That's what I found on other websites too and this is why we think he's claiming that she's in business as he knows he can't claim from a private individual.   The onus should be on him to prove she's trading, not on her to prove she's not.

Everyone has been very helpful, thank you, and I'll revert with the outcome at a later date.


----------



## time to plan (21 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> That's what I found on other websites too and this is why we think he's claiming that she's in business as he knows he can't claim from a private individual.   The onus should be on him to prove she's trading, not on her to prove she's not.
> 
> Everyone has been very helpful, thank you, and I'll revert with the outcome at a later date.


My money is that he's trying to scare her into folding.


----------



## Leo (21 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> The onus should be on him to prove she's trading, not on her to prove she's not.


That's exactly how the court system works here.


----------



## Páid (21 Sep 2021)

Have you spoken with the Clerk in the Small Claims Office?

Has the Registrar contacted you about the case? They are supposed to try to come to a resolution before it comes to court.


----------



## Salvadore (21 Sep 2021)

This is just bizarre. Someone in the Registrar’s office screwed up.


----------



## Leo (22 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> This is just bizarre. Someone in the Registrar’s office screwed up.


Why? The registrar isn't responsible for establishing the veracity of claims made in a submission. If the claimant says they purchased from a business, it's up to the respondent to counter that claim, and the judge to decide.


----------



## Salvadore (22 Sep 2021)

Part of the Registrar’s function is to resolve matters informally before referring the dispute to court. In the course of this process, he/she could have asked for proof that the seller was acting in a private capacity.

This proof will presumably be provided at the court hearing. It would have been less stressful on the defendant, and cheaper for the state, if this was done at an earlier stage.


----------



## Leo (22 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> Part of the Registrar’s function is to resolve matters informally before referring the dispute to court. In the course of this process, he/she could have asked for proof that the seller was acting in a private capacity.


Did you miss the piece where the Registrar asked the respondent to offer a settlement? That is the negotiation phase.


----------



## Salvadore (22 Sep 2021)

There’s more to resolving matters informally than just asking the defendant to concede.


----------



## Leo (22 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> There’s more to resolving matters informally than just asking the defendant to concede.


That's how the process works! They ask for an settlement offer, if none is forthcoming, it goes to court.


----------



## Salvadore (22 Sep 2021)

If that’s the extent of the process, then it’s seriously flawed. It’s bizarre (and a waste of court resources) that any private citizen can find themselves in court without having at least an opportunity to present their side of a story and have it considered by a prosecutor.


----------



## Leo (23 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> If that’s the extent of the process, then it’s seriously flawed. It’s bizarre (and a waste of court resources) that any private citizen can find themselves in court without having at least an opportunity to present their side of a story and have it considered by a prosecutor.


It's negotiation, all they can do is start by asking one party to move from their position. 

Any private citizen can find themselves in court, if they are very clearly innocent, that will in most cases be quickly determined by the judge. What you are proposing takes that role away from the judiciary which would be a very dangerous road to go down.


----------



## Páid (23 Sep 2021)

Leo said:


> Any private citizen can find themselves in court, if they are very clearly innocent, that will in most cases be quickly determined by the judge. What you are proposing takes that role away from the judiciary which would be a very dangerous road to go down.


The small claims court only deals with specific cases, like the district, circuit or high court do. Can the registrar not decide that the case is outside the jurisdiction of the court? For example, if the amount claimed is more than €2,000 or if the defendant is a private individual?


----------



## Páid (23 Sep 2021)

I attended the disctrict court as an observer once. A claimant pursued a case about a faulty BMW for an amount that was clearly outside of the district courts jurisdiction. The plaintiffs barrister realised the mistake and was very apologetic. There were witnesses and barristers for both sides already there. The judge who was clearly very angry dismissed the case but awarded costs against the plaintiff and told them to go to the circuit court.


----------



## Leo (23 Sep 2021)

Páid said:


> The small claims court only deals with specific cases, like the district, circuit or high court do. Can the registrar not decide that the case is outside the jurisdiction of the court? For example, if the amount claimed is more than €2,000 or if the defendant is a private individual?


The registrar will base jurisdiction on the information supplied by the claimant. To get this far, it's likely the claimant is stating the respondent is operating as a business, the Registrar can't make a judgement on that.


----------



## Leo (23 Sep 2021)

Páid said:


> I attended the disctrict court as an observer once. A claimant pursued a case about a faulty BMW for an amount that was clearly outside of the district courts jurisdiction. The plaintiffs barrister realised the mistake and was very apologetic. There were witnesses and barristers for both sides already there. The judge who was clearly very angry dismissed the case but awarded costs against the plaintiff and told them to go to the circuit court.


I'd be disappointed in my solicitor that they let it get to that stage if I were the plaintiff there! 

We're all guessing based on the information at hand, but it may well be a similar situation to what's going on here, just the claimant here has no legal representation advising them of the merits of their case and nothing only €25 to lose by pursuing it.


----------



## Salvadore (23 Sep 2021)

Leo said:


> It's negotiation, all they can do is start by asking one party to move from their position.
> 
> Any private citizen can find themselves in court, if they are very clearly innocent, that will in most cases be quickly determined by the judge. What you are proposing takes that role away from the judiciary which would be a very dangerous road to go down.


What I’m suggesting is a role similar to that of the DPP where the strength of evidence and likelihood of successful conviction are weighed up before deciding to pursue further - notwithstanding the views of Gardai and other parties who may hold opposing views.

While private citizens can indeed find themselves in court, it should be on the basis of reasonable evidence rather than the bloody mindedness of a disaffected car buyer.


----------



## delgirl (23 Sep 2021)

Páid said:


> Have you spoken with the Clerk in the Small Claims Office?
> 
> Has the Registrar contacted you about the case? They are supposed to try to come to a resolution before it comes to court.


She has tried numerous times to contact the Registrar and only has 1 week left to respond.  He answered her call today, they're incredibly busy and he apologised.

She explained that she is highly disressed by this claim and has offered to forward:-

- confimation from the CRO that there is not and never has been a business name or Company registered in her name;
- a letter from her employer confirming that she is a full time, PAYE employee who works shift and night duty;
- copies of her payslips confirming that she works a minimum 40 hours per week plus occasional overtime etc.
- copies of her personal bank statements showing salary as only form of income and regular outgoings.

The Registrar has agreed to review the documentation and will revert with his decision as to whether the proof is sufficient.  Fingers crossed.


----------



## Leo (23 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> What I’m suggesting is a role similar to that of the DPP where the strength of evidence and likelihood of successful conviction are weighed up before deciding to pursue further - notwithstanding the views of Gardai and other parties who may hold opposing views.


The criminal and civil worlds are quite different in determining what gets to court. In the civil world everyone is entitled to have their day in court, regardless of others' perceptions of the merits of their case. The criminal world has a much higher bar, hence the DPP role in deciding what's worth pursuing.

Adding such a review process to the Small Claims procedures would defeat the goals of simplicity and low cost.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (23 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> She has tried numerous times to contact the Registrar and only has 1 week left to respond.  He answered her call today, they're incredibly busy and he apologised.
> 
> She explained that she is highly disressed by this claim and has offered to forward:-
> 
> ...


What about evidence that she’s owned the car for years and its insurance certs in her own name for the period?

None of the items above prove that she isn’t a car dealer in her spare time.


----------



## Salvadore (23 Sep 2021)

Leo said:


> The criminal and civil worlds are quite different in determining what gets to court. In the civil world everyone is entitled to have their day in court, regardless of others' perceptions of the merits of their case. The criminal world has a much higher bar, hence the DPP role in deciding what's worth pursuing.
> 
> Adding such a review process to the Small Claims procedures would defeat the goals of simplicity and low cost.


It certainly isn’t simple and low cost for the private citizen defendant in this instance.

The desirability of avoiding both the expense and formality of court proceedings is a feature of several dispute resolution bodies, including the WRC. This includes establishing the legitimate rights of both parties to proceed with the claim.

The SCC’s process begins with the assumption that the defendant is guilty as alleged and merely asks them to make an offer that might circumvent their need to present in court. It’s really not much of an attempt to resolve matters.


----------



## Monbretia (23 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> - confimation from the CRO that there is not and never has been a business name or Company registered in her name;
> - a letter from her employer confirming that she is a full time, PAYE employee who works shift and night duty;
> - copies of her payslips confirming that she works a minimum 40 hours per week plus occasional overtime etc.
> - copies of her personal bank statements showing salary as only form of income and regular outgoings.


I would agree with Gordon, none of those mean anything, my mechanic has a pretty much full time job and runs his own garage on the side servicing and selling small number of cars.   

I would at the least include as well the evidence of owning the car for however many years.


----------



## Seagull (23 Sep 2021)

Páid said:


> I attended the disctrict court as an observer once. A claimant pursued a case about a faulty BMW for an amount that was clearly outside of the district courts jurisdiction. The plaintiffs barrister realised the mistake and was very apologetic. There were witnesses and barristers for both sides already there. The judge who was clearly very angry dismissed the case but awarded costs against the plaintiff and told them to go to the circuit court.


I would hope the plaintiff's legal team picked up the bill for making a stupid error like that.


----------



## Leo (23 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> It certainly isn’t simple and low cost for the private citizen defendant in this instance.


It couldn't be much more simple, they just have to state they are a private citizen, the burden of proof falls on the claimant. 



Salvadore said:


> The SCC’s process begins with the assumption that the defendant is guilty as alleged and merely asks them to make an offer that might circumvent their need to present in court. It’s really not much of an attempt to resolve matters.


Negotiation does not assign fault or guilt. One side makes an offer or other adjustment from their original position, that's how negotiation works.


----------



## Salvadore (23 Sep 2021)

Leo said:


> It couldn't be much more simple, they just have to state they are a private citizen, the burden of proof falls on the claimant


Nothing simple about the stress for a law abiding citizen of having to rock up in court to defend yourself against bogus claims.


----------



## Leo (24 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> Nothing simple about the stress for a law abiding citizen of having to rock up in court to defend yourself against bogus claims.


It's not designed to be stress-free, but it's a hell of a lot less stressful going to the Small Claims Court safe in the knowledge there is no jurisdiction than going to a higher court where you need to shell out decent money to ensure you are well represented. 

There's no claims process in the world that will eliminate all stress from life!


----------



## delgirl (24 Sep 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> What about evidence that she’s owned the car for years and its insurance certs in her own name for the period?
> 
> None of the items above prove that she isn’t a car dealer in her spare time.


Yes, sorry, she has now sent all the documentation plus everything relating to her ownership of the car for 3 years and 2 months.


----------



## peemac (25 Sep 2021)

It could be said that the young man is fraudulently making the claim.

I'd be making a complaint to the gardai about it.

That will take the wind out of his sails.


----------



## ArthurMcB (25 Sep 2021)

Hi @delgirl

It sounds like you are not a trader of cars and his claim to the contrary is a complete falsehood; but can you think of any possible basis on which he is making the claim that you are a trader of cars?


----------



## Cervelo (25 Sep 2021)

Is it just me or would anybody else agree that this guy is just chancing his arm and looking for some or all of his money back 
and when it comes to the day of the court, he will be a no show!!


----------



## Leper (25 Sep 2021)

Cervelo said:


> Is it just me or would anybody else agree that this guy is just chancing his arm and looking for some or all of his money back
> and when it comes to the day of the court, he will be a no show!!


I think you're right Cervelo. Dear ol' Ireland is awash with guys who feel they are entitled to everything and whose eyes are bigger than their bellies. A few years ago I was subject of a Cork guy looking to reclaim all his money in the Small Claims Court for a £15.00 additional unforseen outlay. He even hired a solicitor to represent him. I was on my tobler mounting my humorous and cynical defence. The judge agreed with me and the instigator was sent home with his tail between his legs. But, what got to me most was his solicitor (i) Asking me to provide legal representation and (ii) His subsequent approach in justifying his cost. The solicitor (have no doubt) was trying to force me into paying for what I didn't need.

I won't bore you with the details of my Small Claims Court performance, but I was disappointed in the amount of time it took to have the case heard and of course the attitude of the solicitor of my opponent.


----------



## PMU (25 Sep 2021)

delgirl said:


> She has tried numerous times to contact the Registrar and only has 1 week left to respond.  He answered her call today, they're incredibly busy and he apologised.
> 
> She explained that she is highly disressed by this claim and has offered to forward:-
> 
> ...


 
Should your friend not make a statutory declaration before a notary public / peace commissioner that she does not and never has sold motor vehicles in the course of a business, and forward this to the Registrar? [As a matter of urgency.]


----------



## kinnjohn (25 Sep 2021)

Did your friend manage the sale or did  someone else sell the car on her behalf,


----------



## Gordon Gekko (25 Sep 2021)

Leper said:


> I think you're right Cervelo. Dear ol' Ireland is awash with guys who feel they are entitled to everything and whose eyes are bigger than their bellies. A few years ago I was subject of a Cork guy looking to reclaim all his money in the Small Claims Court for a £15.00 additional unforseen outlay. He even hired a solicitor to represent him. I was on my tobler mounting my humorous and cynical defence. The judge agreed with me and the instigator was sent home with his tail between his legs. But, what got to me most was his solicitor (i) Asking me to provide legal representation and (ii) His subsequent approach in justifying his cost. The solicitor (have no doubt) was trying to force me into paying for what I didn't need.
> 
> I won't bore you with the details of my Small Claims Court performance, but I was disappointed in the amount of time it took to have the case heard and of course the attitude of the solicitor of my opponent.


Leper, I would love to have a beer with you!

You have so many good stories.


----------



## Páid (27 Sep 2021)

Leper said:


> But, what got to me most was his solicitor (i) Asking me to provide legal representation and (ii) His subsequent approach in justifying his cost. The solicitor (have no doubt) was trying to force me into paying for what I didn't need.
> 
> I won't bore you with the details of my Small Claims Court performance, but I was disappointed in the amount of time it took to have the case heard and of course the attitude of the solicitor of my opponent.



I wonder if you had lost your case would you have been liable for his solicitors costs? Or in the small claims court do each party pay their own costs irrespective of the outcome?


----------



## Leper (27 Sep 2021)

Páid said:


> I wonder if you had lost your case would you have been liable for his solicitors costs? Or in the small claims court do each party pay their own costs irrespective of the outcome?


I'm not sure. But, I understand the setting up of the Small Claims Court was to relieve pressure on minor problems being processed through other courts. I'm not sure if a solicitor has any bona fide presence in representing anybody in the SCC. I think a solicitor would be getting in the way of "justice." Also, I reckon employ a solicitor at this low level of court you are liable for his/her professional representation.


----------



## Leo (27 Sep 2021)

Páid said:


> I wonder if you had lost your case would you have been liable for his solicitors costs? Or in the small claims court do each party pay their own costs irrespective of the outcome?


Costs aren't awarded in the SCC, the most you can lose is the sub-€2k claim.


----------



## Salvadore (27 Sep 2021)

There’s also the issue of appeal of a decision of the SCC.

If the defendant appeals to the circuit court and wins, the original complainant could be on the hook for both parties’ costs.


----------



## kinnjohn (27 Sep 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Leper, I would love to have a beer with you!
> 
> You have so many good stories.


The Media training must have gone wrong,


----------



## Gordon Gekko (27 Sep 2021)

kinnjohn said:


> The Media training must have gone wrong,


Isn’t Ivan Yates running media training courses or did I imagine that? And didn’t he have a go at Joe Duffy and advise people to avoid the show?


----------



## kinnjohn (27 Sep 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Isn’t Ivan Yates running media training courses or did I imagine that? And didn’t he have a go at Joe Duffy and advise people to avoid the show?


Ivan Yates charges 1500 euro a day For Media training as you know Joe said anyone paying Yeats should seek a refund,

I wonder did lep leave out a few digits on post 66 or put the decimal point in the wrong place,,
Now Gordon stop bringing me down  rabbit holes, There is no  Wonderland if you slip down one of the many rabbit holes around these parts,


----------



## Leo (28 Sep 2021)

Salvadore said:


> There’s also the issue of appeal of a decision of the SCC.
> 
> If the defendant appeals to the circuit court and wins, the original complainant could be on the hook for both parties’ costs.


But not the small claims court costs. The chances of a successful appeal in this case are pretty slim based on what has been posted.


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Oct 2021)

I hope we find out how this turns out (and it turns out in the OP's favour) ... would made a great *ahem* Judge Judy episode.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Oct 2021)

People here giving anecdotes about solicitors and barristers being involved in Small Claims Court cases. Does that really happen? For the sake of <= €2k!?! Madness if it does... Isn't one of the key features of the Small Claims process that it avoids the need for legal representation?





						Small claims procedure
					

The small claims procedure provides an inexpensive, fast and easy way for consumers to resolve disputes without a solicitor. Find     out how the procedure operates.




					www.citizensinformation.ie


----------



## time to plan (14 Oct 2021)

ClubMan said:


> People here giving anecdotes about solicitors and barristers being involved in Small Claims Court cases. Does that really happen? For the sake of <= €2k!?! Madness if it does... Isn't one of the key features of the Small Claims process that it avoids the need for legal representation?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you sue a company, it has to be represented by a lawyer. The company can't represent itself, as it is not a 'natural person'. And the Director or owner can't represent the company as they are (typically) not a lawyer.


----------



## Leo (14 Oct 2021)

time to plan said:


> If you sue a company, it has to be represented by a lawyer. The company can't represent itself, as it is not a 'natural person'. And the Director or owner can't represent the company as they are (typically) not a lawyer.


If the respondent disputes the claim and fails to agree a settlement with the Registrar, the case will be sent to the District Court.


----------



## Leper (14 Oct 2021)

ClubMan said:


> People here giving anecdotes about solicitors and barristers being involved in Small Claims Court cases. Does that really happen? For the sake of <= €2k!?! Madness if it does... Isn't one of the key features of the Small Claims process that it avoids the need for legal representation?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The concept of the Small Claims Court is good. It was set up to sort out arguments not expensive enough for the District Court thereby preventing delays at the courts. Unfortunately, many legal people think they're losing income by allowing people to settle arguments with a judge deciding on the matter. It's no big deal to defend yourself (I did, and learned quite a bit of human nature in other SCC disputes).


----------

