Enforce small claim court decisions within the same court appearance

At present a judgement from the small claims court carries no weight as the successful claimant must then go back to court to sue for the monies owed. Many unscrupulous traders are aware of this and  fail to even attend the hearing

The jugdement from the small claims court should be structured so that when given it is enforceable without the need for another court session. Although  the small claim court session will probably be longer there will only be one court appearance for all parties instead of two. Both the defendent and claimant will therefore take the single court session seriously

Why is this idea important?

At present a judgement from the small claims court carries no weight as the successful claimant must then go back to court to sue for the monies owed. Many unscrupulous traders are aware of this and  fail to even attend the hearing

The jugdement from the small claims court should be structured so that when given it is enforceable without the need for another court session. Although  the small claim court session will probably be longer there will only be one court appearance for all parties instead of two. Both the defendent and claimant will therefore take the single court session seriously

Give More Power To Small Claims Courts.

Rogue traders repeatedly gain income from clients who fall foul of malpractice, poor workmanship and legal loopholes. These rogue traders are aware of just how difficult it is for aggrieved parties to reclaim money owed to them as ordered by a small claims court. The aggrieved party very often writes off the money owed because the trader either ignores the court order(s) or delays payment using any number of tactics. My suggestion would be to give the trader 14 days after a court order is issued to pay the court the amount owed to the aggrieved party – or at the very least make provision to pay in agreed instalments. The aggrieved party can then collect the money owed from the court. The trader would be punished by law if the court order is ignored. In my view it is far too easy for rogue traders to make a living on the back of the current ‘toothless’, ineffective and unfair small claims legal system. It’s time to change the law re this common rogue practice. Give the courts freedom to penalise and rid us of these cynical and self centred traders for good…..

 

Why is this idea important?

Rogue traders repeatedly gain income from clients who fall foul of malpractice, poor workmanship and legal loopholes. These rogue traders are aware of just how difficult it is for aggrieved parties to reclaim money owed to them as ordered by a small claims court. The aggrieved party very often writes off the money owed because the trader either ignores the court order(s) or delays payment using any number of tactics. My suggestion would be to give the trader 14 days after a court order is issued to pay the court the amount owed to the aggrieved party – or at the very least make provision to pay in agreed instalments. The aggrieved party can then collect the money owed from the court. The trader would be punished by law if the court order is ignored. In my view it is far too easy for rogue traders to make a living on the back of the current ‘toothless’, ineffective and unfair small claims legal system. It’s time to change the law re this common rogue practice. Give the courts freedom to penalise and rid us of these cynical and self centred traders for good…..

 

No more nameless, faceless complaints about others on civil matters

Countless times I have come across ridiculous complaints about individuals, being investigated seriously by our Council. 

Defending yourself or your business is costly, both financialy and in terms of your time. Not to mention the cost to the Council and taxpayers in turn.

These complaints can range from the colour of someone's house, to the size of a gap in their fence.  We once had a council official come to our property to investigate a complaint about pollution. After half a day he concluded the complaint was about a cow pat in a cow field that was within 2 metres of a footpath.

A friend of mine also has an ASBO because of how an A3 sized sign for his shop was placed.

I propose that, where a member of the public is disgruntled enough to complain about someone else, they should be made to put their name to it. I would certainly be prepared to and I'm sure other reasonable people would too.

The right to anonymity in these matters has lead to petty, pointless nit-picking at other people by those with nothing better to do, validated by the council and safe in the knowlege that they themselves will not lose a penny or a wink of sleep over it. This is because its not actually any of their business and they will not have any responsibility in proceedings, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that, where someone has spent money to defend themselves, the Council should not be allowed to 'drop' the case if the complaint is unfounded.  The defendant must be awarded positively for spending time and money proving themselves right, so they are not at further risk in the future.

Why is this idea important?

Countless times I have come across ridiculous complaints about individuals, being investigated seriously by our Council. 

Defending yourself or your business is costly, both financialy and in terms of your time. Not to mention the cost to the Council and taxpayers in turn.

These complaints can range from the colour of someone's house, to the size of a gap in their fence.  We once had a council official come to our property to investigate a complaint about pollution. After half a day he concluded the complaint was about a cow pat in a cow field that was within 2 metres of a footpath.

A friend of mine also has an ASBO because of how an A3 sized sign for his shop was placed.

I propose that, where a member of the public is disgruntled enough to complain about someone else, they should be made to put their name to it. I would certainly be prepared to and I'm sure other reasonable people would too.

The right to anonymity in these matters has lead to petty, pointless nit-picking at other people by those with nothing better to do, validated by the council and safe in the knowlege that they themselves will not lose a penny or a wink of sleep over it. This is because its not actually any of their business and they will not have any responsibility in proceedings, financially or otherwise.

I also believe that, where someone has spent money to defend themselves, the Council should not be allowed to 'drop' the case if the complaint is unfounded.  The defendant must be awarded positively for spending time and money proving themselves right, so they are not at further risk in the future.