Quizzes & Puzzles124 mins ago
Money Dispute With A Friend
I have a money dispute with a friend, there has been no hostility at all between us over this, we just can’t agree on the amount I should pay her. I accidentally caused a breakage to an antique ornament in her home which she values at £3500, yest through the research I’ve done it looks closer to £2000. She didn’t have this insured individually on her home insurance and she has found that the maximum she can claim is £1500 and that is where the dispute has come about.
She is asking £2000 from me which together with the £1500 she can claim from her insurance makes up her value of £3500. Where I only offered £500 which would make up the value to what I feel is £2000. We have tried to meet somewhere in between but are still well apart on an agreed amount. I don’t want to fall out with her and she feels the same, though so far there is no hint of that at all.
She says that if we can’t agree on an amount, she may have to take this through the small claims court to settle it. She says that a small claims court is very informal with no lawyers involved so there is very little cost. She says that a judge would give a verdict on the amount owed and as long as the amount awarded is paid, that is the end of it.
If we can’t agree (and it doesn’t look like we will), I don’t have any really objection to her taking this through a small claims court if it is like she says, though the one thing I would want to avoid is having a CCJ against me name. She says that will not happen as long as I pay within 30 days of a judgment being given.
I’ve no experience of going to court over anything and I’ve always thought of court disputes being rather bitter and hostile between the two parties, but perhaps this is not always the case and just a matter of settling a dispute.
Is she correct in saying that I will not end up with a CCJ against me as long as I pay the amount awarded within 30 days and is there anything else that could go against me once a judgment is given?
She is asking £2000 from me which together with the £1500 she can claim from her insurance makes up her value of £3500. Where I only offered £500 which would make up the value to what I feel is £2000. We have tried to meet somewhere in between but are still well apart on an agreed amount. I don’t want to fall out with her and she feels the same, though so far there is no hint of that at all.
She says that if we can’t agree on an amount, she may have to take this through the small claims court to settle it. She says that a small claims court is very informal with no lawyers involved so there is very little cost. She says that a judge would give a verdict on the amount owed and as long as the amount awarded is paid, that is the end of it.
If we can’t agree (and it doesn’t look like we will), I don’t have any really objection to her taking this through a small claims court if it is like she says, though the one thing I would want to avoid is having a CCJ against me name. She says that will not happen as long as I pay within 30 days of a judgment being given.
I’ve no experience of going to court over anything and I’ve always thought of court disputes being rather bitter and hostile between the two parties, but perhaps this is not always the case and just a matter of settling a dispute.
Is she correct in saying that I will not end up with a CCJ against me as long as I pay the amount awarded within 30 days and is there anything else that could go against me once a judgment is given?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mike-w. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// She was under insured, it was an accident , give her £500 as a good will gesture , problem solved .//
blimey that is a bit girlie innit - problem started more like !
AQ ( I make up ) no problem solved - you are gonna be at each other's throats no matter what so you just as well get on with it.
which leads me to ..... what do you want to get out of this ?
You are in a for a monetary loss - so do you want to lose the fren'ship as well ?
( total loss - loss of jig-a-jig as well as jug)
[ surprisingly enough as a trainee accountant, you can now actually cost the friendship: If you aint gonna pay £750 and the fren'ship goes down the tube then it is worth £750 to you. Just another thought] - the lose - lose situation which you also risk is that you pay thro the nose and she gives you the boot anyway]
blimey that is a bit girlie innit - problem started more like !
AQ ( I make up ) no problem solved - you are gonna be at each other's throats no matter what so you just as well get on with it.
which leads me to ..... what do you want to get out of this ?
You are in a for a monetary loss - so do you want to lose the fren'ship as well ?
( total loss - loss of jig-a-jig as well as jug)
[ surprisingly enough as a trainee accountant, you can now actually cost the friendship: If you aint gonna pay £750 and the fren'ship goes down the tube then it is worth £750 to you. Just another thought] - the lose - lose situation which you also risk is that you pay thro the nose and she gives you the boot anyway]
Snowball, that's interesting that there was a similar case on the Judge Rinder Programme, and that it was thrown out of court. Though what I was told about the Judge Rinder Programme is that the production company actually pays whoever loses. If that is correct, then the woman who was hosting the party would still get the money she was suing the neighbour for. If it had been thrown out in a real court, she would have got nothing!
It seems that with Judge Rinder, there are no losers! However for my case, I think I would like to try and come to an agreement just between the tow of us rather than have it all broadcast on TV, interesting thought though!
It seems that with Judge Rinder, there are no losers! However for my case, I think I would like to try and come to an agreement just between the tow of us rather than have it all broadcast on TV, interesting thought though!
You are not legally liable for her loss. You have not been negligent in the legal sense and cannot be held responsible.
When she claims from her insurance she may get the proper valuation from them - and they could, in theory, refuse to pay out at all as she does not have the correct insurance.
The worth of vases and the like fluctuate wildly - what is 'in fashion' one year and worth a lot of money can fall out of fashion very quickly and be worthless the next.
When she claims from her insurance she may get the proper valuation from them - and they could, in theory, refuse to pay out at all as she does not have the correct insurance.
The worth of vases and the like fluctuate wildly - what is 'in fashion' one year and worth a lot of money can fall out of fashion very quickly and be worthless the next.
-- answer removed --
yeah but no but
he has offered to pay
and a judge may well rule that if you offer to pay then you are at fault.
(if OP n jig-a-jig leddy were looking out of the window and a gate blew off in the wind - he would nt say oo dear I will pay for that....)
and so we are back to - if you are insured do you HAVE to claim instead of against thingey ?
and I think the answer is no
yeah it has generated a lof of comment
he should go back and smash a meissen figurine ( a rare member of the monkey series perhaps ) and we could do it all agin !
he has offered to pay
and a judge may well rule that if you offer to pay then you are at fault.
(if OP n jig-a-jig leddy were looking out of the window and a gate blew off in the wind - he would nt say oo dear I will pay for that....)
and so we are back to - if you are insured do you HAVE to claim instead of against thingey ?
and I think the answer is no
yeah it has generated a lof of comment
he should go back and smash a meissen figurine ( a rare member of the monkey series perhaps ) and we could do it all agin !
A court will not decide the value of the vase - she would still have to get the independent valuations and she would have to show she had minimised her loss and done everything a reasonable person would do to protect it - keep it in a safe place where it wouldn't ordinarily be brushed against and insure it for its full value.
// That wasn't what I heard ummm, but I'll take your word for it.//
not all the advice here is pukka
you must have realised that by now
erased answer any good ? or was it the usual - why did THAT go down the drain ?
Judge ( ged artta here! ) judy there is a notice at the end that the producer pays - but she also orders restitution - which clearly isnt money. and you can also there go around with a po9liceman in tow which is clearly not the case here.
//Is she correct in saying that I will not end up with a CCJ against me as long as I pay the amount awarded within 30 days//
no she isnt
she is referring to paying it off within 30 means that there isnt the record for 6 y ( or whenever )
not all the advice here is pukka
you must have realised that by now
erased answer any good ? or was it the usual - why did THAT go down the drain ?
Judge ( ged artta here! ) judy there is a notice at the end that the producer pays - but she also orders restitution - which clearly isnt money. and you can also there go around with a po9liceman in tow which is clearly not the case here.
//Is she correct in saying that I will not end up with a CCJ against me as long as I pay the amount awarded within 30 days//
no she isnt
she is referring to paying it off within 30 means that there isnt the record for 6 y ( or whenever )
// Why are people still talking about this going to court?//
if the lady makes a claim (via small claims) and OP sends in a defence ( I am not liable for accidental damage) seems OK within 14 d then it will be heard
there is a mechanism for filtering out stupid claims ( suing the pope or archangels ) but this may well not count
there is also a mchanism for striking out obviously unmeritorious claims but that can be defended and that means a hearing
so it depends only on whether the lady with the jug - smashed jug that is - wishes to make out a form
if the lady makes a claim (via small claims) and OP sends in a defence ( I am not liable for accidental damage) seems OK within 14 d then it will be heard
there is a mechanism for filtering out stupid claims ( suing the pope or archangels ) but this may well not count
there is also a mchanism for striking out obviously unmeritorious claims but that can be defended and that means a hearing
so it depends only on whether the lady with the jug - smashed jug that is - wishes to make out a form
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles146 mins ago
ChatterBank151 mins ago
A Clash Between Congressional Lawmakers
News174 mins ago
Crosswords176 mins ago
How it Works200 mins ago
