civil summons

ngk74

Is it really necessary to issue a demand letter for monies owed before issuing a summons? (district court)

In this instance, there has been VERBAL communication over some time with the debtor and he was aware of the debt.

Now he claims, he will not pay the summons costs as he received no demand.

Does anyone know, is it common practice for the courts to look for a demand?

December2012

You might not get the costs on a civil summons if you haven't demanded in writing. Was there a written invoice or bill sent that would suffice?

dazza21ie

District Court would not be concerned about a demand letter. This would however be different from the issuing of an invoice which might be very relevant.

The saying a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush is appropriate in matters like these. If the debtor is now willing to pay the amount owed less the costs then it might be worth banking this now rather than proceeding for a judgment that might not be collected.

Tom Young

A demand letter is a normal proof in an action for the recovery of debt.

ngk74

December2012 wrote: »

You might not get the costs on a civil summons if you haven't demanded in writing. Was there a written invoice or bill sent that would suffice?

A demand letter is a normal proof in an action for the recovery of debt.

Invoice sent? yes - 4 years ago along with ca. 45 pages of coresspondence but no direct demand for the eventual amount sued for, which was less than the total on the invoices.

10 - 15 times I have met this guy on the street and looked to be paid.

So is a specific demand soooo necessary?? do judges 'normally' look for this in addition to invoices etc.

NoQuarter

ngk74 wrote: »

Invoice sent? yes - 4 years ago along with ca. 45 pages of coresspondence but no direct demand for the eventual amount sued for, which was less than the total on the invoices.

10 - 15 times I have met this guy on the street and looked to be paid.

So is a specific demand soooo necessary?? do judges 'normally' look for this in addition to invoices etc.

After 4 years, a 21 day demand letter will make no difference to you but might to a judge. Just write it up and send it reg post, then in 21 days commence proceedings.

ngk74

NoQuarter wrote: »

After 4 years, a 21 day demand letter will make no difference to you but might to a judge. Just write it up and send it reg post, then in 21 days commence proceedings.

So tell me why would it make a difference? After all the debtor received the invoice and lots of documentation. He was aware.

Is there a rule that says the demand letter must be 21 days or 10 das or x days?

The summons has been sent already and the amount paid but I want the costs

Tom Young

You're seeking advice here aren't you?

Charter doesn't allow that.

Our man in Havana

The summons has been sent already and the amount paid but I want the costs

Hard luck. No judge will entertain that.

ngk74

Tom Young wrote: »

You're seeking advice here aren't you?

Charter doesn't allow that.

Actually I am trying not to. I am more interested in how the courts system 'ticks'.

Actually, I have been already through the district court with this. The judge did not award costs to either side but gave no reason. He was quite dogged and did not even hear the case and was not a fair representation of what would normally happen.

Hard luck. No judge will entertain that.

But WHY will no judge entertain it? What do you base your statement on?

My view is:

1) A creditor sends an invoice
2) The creditor sends detailed correspondence
3) The debtor did not pay
4) The creditor confronts the debtor a number of times about it (Verbally)
5) The debtor admits the debt (Verbally)
6) He still does not pay
7) The creditor has no choice but to issue a summons and incur costs
8) The debtor pays but does not pay the costs citing no demand received as a reason

So the debtor is effectively rewarded even though he pays and thus admits the debt. Why should the creditor lose out? Why should the court system reward the debtor? He was fully aware of the debt and admitted it by paying !

Our man in Havana

You didn't follow procedure in issuing a warning letter.

ngk74

Our man in Havana wrote: »

You didn't follow procedure in issuing a warning letter.

Ok. So where is this procedure written down so that I may read about it?

Is it a in a DC rule?

Sounds like a lot of folly though. how many times does one have to say 'pretty please may I possibly if it not to much to ask be paid for the work completed' ...

Kosseegan

ngk74 wrote: »

Ok. So where is this procedure written down so that I may read about it?

Is it a in a DC rule?

Sounds like a lot of folly though. how many times does one have to say 'pretty please may I possibly if it not to much to ask be paid for the work completed' ...

The standard pleadings contains phrases such as failed neglected or refused to pay. Theses are contained in books written about District Court procedure. It has to be proven in evidence that the Defendant failed neglected or refused to pay. The usual proofs are invoice, reminder, letter before action. Many cases are resolved at the letter before action stage and no court proceedings are necessary. Proving by way of orakl evidence is time wasting and unsatisfactory. Judges have a discretion with regard to costs and one of the factors taken into account is the approach to the litigation. Not having clear and simple paperwork which sets out the case in a few pages might well cause a judge who has to sit listening to oral evidence and cross examination instead to refuse costs.
Waste time, waste money!

December2012

Good reason to hire an experienced solicitor!

ngk74

December2012 wrote: »

Good reason to hire an experienced solicitor!

Really? It was a solicitor which was dealing with it and got the creditor into this mess. he said 'yeah yeah everything is fine, of course you will get your costs'

experience my backside - the postman could have done a better job

The solicitor was duly fired.

ngk74

Kosseegan wrote: »

The standard pleadings contains phrases such as failed neglected or refused to pay. Theses are contained in books written about District Court procedure. It has to be proven in evidence that the Defendant failed neglected or refused to pay. The usual proofs are invoice, reminder, letter before action. Many cases are resolved at the letter before action stage and no court proceedings are necessary. Proving by way of orakl evidence is time wasting and unsatisfactory. Judges have a discretion with regard to costs and one of the factors taken into account is the approach to the litigation.

Thank you. This is nearer to the type of answer I am looking for.

Out of interest, would you be so kind as to name the book(s) to which you allude?

Not having clear and simple paperwork which sets out the case in a few pages might well cause a judge who has to sit listening to oral evidence and cross examination instead to refuse costs.
Waste time, waste money!

I do have all the paperwork, invoice, reminders just not the 'final demand'.
You know, how many times does one have to ask to be paid.
It cannot be that the whole case falls apart for the lack of a solitary demand.

Why should it be a waste of time? If that were the case no one would pay, wait for a summons and then just pay the amount owing without any costs. After all the can deny they received any demand. Even if it were sent by registered post they could and would argue that it contained something else e.g .a copy of the original invoice - oh! and they duly paid that like the good little boys they are ....

jblack

ngk74 wrote: »

Why should it be a waste of time?

Rules of evidence provide for written documents evidencing the necessary steps in debt judgment, this prevents injustice in the event of judgment in default of defence/appearance.

Your tone would be very different if the sheriff called around to seize your goods.

December2012

ngk74 wrote: »

December2012 wrote: »

Good reason to hire an experienced solicitor!

Really? It was a solicitor which was dealing with it and got the creditor into this mess. he said 'yeah yeah everything is fine, of course you will get your costs'

experience my backside - the postman could have done a better job

The solicitor was duly fired.

Hence why I said "experienced"

Jo King

ngk74 wrote: »

Thank you. This is nearer to the type of answer I am looking for.

Out of interest, would you be so kind as to name the book(s) to which you allude?



I do have all the paperwork, invoice, reminders just not the 'final demand'.
You know, how many times does one have to ask to be paid.
It cannot be that the whole case falls apart for the lack of a solitary demand.

Why should it be a waste of time? If that were the case no one would pay, wait for a summons and then just pay the amount owing without any costs. After all the can deny they received any demand. Even if it were sent by registered post they could and would argue that it contained something else e.g .a copy of the original invoice - oh! and they duly paid that like the good little boys they are ....

Was it a commercial transaction? Did you claim late payment interest?

ngk74

jblack wrote: »

Rules of evidence provide for written documents evidencing the necessary steps in debt judgement, this prevents injustice in the event of judgment in default of defence/appearance.

Your tone would be very different if the sheriff called around to seize your goods.

What tone? There won't be any sheriff calling to me so that is irrelevant

Why is there such a stark defence here of those who deliberately cheat others out of payment for work done.

I will bet any solicitor here (if there are actually any) who did not get paid would argue the toss on it for at least a month.

As said there is ample documentary evidence. The only part missing is a single demand. I do not understand why so much weight should be given to the demand and the rest of the documentation ignored. Is everyone guessing here or does anyone actually have experience?

The debtor deliberately would not pay the amount until a summons was issued and then gets away with the costs - as was his plan to incur cost on the creditor.
So one is penalised although invoices were sent, reminders were sent, the debtor admits the debt, there are witnesses to this and finally pays the debt only upon issue of the summons. Just the final demand is missing.

What BS - heaven forbid the poor debtor should be inconvenienced.

Was it a commercial transaction? Did you claim late payment interest?

no - private person

ngk74

December2012 wrote: »

Hence why I said "experienced"

He was, as all the 'experienced' solicitors say, 'allegedly' experienced.

jblack

ngk74 wrote: »

What tone? There won't be any sheriff calling to me so that is irrelevant

Why is there such a stark defence here of those who deliberately cheat others out of payment for work done.

I will bet any solicitor here (if there are actually any) who did not get paid would argue the toss on it for at least a month.


no - private person

I doubt anyone here has sympathy for debtors who refuse to discharge their obligations. It is adherence to procedure that provides protection against unjust judgments being obtained.

I did not say the sheriff would be calling around to you. As an illustration: if in the absence of procedure judgment could be obtained, then an innocent person could potentially be penalised.

There are plenty of solicitors who anonymously contribute to this forum and are willing to help you with your query, no need for you to be disrespectful.

Milk & Honey

ngk74 wrote: »

What tone? There won't be any sheriff calling to me so that is irrelevant

Why is there such a stark defence here of those who deliberately cheat others out of payment for work done.

I will bet any solicitor here (if there are actually any) who did not get paid would argue the toss on it for at least a month.

As said there is ample documentary evidence. The only part missing is a single demand. I do not understand why so much weight should be given to the demand and the rest of the documentation ignored. Is everyone guessing here or does anyone actually have experience?

The debtor deliberately would not pay the amount until a summons was issued and then gets away with the costs - as was his plan to incur cost on the creditor.
So one is penalised although invoices were sent, reminders were sent, the debtor admits the debt, there are witnesses to this and finally pays the debt only upon issue of the summons. Just the final demand is missing.

What BS - heaven forbid the poor debtor should be inconvenienced.



no - private person

Let me get this straight. You hire a solicitor who doesn't know he should issue a letter before action in a debt case. You issued a summons and were paid and then went to court looking for the costs on the advice of this genius solicitor?

ngk74

Thanks to all inc. jblack who contributed helpful comments


I have had to fight for years for a non compus mentis person to get the money he is owed from UTTER SCUM with not much help.

Absolutely nothing disrespectful about questioning if there are actually solicitors on here.

I see certain comments from people here professing to know what is what and yet in comments elsewhere did not seem to know what scale fees are, which indeed leads me to question their professional status.

Whilst I am sure there are good solicitors on here and in the country, frankly I have yet to meet them.

All I have met is either incompetence, arrogance or downright rudeness like the one who told me to 'f off' in the courtroom.

Or the one who 'forgot' to inform me that a case could have been appealed to the circuit court. ah no, they want the little easy public order offences where the State is footing the bill - an easy plead 'His girlfriend is pregnant, he is turning his life around ...' Civil cases with mounds of paperwork are too time consuming for them.

Or indeed the judge who was more interested in finishing by 12pm instead of hearing the cases.

I have won litigation cases in the circuit as a lay litigant. That was the last time I go to a solicitor.

The legal profession would want to wake up to itself in this country. I read such s*** about barristers not shaking hands or the public not being allowed to approach a barrister. Who the feck is paying them at the end of the day?


So back to the issue.

Thanks to the two to three comments that rightly point out 'procedure'.

So now, I am trying to ascertain why so much weight is attached to the demand letter - at least that is how it seems to me.

I have supplied 99% of documentation so why should the 1% trip me up.

If no one knows, then leave it at that.

jblack

ngk74 wrote: »

.

If no one knows, then leave it at that.

Your question of wanting to know what makes the system "tick" has been answered, several times in fact.

If you wanted to read further, the Law Society publishes manuals on civil litigation and there are parts dealing with debt collection procedure. I would also imagine any sort of a google search will direct you solicitors' websites that walk people through the process.

McCrack

You sound very bitter and you are disrespectful, why would/should anyone around here want to help you?

Kosseegan

ngk74 wrote: »

Thank you. This is nearer to the type of answer I am looking for.

Out of interest, would you be so kind as to name the book(s) to which you allude?
....

There is a biook written by a guy called Woods on the District Court.

ngk74 wrote: »

I do have all the paperwork, invoice, reminders just not the 'final demand'.
You know, how many times does one have to ask to be paid.
It cannot be that the whole case falls apart for the lack of a solitary demand.

....

The whole case didn't fall apart. Only the costs element.

ngk74 wrote: »

Why should it be a waste of time? If that were the case no one would pay, wait for a summons and then just pay the amount owing without any costs. After all the can deny they received any demand. Even if it were sent by registered post they could and would argue that it contained something else e.g .a copy of the original invoice - oh! and they duly paid that like the good little boys they are ....

Hearing oral evidence rather than reading a letter takes longer. People Who produce a letter before action are believed.