V8landy Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 The small claim court is based on the balance of probabilities They probably had a vehicle in the area,it probably turned into the drive,it probably had to turn around in the drive,and the damage is consistent with that type of vehicle.And you can prove it turned into the drive,it was there they cannot deny that. They deny the vehicle was in the area,you have proof it was,so they lied. Probability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 It will be interesting how you get on I'm not convinced purely on the basis I'd be pretty ****** if it happened to my company and we were innocent but good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8landy Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Yes we have all joked at work that when the next pesson goes on a 2 week hoilday, the day they leave we will put in small claims against them...just for a laugh! It all seams too simple! I will kepp you posted...fingers crosse! Edited February 22, 2013 by V8landy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex C Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 You need a member of the public (mate) who has just remembered that he saw that truck definately hit your gate, that with your evidence will be a win for you. If they ask why this 'witness' has just come forward, tell them chap walked past when you were having the gates rebuilt and just happened to mention that he saw the truck knock it over. Fight fire with fire !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chady Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 The small claim court is based on the balance of probabilities They probably had a vehicle in the area,it probably turned into the drive,it probably had to turn around in the drive,and the damage is consistent with that type of vehicle.And you can prove it turned into the drive,it was there they cannot deny that. They deny the vehicle was in the area,you have proof it was,so they lied. Probability. There is no proof what so ever they lied " sorry judge yes I did say we were not in the area but my supervisor informed me later that he last minute diverted a truck there... Sorry what I said was true at the time but then I found out different " Sorry but more than feasible And I drive passed a million cars with damage on them and damage property. So because I drove past them in a big truck it was probably be me that caused it??? To the op please don,t think I am against you I am not i have existence of this and I guarantee this's is what's going to come up on there side you need to counter act it!! Get leagle advice from a solicitor about wether they have to prove they didn't do it or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8landy Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 You need a member of the public (mate) who has just remembered that he saw that truck definately hit your gate, that with your evidence will be a win for you. If they ask why this 'witness' has just come forward, tell them chap walked past when you were having the gates rebuilt and just happened to mention that he saw the truck knock it over. Fight fire with fire !! That has never crossed my mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8landy Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) There is no proof what so ever they lied Yes they did lie! They said they (which I have in an email) checked ALL their trucks GPS trackes and they where not in the area. This is a lie. Edited February 22, 2013 by V8landy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chady Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 Don't do it there will be discrepancy when whiteness is questioned I.e what the driver looked like truck details so on Then throw in the witness next door who seen him turn and drive straight off so clearly did not stop and report it So why did it take him so long to come forward It will be easy to prove its false and made up then kiss good by to your case and welcome a counter claim for costs to the company Think a bought it and don't do it That has never crossed my mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chady Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Ok sorry did not realise it. That's there first mistake and in your favour This is how to win your case Yes they did lie! They said they (which I have in an email) checked ALL their trucks GPS trackes and they where not in the area. This is a lie. Edited February 22, 2013 by chady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 There is no proof what so ever they lied " sorry judge yes I did say we were not in the area but my supervisor informed me later that he last minute diverted a truck there... Sorry what I said was true at the time but then I found out different " Sorry but more than feasible And I drive passed a million cars with damage on them and damage property. So because I drove past them in a big truck it was probably be me that caused it? ?? To the op please don,t think I am against you I am not i have existence of this and I guarantee this's is what's going to come up on there side you need to counter act it!! Get leagle advice from a solicitor about wether they have to prove they didn't do it or not I know it is hard to get your head round but a judge can decide on a balance of probabilities in a county court civil case,unlike criminal law where they prove guilt,you have to remember civil law is ancient and has many quirks. I took the following off a law forum,the poster is a retired legal adviser from the ministry of justice. small claim decision based on probability Submitted by davidr on Fri, 08/02/2013 - 18:09. What the judge probably said was that " on the balance of probabilities" she found against you. In civil courts this is the standard of proof. Regardless of how little or how much evidence the judge has to decide in favour of one side or the other.. As you were the claimant you bore the what is known as the burden of proof. So that if the judge thought the evidence was evenly balanced or favoured the defendant she would be correct in law to find against you. So the answer to your question is no it is not a ground of appeal. So far as costs are concerned that was also a matter for the duge -you brought the case and caused the defendant to incur witness costs. You can offer to pay by instalments if you cannot afford the total in one lump sum. Profile: retired legal adviser with MOJ.» Login or register to post comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chady Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 I do see what your saying And one thing I do know is law is a strange thing and is not all ways fair!! This I think can go one way or the other op play your cards right get them to slip up more and more I know it is hard to get your head round but a judge can decide on a balance of probabilities in a county court civil case,unlike criminal law where they prove guilt,you have to remember civil law is ancient and has many quirks. I took the following off a law forum,the poster is a retired legal adviser from the ministry of justice. small claim decision based on probability Submitted by davidr on Fri, 08/02/2013 - 18:09. What the judge probably said was that " on the balance of probabilities" she found against you. In civil courts this is the standard of proof. Regardless of how little or how much evidence the judge has to decide in favour of one side or the other.. As you were the claimant you bore the what is known as the burden of proof. So that if the judge thought the evidence was evenly balanced or favoured the defendant she would be correct in law to find against you. So the answer to your question is no it is not a ground of appeal. So far as costs are concerned that was also a matter for the duge -you brought the case and caused the defendant to incur witness costs. You can offer to pay by instalments if you cannot afford the total in one lump sum. Profile: retired legal adviser with MOJ.» Login or register to post comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8landy Posted February 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) I do see what your saying And one thing I do know is law is a strange thing and is not all ways fair!! This I think can go one way or the other op play your cards right get them to slip up more and more They have. Firslty saying gps said they where not in area, also when i gave then job card said i was in a scamming opperation with person that gave me job card, also truck came back next day to see damage- if they where that convinced they did not hit why need to come back and see damage. They said they did not pick up broken down car on my road but did at diary, diary is my neighbur less than 50ft away. They also accused my neighbour of lieing that they saw truck in drive Just so many errors which i suspect the judge will see as bad reflection of their character an honesty what a hornets nest i have staired up. Edited February 22, 2013 by V8landy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8landy Posted February 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2013 recived letter today from their intructe solicitor saying they are going to defend it! Will speak to one of our legal bods at work for futher avice, but still think my evidence is better than 51% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.