Black Horse “wins” again – but is this justice, Eversheds Sutherland?
On 6 February 2023 my claim against Black Horse over the sale of a caravan in June 2013 went before another county court judge. Once again it was thrown out, this time on grounds that included it being “totally without merit”. Another reason given was that my claim was “an abuse of process” and I was accused of “attempting to re-litigate issues that were or could and should have been raised in the earlier proceedings.” It is worth noting here that my new claim came about because one of the main issues we had originally raised, vis- a-vis adding extras to the hire purchase agreement, had now ceased. This was evidence that at least the practice had been accepted as being wrong by the two companies that had been overcharging in this way, even though they would not admit any such wrongdoing to us.
At the opening of his judgment the judge stated:-
‘ … And upon reading, amongst other things, the email of the Claimant dated 6 December 2022, together with attachments…’
He then went on to order that ‘This claim is dismissed’.
Below, slightly edited, are the contents of the email that the judge referred to, which I had addressed to the Court Manager.
‘I wish to express my deep concern that another mis-carriage of justice may be about to occur and I am appealing for steps to be taken to stop it in its tracks. With my email to you of 20th October 2022 I attached an article about banks “deliberately ramping up court costs with expensive barristers” and “using their financial advantage to fund expensive legal teams” in order to “defeat legitimate claims”. Although this is in relation to the mis-sold PPI scandal I believe my wife and I were victims of similar tactics in 2018 when our claim against Bourne Leisure (BL) and Black Horse (BH) was high jacked by the solicitors and we ended up attending their hearing instead of ours… I believe this is happening again with my current claim...
‘I assert that Deputy District Judge … was mis-led by the barristers acting for BL and BH in June 2018 during the hearing … and three vital documents were never … considered at the time. As a result of the judge’s apparent lack of knowledge of Consumer Credit Law his conclusions were at variance with those of Mr …, a barrister with expertise in such matters, who had given me informal advice over the telephone on the issues involved. I also believe that the Court was deliberately overwhelmed with a plethora of superfluous material comprising 850 pages, (a large portion of which … originated from me and supported our case). To my dismay I see a similar situation developing in BH’s Defence to my current claim...
‘When I filed my claim online I assumed the three sales documents would speak for themselves and that a judge would soon be able to assess where the truth lay and make a judgment without the need for another hearing, particularly as BL had ceased from mis-selling caravans in the manner we had complained about previously. I gave a brief outline of my claim …, a timeline of events, a list of the three documents supporting the claim and a breakdown of the amount being claimed. My claim details comprise three pages and apart from a Directions Questionnaire I have not been asked by the Court to submit anything further, not even a Witness Statement. However, I have now been inundated again with a bundle comprising 50+ pages from the Defendant’s solicitors, with great emphasis given to the previous case in an apparent effort to influence the outcome of the current one, which is not fair or just.
'It is also claimed that the issue was litigated in 2018 which is not true as since the beginning of the 2020 season BL has stopped including first year site fees and running costs as part of the cash price of caravans sold on hire purchase. If, as was claimed during the previous case, there was nothing wrong with including all these “extras” as part of the hire purchase loan, why has the practice now stopped? This is something BL and BH should be made to explain. It is clear to me that over the years BL have sold numerous caravans and holiday homes to BH at cash prices that far exceeded the true value of the dwellings and that these in turn grossly inflated the size of customers’ hire purchase repayments. Certainly it is a matter that the Financial Conduct Authority ought to investigate.’
In view of the above it is clear that the judge totally ignored what I wrote to the Court Manager and the solicitors, Eversheds Sutherland LLP, once again achieved for their client exactly what they were paid to achieve – but is this justice?
Date of experience: February 06, 2023