Well, it was an interesting, if quite gruelling experience.
In the lobby before the hearing Mr C, his plumber, (who I had summonsed to appear because he refused to give a statement of fact), & someone I assume was Mr C's lawyer moved seats to sit opposite me, which was a touch intimidating. It did show how partisan the plumber was though.
When the case was called, only Mr C & I were allowed in. The District Judge sat behind a very large table & seemed very formidable. Mr C & I sat side by side in front of him. There were no pleasantaries.
The Judge questioned me in depth & I was glad I had prepared a comprehensive paper trail & read through everything beforhand. He then questioned Mr C in the same way. It was not possible to get a feel for how he viewed the case or the evidence. His manner was quite brusque. It was nothing like my 12 years as a Lay Magistrate in Berkshire, where we were at pains to put people at their ease & ensure that those who were unrepresented & didn't know the court process were assisted.
When he was satisfied he had heard enough to come to a decision he outlined the bones of the case. Then he gave his judgement which was that he could not find in my favour. He was very fair though & explained why he couldn't. It all hinged on something called a "Collateral Agreement" & the wording of the "Contract of Sale". The agreement I had with Mr C, via his solicitor, that he would undertake professional maintenance, (with specific reference to the leaking boiler), & cleaning as a condition of the sale wasn't written into the actual contract. (I had asked my solicitor if it should be & he said no.)
The fact that the heating had supposedly been repaired & was working, but wasn't working on the day of completion apparently didn't matter, (contrary to what I had been told). If I understood the Judge correctly the minute completion ocurred any such agreeement ended. What I should have done was check that the heating was working again & refused to complete until the problem was solved. A) It never occurred to me to doubt Mr C's word & B) It would have been difficult to check anyway as the tenants were in till very close to the completion day. Also, moving house on your own is stressful & frantic enough that you don't look for extra work to do.
In my limited experience of trying to use the Law I'm left with the impression that there is a lot of Law, but not an equivalent amount of Justice. I wouldn't have gone this far if I hadn't been confident that I had a reasonable & just case against Mr C. That proved to be wrong. Even if there is a "paper trail" clearly showing there has been a agreement for one party to do something - Even if that party says he has put something right but it proves not to be the case - you don't necessarily win. You might have the clear moral high ground, but a legal technicality can operate against that.
However, I knew that I might not win & I was prepared for it. I have paid for a new boiler & for the costs of the case. But the Judge was sympathetic to my case & was very nice to me after his judgement. His hands were tied by the technicalities of the Law. For my part I feel that Mr C was forced to confront both me and the effect of his less than honorable behaviour. There was an element of Restorative Justice in that.
For me it was a matter of principle. I wouldn't have been able to behave like that & didn't anticipate that Mr C would. I do believe in Karma though.
No comments:
Post a Comment