pvb
Well-known member
In the Small Claims Track of the County Court system, legal costs of the winning side are not normally charged to the losing side.
Legal Eagle Wanted
- Thread starter DeeGee
- Start date
In the Small Claims Track of the County Court system, legal costs of the winning side are not normally charged to the losing side.
SLC
New member
This is a perfect example of why you should cease giving advice.
Last edited:
AuntyRinum
Well-known member
Agreed. I'm out.
savageseadog
Well-known member
The applicant can recover his claim (money), his court fee and interest if he wins. The defendant can recover nothing unless it's a vexatious or frivolous claim. That's the limit of my knowledge and with all things legal there are pretty much always exceptions to everything if someone makes a case.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
As far as I can see, the licence allows him to install a copy on "a machine" and one backup machine. So far it appears that the OP has installed the software on eleven different machines. Would anything stop him running it on the original one?
All good stuff, but I think that the courts now decide what goes on the Small Claims Track, and in view of the small potential damages involved, that's how this would go ... with no possibility of recovering legal costs.
That's my understanding too. The CAB agree:
In most cases, the court will not order solicitors’ costs to be paid by the losing party in a small claims case, and if you instruct a solicitor you will have to pay the costs yourself. For this reason most claimants deal with a small claim without the help of a solicitor. It is possible to have the help of a friend or ‘lay representative’, for example, some Citizens Advice Bureaux can offer trained advisers to help people with small claims.
as does the Law Society
The restricted costs regime which operates on the small claims track is the main reason that, save for road traffic claims, lawyers are rarely involved in its cases. The winner must bear his own legal costs unless he can satisfy the district judge that the loser has behaved unreasonably (not easy, although a failure to turn up or a litany of barefaced lies may be enough), and even then he may only be awarded a summarily assessed proportion of them.
All the winner will generally be able to collect are the fixed costs on commencement, court fees, travelling expenses for the winner and his witnesses, loss of earnings for the winner and his witnesses capped at £90 per day each and expert fees, the cap for which rose from £200 to £750 from 1 April (it being arguable that this would allow a jointly instructed single expert’s report for up to £1,500 with each of two parties being required to pay the expert £750 when permission is granted and the losing party being ordered to pay the winner £750 in respect of his outlay).The restricted costs regime which operates on the small claims track is the main reason that, save for road traffic claims, lawyers are rarely involved in its cases. The winner must bear his own legal costs unless he can satisfy the district judge that the loser has behaved unreasonably (not easy, although a failure to turn up or a litany of barefaced lies may be enough), and even then he may only be awarded a summarily assessed proportion of them.
All the winner will generally be able to collect are the fixed costs on commencement, court fees, travelling expenses for the winner and his witnesses, loss of earnings for the winner and his witnesses capped at £90 per day each and expert fees, the cap for which rose from £200 to £750 from 1 April (it being arguable that this would allow a jointly instructed single expert’s report for up to £1,500 with each of two parties being required to pay the expert £750 when permission is granted and the losing party being ordered to pay the winner £750 in respect of his outlay).
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/small-claims-track/71259.article
All the winner will generally be able to collect are the fixed costs on commencement, court fees, travelling expenses for the winner and his witnesses, loss of earnings for the winner and his witnesses capped at £90 per day each and expert fees, the cap for which rose from £200 to £750 from 1 April (it being arguable that this would allow a jointly instructed single expert’s report for up to £1,500 with each of two parties being required to pay the expert £750 when permission is granted and the losing party being ordered to pay the winner £750 in respect of his outlay).The restricted costs regime which operates on the small claims track is the main reason that, save for road traffic claims, lawyers are rarely involved in its cases. The winner must bear his own legal costs unless he can satisfy the district judge that the loser has behaved unreasonably (not easy, although a failure to turn up or a litany of barefaced lies may be enough), and even then he may only be awarded a summarily assessed proportion of them.
All the winner will generally be able to collect are the fixed costs on commencement, court fees, travelling expenses for the winner and his witnesses, loss of earnings for the winner and his witnesses capped at £90 per day each and expert fees, the cap for which rose from £200 to £750 from 1 April (it being arguable that this would allow a jointly instructed single expert’s report for up to £1,500 with each of two parties being required to pay the expert £750 when permission is granted and the losing party being ordered to pay the winner £750 in respect of his outlay).
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/small-claims-track/71259.article
The full rules are at
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14
It's not uncommon for corporate defendants to threaten huge costs, but it's an empty threat.
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
I assume that clause 6 below exist in the original contract. If so they have the right to amend and give one calender years notice, which sounds ok to me. If this clause did exist, then I think the OP is guilty of wasting tax payers money. By far the better battles would have been to go after companies like Vodafone where they make light of significant features in an offering then dump it shortly later describing it as a bundle.
Important Notice
Variation to end-user licence agreement with versions of Admiralty TotaiTide up until the 2004 edition, in accordance with clause 6 thereof.
After the fourth paragraph of that clause is inserted:
"The UKHO may terminate this contract upon provision of one calendar year's notice, posted on an appropriate page on the UKHO website."
Users of Admiralty TotaiTide may take the above as being such notice. End user licences for versions of TotaiTide will terminate on 26 February 2013.
Perhaps you should confirm if clause 6 exists. If it does you are wasting UKHO and the court's time, and as a taxpayer, possibly our money too.
Important Notice
Variation to end-user licence agreement with versions of Admiralty TotaiTide up until the 2004 edition, in accordance with clause 6 thereof.
After the fourth paragraph of that clause is inserted:
"The UKHO may terminate this contract upon provision of one calendar year's notice, posted on an appropriate page on the UKHO website."
Users of Admiralty TotaiTide may take the above as being such notice. End user licences for versions of TotaiTide will terminate on 26 February 2013.
Perhaps you should confirm if clause 6 exists. If it does you are wasting UKHO and the court's time, and as a taxpayer, possibly our money too.
DeeGee
Active member
If you care to look back, the poster suggested I was making an issue about something which cost £25. That was an invented amount. Yes, I understand the point he was making, that it wasn't worth fussing about a small amount, but that did not excuse just picking a random figure. It actually cost considerably more, I think equivalent to 4 years of the new subscription service. I felt that the poster was scoring cheap points as he thought I was wasting his and my time by posting here.
'Got it', an unfortunate leakage of my disappointment, referred to someone who gave his considered opinion without actually bothering to read what it had been suggested I post - the contract.
It is amazing how selective one can be. I clearly added (hehe) to my posting about NP 250 which is the English Channel NP when the previous poster had offered up the Channel Islands as an example. My attempt at humour obviously missed the mark, my apologies. I am pretty sure SailorMan did not miss the (hehe).
I posted here at the suggestion of an active user who I was discussing my disappointment with. He thought that someone on here would be able to suggest a solicitor who could be paid to give an opinion on the contract and whether UKHO were allowed to just rescind it unilaterally. Whether I then pursued it through the SCC would depend on that opinion.
What many postings seem to be interested in is telling me a) that I am wasting my time b) there are other ways of doing what I have been used to with TT and c) that my reactions to any negative postings make me an obsessed nutter.
I simply asked for someone to send me a PM if they knew of a solicitor whom I might consult professionally. I thought I had made it crystal clear in advance that I didn't want lots of unprofessional advice or opinions.
One or two people seem to understand that I am not looking for a substitute product, I am just angry at being treated by droggie as if I were a worm, had no voice, no recourse and I just don't matter.
So, yes, I was indeed surprised at some of the responses I got. Some others understood what I was asking and one has PM'd me in a totally civil and helpful manner. So my OP was not in vain.
DeeGee
Active member
I have posted a link previously http://tinyurl.com/MyTotalTide where you can see the original contract. No such clause or anything like it exists. What you have printed above is from their unilateral declaration of a change to the contract. My beef is with their right vary a contract in this way. I have never been able to do that for any contracts I have entered into.
Error: Clause 6 says at the end... "This contract may only be varied in accordance with express terms agreed to by a duly authorized employee of UKHO". Perhaps I have misunderstood that clause? I took that to mean that no 3rd party (reseller) could enter into any other contract with me.
Last edited:
lustyd
Well-known member
This thread amazes me, principles seem to have completely gone out of the window these days in favour of an easy life and some compensation. The OP doesn't seem overly bothered about the actual software to me, or about the money, or about being compensated. He seems to just want someone to do what is right which I don't think is unreasonable. If you sell something as a lifetime licence then you should support it for a lifetime unless the company goes bust. If you enter into a contract with someone then it's not reasonable to add in clauses at a later date to which that person has not agreed. This is similar to the "unlimited" broadband and mobile contract scams our society has simply accepted without question - completely unlimited apart from the usage caps written in very small print. It takes someone with principles and a rather British attitude to challenge this sort of thing and I'd say go for it. Unfortunately, as has been noted by the OP it looks likely that the legal system would be unable to actually force a doing the right thing verdict because the whole system is now so skewed towards compensation. The responses of many on this thread show why that skew exists since almost everyone assumed the OP wants something (software or money) out of this while I very much read it that he wants them to do the right thing.
DeeGee
Active member
@JumbleDuck
As you can see from the copy of the contract, the terms allow 'if your computer has been updated or changed...' as long as only two computers have it installed and only one in use at a time. Elsewhere I have made it clear that, as an IT professional, I change my computer or its configuration quite often, apparently on average once a year.
Thanks for the rest of your comments, they save me scratching around finding it all.
As you can see from the copy of the contract, the terms allow 'if your computer has been updated or changed...' as long as only two computers have it installed and only one in use at a time. Elsewhere I have made it clear that, as an IT professional, I change my computer or its configuration quite often, apparently on average once a year.
Thanks for the rest of your comments, they save me scratching around finding it all.
guernseyman
Well-known member
I'm surprised you posted here when you can go to the Law Society website to find a solicitor:
http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/
http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/
AuntyRinum
Well-known member
Excuse me. I was replying to your original post. Do you think that I should have read the following 41 posts before replying? Do you think I have nothing better to do?
Having read your subsequent replies, you appear to have a petty obsession about an old piece of software, and should get a life to avoid wasting peoples' time.
If you don't want answers then don't post in the first place.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Selling a license to use something indefinitely is not the same as selling indefinite support. See Windows XP for an example.
DeeGee
Active member
Just for the information of the unpleasant minority who posted only negative responses here, and to say thanks to the very few supportive and helpful posters --- the final outcome was that Droggie agreed to meet me halfway and gave me a 2014-15 subscription f.o.c. as lustyd put it, I wasn't too worried about having the software (since I have had to stop sailing for my health), certainly not about the money (I might have pursued this knowing I might lose) but about principle. As JumbleDuck stated, I shouldn't expect lifetime support and people lost sight of the fact that it was not lifetime support I wanted - simply that the software should go on working as described. Part of the normal working (requiring no call to support) had been withdrawn by Droggie, unilaterally and the action was supported by a statement that such continuation of permanent licensing was to be withdrawn/
As I don't have a boat any longer - but go sailing from time to time, luckily - I don't really need the software, but it is very satisfying to have won this tiny battle. A pity that Scuttlebutt has spawned some pretty hostile people. I would so have liked some friendly support, even if I was thought to be off my rocker.
As I don't have a boat any longer - but go sailing from time to time, luckily - I don't really need the software, but it is very satisfying to have won this tiny battle. A pity that Scuttlebutt has spawned some pretty hostile people. I would so have liked some friendly support, even if I was thought to be off my rocker.
SLC
New member
Thanks for the pm Denbigh, a positive outcome without the need of my solicitor's services.
Good luck in the future and I wish you well.
Stuart.
Good luck in the future and I wish you well.
Stuart.
A1Sailor
...
An excellent outcome. You got new software, or a new subscription to some old software, at no cost to yourself, which you don't need, all funded by the tax payer.
Good for you. :encouragement:
Tintin
Well-known member
macd
Active member
Alternatively, he got HMG to do what they promised to do, which you don't see every day.
snowleopard
Active member
The term 'lifetime warranty' means different things to different companies. I had an expensive bird feeder with a so-called lifetime warranty. When it disintegrated they said it was only a warranty against manufacturing defects which would of course be hard to prove. OTOH when my 10 year old Tilley hat came out of the wash with a big rip in the crown I got a nice new one for the cost of postage.
Birdseye
Well-known member
I'm not a lawyer but I have spent a lifetime making contracts. Leaving aside the actual terms of your contract, the claim in breech has to be for compensation. I doubt the court would force UKHO to continually renew the key. The compensation might be your costs in pursuing the claim plus the original cost of the software. If UKHO were a normal commercial company it would not get to court - the management time taken would make a court case too much trouble even if they were in the right so they would settle . But UKHO arent a normal commercial company. As I know having had some dealings with them, they are in reality a government organisation with much of a civil service mentality. They are more likely than a commercial company would be to pass the paperwork onto their contracted lawyers thus, in their minds, passing the problem on / solving the issue. The lawyers for their part are interested in hourly fees rather than problem solving and flash lawyers of the sort that UKHO would use are in the several hundred pounds an hour range. Dont forget that any lawyer you emply will equally be interested in his hourly rate as well as the challenge of taking on a big name. So you can end up with the situation ( and I have been there) where two lawyers are happily trying to best each other at someone elses expense.
In your position ( and this isnt advice) I would write them a polite letter pointing out their contractual obligations and threatening legal action if they dont resolve the issue in a specified time scale. I would hope that UKHO would give me an up to date version of the software with a facility for key change that worked. But if it became apparent that they were going to fight , I would run a mile. Our legal system gives all the advantage to those who are rich or those who have nothing.
That said I am concerned about the reliance you are putting on interpolated data. Whilst what happens at a diamond is fairly accurate, what happens inbetween is mathematical guess work. The more convoluted nearby coasts are, the shallower the water etc , the less reliable that interpolation is. You will see this quite clearly if you compare actual tidal flows when you are on the water with what the software is saying they should be. Admittedly I sail the bristol channel and the west country but in my experience the tidal flows from chartplotter software interpolation isnt worth a lot.
In your position ( and this isnt advice) I would write them a polite letter pointing out their contractual obligations and threatening legal action if they dont resolve the issue in a specified time scale. I would hope that UKHO would give me an up to date version of the software with a facility for key change that worked. But if it became apparent that they were going to fight , I would run a mile. Our legal system gives all the advantage to those who are rich or those who have nothing.
That said I am concerned about the reliance you are putting on interpolated data. Whilst what happens at a diamond is fairly accurate, what happens inbetween is mathematical guess work. The more convoluted nearby coasts are, the shallower the water etc , the less reliable that interpolation is. You will see this quite clearly if you compare actual tidal flows when you are on the water with what the software is saying they should be. Admittedly I sail the bristol channel and the west country but in my experience the tidal flows from chartplotter software interpolation isnt worth a lot.
