Bills not received in uk so unpaid. Big court costs

[Ian W]

I recently received an out of date summons for non payment of bills to the management company of the block in which I own an apartment .  As a result of non payment I have accrued 900 euros in court costs, which I have paid along with the oustanding monies out of fear of further action. 

Now that I have time to deal with the matter I would like to attempt recovery of some- if not all of the legal fees accrued.

The main points of the case are

Originally, we received the bills and paid by cheque.  My brother in law/ co owner moved house and we informed the agent of the new address by sending a copy of the original bill with the old address crossed and the new one marked down.  This was not heeded.  In addition, the agency had missed a part of my address, so bills being sent to me were not all received.

Reminders were sent and not received.

An initial summons was sent and not received.

A second summons was received 9/12/06 for a hearing on the 23/11/06 for which I had to sign.

This stated a total debit (including court costs) of 2655 euros

I contacted the solicitors who informed me that the outstanding total was now 3057 euros which I paid for reasons mentioned above.

I'd appreciate the advice of anyone who has been in a similar situation, or who can see in this a case for recovery of the fees.  I am in the process of writing a letter in my rusty French and would like to give them the impression that I know where I stand legally. 

[Sunday Driver]

I assume these bills were issued to you on a regular basis by your agency, therefore you should have been expecting them at a given time.  Their non-arrival should have alerted you to the fact that something was amiss and given you the opportunity to query this with the agency.  You do not appear to have done so, therefore the agency would have been within their rights to proceed with litigation against you. 

On that basis, I don't think you'll have any grounds to contest the legal fees.

 

 

[Nick Trollope]

I'd have to agree with SD. What have the other party done wrong? It appears that they acted perfectly reasonably, I'm afraid.

[oglefakes]

Ian,

I can see that you appear to be honestly detailing the "failing" on your behalf to respond the demands for payment, so I have a bit more sympathy for you.

As a landlord, I keep in mind that Agencies are service providers. You are really their client. They need to be paid without doubt, but if they fail to maintain/update their records, then they bear some responsibility.

I was in a similar situation and made the agency acknowledge that they had sent the letters to a non existent address and suggested that we go to court.  They backed down, as it simply wasn't worth their time. Factors/Body Corporates/Home Owners etc all need their fees to exist, they don't need penalties to exist. Penalties are a deterent (and a punishment, nothing else) and they will sometimes drop them, as I say, because it is easier.

That said, if I change any details, I ask for a fax or email from whomever is involved to acknowledge the changes.

Now, I would hazard a guess that a court would say you still have obligations regardless of mail issues and not be very helpful.

You say that you spoke to a solicitor, but was it their's or yours? As you are talking substantial amounts of money, I wouldn't have paid a penny until I has received advice. I think you have a slim chance of getting money back once parted.

This may be an expensive lesson.

Cheers (with sympathy)

[Ian W]

Thanks for the advice.  The summons stipulates that we 'legally received by mail' items that were never received, that 'calls for payment were sent to us' (also not received).  The crux appears to be that we were notified by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt of the outstanding debt.  The court costs are cited to begin accruing after this letter.  I wonder if I have a case if proof of delivery cannot be produced, as this letter seems to be the basis of the case.  

On re-reading of the summons, it appears that we paid 402 euros in court costs and 500 euros 'in appliance of Article 700 of the New Civil Procedure Code'.  This appears to be a standard compensation awarded by the judge to the plainant.

I'll follow the advice on requesting confirmation of change of address.  That would have prevented this happening!     

[cooperlola]

I think you must have a point Ian.  If the case hinges on the receipt of a registered letter and they cannot prove that you received it then you have some come-back I would have thought.  However, the change of address thing is a minefield here.  I had a very minor problem - in comparison with yours - over our insurance cover when renewals were sent to my defunct UK address instead of here - in spite of my having sent 3 letters (1 registered) to them, informing them of the change.  You are not the first to have encountered this sort of thing - maybe there's a reluctance to believe anybody moves at all!  However, as SD says, if you did not receive bills that were regular in nature, you might logically have been expected to have realised they had not arrived.

[Ian W]

I have the further concern that the ruling will affect both mine and my brother in law's ability to obtain a mortgage in France (we are co-owners).  Does anybody know what the implications of this ruling are for obtaining credit or a mortgage?

[Nick Trollope]

[quote user="Ian W"]

Thanks for the advice.  The summons stipulates that we 'legally received by mail' items that were never received, that 'calls for payment were sent to us' (also not received).  The crux appears to be that we were notified by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt of the outstanding debt. 

[/quote]

"Legally received mail" is very different here. All the other party has to do is prove that he tried to deliver the letter (by sending it on a signature delivery, for example), to an address that they can prove you had something to do with. The fact that you never signed for it, will make little or no difference in a French court.

If you don't believe me or SD, instruct an avocat - in fact, I'd suggest that you do this anyway.

 

[Nick Trollope]

[quote user="Ian W"]

I have the further concern that the ruling will affect both mine and my brother in law's ability to obtain a mortgage in France (we are co-owners).  Does anybody know what the implications of this ruling are for obtaining credit or a mortgage?

[/quote]

No, it won't, as, as in the UK, you have "satisfied" the debt.

 

[Will]

A defence in France (reputedly used by organisations like banks and utility companies) is that they received and signed for the envelope but there was nothing inside it.

Maybe food for thought?

[BJSLIV]

Isn't the point of recorded delivery to have evidence that someone did receive a letter, not to show that they didn't.?

The old problem of how do you prove a negative.

[oglefakes]

Is there a concept of hand-to-hand delivery for important documents, with the corresponding signature and associated fee$?

 

[Tony F Dordogne]

I regularly receive 'to be signed for' work stuff from the UK - and I've never signed for it yet.  I usually find it in my post box, probably signed for by my postie.

[Clair]

My French postie won't even let Mr Clair sign on my behalf if the letter/parcel is addressed to me.

Having said that, when working in a mail-order company in the UK, 'proof of receipt" to be returned to France were invariably ignored by all my English colleagues and I never ever saw a UK postie ask for a signature for them to be returned to France.

[oglefakes]

Tony/Clair

On behalf of the Union of French Postal workers:

Gallic Shrug!

[:D]