Non payment of trip fees by other BSAC members

[paul beal]

Hi All,

I am looking for a bit of advice as to where to go from this point as I will explain below. I have not mentioned names or trip details.

In June 2003 our club was running a week long liveaboard trip that we ended up not filling completely. The place was advertised around other BSAC branches and was eventually filled up.

However, due to the time scale between one particular person joining the trip and the trip leaving there was not time to arrange upfront payment. A cheque was given to the organiser at the beginning of the trip.

After the trip the cheque was duely cashed and it bounced. It was presented another twice, bouncing both times. Efforts to contact this person through various mediums have failed. We have tried contacting his DO, it seems the message is getting to him (I do not think his DO is the sort of person who would lie to us), still we have no contact more than 5 months since the trip.

Is there anyone else who has had this kind of problem, what did you do about it? As this person is a BSAC member, is there anything to be gained through HQ? The amount of money concerned is subtantial, a week on a liveaboard with breakfast only.

Any advice welcome,

Paul

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Oh dear Paul

Not a nice thing to happen as we are all supposed to be in the same club and it is wrong that your branch members should end up paying for this. Incidents such as you describe could also put other branches off from advertising their spare spaces to fellow members.

It sounds like you?ve done all of the right things, I hope that you are keeping notes and evidence of your efforts to receive payment and contact this person. There is nothing that HQ can do, it is unfortunately a matter between your club and the individual concerned.

Here?s my suggestion for a way forward ?

Write formally to the person with a time limit (7 days?) for payment or formal contact/explanation. State that if you do not receive a reply that you will ?

1) Instigate Small Claims Court procedures for the outstanding debt
2) Publish factual details of the incident on the internet

The Small Claims Court is a very effective method for these small debts, it is cheap, easy and the whole procedure can be done by post. You do risk loosing the small court fee (add that you your claimed debt, plus an amount for your time, telephone calls, postage etc. ? but be reasonable) but people don?t like debt judgements against them and it will often ?prompt? a poor payer.

A short, factual (not opinionated) account of the debt could be posted to various diving boards and lists on the internet, personally I would feel a duty to fellow divers and clubs to warn them about this person. There are various public domain lists such as the uk.rec.scuba newsgroup where you could post this. Please submit anything that you would like posted to the BSAC forums to me first as I would like to seek advice before we carried it, personally I feel that it would be a legitimate post and usage of the boards but I would like other opinions on that.

All is not lost yet, I think that you will find that a final threat of Small Claims Court action plus name and shame would be enough to elicit payment in most circumstances.

HTH

Keith L

[Vic]

> The Small Claims Court is a very effective method for these
> small debts, it is cheap, easy and the whole procedure can be
> done by post.

The whole procedure can now be done online.

<a href="http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/mcol/" >http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/mcol/</a>

I used this service last year - it's very good. There is a small charge (depends on the size of the claim), but this is automatically added to the amount you're claiming.

The only fly in the ointment is that, if the defendant submits a defence, the case will be transferred to his local court (if he's a private individual), but if he's local to you, that's no real problem.

IIWY I'd write to him beforehand advising him that he will be charged for any court action, even though you're not really obliged to do so. It might help focus his mind a little...

HTH

Vic.

[Paul Beal]

Thank you very much for the detailed and informative replies. We have a trainee lawyer in our ranks who is very keen to get onto his first "case". We have however made contact with the person concerned who claims he knows nothing of the cheque not clearing - he must have wondered what the bank were charging him for??

There is therefore movement, the small claims court is still there if this is not resolved amicablely (he knows that now too!).

Thanks again

Paul

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

There is therefore movement, the small claims court is still there if this is not resolved amicablely (he knows that now too!).

Glad to hear it Paul. It's nice that "oversights" such as this can be corrected by simple communication, the trick is to get them talking :-)

Keith L

[derek perry]

Just to add to your friends knowledeg you might like to look up the following;

Section 2 Theft Act 1978 provides the offences in relation to the evasion of a liability by deception.

It states:
2(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person by any
deception
(a) dishonestly secures the remission of the
whole or part of any existing liability to make a payment, whether his own liability or another's; or

(b) with intent to make permanent default in
whole or in part on any existing liability to make a payment, or with intent to let another do so, dishonestly induces the creditor or any person claiming payment on behalf of the creditor to
wait for payment (whether not the due date for payment is
deferred) or to forgo payment or

(c) dishonestly obtains any exemption from or
abatement of liability to make payment;
he shall be guilty of an offence.

Basicaly if it can be proved that the person writing a cheque knows they do not have the funds to meet that cheque they could be guilty of this offence. I know someone will ask what the subsection(2) is so here it is;

2(2) For purposes of this section "liability" means legally
enforceable liability; and subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to a liability that has not been accepted or established to pay compensation for a wrongful act or omission.


2(3) For purposes of subsection (1)(b) a person induced to take
in payment a cheque or other security for money by way of conditional satisfaction of a pre-existing liability is to be treated not as being paid but as being induced to wait for payment.


2(4) For purposes of subsection (1)(c) "obtains" includes
obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain.


Hope this helps

Derek


Thank you very much for the detailed and informative replies. We have a trainee lawyer in our ranks who is very keen to get onto his first "case". We have however made contact with the person concerned who claims he knows nothing of the cheque not clearing - he must have wondered what the bank were charging him for??

There is therefore movement, the small claims court is still there if this is not resolved amicablely (he knows that now too!).

Thanks again

Paul