Free Traffic Legal Advice

I do not understand why they decided to take me in the whole court process if the the odds of actually having to go to a hearing are slim to none... what's the benefit to do it all ? 

What is the purpose of the "Mediation" call, just trying to scare me and continue to push/try  until they to get money from me ?

What exactly means "if the mediator probes my defence"

COMPLAINT – conduct of mediator at Small Claims Mediation Service appointment on 11 December 2025 – [Claim No: XXXXXXXX]

To whom it may concern,

I write to make a formal complaint about the conduct of the mediator who handled my Small Claims Mediation Service (SCMS) appointment on 11 December 2025 in the matter of Civil Enforcement Ltd v [Your Full Name], claim number [XXXXXXXX].

The appointment was scheduled in the 09:30–12:30 time slot on 11 December 2025 and conducted by telephone from a withheld number. The mediator was a female mediator from the SCMS. Unfortunately, I did not catch her name.

During the call, the mediator made a number of statements which, in my view, were inappropriate, inaccurate and inconsistent with the neutral role a court-appointed mediator is required to perform.

1. Misrepresentation of the effect of defending the claim (CCJ risk)

The mediator told me that the Claimant was “not ready to close the case” and that it would now be put “on a list for a Hearing in Court in front of a Judge”. She then went on to say that if it went to court it was “50/50” whether I would win and that if I lost “this will not be good for you and you will get a CCJ that will affect your credit score and stay on your records for 6 years.”

That is simply wrong and highly misleading. A County Court Judgment is only registered and affects a person’s credit record if any judgment is not paid within the statutory period (usually one calendar month). The mediator did not explain this at all. Instead, she presented a CCJ damaging my credit file for six years as the automatic and inevitable consequence of exercising my right to defend the claim at a hearing.

This was not a neutral or balanced explanation of the process; it was a one-sided and inaccurate description which amounted to pressure to settle.

2. Inappropriate legal opinion and prediction of outcome (“50/50” comment) by an unqualified person

The mediator told me that if the case went to a judge, it was “50/50” whether I would win, and that if I lost it would be “not good for me” because of an inevitable CCJ. That is, in substance, a legal opinion and prediction of outcome.

I appreciate that mediators may outline, in general terms, that litigation carries risk. However:

• The mediator’s comments were phrased as a definitive prediction (“50/50” and “you will get a CCJ”), not as a neutral explanation that either side could win and that there are consequences if a judgment is not complied with.
• She went beyond facilitating negotiation and stepped into the role of a legal adviser, despite there being no indication that she is an “authorised person” or otherwise qualified under the Legal Services Act 2007 to give legal advice or conduct reserved legal activities.
• No basis was given for the asserted “50/50” assessment or for the highly misleading statement that a CCJ would automatically arise and sit on my file for six years.

Unless this mediator can demonstrate that she holds a recognised legal qualification and authorisation under the Legal Services Act 2007, she has no business giving legal opinions or outcome predictions to litigants in person. In my view, this is so far removed from the standard expected of a neutral, court-appointed mediator that it should trigger at least a formal warning and a serious review of whether she is suited to this role at all, unless she can evidence appropriate legal training and authorisation.

3. Undermining of neutrality and confidence in the mediation process

The SCMS literature I received emphasised that mediators are neutral and that mediation is a confidential process aimed at helping the parties explore settlement. What I experienced instead was:

• A mediator who appeared to adopt and repeat the Claimant’s position that the matter “will” go to a hearing because they were “not ready to close the case”.
• A mediator who overstated and mischaracterised the consequences of defending the claim, by suggesting that an adverse judgment would automatically and inevitably result in a six-year CCJ on my credit record.
• A mediator who gave what amounted to legal advice and a prediction of outcome, rather than remaining neutral and facilitating discussion.

This undermined my confidence in the impartiality of the SCMS. I felt I was being warned off exercising my legal rights by someone calling from within the court system, using the authority of that position to pressure me into a settlement.

4. Impact on me as a litigant in person

I am a litigant in person with limited experience of the civil court process. Hearing from a court-appointed mediator that going to a hearing would “result in a CCJ” which would damage my credit record for six years caused me considerable distress and anxiety. I was left with the impression that simply allowing the case to proceed in the normal way would automatically and irreversibly damage my financial standing, regardless of whether I complied promptly with any judgment.

That impression is plainly wrong in law, and should never have been conveyed by a mediator acting under the auspices of the court.

My requests

Given the seriousness of the above, I request that you:

1. Retrieve and review the recording(s) of my mediation appointment on 11 December 2025 in claim [XXXXXXXX].
2. Confirm whether the statements described above – including the statement that I “will get a CCJ” that will remain on my record for six years simply if I lose at a hearing – are in line with SCMS training, guidance and standards for mediators.
3. Confirm what action will be taken in relation to the mediator concerned, including any remedial training, supervision, or disciplinary steps, to ensure that litigants in person are not subjected to inaccurate and intimidating statements about CCJs and court proceedings.
4. Confirm that a clear note will be placed on the court file that I did in fact attend and engage with mediation, and that I will not be criticised for refusing to be pressured into a settlement based on misinformation about CCJs.

I appreciate that mediators have a difficult role, but there is a clear line between explaining, in neutral terms, that litigation carries some risk and what actually happened in my case: a combination of inaccurate statements about the legal consequences of losing and a definitive prediction of outcome that had the practical effect of pressuring me to abandon a legitimate defence.

I look forward to your written response to this complaint and to confirmation of the outcome of your review.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Your Postal Address]
[Your Email Address]
[Your Telephone Number]