A tenant withholds rent because their landlord refuses to fix a broken furnace in winter, then faces eviction. A contractor does shoddy work on a home renovation and disappears, leaving the homeowner with thousands in damages and no recourse. Someone buys a defective product, and the retailer refuses a refund despite warranty terms. A landlord keeps a damage deposit for normal wear and tear, knowing most tenants will not pursue $800 through legal process. Small claims courts promise accessible justice for everyday disputes, allowing people to represent themselves in simplified procedures without expensive lawyers. Whether these systems actually deliver on that promise, or whether they simply create a separate, inferior track where the less powerful routinely lose to landlords, contractors, and businesses with more experience and resources, divides those who design the systems from those who use them.
The Case for Small Claims as Access to Justice
Advocates argue that small claims courts provide the only realistic avenue for ordinary people to resolve disputes that lawyers would charge more to handle than the amounts at stake. Without small claims, someone owed $3,000 could not afford the legal fees to pursue it, effectively allowing wrongdoers to keep money they should return. From this view, simplified procedures, modest filing fees, relaxed evidence rules, and processes designed for self-represented parties make justice accessible in ways traditional courts cannot. A tenant can challenge improper eviction without needing a lawyer. A consumer can hold a business accountable for breach of contract. A homeowner can pursue a contractor for deficient work. Monetary limits keep cases manageable. Judges assist self-represented parties by asking questions and ensuring they can present their cases. Online filing and evening court sittings accommodate people who cannot take time off work. Countries with robust small claims systems show they resolve hundreds of thousands of disputes that would otherwise go unaddressed. The solution to current problems is not abandoning small claims but improving them: increasing monetary limits to keep pace with inflation, providing more duty counsel assistance, creating online dispute resolution for routine matters, and ensuring judges receive training in managing self-represented parties fairly.
The Case for Recognizing Systemic Inadequacy
Others argue that small claims courts fail to deliver actual justice for the less powerful while providing efficient collection mechanisms for landlords, corporations, and repeat players who understand the system. A tenant facing eviction represents themselves against a landlord's paralegal who files dozens of evictions monthly and knows exactly how to present evidence and exploit procedure. A consumer facing a corporation's in-house counsel is dramatically outmatched regardless of the merit of their claim. From this perspective, simplified procedures that work when both parties are unsophisticated individuals fail when power imbalances exist. Small claims courts were designed for disputes between neighbors, not for landlords systematically evicting tenants or businesses collecting debts from consumers. Moreover, even when individuals win judgments, collecting them is often impossible. Someone who wins against a contractor who did deficient work may never collect if the contractor has no seizable assets. The court provides a judgment but no meaningful remedy. Meanwhile, landlords and businesses have sophisticated collection mechanisms and can garnish wages or seize assets efficiently. The system may be accessible for filing claims, but it delivers justice primarily for those already advantaged.
The Self-Representation Reality
Small claims courts assume parties can represent themselves effectively, yet most people have no legal training and do not understand evidence rules, burden of proof, or how to present cases persuasively. Someone with a valid claim may lose because they do not know which documents to bring, how to question witnesses, or what legal standards apply. Judges try to help but cannot become advocates without compromising neutrality. Duty counsel, when available, can provide brief advice but not full representation. Whether self-representation works depends heavily on case complexity and the other party. Simple debt collection or damage deposit disputes may be manageable. Landlord-tenant matters involving habitability issues, wrongful eviction, or discrimination require legal knowledge most tenants lack. Consumer protection cases involving warranty interpretation or contract terms need understanding of legal principles that ordinary people simply do not have. The gap between the theory of accessible self-represented justice and the reality of confused people facing experienced opponents makes many small claims proceedings less about merits than about who better understands the system.
The Enforcement Gap
Winning a small claims judgment is meaningless if the losing party does not pay and has no assets to seize. Someone who wins against a contractor with no assets, a business that declares bankruptcy, or an individual who simply ignores the judgment has a piece of paper but no actual remedy. Enforcement mechanisms exist but require additional applications, fees, and effort that many judgment creditors cannot manage. Meanwhile, repeat players like landlords and collection agencies have streamlined enforcement processes and know exactly how to garnish wages or seize bank accounts. Whether the enforcement gap represents a fatal flaw making small claims judgments largely symbolic, or whether it reflects the unavoidable reality that some people cannot pay regardless of legal obligation, shapes whether small claims courts serve justice or merely provide official validation of amounts that will never be collected.
The Question
If small claims courts were designed to make justice accessible to ordinary people, why do landlords, corporations, and repeat players seem to benefit from them more than individual tenants and consumers? Can simplified procedures and self-representation deliver fair outcomes when parties have vastly different sophistication and resources, or does accessible justice for simple cases come at the cost of injustice in contested matters? And when winning a judgment provides no actual remedy because enforcement is impractical or the losing party has no assets, at what point does the small claims process become an expensive, time-consuming exercise that delivers the appearance of justice without its substance?