Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 6th Oct 17, 9:55 AM
    • 796Posts
    • 597Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Maxing Out the Counterclaim - Call to action!!!
    • #1
    • 6th Oct 17, 9:55 AM
    Maxing Out the Counterclaim - Call to action!!! 6th Oct 17 at 9:55 AM
    Calling all experts on here...


    Many PPCs don't even bother turning up to court if the defendant puts in a decent defence and WS.


    The 'typical/normal' defendant will at most, if they are aware and bring evidence and are lucky, get a max of £95 [+ parking/mileage] for the day they've had to take off work. No compensation for time spent researching defence etc.


    So my question is .....How can we generate a maximum counterclaim [submitted well before the hearing date] that makes the PPC regret not turning up.


    I'll start the ball rolling....


    DPA breach claim - worth £250-£750

    Mileage to investigate and take photos at the site - [multiple visits] - 40p per mile

    Time to prep a defence etc @ £19/hr - how many hrs would seem sensible??

    Postage costs


    Please feel free to add any more you have...




    Hopefully we can get it over the £800 that would allow a 'win' to be escalated to the High Court and/or the PPC to be wound up....
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Oct 17, 10:39 AM
    • 6,169 Posts
    • 7,891 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 6th Oct 17, 10:39 AM
    • #2
    • 6th Oct 17, 10:39 AM
    It's not so much about a max claim because we rely
    on the good sense of judge

    As we already know, there are judges around who
    are past their sell by date.

    Unless there is a government ruling, this will always be
    a grey area
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 6th Oct 17, 10:44 AM
    • 2,119 Posts
    • 6,020 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #3
    • 6th Oct 17, 10:44 AM
    • #3
    • 6th Oct 17, 10:44 AM
    Claims (or counterclaims) for breaches of the DPA are currently proving difficult to win when defended by PPCs, who will often shell out for a qualified barrister as their advocate.

    I think there may be more mileage in going for a harassment claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, citing Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 as authority.

    This will require the victim to show evidence of harassment, so would work best if they have kept all the threatograms from the PPC, dodgy debt collectors, and shyster solicitors.

    And the threshold for escalating to the High Court for enforcement is £600, not £800.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 6th Oct 17, 11:06 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 1,671 Thanks
    Castle
    • #4
    • 6th Oct 17, 11:06 AM
    • #4
    • 6th Oct 17, 11:06 AM
    Claims (or counterclaims) for breaches of the DPA are currently proving difficult to win when defended by PPCs, who will often shell out for a qualified barrister as their advocate.
    Originally posted by bargepole
    Are they falling down on the lack of "reasonable cause" argument?
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 6th Oct 17, 11:24 AM
    • 796 Posts
    • 597 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    • #5
    • 6th Oct 17, 11:24 AM
    • #5
    • 6th Oct 17, 11:24 AM
    Claims (or counterclaims) for breaches of the DPA are currently proving difficult to win when defended by PPCs, who will often shell out for a qualified barrister as their advocate.
    Originally posted by bargepole


    My argument is for use against PPCs who have a track record for not turning up....if they appoint a barrister it costs them £500+...that's a win for us. Also when you submit a counterclaim do you get to see their 'defence'...which would tip you as to the likelihood of them turning up??


    Costs of making the counterclaim - £60 [up to £1000]..which I assume you get back if you win....I'd happily take those odds [circa 17:1]....
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 6th Oct 17, 11:27 AM
    • 796 Posts
    • 597 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    • #6
    • 6th Oct 17, 11:27 AM
    • #6
    • 6th Oct 17, 11:27 AM
    And the threshold for escalating to the High Court for enforcement is £600, not £800.
    Originally posted by bargepole

    Sorry. Typo...Yes you're correct...and its £751 to allow winding up.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Oct 17, 12:10 PM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,155 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #7
    • 6th Oct 17, 12:10 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Oct 17, 12:10 PM
    This is what I claimed - it was of course far less than the actual time spent but I think the time allowed for is reasonable:

    Time spent on documents:

    Perusing:
    Claim Form 5 minutes
    Directions Questionnaire 5 minutes
    Witness Statement 15 minutes
    Directions/allocation order 5 minutes
    [add any time spent on counterclaim defence]
    Drafting:
    Acknowledgement of Service 5 minutes
    Defence 2 hours
    Directions Questionnaire 5 minutes Witness Statement 3 hours
    Part 18 Request 15 minutes
    Preparing [Court/Supplemental] bundle 30 minutes
    [include time spent on counterclaim]
    Skeleton Argument 1 hour

    Time spent on research

    Researching legislation, CPR and case law: 4 hours

    Time spent on correspondence:
    22 letters/emails: 3 hours
    [this includes letters to them, including at LBC stage, and to the court]
    [for solicitors court usually allows 5 minutes for each page, so a 2 page letter is 10 minutes, a 1 page letter is 5 minutes]

    Time spent attending court:
    Filing documents (2 visits): 30 minutes
    Hearing (including travel and waiting time) 3 hours

    Total time spent: xxx hours

    At £19 per hour: £x

    Expenses incurred:

    Postage:
    £2.81 recorded delivery/first class post x3 £8.43
    Stationery and photocopying: £10.00
    [add any issue fee for counterclaim]
    Parking at court: £3
    Total: £18.43

    GRAND TOTAL £xxx

    Signed
    Dated
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Oct 17, 3:03 PM
    • 1,564 Posts
    • 2,883 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #8
    • 6th Oct 17, 3:03 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Oct 17, 3:03 PM
    Claim Form 5 minutes
    Directions Questionnaire 5 minutes
    Thought solicitors charged in 6 minute lumps or 1/10th of an hour since decimalisation - or are you still on 1/12ths
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Oct 17, 3:21 PM
    • 7,182 Posts
    • 6,230 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 6th Oct 17, 3:21 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Oct 17, 3:21 PM
    My solicitor, before he was banged up

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-29605167

    Used to charge me £200 an hour.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 9th Oct 17, 10:36 AM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,155 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Thought solicitors charged in 6 minute lumps or 1/10th of an hour since decimalisation - or are you still on 1/12ths
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Yes we do because it's convenient to divide an hour into 10 units. But I made it 5 minutes in order to avoid looking like a solicitor, and in the main the time was marked in quarter/half hourly increments.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Oct 17, 11:00 AM
    • 7,182 Posts
    • 6,230 Thanks
    The Deep
    I think that appellants need to be far more robust in claiming for unreasonable behaviour What would TMOTCO consider to be unreasonable?

    Would he for instance consider the following to be unreasonable

    Issuing a PCN to a resident who owns their parking space

    ditto for not paying when a machine is out of order

    ditto for entering a wrong VBN

    ditto for a fluttering ticket

    ditto for a few minute overstay, within the ATA grace period,

    ditto when traffic delays departure,

    ditto when signs are not there, poorly lit, unreadable, or prohibitive

    ditto for leaving site

    ditto for overstay when unable to find a place

    ditto for parking a few cm out of a bay

    ditto for leaving site

    ditto for no breach of CoPs


    Solicitors misleading appellantd and/or threatening credit damage for non payment

    and much much more.

    Many argue that it is at the judge's whim, but is it? Are CC judges not answerable to anyone, the MOJ, The Court Service, one's MP, public opinion?.

    Many people treat them as omnipotent, in fact they are usually retired solicitors who spent their working lives dealing with property sales, divorce, wills, custody, etc. I suspect that few would be able to pass the Foreign Office exams.
    Last edited by The Deep; 09-10-2017 at 11:07 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 9th Oct 17, 12:08 PM
    • 2,119 Posts
    • 6,020 Thanks
    bargepole
    ... What would TMOTCO consider to be unreasonable?

    ... Many people treat them as omnipotent, in fact they are usually retired solicitors who spent their working lives dealing with property sales, divorce, wills, custody, etc. I suspect that few would be able to pass the Foreign Office exams.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    The opinion of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus has nothing to do with it.

    Most District Judges (full time) have previously been solicitors or barristers, but are not usually retired. Deputy District Judges (part time) typically are working as practising solicitors when not in court. In both cases, they need a minimum of 5 years advocacy experience before being appointed as Judges.

    Unreasonable behaviour costs, as set out in CPR 27.14(2)(g) are generally only awarded when the losing party has failed to comply with court directions, or failed to turn up for the hearing without notice. Arguing a case, however flimsy or hopeless, is not a reason for awarding them, there is settled case law on that.

    And I suspect that few Foreign Office bods would be able to pass the Law exams.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Oct 17, 12:32 PM
    • 7,182 Posts
    • 6,230 Thanks
    The Deep
    The opinion of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus has nothing to do with it.

    It has everyhing to do with it. That is why the Berlin Wall collapsed, why children are no longer sent up chimneys, why HomeForm Group went into liquidation, (did you ever work for them)?

    Ignore public opinion at your peril.

    And I suspect that few Foreign Office bods would be able to pass the Law exams

    Most of them have!
    Last edited by The Deep; 09-10-2017 at 12:38 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 9th Oct 17, 1:14 PM
    • 2,119 Posts
    • 6,020 Thanks
    bargepole
    [B]... Ignore public opinion at your peril. ...
    Originally posted by The Deep
    You are confusing the roles of the Legislature and the Judiciary, which is a basic building block of the Separation of Powers, one of the fundamental principles of the UK constitution - this is covered in the first term of the first year of any Law degree course.

    Parliament makes the laws, by means of Acts of Parliament (statutes), Statutory Instruments (amendments to existing Acts), and, currently, Regulations and Directives from the EU. The laws they pass may depend on manifesto commitments of whichever political party is in power, and influenced to some extent by public opinion, and the changing nature of society.

    But public opinion doesn't always hold sway - there has been a majority in favour of the death penalty ever since it was abolished, but MPs aren't going to vote on that, or even debate it, any time soon.

    The job of the Judges is to interpret and apply the law as it currently stands. They may not agree with it, and they may be aware that they are going against public opinion (as we have seen from obiter remarks in some judgments), but their job is not to make the laws, they are bound by statute, or by previous judicial decisions from a higher court (case law).
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 9th Oct 17, 1:28 PM
    • 561 Posts
    • 991 Thanks
    safarmuk
    there has been a majority in favour of the death penalty ever since it was abolished,
    With the utmost respect, not since 2015 it seems, when it dipped below 50% for the first time ... but prior to that yes, the majority were in favour.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

    However this is a poll ... and we all know the reliability of those!
    Last edited by safarmuk; 09-10-2017 at 1:30 PM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Oct 17, 1:29 PM
    • 7,182 Posts
    • 6,230 Thanks
    The Deep
    You are confusing the roles of the Legislature and the Judiciary,

    I can assure you that I am not.

    But public opinion doesn't always hold sway - there has been a majority in favour of the death penalty ever since it was abolished, but MPs aren't going to vote on that, or even debate it, any time soon.

    That is because we are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it has very little to do with CPRs.

    The job of the Judges is to interpret and apply the law as it currently stands.

    Indeed, but I understand that the law in this instance is imprecise, it does not define "unreasonable conduct". in which case "reasonabily" can be argued.

    but their job is not to make the laws, they are bound by statute, or by previous judicial decisions from a higher court (case law).

    I understand that, my job was to advise ministers making the law

    You seem to see things in black and white Mr C, that is not always so.
    Last edited by The Deep; 09-10-2017 at 1:35 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 9th Oct 17, 2:40 PM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,155 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    But litigants are asking for R27.14(2)(g) costs orders ALL the time.


    It's been held time and time again that a flimsy case is not grounds for such an order, even though a normal person would say this was the very instance in which such an order should be given - flimsy case=should never have been pursued, ergo unreasonable.


    It's also been held time and again that breaching the pre-action obligations likewise fails to reach the threshold required - even though the Practice Direction very clearly contains sanctions for non-compliance, including by way of costs orders, and I've provided all the reported case law for litigants to present in asking for a 27.14(2)(g) costs order.


    The fact is, these orders are very rarely given. And it's not because people don't try, they do (on the forum we advise people to go for these costs orders all the time). This is the reality, much as we'd like it not to be, public opinion or no public opinion.


    I agree with your assessment of the quality of many DJs, but we are stuck with that. They are not there to reflect public opinion they are there to interpret and apply the law as they see fit and in their discretion. Even when they are wrong their decisions are not always appealable, and even if they were people simply do not have the appetite or the time to pursue appeals over these sorts of small claims.


    I agree that far more 27.14(2)(g) costs orders should be given, but the courts require persuasion and it just doesn't work very often.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Oct 17, 2:59 PM
    • 7,182 Posts
    • 6,230 Thanks
    The Deep
    flimsy case=should never have been pursued,


    Thank you LOC, but I am not talking about flimsy cases. I am talking about well argued justified cases where to PPC and/or their lawyers have acted unreasonably. IMO this includes most cases presented by Gladstones, BWL, Miah, SCS, etc, Which of the examples in post11 do you think are not unreasonable?

    The fact is, these orders are very rarely given. And it's not because people don't try, they do

    No, it is because the judges incorrectly apply the law. We should be flooding the courts with these claims and raising merry hell when they are not allowed.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 9th Oct 17, 8:13 PM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,155 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The only way of challenging a decision refusing costs (no other way of raising merry hell about it) is to appeal. Most LiPs just don’t want to do that. The application fee is £150. In theory it’s great but the reality is that the vast majority of people don’t want to risk/devote the time to an appeal.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 10th Oct 17, 9:51 AM
    • 796 Posts
    • 597 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    The only way of challenging a decision refusing costs (no other way of raising merry hell about it) is to appeal. Most LiPs just don’t want to do that. The application fee is £150. In theory it’s great but the reality is that the vast majority of people don’t want to risk/devote the time to an appeal.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123


    I wonder if it would be worth crowd-funding an appeal to get a case that we could use in our initial submissions [albeit that it wouldn't be binding?]
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,264Posts Today

7,965Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin