Refused refund for unused tickets, Company at fault

sodthat

I have a season ticket and which was subsequently withdrawn because I was arrested on a spurious matter, although I hadn't broken any of their terms and conditions. I asked the providers to refund me the pro rata cost for I when could not use the season ticket, this was refused.

The allegations were made by the an employee (Walter Mitty) of the company, and supported by them. The judge thought that his evidence was a joke and couldn't believe the matter got as remotely far as it did. After hearing my evidence, the judge stopped the trial, because there was no evidence a crime had been committed let alone that I had done anything wrong, and I was acquitted

After being acquitted the ban was lifted and I was allowed to use the ticket again.

Even though I have done nothing wrong they still refused a refund so I made a claim through the small claims court.
At long last their solicitor have offered a settlement on the condition that sign a confidentiality agreement.
Does any body think I would be acting unreasonable by not agreeing to a confidentiality agreement when what has transpired?

The reason being I'm asking is that although not normally payable, I believe that cost can be awarded against a party who have acted unreasonable.

Stonk

As your losses are entirely the fault of another party, you can expect to be compensated for the losses without a confidentiality agreement.

For you to sign such a confidentiality agreement, the compensation on offer would have to be larger than the actual losses. Otherwise, what is your motivation for signing it?

If they're only offering the minimum, don't sign an agreement, take the money, and name them on here!

Silent_Bob_3

I agree with Stonk. What kind of season ticket was it - football/train etc?

Voyager2002

As a matter of interest, did you post the details of the alleged incident on the railway newsgroup at the time it happened? I was puzzled that there were no updates on the story after the employee came back from leave, but since there is talk of a confidentiality agreement I now understand why you said no more.

I was not aware that costs could EVER be awarded in a small claims court. I suggest that you ask one of the court officials: they should be able to help you. But by the sound of things you would win your case if it came to court, so no need to worry about having to pay the other side's costs.

Anyway, well done for standing up for yourself.

Turning_into_scrooge

Voyager

Pop along to the consumer action group and you will read interesting info on the small claims courts.

Voyager2002

Turning_into_scrooge wrote:

Voyager

Pop along to the consumer action group and you will read interesting info on the small claims courts.

Would you care to summarise some of that information? I'm sure I'm not the only person on here who is apparently misinformed.

sodthat

I'm in the proces of considering my options so I don't want to prejudice my case by revealing too many details but am coming to the conclusion that a gagging order seems to be their main priority!

Here are the rules relating to costs at small claims court from

http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part27.htm#rule27_14

27.14 (1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.

(Rules 44.9 and 44.11 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)
(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs except –
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –
(i) are payable under Part 45; or
(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;

(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction (GL) or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;
(c) costs assessed by the summary procedure in relation to an appeal and
(d) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.

(2A) A party's rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(d) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.

(Rule 36.2(5) allows the court to order Part 36 costs consequences in a small claim).
(3) The court may also order a party to pay all or part of –
(a) any court fees paid by another party;
(b) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
(c) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purpose of attending a hearing; and
(d) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for an expert’s fees.

(4) The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990(1) (a lay representative).
(5) Where –
(a) the financial value of a claim exceeds the limit for the small claims track; but
(b) the claim has been allocated to the small claims track in accordance with rule 26.7(3),


the small claims track costs provisions will apply unless the parties agree that the fast track costs provisions are to apply.
(6) Where the parties agree that the fast track costs provisions are to apply, the claim will be treated for the purposes of costs as if it were proceeding on the fast track except that trial costs will be in the discretion of the court and will not exceed the amount set out for the value of claim in rule 46.2 (amount of fast track trial costs).

dmg24

Would you care to summarise some of that information? I'm sure I'm not the only person on here who is apparently misinformed.

Agreed ... this isn't really the place for a private conversation!