Northampton Court Claim arrived (MCOL)

JackBasta

Thanks for that Loads of children. I'll read through all this in detail and write a skeleton. Ill post it up here first. Do I have to serve Gladstone's with it too, or is this just a written version of what I want to say in the hearing?

Loadsofchildren123

You serve Gladstones and file it at court. In case it doesn't reach the court file, take a spare with you and ask the court clerk if the judge has it, and if he doesn't, hand it to him. The clerk comes out all the time to see who is there, you want to hand it in as early as possible if it isn't on the file.


When you send it/deliver it to court, make it clear that it's for a hearing on x date so it doesn't get put in a pile that takes 2 weeks to be filed.

Fruitcake

Don't forget to send your schedule of (reasonable) costs to the court a few days before the hearing to cover both actual and estimated costs. Actual would be cost of 'phone calls, printing/copying, time, postage, stationery etcetera. Estimated would be parking/train fair, lunch, drink on the day, then give the actual cost on the day for those last few items.

Bang on about the claimant's unreasonable behaviour in order to get all the allowable costs you can.


... and LoC, I think you are a star and a major asset to this forum (but not detracting anything from all the other posters who help in whatever way they can.)

Umkomaas

Don't forget cost of time off work (or by taking a day's leave) to attend court on the day - capped at £95. Take wage slips as proof of (lost) earnings.

Loadsofchildren123

Thank you Fruitcake!


A costs schedule MUST be served 24 hours in advance of the hearing for you to get a "summary" award (ie for a fixed amount). Not sure off the top of my head if it also has to be filed at court as well, but it probably does so file it anyway.


I just put a suggested precedent on justkeepswimming's thread, but it didn't include the costs of attending the hearing so obviously these need adding as per the above posts. Print out the rule that lets you claim £95 loss of earnings. My Skeleton also contains a costs argument - you could leave something like this at the end of yours or make it a separate document. I think it is much more persuasive to have the case law to rely on, DJs are quite junior judges and need the law and the rules spelling out to them.

Lamilad

It's totally unreasonable for them to send their bundle a month late. It put's you at a serious disadvantage as they have taken loads of time (which the court did not permit them) to study your WS and submit a taylored response attacking it point by point. It they had complied with the court ordered deadline (as you did) they would not have been able to do this.

I think it should certainly be brought to the attention of the court, by letter or email, as they have attempted to gain an unfair advantage by not complying. Maybe see what CM and LoC say first.

Without knowing anything at all about court procedures, I was amazed to find out that a judge could let this type of thing happen. I left it until last minute to do my WS and was in a mad panic to
get it in by the deadline. I ended up driving to the court to hand it in, and paid 7 quid special delivery to get it up to Gladstone's by the day before the deadline. Wish I hadn't now.

You'd think that even a day late would default to the case being struck.

LoC, do you think it's worth the OP complaining to the court about their WS being a month (yes - a MONTH) late as per the above quotes?

Loadsofchildren123

yes, but he has still had it well in time for the hearing so it hasn't really prejudiced him. So see how the land lies, if the judge clearly doesn't like them, then press the point and go on about being a LiP. If he's the sort of judge who clearly won't care, then mention it but don't press it.
The point for me is more that they've tried to gain an advantage by replying to the OP's statement, rather than serving at the same time, which was clearly not the intention of the directions.

Loadsofchildren123

When is your hearing?

JackBasta

My hearing is on 31st May.

I already phoned the court when the WS was a week late. The person told me I'd need to email the court to complain. I did that.

A week after that I phoned again - they told me that they were about 3 or 4 weeks behind in filing WS's and I should email. I told them I'd emailed the week previously and she told me they were 3 weeks behind on processing emails....

Yeah. I know.

But notes have been put in the file regarding both phone calls so when the judge finally gets to opening it, he should see evidence of their unreasonable behaviour. I will also remind the judge of the fact.

Loadsofchildren123

A heads up for you.


Millennium don't seem to be sending advocates to the court because they are local, they either send David Bellis (the head honcho) or India Beavan, who does the WS. So you don't need to worry too much about RoA arguments I think.


If they don't send a paid advocate, I'd argue that the £50 legal fees bunged into the Claim form have not been incurred, because all Gladstones have done is insert the proforma info onto the Claim Form and sent it off to court. They haven't done anything else because after that everything is handled in-house by Millennium. It can't have taken more than 10 minutes for Gladstones to have filled in and issued the roboclaim. So you say you don't accept that £50 has been incurred.


If they do send an advocate, Gladstones' favourite seems to be a Mr Nash. Mr Nash is qualified as a barrister but is unregistered (ie not part of a chambers). He does not therefore have automatic RoA but must come under one of those exemptions (have conduct of the litigation etc). He must have been engaged via Elms Legal. So I think you should take along a preliminary issues document setting out the law and be ready to use it, but if it's India or David then you don't bother. Pursue it a little way further if the judge rubbishes it - ask the advocate what chambers they work in. If they say they don't, ask them who engaged them and ask specifically if it was Elms Legal. If it was Elms, they don't come under the exemptions.


It MAY be that as it's Port Talbot they do send Nash.


Someone I know tried to challenge Nash's RoA last week and DJ Taylor simply said "Oh Mr Nash appears a lot in this court - I can't imagine he doesn't have RoA". He was asked was he a qualified barrister and he said yes. The Defendant then dropped it. If they'd understood the issue more they would have pursued it and would have shown that he didn't have RoA because he didn't come under the exemptions. Plus they were unaware that Mr Nash was refused RoA in Cardiff about a month ago (reported by Parking Prankster - I think the case was about Overstones).


Second heads up -
You know how PPCs add "admin charges" of c. £50 onto the charge? And they rely on vague wording on teh signage that says if they have to chase then admin fees will be incurred? Well DJ Taylor refused these - she said that if the charge had been paid initially it would have been £60. The £40 they then bung on top IS the extra admin charge. So she disallowed this. It's not an argument I've seen before, but it seems a sensible argument to make and you know that DJ Taylor favours it.


Third heads up -
Is yours a tenancy case? If it is, in this other case the tenancy was silent on the parking. The D produced the leasehold which showed the parking was included. But because it wasn't specifically in the tenancy the DJ held that it wasn't a right that had been granted (tenant was not there to argue the point, the D was his visitor). So it's crucial if yours is a tenancy situation that if your tenancy is silent you get the landlord/agent to confirm that the landlord has exclusive parking rights to the space and that those rights were included orally in your tenancy (and ideally they also confirm why it was left out of the original tenancy agreement - eg simple oversight/they used their precedent which didn't include it and they didn't realise at the time/a WH Smith off the shelf precedent was used which didn't provide for parking - but that when the oversight was realised you were told orally that your tenancy included exclusive rights to park in that spot).


Have you asked them for proof that the landowner reported your car as unauthorised, thereby authorising them to issue the pcn? This is a novel thing in Millennium contracts which I think is a killer for them. Make a meal of it now and they might back out. I got an "offer" to settle for £150 48 hours before which I rejected, and then the day before I got the full withdrawal.