COUNTY COURT CLAIM FORM (UKCPM, Gladstones)

CircusFrog

Guys what's the idea behind this part of the costs?

"Further costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) ".

Is that because they've tried to claim more than the original fee that we're saying it's unreasonable behaviour?

bargepole

CircusFrog wrote: »

Guys what's the idea behind this part of the costs?

"Further costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) ".

Is that because they've tried to claim more than the original fee that we're saying it's unreasonable behaviour?

That would not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

You could only claim under that heading if they did something procedurally wrong, for example failing to file and serve documents in accordance with Court directions, or failing to turn up for the hearing without notification at least 7 days in advance.

[Deleted User]

That part exists not to punish any party that has proved to be unsuccessful in the litigation (Sadly) but specifically to address serious failures in the conduct of the case. Examples may include:

1. Intimidation
2. Inflating costs with multiple hearings
3. Failure to consider reasonable settlement proposals
4. Taking steps to prejudice the defendant (late service of documents etc)

If you ask for them, don't just request it with a " please" you want dates and examples on as many points as you can. If the court don't allow them to claim legal costs or the bolt on £70 they seem to like adding, then you should argue that they as a professional Claimant should be aware that those charges cannot be claimed and argue it as intimidatory at best and at worst an attempt to recover sums from vulnerable defendant parties with no basis in law.

Finally, if the debt collector was DRP note that they work for a fixed % fee of the sums they recover (a sample contract is on DRP website) It therefore follows if you have not paid, DRP have never charged the Claimant for their services, so where does the £70 odd derive from? Play particular emphasis to their particulars of claim. Scant though they'll be, they are verified with a statement of truth.

Hopefully this strengthens the basis for unreasonable costs in addition to your schedule. If nothing else it may allow you to recover your costs with little or no reduction.

[Deleted User]

From memory HW county is a !!!!! for nearby parking (oh, the irony) and as you'll know HW itself always snarls up with traffic, so do make sure you leave lots of time if you're not already in the area...

CircusFrog

Already down here. Getting some printing done!

CircusFrog

I'm going to struggle to get all of this sorted, but I'll file it anyway and make the best argument I can!

Johnersh wrote: »

That part exists not to punish any party that has proved to be unsuccessful in the litigation (Sadly) but specifically to address serious failures in the conduct of the case. Examples may include:

1. Intimidation
2. Inflating costs with multiple hearings
3. Failure to consider reasonable settlement proposals
4. Taking steps to prejudice the defendant (late service of documents etc)

If you ask for them, don't just request it with a " please" you want dates and examples on as many points as you can. If the court don't allow them to claim legal costs or the bolt on £70 they seem to like adding, then you should argue that they as a professional Claimant should be aware that those charges cannot be claimed and argue it as intimidatory at best and at worst an attempt to recover sums from vulnerable defendant parties with no basis in law.

Finally, if the debt collector was DRP note that they work for a fixed % fee of the sums they recover (a sample contract is on DRP website) It therefore follows if you have not paid, DRP have never charged the Claimant for their services, so where does the £70 odd derive from? Play particular emphasis to their particulars of claim. Scant though they'll be, they are verified with a statement of truth.

Hopefully this strengthens the basis for unreasonable costs in addition to your schedule. If nothing else it may allow you to recover your costs with little or no reduction.

[Deleted User]

The above request for unreasonable costs (unlike your schedule) does Not need to be lodged in advance. They are points you can raise if successful - precisely because you know not whether you have won and they are wholly discretionary, whereas the default is an entitlement to proven evidenced defence costs when you win.

[Deleted User]

Try to get back to the waiting room and relax at least 30 mins prior....

The_Deep

IOn my opinion, any claim for an "own space" incident if the motorist has informed the PPC of their leasehold rights to "quiet enjotment" of their property is unreasonable.

If the PPC does not believe the motorist, or wants the claim tested in court, fair enough, but, if they lose they should pay the appellant for the rime he/she has spent dealing with the matter. Thus, if the appellant is a solicitor who bills his/her time at £400 an hour, then that is what the PPC should pay i.m.o.

Reasonablity, according to Wiki,i is a is a legal term. It states

The scale of reasonability represents a quintessential element of modern judicial systems and is particularly important in the context of international disputes and conflicts of laws issues. The concept is founded on the notion that all parties should be held to a reasonable standard of conduct

Sending threatening letters where money is not owed is not reasonable. Demanding more than the law allows is not reasonable. Failing to reply to genuine enquiries is not reasonable, taking people to court when you do not have a contract is unreasonable, failure to supply evidence in a timely manner is not reasonable, abusing peoples' privacy under the DPA is not reasonable. ignoring the BPA/IPC Code of Practice is not reasonable. sending legal representatives to court who do not have rights of audience is not reasonable.

I do not see why judges have a problem with CPR 27.14.(2)(g) costs. A few more unreasonable behaviour costs awards would, I am sure, put an end to these vexatious claims.

bargepole

As I had a free slot in the diary due to another case I was working on being discontinued, I decided to undertake the arduous 5-minute drive to High Wycombe County Court to observe this one from the cheap seats (and pass a couple of notes to Mr D when I thought he was going off-piste).

I met Mrs D (the defendant) and Mr D (acting as Lay Rep) in the waiting area, and we had a brief chat to make sure he had everything covered. The rep for UKPCM, a Mr Shippard, turned up, and he is a solicitor's agent who I've previously encountered at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch. Although his Right of Audience could have been challenged, Mr D didn't want to win on a technicality, he wanted the case to be fully heard and won, to establish a precedent for any future claims relating to this property.

This was case no. C4GF3X2K, before District Judge Devlin.

The claim was for some £484, for three PCNs issued when no permit was displayed. £100 charge per ticket, plus £50 'debt collection fees' plus court costs and interest. Two of the PCNs had been issued when the car was parked in its allocated bay, and one when on an access road.

The Judge quickly identified the main issues in the case. These were that that the Claimant's signage did not convey certainty of terms; that there was no evidence of any relationship between the managing agent and the freeholder; and that the Lease granted an unfettered right to park, which could not be varied by any letters or signage produced by the Claimant.

The Judge was referred to the cases of Jopson v Homeguard, PACE v Noor, and Link v Parkinson, and agreed that these all provided persuasive precedents which assisted the Defendant's case.

He then gave Judgment dismissing the claim, stating that:

There had been no breakdown of how the Claimant's sum claimed was arrived at, despite him having ordered back in March that Gladstones should file an amended particulars of claim.

It was not clear from the original claim was based on contract or trespass, although the WS subsequently filed suggested contract.
The Claimant had not established a right to sue the Defendant, given that their contract was with a different MA from the one named on the Lease.

The Lease grants an unfettered right to park, and the Claimant is not a party to that contract, therefore they cannot vary those terms.

The Signage is inadequate, and void for uncertainty of terms. The WS issued by Gladstones fails to address the contractual issue.]

So in addition, it was ruled that the Claimant had behaved unreasonably, firstly by failing to file amended particulars when ordered to do so, and secondly by filing a WS which failed to address the principal issues.

Mrs D was therefore awarded ordinary plus further costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), a total of £234 to be paid within 14 days. Mr Shippard disappeared down the road at a remarkable speed for a gentleman of advanced years.