Been to court, won, but still more cases!

Loadsofchildren123

The ability to recover costs in small claims is very limited.


Litigants in person are limited to loss of earnings of £95 (para 7.3 of Practice Direction 27).


However, if you can persuade the court that they have acted unreasonably then Rule 27.14(2)(g) applies and you can seek more.


The application of Rule 27.14(2)(g) is very inconsistent. Last week a judge said it was not enough to show that the claim never had any prospect of success (!). In your case you've got a runner, but you must get that transcript.


You need to put the other side on notice that you are going to incur these additional costs and evidence of what they will be, and that you will be applying for them, and invite them once again to withdraw on the basis that another identical claim (number xxxx) was rejected by DJ x on x date in x court and that this claim therefore has no prospect of success.


I had another thought this weekend - if you don't want to apply for strikeout you could ask the original judge to reserve all future cases between you and the PPC to her/himself because these are clearly mischievous claims. Not sure that would work, but you could write to him/her and try - I think the time to do that would be at the DQ stage just before it's transferred. Put the requested direction in your DQ when you return it, and send a copy of everything direct to the judge at the same time explaining the situation and that the proceedings are about to be transferred.

Half_way

From what I understand you can add the principal to the claim, on your case the management company, and as such they could be liable for any unreasonable costs order as eek as the ppc

Loadsofchildren123

But the trouble is that it costs you £255 to do that.
The cost of an interim but necessary application is out of all proportion in small claims and needs to be changed. It's wrong that the PPC can issue the whole claim for £25, but you have to pay £255 to ask the court to take a proper, necessary and justifiable step in the proceedings (eg joining a party). But for now it is as it is. The alternative is you tell the MA you'll be issuing a claim for damages afterwards (which will only cost you £25) - but they will feel much less threatened by this.

System

The alternative is you tell the MA you'll be issuing a claim for damages afterwards (which will only cost you £25) - but they will feel much less threatened by this.

+1

Time it for just after the Witness Statements go in.

safarmuk

The alternative is you tell the MA you'll be issuing a claim for damages afterwards (which will only cost you £25) - but they will feel much less threatened by this.
”+1

Time it for just after the Witness Statements go in.

Yes, excellent idea. Issue your LBC whilst you are doing your WS and then if that doesn't have the desired effect file your MCOL the day after you submit your WS. Same effect but 1/9 of the cost ... must remember that.

Hasfro

My witness statement has already gone a couple of weeks back. My travel needs only came up last week. Since then I have already given the MA a lot of mouth. But it isnt leading anywhere.

I just got a message back from them saying the contract isn't with the MA. The setup here is that a seperate company is created for the leaseholders and 2 directors are representing the leaseholders. These directors are also leaseholders. So I guees I will try to talk to the directors next!

I'd really rather push the PPC on this instead of the MA. And I would be happy if I am compinsated by the judge. But there is no guarantees. I just have to be convincing on the day. For now I will send an e-mail to the claimant stating that if the case is not withdrawn I will ask the judge to compensate me for travel costs and loss of earnings in full. With an estimate of the amount I will be requesting.

This is likely to be more than a £1000. Is there a limit to the amount I can be awarded by the small claims court?

Redx

yes , the small claims court is limited , so you can expect to be allowed about £95 , although you may be able to try for more but it is unlikely that a judge will grant it unless its for unreasonable behaviour etc

System

The setup here is that a separate company is created for the leaseholders and 2 directors are representing the leaseholders.

Very common as most modern developments have this set up. Question is are the Directors personally liable so you might want to send it to the named directors as they appear to have overstepped their authority. [Hint: most directors of these sorts of companies haven't a clue - or directors insurance in place.]

Hasfro

Very common as most modern developments have this set up. Question is are the Directors personally liable so you might want to send it to the named directors as they appear to have overstepped their authority. [Hint: most directors of these sorts of companies haven't a clue - or directors insurance in place.]

I think they wouldnt know. I will try to talk to them as any other leaseholder should understand my pain. I will try to talk to them.

yes , the small claims court is limited , so you can expect to be allowed about £95

Yes £95 limit but can be more if they are acting unreasonably which is the case here as it's a second identical case. Especially that I reminded them in numerous occasions of this and now gave them an additional opportunity to withdraw.

Redx

Hasfro wrote: »

Yes £95 limit but can be more if they are acting unreasonably which is the case here as it's a second identical case. Especially that I reminded them in numerous occasions of this and now gave them an additional opportunity to withdraw.

maybe so , I did say this , but you said the following

This is likely to be more than a £1000.

that is a ridiculous sum to try and obtain in a small claims court

a DPA breach claim is typically £250 to £750 , so personal costs on either side would have to be within certain limits and constraints and although you can ask for say 5 grand from a judge , its not going to happen and I suspect you wont be allowed more than say £300 if unreasonableness was proven

it is known as the "small claims" court for a reason