Court proceedings for auto repair visit

Fruitcake

Put them on notice that this is not the end of the matter and you have six years in which to start a claim for DPA breach. Get your SARs in now and start building your case.
Send an LBC if you wish.

Get your complaints to the DVLA and ICO, your MP and Sir Greg Knight MP. Contact local and national press.

Loadsofchildren123

When a case is discontinued, the claim dies but the costs do not. You are allowed to apply for your costs.


Read claxtome's fluttering ticket thread - the costs issue comes up towards the end.


He followed peperlini's precedents and we firmed them up a bit. The precedents on his thread are the best ones.


In a non-small claim there's a rule that says you automatically get your costs. This doesn't apply in small claims, but that does NOT mean it is not still in the court's discretion to award costs. In peperlini's case she wrote and asked for costs and the court responded saying this rule meant she couldn't apply. In my opinion that is a completely incorrect reading of the rule. I can't remember off the top of my head which rule it is, but I link to peperlini's thread in claxtome's and explain it all there. I suggested that claxtome saw off any argument about the rule by including reference to it in his application letter.


So what you do now is write in and apply for costs using the letter and argument document on claxtome's thread, and ask the court to deal with it in writing not by way of a hearing. The effort isn't huge because the precedent is all done, but the court may well tell you to naff off. But nothing ventured nothing gained.


You may need to adapt claxtome's documents a bit, depending on when your claim was issued and whether it was pre-October 2017 (in which case the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct applies) or post-October (in which case it's the new Debt Protocol and paras 13-16 of the old Practice Direction).


You want to go to town on emphasising that this case was utterly hopeless from the start and they should have known.


At any stage you could do a DRP claim if you have the inclination to go to town!

Castle

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

At any stage you could do a DRP claim if you have the inclination to go to town!

I'm guessing that it should read DPA:)

twhitehousescat

Castle wrote: »

I'm guessing that it should read DPA:)

no , just get DRP to start harassment , no win no fee ,,,,,,,,,,

foofcat

Thanks everyone. I need a break tonight and then will read over your posts carefully tomorrow and figure out how to proceed. I wasn't expecting such a response on here today so have already emailed the court to ask for costs but will follow up with supporting documentation as above and hope they don't get annoyed with me.

Once I have a bit of headspace I will turn all of my documents for this case into templates (by replacing my info with XXX or similar) and share it on here for others to use as needed. Will also include the FOI responses from NR (I have three). Half minded to ask the garage to reimburse me for the wing mirror in exchange for the FOI's, given how much trouble I've been through but I realise that's churlish.

This has been an absurdly long thread but I;m so grateful to you all for getting me through this. Anything I can do to help, I will (i.e. maybe write a post on here like "advice for newbies from a newbie" to remind people to really listen / engage with regulars and to actually do the research and not just c&p). More when I feel a bit more rested.

Loadsofchildren123

yesssssss, DPA not DRP!

Lamilad

I can't remember off the top of my head which rule it is

Liability for costs
38.6

(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

(2) If proceedings are only partly discontinued !!!8211;

(a) the claimant is liable under paragraph (1) for costs relating only to the part of the proceedings which he is discontinuing; and

(b) unless the court orders otherwise, the costs which the claimant is liable to pay must not be assessed until the conclusion of the rest of the proceedings.

(3) This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.

(Rule 44.9 provides for the basis of assessment where the right to costs arises on discontinuance and contains provisions about when a costs order is deemed to have been made and applying for an order under section 194(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007

Loadsofchildren123

Right, so the point is that all R38.6 does is impose an AUTOMATIC costs order. So it is the AUTOMATIC costs order that doesn't apply in small claims. This is entirely different than saying that the court has no DISCRETION to award costs.

So following a discontinuance, you need to make clear that any costs applicaiton is NOT being pursued under Rule 38.6, but under Rule 27.14(2)(g).

Since peperlini's costs application was turned down on the basis of R38.6, I think that it is best to include reference to the rule in any written 27.14(2)(g) application following a discontinuance, to head off any possibility that a lazy judge will give it the brush off on that basis.

Rule 38.6 simply cannot be intended to oust the court's jurisdiction and discretion under R27.14(2)(g).