Help Requested With WS - Court Hearing vs Gladstones & PPM Ltd

Loadsofchildren123

after you file your WS send them a drop hands offer of settlement and point out that their case has no prospect of success and if it proceeds you will apply for Rule 27.14(2)(g) costs.

claxtome

muleskinner I suggest you redact (blank out - PCN number/dates) further bits on your last post #60 so no one can work out details of your case and maybe use it against you

muleskinner

Thanks again for the input folks.

I did add something regarding the bay being outside of their operation in the WS.

Does anyone have any input on the points made in their WS? Most of this I know how to counter as it's basically quotes from Beavis and Vine taken way out of context (and they are changing their position on the charge yet again, now saying it's 'consideration for parking services' as opposed to a charge for 'breach of terms' on the Particulars and for 'Unauthorised Parking' on all the documentation leading up to that)!

I am a bit confused by their argument in points 13/14. They actually seem to be arguing that they don't need any kind of authority from the landowner to enforce a contract(!) Again the quote seems out of context - in VCS vs HMRC the issue in question as I understand it was land ownership, there was never any question that VCS didn't have the landowner's authority to operate there.

nosferatu1001

No, 13 or 14 is their standard section. They always add that in, hoping beyond hope that someone believes it

If they’ve changed their stance, then not only do they not show a cause of action they’ve changed their mind repeatedly. You ask the court how this can be - surely they cannot try to claim anything under the sun, hoping something sticks?

muleskinner

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

No, 13 or 14 is their standard section. They always add that in, hoping beyond hope that someone believes it

If they’ve changed their stance, then not only do they not show a cause of action they’ve changed their mind repeatedly. You ask the court how this can be - surely they cannot try to claim anything under the sun, hoping something sticks?

Thanks, that's good to know. I thought a lot of it looked pretty 'cut and paste', they refer to 'signs' when there was only one for example and 15(i) and (iii) make absolutely no sense in the context of this case.

I will bring up the constant changing of stance when I hit them for a claim for costs due to unreasonable behaviour. I have already mentioned the fact that they've done this in the WS.

nosferatu1001

Read up on Denton to give the tests fir unreasonable behaviour
Remember to submit the schedule 24 hours before or more, and to submit two sections fir costs. Normal (half day capped at £95, take along proof, Parking and mileage ) and then add on unreasonable costs

muleskinner

Hi,

Just under two weeks to go! MCOL has gone very quiet - no indication that WS has been received from myself or PPM and nothing to say court fee has been paid - is this normal?

Below is what I am drafting to send to the court re unreasonable behaviour costs after going through the stuff in the noobs thread. I would appreciate any feedback - do I need to send the reasoning to the Claimant or just the 'bill' as it were?

====

In xxxx County Court

Claimant: Parking and Property Management Ltd
Defendant: xxxx
Claim No: xxxx
Date: 30.01.2018

Application for further costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

1. I am xxxx of xxxx, the Defendant in this case.

2. It is my belief that the Claimant has acted unreasonably in this case and has failed to comply with their pre-action obligations as specified in the Practice Direction, specifically:

3. The Claimant, when asked in correspondence dated 17.04.2017, refused to supply any evidence of authority to operate a parking scheme on the land in question. This is particularly relevant in this case as the land appears to be public highway. Satisfactory evidence of authority has still not been provided even at witness statement stage. This is a direct contravention of para 6(c) of the Practice Direction (‘the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the issues in dispute’).

4. The Claimant’s ‘Letter Before Claim’ (LBC) does not provide any details of the legal basis on which this claim is made (e.g. damages for trespass, charge for breach of contract, or payment for parking services). The Claimant appears to change their position on this on a whim with all early correspondence referring to damages for trespass (‘unauthorised parking’), correspondence dated 05.05.17 referring to a ‘consideration for parking’, the Particulars of Claim referring to breach of contract, and the witness statement back to to a ‘consideration for parking services’.

5. The Defendant wrote to Gladstones Solicitors on 28.12.17 specifically asking for clarification on 4 and received no response. Consquently the Defendant will have no idea when attending the hearing as to on what legal basis this claim is being made.

6. The behaviour described in 4 and 5 is a direct contravention of para 6(a) of the Practice Direction (‘The Claimant writing to the Defendant with concise details of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the claim is made’). This behaviour also directly contravenes para 3(a, b, e and f) of the Practice Direction in that, without detail of the legal basis on which a claim is being made the Defendant cannot fully understand the Claimant’s position, cannot make a decision as to how to proceed and incurs considerable wasted time and energy researching issues that may not even be relevant to the Claimant’s case.

6. The LBC states ‘We now require you to pay the full amount within 14 days. Alternatively, you should provide an acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and a full written response with 14 days. Your response should provide your full account of the circumstances that have led to the charges being imposed and should include confirmation as to who the driver(s) of the vehicle were at the time’. The Defendant responded exactly as instructed to the LBC yet proceedings were issued without further warning.

7. The Claimant wrote to the Defendant on 05.05.17 stating that proceedings against them had been halted. This letter post-dates the LBC. No indication was given by the Claimant or their agents that proceedings were to recommence before the claim was filed.

8. The Defendant has, in all correspondence with the Claimant, requested arbritration via the Consumer Ombudsman in order to avoid litigation as specified in the Practice Direction. The Claimant has refused arbritration via this body without giving any reasonable explanation as to why. This is a direct contravention of para3(d) of the Pratice Direction (‘consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement ‘).

9. I hope that the above points demonstrate that the Claimant’s behaviour in this matter falls comfortably outside of their pre-action obligations as specified in the Practice Direction and that my application for further costs pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) will be considered.

Defendants Schedule Of Costs

Ordinary Costs
Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 12/02/2018 £60.00
Return mileage from BA152ND to Court (15 miles x £0.45) £6.75

Sub-total £66.75


Further costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour.

Correspondence with Claimant (3hrs x £19) £57.00
Research, preparation and drafting of defence: (8hrs x £19) £152
Response to Directions Questionairre (inc Special Directions): (1hr x £19) £19.00
Three site visits of approx 30 mins: (1.5hrs x £19) £28.50
Phone calls to court 15 mins x 2 (0.5hrs x £19) £9.50
Round trips to Post Office 20 mins x 6 (2hrs x £19) £38.00
Research, preparation and drafting of witness statement: (6hrs x £19) £114.00
Collation and preparation of Evidence Bundle: (5hrs x £19) £95.00
Postage: £13.28
Printing (approx 200 pages @ 10p per page) £20.00

Sub-total £546.28

Total £613.03

Coupon-mad

do I need to send the reasoning to the Claimant or just the 'bill' as it were?

You must share everything with the claimant, or their solicitor.

no indication that WS has been received from myself or PPM and nothing to say court fee has been paid - is this normal?

Yes, search the forum for Denton and the latest thread of LOADS (that you should read) is:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73794973#post73794973

muleskinner

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, search the forum for Denton and the latest thread of LOADS (that you should read) is:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73794973#post73794973

Thanks for that CM, I have found Denton after some trawling. If anyone else comes to this thread looking for it a link to the transcript is here.

All the cases listed in Denton seem to be due to handing in court documents late which doesn't really apply in my case, however I still think they have failed to comply with the PD as stated above so I will push this and make a reference to para 41 of Denton which seems to be key. Certainly I would class refusal to supply proof of landowner authority as a 'non trivial' breach of PD.

Still have to read the judgement in its entirety - it's long!

Is the link to the LOADS thread correct? I can't see any postings from LOADS in that thread?

Coupon-mad

Haha, I meant do the search I did and read 'loads of threads'!