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

muleskinner

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

Haha :rotfl:

Loadsofchildren123

I know it's a small amount but add in your costs of parking at court, and I'd also add time spent travelling to and from court, waiting and in court (which will be several hours).

muleskinner

OK, here's another go. I have redone the costs based on what someone (successfully) did in another thread where they broke down all the reading they have done. I knocked a bit off the 'drafting' times to compensate but the total has gone up significantly as a result. I think this is actually a much more accurate representation of time spent.

I have fleshed out the justification a lot as well. Tried to emphasise not just what the Claimant did wrong but how it has affected the Defendant (which seems to be key from reading Denton).

I found it hard to get anything specific from Denton as so much of that is about handing in documents late. Everything has been on time in this case, just shoddy an inconsistent as hell! I have included the reference to Denton at the end though (actually it's Mitchell quoted in the context of Denton).

Any feedback much appreciated, especially if there are obvious clangers.

====

Defendants Schedule Of Costs

Ordinary Costs
Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 12/02/2018 £60.00
Return mileage from xxxx to Court (15 miles x £0.45) £6.75
Parking at court (estimate) £5.00

Sub-total £71.75

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.

Reading and writing correspondence with Claimant (3hrs x £19) £57.00
Reading ParkingEye vs Beavis (2hrs x £19) £38.00
Reading PCM vs Bull and other 'forbidding contract' cases (2hrs x £19) £38.00
Reading Vine vs Waltham (1hr x £19) £19.00
Reading VCS vs Ibbotsen (0.5hr x £19) £9.50
Reading Consumer Contracts Regulations (2hrs x £19) £38.00
Research on online forums etc (5hrs x £19) £95.00
Preparation and drafting of defence: (4hrs x £19) £76
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
Preparation and drafting of witness statement: (5hrs x £19) £114.00
Reading additional cases mentioned in Claimant's WS (1.5hrs x £19) £27.50
Reading Claimant's WS and bundle (1hrs x £19) £19.00
Collation and preparation of Evidence Bundle: (5hrs x £19) £95.00
Postage £13.28
Printing (approx 200 pages @ 10p per page) £20.00
Travel to and from court (2hrs x £19) £38.00

Sub-total £792.28

Total £864.03

====

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

1. I am xxxxx of xxxxx, 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. Compliance with the Practice Direction is not voluntary, nor is it a guide to best
practice. It is part of the Civil Procedure Rules and is binding. Parties are expected to comply with it and the court may punish those who do not. The court's powers include a costs order, and this may be on the indemnity basis (16(a) and (b)) and the power to remit (or increase) interest 16(c)/(d). Such sanctions can apply even against
a successful party (paragraph 16).

3. The Claimant's behaviour in this case significantly contravenes that specified in the Practice Direction. Specifically:

4. 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 and it is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Defendant to ask for evidence that the Claimant is authorised to issue charges there before paying. 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').

5. 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 09.12.17 specifically stating their confusion on point 4 and asked , in no uncertain terms, for clarification. They received no response. The Defendant wrote, again, to Gladstones Solicitors on 28.12.17 stating that no response had been received but again received no response. Consequently the Defendant will have no idea when attending the hearing as to on what legal basis this claim is being made which puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

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.

7. Part of the point of the Practice Direction is to ensure both parties are on an 'equal footing'. By refusing to clarify their position on the legal basis for this claim the Claimant has prevented the Defendant from being on an 'equal footing'.

8. 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.

9. The LBC, as with much of the communication from the Claimant and their agents, is unduly threatening. It mentions sanctions for failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules which is completely irrelevant until proceedings have been issued and misleadingly implies that the LBC has some kind of court authority.

10. 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.

11. 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').

12. The Claimant and their agents Gladstones Solicitors are serial litigants and are well aware of the Civil Procedure Rules. They have, in the LBC, even used the threat of punitive costs for failure to comply with them as a method of intimidating the Defendant. There can be no resonable excuse for their own failure to comply.

13. The Claimant's failure to comply with the Practice Direction has caused the Defendant considerable wasted time and stress, prevented the possible avoidance of litigation, and prevented the Defendant from being on an 'equal footing' with the Claimant. It cannot therefore be described as 'trivial' and as a result sanctions should be imposed as per para 41 of Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013]
EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 which is re-iterated in Denton v T H White Ltd
[2014] EWCA Civ 906.

Castle

muleskinner wrote: »

Preparation and drafting of witness statement: (5hrs x £19) £114.00
Reading additional cases mentioned in Claimant's WS (1.5hrs x £19) £27.50

Check your maths!:)

muleskinner

Castle wrote: »

Check your maths!:)

Never was my strong point! I will go through and double-check all those figures!

EDIT: I see I have two point 5s on there too!

muleskinner

OK, final draft of argument and last call for feedback - costs are as above with a few tweaks (I've double-checked the maths)!

Have added a few points and brough Denton more up-front.

====

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

1. I am xxxx of 44 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. Compliance with the Practice Direction is part of the Civil Procedure Rules and is binding. Parties are expected to comply with it and the court may punish those who do not. The court’s powers include a costs order, and this may be on the indemnity basis (16(a) and (b)) and the power to remit (or increase) interest 16(c)/(d). Such sanctions can apply even against a successful party (paragraph 16).

3. The Claimant’s failure to comply with the Practice Direction in this cse has caused the Defendant considerable wasted time and stress, prevented the possible avoidance of litigation, and prevented the Defendant from being on an ‘equal footing’ with the Claimant. It cannot therefore be described as ‘trivial’ and as a result sanctions should be imposed as per para 41 of Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 which is re-iterated in para 24 of Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906.

4. The Claimant’s behaviour in this case significantly contravenes that specified in the Practice Direction in the following ways:

5. The Claimant, when asked in correspondence dated 26.04.2017, 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 and it is therefore perfectly reasonable, indeed sensible, for the Defendant to ask for evidence that the Claimant is authorised to issue charges there. 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’).

6. 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 appearing to return to a ‘consideration for parking services’ (paras 6 and 9 of Claimant’s witness statement).

7. The Defendant wrote to Gladstones Solicitors on 09.12.17 specifically stating their confusion on point 4 and asked , in no uncertain terms, for clarification. They received no response. The Defendant wrote, again, to Gladstones Solicitors on 28.12.17 stating that no response had been received but again received no response. Consequently the Defendant will have no idea when attending the hearing as to on what legal basis this claim is being made which puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

8. 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.

9. Part of the point of the Practice Direction is to ensure both parties are on an ‘equal footing’. By refusing to clarify their position on the legal basis for this claim the Claimant has prevented the Defendant from being on an ‘equal footing’.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Communication from the Claimant is, on the whole, unduly threatening and does not represent a genuine effort to avoid litigation and resolve this dispute. Most communication includes the threat of increased costs if the Defendant does not comply with their demands. The Notice To Keeper says that the Defendant’s details have been requested from the DVLA when in fact no such request was made and the Claimant’s letter dated 05.05.2017 misquotes key case law (Vine vs Waltham) and makes all sorts of statements about the positioning of signage at the site which are completely false.

13. Communication from the Claimant’s agents Gladstone Solictitors is also unduly threatening and does not represent a genuine effort to avoid litigation and resolve this dispute. All communication includes the threat of increased costs if the Defendant does not comply with their demands. The LBC mentions sanctions for failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules which is completely irrelevant until proceedings have been issued and misleadingly implies that Gladstone Solictitors have some kind of court authority. This is a blatant attempt to intimidate the Defendant.

14. The Claimant’s witness statement is a ‘cut and paste job’ containing many irrelevant references to case law and rebuttals to points not even raised by the Defendant. The Claimant’s evidence bundle contains over thirty pages of completely irrelevant material and doesn’t even include a copy of the signage on which their case relies. Filing documents in this manner wastes both the Defendant’s time and the court’s time and is an abuse of the court process.

15. 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‘).

16. The Claimant and their agents Gladstones Solicitors are serial litigants and are well aware of the Civil Procedure Rules. They have, in the LBC, even used the threat of punitive costs for failure to comply with them as a method of intimidating the Defendant. There can be no resonable excuse for their own failure to comply.

17. 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.

I believe that the facts stated in the document are true

Yours Sincerely



xxxxx

Loadsofchildren123

Your costs schedule:
"Research on online forums etc (5hrs x £19) £95.00"
I wouldn't mention forums. I'd just say "research of private parking law, case law and court rules."


The costs argument: attach copies of the letters/documents you are referring to (not the PD, obvs). Can you flesh this out at all? Have they been late with anything? Can you refer to the vague PoC in the original claim form and say that they have never, until the WS stage, properly explained the basis of the claim. Have a look at Peperlini's thread to see if you can get anything out of her costs argument document.

Loadsofchildren123

Peperlini's thread contains a document which makes costs arguments both under R27.14 and also under the PD itself. It contains all the case law too.


Are you just relying on failure to comply with the PD or are you saying that the claim was so weak it should never have been brought, or that they have behaved badly during the litigation? The latter point doesn't come out much and whilst it's always worth going for UB costs I don't see the strength of the argument here.


The purpose of the PD is wider than putting you on an equal footing. it is to ensure an adequate exchange of information, with the C explaining their case and how they will evidence it so that you can understand that, and with the D responding with questions and their own defence, so that the C can understand his position. Both parties are then meant to "take stock", and to try to narrow the issues, or settle. This can only be done with a fair exchange of information at the pre-action phase.


Basically, all the issues that would be aired in a claim are aired in correspondence first, with the hope that some matters can be agreed or even settled. All of this takes place in what one case calls the "low cost atmosphere of the pre-action phase" as opposed to during proceedings, which are much more adversarial and cost much more because you have to draft formal court documents, attend court and so on.


All of this is set out in detail in Peperlini's documents, which are on her thread.


No need to start with your para 1, this is just a legal arguments document, not a statement, just delete it.

muleskinner

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Peperlini's thread contains a document which makes costs arguments both under R27.14 and also under the PD itself. It contains all the case law too.

Are you just relying on failure to comply with the PD or are you saying that the claim was so weak it should never have been brought, or that they have behaved badly during the litigation? The latter point doesn't come out much and whilst it's always worth going for UB costs I don't see the strength of the argument here.

Thanks for the input LoC.

I'm saying that they did not comply with the PD and that that caused the Defendant undue wasted time and prevented possible settlement of the claim. This would seem to be enough from my reading of Denton (which could well be wrong)!

The main cause of this is the shoddy PoC and the contradictory correspondence leading up to it that fails to state their position clearly.

Also, IMO, failing to supply landowner authority is a massive omission as

a) No sensible person would really pay a charge like this (on what appears to be public highway) without it and

b) The 'authority' that they eventually supplied at WS stage when you analyse it does not cover the bay in question. There's literally a big red line on one of the diagrams with text from the landowner saying 'cover from this point only' and the bay in question is well outside of the line! If this could have been covered off earlier litigation could have been avoided entirely (though that would depend on the C being reasonable of course)!

They haven't been late with any filings.

All the correspondence apart from one letter is included in the Defendant's WS, and the Claimant's. Do you think I need to duplicate it here?

muleskinner

OK - I have gone through this more or less from scratch based on the info in Peperlini's thread.

I misunderstood the difference between costs under R27.14 and those under the PD. I have split the doc into two sections which deals with each, as per Peperlini's.

For each point in the PD section I have tried to say how this contravenes the PD or the negative effect it had on the Defendant.

I have included the case law from Peperlini's thread.

The PPC weren't as slack here as in Peperlini's case, however I think they have still significantly failed to comply with the PD and behave unreasonable post-action by refusing to narrow down the legal basis of the claim and pursuing action on land on which they have absolutely no authority to operate (from my reading of the docs anyway).

Any more input much appreciated. I'm afraid to say I'm reaching brain meltdown stage now!

=====

Defendants's Costs Application

1.General costs rule in Small Claims: no costs order. However: 1.1.CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g): costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably. 1.2.Paragraph 16 of Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre-Action Conduct: a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest. Defendant says both apply and seeks a costs order against Claimant.

Breaches of Pre-action Conduct Practice Direction:

2. Paras 3, 8 and 12 of the Practice Direction set out its purpose, which is to primarily to avoid litigation (para 8) by laying down a procedure which allows the parties to:

2.1. Understand each other's positions (para 3)

2.2. Make decisions about how to proceed (para 3)

2.3. Explore settlement/consider ADR (para 3)

2.4. Support the !!!8220;efficient management!!!8221; of any proceedings and reduce costs (para 3)

2.5. !!!8220;Stocktake!!!8221; and review their respective positions after following the Practice Direction by exchanging information, to see if proceedings can be avoided and to !!!8220;at least!!!8221;narrow the issues (para 12).

3. Paras 6(a) & (c) oblige a Claimant to enter into a meaningful dialogue with a Defendant at an early stage by imposing specific obligations to:

3.1. Explain the claim in a Letter Before Claim (LBC),

3.2. Provide relevant core documents, and

3.3. Answer any questions asked by Defendant in sufficient detail for Defendant to understand and respond

5. The Claimant has failed to supply until witness statement stage any evidence of authority to enforce any kind of parking scheme on the land in question. This is particularly relevant in this case as the land appears to be public highway. This is a direct contravention of para 6(c) of the Practice Direction ('the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the issues in dispute').

6. The Defendant explicitly asked the Claimant for such evidence of authority in a letter dated 26.04.2017. The Claimant refused to honour this perfectly reasonable request. There can be no good reason for witholding such important documentation and doing so represents a significant failure to comply with the Practice Direction.

7. If the Claimant had provided, at an early stage, the details of the contractual relationship they have with the landowner that have been supplied 'at the last minute' in the witness statement it would have been obvious they had no authority to operate on the land in question and litigation could have been avoided.

8. By refusing to inform the Defendant of who the landowner is, the Claimant has prevented the Defendant from entering into a dialogue with the landowner - a route of appeal that is successful in resolving many of these types of cases at an early stage.

9. The Claimant's LBC does not provide any details of the legal basis on which this claim is made (e.g. trespass, breach of contract, payment for parkings services and so on). This 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').

10. Failure to supply details of the legal basis on which this claim is made also 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 trying to defend the case 'on all fronts'.

10. The Claimant's LBC includes spurious additional costs with no explanation as to how these are caclulated. This is a direct contravention of para 6(a) of the Practice Direction ('The Claimant writing to the Defendant with concise details of the claim.. if money, how the amount is calculated).

11. 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') and also para 8 ('the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings').

12. Para 13-16 of the Practice Direction refer to sanctions for non-complicance. Compliance with the Practice Direction is not voluntary, nor is it a !!!8220;guide!!!8221; to best practice. It is part of the Civil Procedure Rules and is binding. Parties are expected to comply with it. The court may punish those who do not. Inter alia, the court's powers include a costs order, and this may be on the indemnity basis (16(a) and (b)) and the power to remit (or increase) interest 16(c)/(d).

13. The Practice Direction's aim is to create an opportunity to resolve matters (or at least narrow issues) in the !!!8220;lower cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure!!!8221;, rather than the !!!8220;higher cost atmosphere of court proceedings!!!8221; (as it was referred to in Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855).

14. The Defendant relies on the following case law:

14.1. Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch);Successful Claimant failed to recover costs and ordered to pay Defendant's. Judgment reiterated that the aim of the pre-action requirements was to enable an early exchange of information so that a potential claim could be fully investigated and, if possible, resolved without the need for costly litigation.It clearly demonstrates that litigation should be a last resort, not pursued as a matter of course as Claimant has done in this case, also that key documents should be exchanged early in the proceedings.

14.2. Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872; Punitive costs order against Claimant for failing to comply with the Practice Direction. Paragraph 11: !!!8220;It is abundantly clear to me that..... this is not a series of allegations that had been properly or thoroughly investigated until.... !!!8220; after proceedings had been issued. Paragraph 14:!!!8220;The pre-action protocol provides that there should be a claim letter with a clear summary of the facts on which each claim is based!!!8221;, and !!!8220;the object of the protocol is... to get people to put their cards on the table and to honestly and rationally discuss matters. To that end meetings are provided for, and there is a requirement... which prescribes that there should be a rational and sensible response...the protocol provides the framework for a sensible discussion, or the chance for a sensible discussion so that the option is available to a party to avoid the need for litigation.!!!8221; By witholding key information and refusing to 'narrow down' the issues the Claimant has prevented such a discussion from ocurring in this case.

14.3.Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855; Defendant awarded costs because of Claimant's failure to comply with the Practice Direction. Judgment reiterates the purpose of the pre-action obligations is for parties to make a real attempt to resolve matters at an early stage. Paragraph 46: punitive costs order was justified by the !!!8220;exchange of information taking place, not in the lower-cost atmosphere of pre-action protocol procedure, but in the higher-cost atmosphere of court proceedings!!!8220;. In this case key documents were not supplied by the Claimant until proceeding were well underway.

Post-action conduct pursuant to Rule 27.14(2)(g):

15. The Claimant's unreasonable conduct extends beyond the pre-action phase and has continued during these proceedings.

16. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim were incoherent and provided no real details of the legal basis for the claim. In fact, the Particulars of Claim seem to contradict all previous correspondence with the Claimant as they refer to a 'breach of terms' (which clearly implies a breach of contract) as opposed to a 'consideration for parking services'. This is a serious and significant breach of CPR Part 16.4.The claim should have been struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4 as this did not allow the Defendant to fully understand and deal properly with the Claim, however the issue fee of £255 prevented the Defendant from making this application.

16. The Defendant wrote to Gladstones Solicitors on 09.12.17 specifically stating their confusion on the legal basis for the claim and asked , in no uncertain terms, for clarification. They received no response. The Defendant wrote, again, to Gladstones Solicitors on 28.12.17 stating that no response had been received but again received no response. Consequently the Defendant will have no idea when attending the hearing as to on what legal basis this claim is being made which puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

17. The legal basis for the claim as described in paras 6 and 9 of the Claimant's witness statement differs from that on the Particulars of Claim in that it refers to a 'consideration for parking services' rather than a chanrge for breach of contract. The Claimant seems to change their position on this on a whim.

18. The Claimant's witness statement is a 'cut and paste job' containing many irrelevant references to case law and rebuttals to points not even raised by the Defendant. The Claimant's evidence bundle contains over thirty pages of completely irrelevant material and doesn't even include a copy of the contract on which their case relies. Filing documents in this manner wastes both the Defendant's time and the court's time and is an abuse of the court process.

19. The Claimant's claim is entirely opportunistic, vexatious and without merit in that they have no authority to operate in any capacity on the land in question. The entire basis of this claim is either incompentence or blatant profiteering.

Summary:

20. The Claimant appears to believe it is immune from steps which each party to litigation is expected and required to take both prior to proceedings being issued, and afterwards. Its attitude to its obligations under the Practice Direction, and under the Civil Procedure Rules, to the court process and the rules of natural justice, is contemptuous and cannot go unnoticed and unpunished.

21. The Claimant's conduct, both pre- and post-action, has denied Defendant the opportunity to understand and deal with the claim: she has been unable properly to assess the strength of the claim at an early stage, to put her own case to the Claimant and for each party to have entered into dialogue.

22. Claimant's dogged determination to proceed to court regardless of whatever Defendant has to say has resulted in a significant waste of time and costs and court resources. Defendant has had to submit a lengthy defence statement, a lengthy witness statement, accompanied by a large amount of legislation and case law.

23. In considering the reasonableness of Claimant's conduct the court should take into account its position as a professional parking company whose day to day business is issuing PCNs and pursuing motorists for payment. It is therefore a seasoned litigant which should be fully conversant with the court rules and its obligations. Additionally, Claimant is specifically bound by its CoP (compliance with which is mandatory) to know the relevant legislation which binds. In comparison, Defendant is a litigant in person, an ordinary person with no experience of the court (yet has managed to comply with all of her obligations and the court rules).

24. The Claimant has, in the LBC, used the threat of punitive costs for failure to comply with the Practice Direction and Civil Procedure Rules as a method of intimidating the Defendant. There can be no resonable excuse for their own failure to comply.

25.This case falls comfortably within the category of those in which the court should exercise its powers under R27.14(2)(g) and/or para 16 of the Practice Direction. The Claimant's conduct clearly falls within that contemplated in Mr Peter Mills Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269] as reaching the threshold of unreasonable behaviour and a costs order should be made.

26. The Defendant relies on the following case law in support of R27.14(2)(g):18.1.Mr Peter Mills Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269;Appeal to overturn costs order made against Mr Dammerman. The appeal was dismissed and the costs order was upheld. Paragraph 20: !!!8220;In a most helpful and clear skeleton argument, Ms Tildesley, for Lanyon Bowdler, having referred to the existing case law on the topic of unreasonable behaviour, submits that the judge's decision on costs should be upheld. She, too, makes three central submissions. Firstly, that Mr Dammermann received Lanyon Bowdler's very clear skeleton argument some six or seven weeks prior to the appeal hearing and, notwithstanding the grant of permission to appeal, he should have understood that, in the light of the law cited in the skeleton, there was no prospect at all of the appeal succeeding. He had therefore unreasonably pursued a losing case!!!8221;