County Court Defence Help Please

Le_Kirk

Well, at least it is over, good result.  Shame the letter from the court does not include reasons why it was struck out.

KeithP

Quite unusual I think to see a case struck out with a simple letter like that.

I think I would be writing back to Mrs Charlotte Danneau asking her why the claim has been struck out.
If, for example, it is because the Claimant hasn't paid the hearing fee, the Claimant may well have paid the fee but the court has made a mistake. We do see this from time to time.

Don't cheer too loudly just yet. Keep all your paperwork safe for the time being.

dollydoodar

Umkomaas said:

Do you have medical evidence?  Did you consult a doctor?  Were you prescribed any treatment/medication for the condition?  Did the doctor directly link any stress to the pursuit by the PPC?  Do you have it in writing?

What other 'unreasonable behaviour' did the PPC exhibit?  Can it be distinguished from any standard PPC behaviour in chasing unpaid parking charges?

These aren't clever d|ck questions, but points you'd need to consider in building enough evidence you'll likely need to succeed in getting over a very high bar in an 'unreasonable behaviour' costs submission. 

i have had a breakdown whilst this has been going on which is well documented. i don't think my doctor would atrribute the PCN as the sole contributor lol but it certainly didn't help the situation. i did mention it to my doctor once and i believe she recorded it. 
Thank you so much to @Coupon-mad these are the paragraphs in my WS that she advised me to submit about unreasonable behaviour. i find it a bit rude of the court not to address it, as well as not give a reason for the strike out. personally i feel as though CEL have behaved very unreasonably. they obviously knew from the beginning that i have a disability and not once did they address that...

8. I respectfully ask that the Judge grants my costs anyway, in the event of a NoD, and uses the court's discretion to dispense with any formal application in this case because I qualify for help with fees (exemption) on income grounds and I have surely been put through more than enough by this litigation, and because the court has a wide discretion on the issue of costs where a party has crossed the line into "unreasonable behaviour" in pre and/or post-action conduct in the small claims track.

9. Litigation is not risk-free for a parking firm pursuing a person without justification (unlawfully in this case), and this Claimant must take his victim as he finds me. The thin skull or 'egg-shell' rule is a well-established principle in both English law that takes into account the physical, social and economic attributes of the other party, which might make them more susceptible to injury or distress, whether physical or mental injury is the result. The principle requires the Claimant in this case to compensate me to the full extent of my distress and injury to feelings even though they may be more serious than expected because of my pre-existing conditions, predispositions, and vulnerabilities, and in this respect I ask that the Judge gives due consideration to a suitable percentage 'uplift' being applied to my Summary Costs Assessment, as the Judge sees fit, to send a message to this parking firm that they cannot breach consumer and disability laws. This Claimant has indisputably caused serious distress to me, affecting my peace of mind and upsetting family life, finally dragging me to court, and I fear, at the hearing will now issue a NoD at this late stage and expect to walk away.

Coupon-mad

Send in a request that the planned hearing remains listed in the interests of fairness and justice, for a 15 minute costs hearing by phone, due to the wholly unreasonable series of actions of this Claimant in pre and post-action conduct which amounted to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (by exaggerating the claim).  This conduct was fully documented in your witness statement which was accompanied (was it?) by a summary costs assessment.

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad said:

Send in a request that the planned hearing remains listed in the interests of fairness and justice, for a 15 minute costs hearing by phone, due to the wholly unreasonable series of actions of this Claimant in pre and post-action conduct which amounted to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (by exaggerating the claim).  This conduct was fully documented in your witness statement which was accompanied (was it?) by a summary costs assessment.

when you say documented, do you mean did i inform the judge about their conduct? i did that yes and i sent the summary of costs assessment..

can you please advise me on who to address the request to?

Coupon-mad

The Judge who was due to hear the case, whose name was on the previous Order about the hearing date.

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad said:

The Judge who was due to hear the case, whose name was on the previous Order about the hearing date.

hi there, i sent the request to the judge by attaching a pdf in an email to the court. i explained in the email that i was not given a reason for the strike out and the court replied today explaining that the Claimnat had not paid the fee. i don't know what to do now as i presume the claim cannot go ahead as i have requested due to the fee not being paid. am i right in thinking this?

Coupon-mad

Yes.  Did they say you could pay the fee to keep the hearing open as a costs hearing like I suggested?

Might be too late now.

KeithP

dollydoodar said:

...the court replied today explaining that the Claimnat had not paid the fee. i don't know what to do now as i presume the claim cannot go ahead as i have requested due to the fee not being paid. am i right in thinking this?

You may be right to hope that, but please re-read my post on 10 July at 2:15PM.

dollydoodar

Coupon-mad said:

Yes.  Did they say you could pay the fee to keep the hearing open as a costs hearing like I suggested?

Might be too late now.

i just sent another email asking...

KeithP said:

dollydoodar said:

...the court replied today explaining that the Claimnat had not paid the fee. i don't know what to do now as i presume the claim cannot go ahead as i have requested due to the fee not being paid. am i right in thinking this?

You may be right to hope that, but please re-read my post on 10 July at 2:15PM.

i also explained that i was concerned and quoted what you told me on the 10th july