County Court Claim

DoaM

I'm not sure if there's any guidance on wording, but it is usually termed "Without prejudice save as to costs". Yes, they make reference to both aspects in their offer letter, but the 2 aren't easily linked. As such a reasonable person may conclude that this is a Without Prejudice letter and so cannot be disclosed to the court.

As to your question - they'd be trying to paint you as "unreasonable" (by rejecting the "offer") so that they could maximise their costs. It isn't a reasonable offer so don't fret about it. Counter-offer with a drop-hands offer as above.

mercuteio

DoaM wrote: »

I'm not sure if there's any guidance on wording, but it is usually termed "Without prejudice save as to costs". Yes, they make reference to both aspects in their offer letter, but the 2 aren't easily linked. As such a reasonable person may conclude that this is a Without Prejudice letter and so cannot be disclosed to the court.

As to your question - they'd be trying to paint you as "unreasonable" so that they could maximise their costs.

Thanks, DoaM - I wondered that myself!

mercuteio

Ok, here is a proposed reply. Let me know if you think I should amend in any way. Otherwise, I will send shortly:

Dear Sir,

Re: Claim ***

This email is written on a Without Prejudice basis.

Today I have received your letter offering settlement of the claim above for a payment of £125, and given the proximity to the court hearing date, have chosen to reply by email rather than postal letter, to ensure that this is received before the court hearing. By now, you will have seen the Defence Statement, Witness Statement and Exhibits, and it will be clear that there was no contractual agreement in place between Vehicle Control Services Ltd and myself.

Whilst the principle of settlement is acceptable to me, the terms that you have set are not. It has taken considerable time to prepare the Defence Statement, Witness Statement and Exhibits, as well as significant printing charges. Additionally, Vehicle Control Services Ltd is continuing to pursue a separate court claim against me with substantially identical Particulars of Claim at the same time (Claim ***), which I have highlighted to the Court.

Given that you have chosen to proceed to the Small Claims Track not once, but twice, for incidents where there was no contractual agreement or other connection between the litigants, I would be happy to accept a settlement under the following terms:

1) Vehicle Control Services Ltd agrees to drop both claims against me in their entirety (Claims *** and ***) and ceases to pursue either of these any further

2) Vehicle Control Services Ltd pays a settlement charge to me of £150 to account for the time and costs that have so far been spent in defending these two claims

3) Vehicle Control Services Ltd agrees not to share my data with any other individual, company or organisation

4) Vehicle Control Services Ltd discards all data relating to me on its own systems, such that no further contact can be made between Vehicle Control Services Ltd and myself

Should you wish to accept these terms, please confirm this both by email and letter, and address a cheque for £150 to ***. If you do not accept this offer, I will be happy to demonstrate my argument in Court, and will meet you there.

Yours faithfully,
***

Umkomaas

Mark the letter as DoaM advised Without prejudice save as to costs.

If you win the court is likely to award to you in costs (if VCS continue) would likely be:

Up to £95 for half a day's pay/loss of annual leave (take payslips to prove earnings level)
A bit for travel costs and a bit for parking on the day. All in all it's not going to be much more than £100.

With you asking for £150, VCS may just feel it worthwhile to take a punt at court as they would be unlikely to have to pay as much as £150, if they lost ..... and they might still win.

This becomes a game of Poker now.

Coupon-mad

I agree about heading it as advised, which is not the same as your first sentence.

The word 'charge' is wrong, this is about costs which has a distinct meaning:

2) Vehicle Control Services Ltd pays [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] settlement [STRIKE]charge[/STRIKE] costs to me of £150 to account for the considerable time and [STRIKE]costs[/STRIKE] expense [STRIKE]that have so far been spent[/STRIKE] in defending these two claims. I have already furnished you with a copy of my costs schedule but attach a copy of it now, which breaks down my hours spent at the Litigant in Person hourly rate of £19 pr hour, plus my printing and stationery costs in fighting two meritless claims.

I hope you have filed a costs schedule already that matches your £150 costs suggestion? Attach it to this email again, or if your first costs schedule version doesn't match £150 - and I don't mean the ordinary costs for attending a hearing of course - create one that does and attach that!

nosferatu1001

They *cannot* show that letter to court, and you woudl object strongly if they tried to.

mercuteio

Umkomaas wrote: »

Mark the letter as DoaM advised Without prejudice save as to costs.

Thanks for this reply, Umkomaas. Ok, got it - will do.

Umkomaas wrote: »

If you win the court is likely to award to you in costs (if VCS continue) would likely be:

Up to £95 for half a day's pay/loss of annual leave (take payslips to prove earnings level)
A bit for travel costs and a bit for parking on the day. All in all it's not going to be much more than £100.

With you asking for £150, VCS may just feel it worthwhile to take a punt at court as they would be unlikely to have to pay as much as £150, if they lost ..... and they might still win.

This becomes a game of Poker now.

Hmm, I see - I had thought of it more as costs of £100 for my time spent preparing for this case (Defence Statement + Witness Statement) and £50 for my time preparing the second case against me (Defence Statement only so far) but I suppose they'll only be thinking about the current one at this point. Ok, I think I'll reduce that to £100

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree about heading it as advised, which is not the same as your first sentence.

The word 'charge' is wrong, this is about costs which has a distinct meaning:
I hope you have filed a costs schedule already that matches your £150 costs suggestion? Attach it to this email again, or if your first costs schedule version doesn't match £150 - and I don't mean the ordinary costs for attending a hearing of course - create one that does and attach that!

Hi CM - thanks for this. Firstly, thanks for the note on costs vs. charges. I must admit I haven't looked into the costs stuff yet (was planning this on Thursday). I used £150 because I was thinking of £100 costs for my preparation of Defence and Witness Statements for the current case, and £50 for the preparation of the Defence Statement for the second case, but haven't really thought about this in any greater level of detail than that. From looking at Umkomaas' comment above, though, it sounds like I'd be much wiser to stick to £100.

It also sounds, from your reply, like I shouldn't send this email until I've looked up what I need to do understand and prepare regarding costs schedules. Will start looking this up tonight. If I'm honest, I don't really know much about what exactly a costs schedule is yet, but you've referenced it earlier in this thread, so will get on the case and start looking into it. I was planning to just look it up a couple of days before the hearing itself, but I think I need to know what this involves before I send this email, or I'll probably end up contradicting myself with the costs schedule I present in the hearing.

Once I look this up more, I may return with some questions regarding costs schedules, but I'll look the basics up first. Thank-you!

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

They *cannot* show that letter to court, and you woudl object strongly if they tried to.

Yes, I thought that too, Nosferatu1001. Right then, will be much more ready to object if they try to use this letter. Thank-you!

mercuteio

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree about heading it as advised, which is not the same as your first sentence.

The word 'charge' is wrong, this is about costs which has a distinct meaning:
I hope you have filed a costs schedule already that matches your £150 costs suggestion? Attach it to this email again, or if your first costs schedule version doesn't match £150 - and I don't mean the ordinary costs for attending a hearing of course - create one that does and attach that!

Ooh, I’ve just realised that you completely rewrote one of my paragraphs, CM - thank-you!!

mercuteio

Umkomaas wrote: »

Mark the letter as DoaM advised Without prejudice save as to costs.

If you win the court is likely to award to you in costs (if VCS continue) would likely be:

Up to £95 for half a day's pay/loss of annual leave (take payslips to prove earnings level)
A bit for travel costs and a bit for parking on the day. All in all it's not going to be much more than £100.

With you asking for £150, VCS may just feel it worthwhile to take a punt at court as they would be unlikely to have to pay as much as £150, if they lost ..... and they might still win.

This becomes a game of Poker now.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I agree about heading it as advised, which is not the same as your first sentence.

The word 'charge' is wrong, this is about costs which has a distinct meaning:
I hope you have filed a costs schedule already that matches your £150 costs suggestion? Attach it to this email again, or if your first costs schedule version doesn't match £150 - and I don't mean the ordinary costs for attending a hearing of course - create one that does and attach that!

Hello Umkomaas and Coupon-mad,

Ok, I've just got up to speed on costs schedules. Having now calculated this according to CM's link from the Newbies thread, the costs schedule that I plan to bring to court looks as follows:

Ordinary Costs

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court **/**/**** £95.00

Return mileage from home address to Court (20 miles x £0.45) £9.00

Parking near Court £5.00

Sub-total £109.00


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

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (3 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £57.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £20.00

Sub-total £72.00


£186.00 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED

So, my questions are as follows:

1) Should I have filed this with my witness statement and exhibits? Given that I did not, does that mean that this costs schedule will not be considered, or is it sensible to just turn up with it and ask for it to be considered if I win?

2) Does this actually seem reasonable? Umkomaas indicated that the costs are likely to amount to approximately £100, which I believe is based on the Ordinary Costs listed above (not including costs for the Claimant's unreasonable behaviour). However, Coupon-mad's costs schedule from the Newbies thread specifically adds £72 for unreasonable behaviour as listed above (I've added an extra £5 for printing, seeing as I included a load of photos and it genuinely cost me £10 per copy to print). I'm inclined to keep it as £186 unless you think that this will just make the judge think I'm being unreasonable, and thus dismiss my claim for costs.

3) Given that this adds up to £186, I am inclined to place my settlement costs at £150 based on the following costs schedule:

- Research, preparation and drafting of documents for Claim 1 (3 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £57.00

- Research, preparation and drafting of documents for Claim 2 (3 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour) £57.00

- Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage for Claim 1 £20.00

- Stationery, printing and photocopying for Claim 2 £16.00

Total costs of settlement £150

Does this seem like a reasonable course of action? Specifically, do you think a judge will deem it a reasonable course of action if they reject this settlement offer?

Many thanks, as always!

KeithP

You would be wise to file your Cost Schedule with the court and serve it on the Claimant a few days before the hearing - the earlier the better.