BWlegal/Britannia want £250 - advice please

bwlowlifes

Hello hope you are all well.

I have received a letter that says "notice of allocation to the small claims track" that says if the claimant doesn't pay the court fee by a certain date then the case will be struck out

I'm not sure what's happened here but I haven't been asked for any evidence or a witness statement however it mentions the hearing date for the claim at the bottom of the letter?

I feel out of my depth going into a hearing with no knowledge on this

Coupon-mad

Read the letter again. 

It DOES tell all parties what they have to do and by when, usually in the blurb on page 2/the back.  Read it all.

bwlowlifes

It's only 3 pages but it literally just says what I mentioned about paying the trial fee. Instructions on attending the hearing, and a full page about recommending a mediation.

bwlowlifes

Now there is this but it lacks any instruction on how to actually do any of it. Like actually sending the witness statement etc. I have actually missed the date mentioned for sending documents as the hearing is very soon. What would be the best course of action from here?

Thank you 

KeithP

Is there not a paragraph something like:

Each party must deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than [ . . . ] [14 days before the hearing].

Might be on the back.

Those documents you intend to rely on are your Witness Statement and evidence.

Edited to add...
Ahh... now you've shown us the Notice, paragraph 1 says exactly that.

Coupon-mad

This is normal, there are never instructions about how to file and serve the WS and evidence but everyone emails them these days.  Our guidance in the NEWBIES thread tells you all that, about WS & evidence stage.  You have all the info you need and your deadline, same as every case we see.

Please don't assume they won't pay the fee.  They will, so crack on.

bwlowlifes

Is it worth sending my WS and evidence even if the deadline has passed?

Coupon-mad

What do you think the answer is to that question?  Surely you HAVEN'T missed your deadline?

This has been asked umpteen times by people who haven't read their Court Directions properly.   What is the sensible thing to do = OBVIOUSLY DO IT TOMORROW AND GET IT ALL EMAILED OFF ANYWAY.

Copy and adapt recent WS from this week that include the judgment by Recorder Cohen QC.  

bwlowlifes

Hi @Coupon-mad really sorry to be a nuisance but where am I to find this example witness statement? 

I've found this below but the most recent WS example I can find is from @duckieb  from 22nd April?

The fairness of terms where no sum is specified, was recently ruled upon by Recorder Cohen QC, sitting at the Central London County Court, in the case of Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords LLP [2021] F83YX432, where it was held that a term stating that the appellant would be held liable for costs on the indemnity basis was improper in purpose and thus unfair pursuant to s62 of the CRA, as it created imbalance between the parties.  Such a ‘contractual indemnity costs’ clause sidesteps the Civil Procedure Rules and cannot be recoverable, absent unreasonable conduct by the Defendant.

Recorder Cohen held that: ''it does seem to me to be clear that this clause has an effect which is unusual, perhaps even abnormal in effect'' and at [13] he summarised the two issues arising from this remarkably similar clause to that in this case, which had the object or effect of creating a more generous basis of costs recovery than there would ordinarily be, in the case of both default judgments and defended cases, whereby consumers stood to be penalised as if CPR 27.14(g) applied.

What to say about Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

bwlowlifes

Or if anyone else could point me in the right direction for example WS - This thing isn't very newbie friendly