Questions about Schedule 4 of POFA

ihatetrump

Tomorrow - but it may end up just being a Directions Hearing - hope not, but who knows. I'll introduce it verbally if given the chance.

ihatetrump

Hearing postponed due to unavailability of a judge - new date tba - so frustrating - especially after getting myself psyched up for the battle....

ihatetrump

As I await a revised Hearing date, (confirmation received today for a date in late October) I've been re-examining all of my paperwork and double/triple checking things (as an accountant is prone to do   )

The original FCN was £100, of which has been added £12.84 for interest and their usual £60 of recovery costs (blah blah blah) for an amount claimed of £172.84. Added to this is a Court fee of £25 and Legal representative's costs of £50 (blah blah blah) for a total amount of £247.84. This amount has remained the same with all BWL's subsequent drivel correspondence right up until they filed their WS, when yet another £25 was added - no explanation offered, just another £25 added.

Part of me wants to go back to them and ask for an explanation, because it seems like an error to me and that they have maybe added the Court fee again. However, on reflection would I be better to wait for my day in Court, question it then and maybe 'ambush' their 'gun for hire' advocate who clearly shouldn't have a clue.

Am I missing something?

Fruitcake

The extra £25 might be the court hearing fee. It is not always claimed, but is permitted as it is actually meant to cover the cost of the claimant attending the court. However, if this is to be a 'phone/video hearing, then there will be no attendance of a legal rep at the court, therefore it will be unreasonable to claim it.

D_P_Dance

1. 
   Part of me wants to go back to them and ask for an explanation, 
   
   
2. 
   
3. Of course you should.  There has been no mistake, they have deliberately added on an unlawful sum, read this,

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''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Jenni_D

Fruitcake said:

The extra £25 might be the court attendance fee. It is not always claimed, but is permitted as it is actually meant to cover the cost of the claimant attending the court. However, if this is to be a 'phone/video hearing, then there will be no attendance of a legal rep at the court, therefore it will be unreasonable to claim it.

It's more likely to be the court hearing fee. (£25 filing fee and £25 hearing fee, both are costs borne by the C so can [usually] be reclaimed from the D if the C wins).

Fruitcake

Jenni_D said:

Fruitcake said:

The extra £25 might be the court attendance fee. It is not always claimed, but is permitted as it is actually meant to cover the cost of the claimant attending the court. However, if this is to be a 'phone/video hearing, then there will be no attendance of a legal rep at the court, therefore it will be unreasonable to claim it.

It's more likely to be the court hearing fee. (£25 filing fee and £25 hearing fee, both are costs borne by the C so can [usually] be reclaimed from the D if the C wins).

Thanks. I couldn't remember the correct term.

ihatetrump

Thanks all.

@Fruitcake - it's been scheduled as a 30 minute hearing via MST (originally just a simple telephone call  - so now it's video also) so no Court hearing fee. (thanks @Jenni_D)

@D_P_Dance - my WS already fights the double (and illegal) charge and includes Excel vs Wilkinson. Unfortunately I hadn't picked up on the thread from @Coupon-mad  Witness statements: 2 transcripts re parking firms' false 'costs' - Recorder Cohen QC judgment 2021and so I didn't include Chevalier-Firescu v Ashfords LLP (only read this today when it was bumped up to the first page).

As BWL will have had my WS for 3 months, I'm still inclined to leave this additional fee it until the hearing, and bring it up verbally rather than bringing it to the fore again with them. I'm hopeful that the other parts of my WS will win through anyway and the case will be dismissed before we even get to costs.

Fruitcake

There is nothing stopping you from sending a supplementary WS. The worst thing that can happen is that the court won't allow it, but you have nothing to lose by adding anything new that might be of help.

Coupon-mad

Or just add a skeleton argument with the Recorder Cohen case attached in support of your defence and WS already filed.