JLA "Stopping" Charge

Router66

Hi @Grizebeck, the case is a block listing at Stockport.

Grizebeck

Router66 said:

Hi @Grizebeck, the case is a block listing at Stockport.

So yes it will just be heard by the next available just on the list and could be one of any 3 or so judges

Router66

Thanks for the insight @Grizebeck...I wondered how it worked. When the judge adjourned the first hearing, she made it clear to the VCS Rep that their client would not be getting the £60 added to the initial charge. The judge also said that she sits at the Stockport court 4 days a week and there would be a good chance she would hear the re-listed case.
The N24 has named a different judge but hopefully the judge from the first hearing is available as she was not impressed with the case brought by VCS.

Router66

I have edited my post on 18 October at 9:57AM which now shows the body text for the Email to the court and claimant.
The Schedule of Costs attachment has also been edited to refer to the (ongoing) preparation of a replacement Index (rather than a replacement 192-page bundle).

The hearing date is in two weeks so I would like to send this Email today/tomorrow. Please advise any further suggestions. 

Coupon-mad

Router66 said:

No-one said 'request a preliminary hearing'. Yep, apologies, wrong choice of words...raise a preliminary matter, (like you said!)
Draft Cost Assessment below...is this over the top? 

Edited 19/10/22...

Email body text to court and claimant:

Dear Sir/Madam,

                           please find attached my Schedule of Costs in respect of claim number XXXXXXXX to be heard at the County Court of Stockport on 3rd November 2022. 
YF
Word Docx text in the attachment: 

In the County Court at Stockport

Claim Number: XXXXXXXX

Hearing Date: 03/11/2022

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS:

Ordinary Costs:

Loss of earnings through attendance at court hearing 03/11/2022: £95.00

Rail Travel                                                                                       £12.50

Shortfall due from court costs awarded on 30/07/2022                   £0.50

Further costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 44.11

Research, preparation and drafting documents:

MP Correspondence: 1 hour

Re-visiting the claimant's site: 2 hours

LJLA correspondence regarding complaint: 2hrs

Documents – LBC, (2 hrs) Defence, (3 hrs) Witness Statement + Evidence (6 hrs)

* Replacement Index (4 hrs):

Total 20 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour): £380

Stationary, printing, photocopying and postage: £24

 

* Note: The combined bundle prepared by the Claimant (per the court's order) was very confusing and would be impossible for any party to use effectively. Accordingly, it is my intention to prepare a replacement index to assist the court on the day of the hearing. 

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED £512.00

 

Signature:

Defendant:

XX/XX/2022

 

That looks good - far better than a new bundle - but costs shouldn't be a Word doc.

Router66

Thanks for the thumbs up CM...Will send as a PDF to the claimant and the court.

Router66

Further costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 44.11
In my Schedule of Costs I have quoted CPR 44.11, the source of which was from the Newbies section.
When I later started reading up about unreasonable behaviour, I have come across CPR 27.14 (2) (g) which seems more relevant than anything I can find under CPR 44.11.
I would be grateful if anyone could explain which rule unreasonable behaviour is pursuant to, and if CPR 27.14 (2) (g) can I submit a revised version of my Schedule of Costs to replace those which have already been sent to the court and claimant? 

Router66

Router66 said:

Further costs for Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 44.11
In my Schedule of Costs, I have quoted CPR 44.11, the source of which was from the Newbies section.
When I later started reading up about unreasonable behaviour, I have come across CPR 27.14 (2) (g) which seems more relevant than anything I can find under CPR 44.11.
I would be grateful if anyone could explain which rule unreasonable behaviour is pursuant to, and if CPR 27.14 (2) (g) can I submit a revised version of my Schedule of Costs to replace those which have already been sent to the court and claimant? 

I have now come across another thread that refers to CPR 44.11 so will stick with this rule. I appreciate the forum advice on the required subtlety of bringing unreasonable behaviour to the attention of the judge, so I have produced a crib note to read out rather than try and remember all the issues. Any feedback much appreciated. 

Before the judge opens proceedings, ask permission to raise a preliminary matter and point out...

The bundle I have received has not been fully paginated or correctly indexed and is therefore not compliant with the court order point 2 dated 30th July 2022.

• Pages numbers 18-30 have not been paginated and remain exactly as they were in the claimant’s original bundle...overwritten and obliterated.

• The claimant’s site information, notices and evidence are indexed incorrectly on page 132 (also not paginated) under “Defendant’s Evidence.”

• The claimant has re-paginated all of my evidence, rendering my index and the rest of the bundle unworkable.
Furthermore:

The claimant has also failed to comply with point 3 of the court order, to pay me £82 earnings and £12.50 travel by the 8th of August 2022.

• I received a cheque for £94 postmarked 9th August 2022 and delivered on the 11th of August 2022 (cheque was therefore 3 days late and 50p short of the amount ordered).

Given that the claimant has a designated litigation team there can be no reasonable explanation to justify why the claimant has ridden roughshod over three court orders; by doing so the claimant has delayed the outcome of this claim and extended the anxiety which has impacted on my peace of mind and daily life for nearly 4 years. 

Ref. White Book (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2) (dg))."  I therefore respectfully ask the court to consider the behaviour of the claimant unreasonable, not solely for ignoring the court orders but also on the basis of the claimants wholly unreasonable conduct throughout.

Router66

Court Report: Case H8QZ4Z6R heard by DDJ Ness at Stockport County Court on 3rd November 2022.
Background:
This case was adjourned on the 25th July 2022 as the claimant had failed to paginate and index their bundle. DDJ Nabou ordered VCS to file and serve a new bundle for this hearing.

My son was the defendant in this case and I was allowed to sit with him in court on both occasions for note-taking purposes; we both felt confident that this was a slam-dunk case as the replacement bundle was worse than the first.

The judge asked the claimant to open with an outline of his client’s case;
The defendant had the opportunity to put forward his defence. Both were invited to cross-examine
Judge Ness intervened from time to time to clarify various points.

The claimant pressed hard on a breach of contract by stopping, arguing that there were many signs which clearly stated that if you stop you must pay £100. Some time was spent looking at a photo from the hard copy 132 page Witness Statement; this was to establish the purpose of a red sign plus text which was sited on the overhead gantry. The text was unreadable on the photo but the claimant tried to convince the judge that it was a “No Stopping” sign. The claimant then referred to their photo evidence of the defendant's car stopped in the gateway; he argued that there was a directional sign by the entrance showing that the drop off area was straight on and therefore not a left turn into the  gateway. The judge pointed out that the directional signage was obscured by tree branches but the claimant argued that the sign would not be obscured from the driver when approaching the gateway. The claimant also pointed out that the passing car in the photo, (which was mentioned in the defendant’s Witness Statement) was 2/300 metres beyond the gateway and therefore would not have caused the driver to stop.

The judge then asked the defendant to respond and by doing so, the defendant missed the opportunity to present a preliminary matter.

As the defendant had the benefit of viewing the bundle from a laptop he was able to enlarge the red sign and advise the judge that the text read “Short Stay Parking”! The judge was then taken to the images of the entrance and repeater signs in situ. The defendant explained that the repeater signs on the fence were at 90 degrees to the road and too far away from the right hand lane to be read, even if there was a clear view across the inside lane, footpath, bicycle lane and grass verge.
The image of the entrance signs were shown to be obscured by tree branches. 
The defendant did not accept the claimant’s view that the blue car did not cause him to stop and added that there was other traffic behind the blue car that was not in picture. The defendant also stated that he was not aware of the hidden direction sign until he spotted it in the claimant’s correspondence.

The defendant added that the area within the gateway was not shown as part of the land the claimant was authorised to patrol. The judge was shown two overheads in the bundle, one from the contract which showed the red lines not to run into the gateway; the second overhead appeared to be of dubious origin and had extra red lines drawn all around the entrapment area.
The judge asked the claimant to explain and discussion went off-piste between the claimant and the judge about the fact that the contract had expired. The Judge made it clear to the claimant that if the terms of a contract are changed then the contract should be renewed. The claimant’s position was that the contract was valid even though it had expired.

The defendant aimed to re-claim his right to speak and took the opportunity to raise some of the issues contained in the Preliminary Matter.
The judge very quickly closed down the defendant, saying he was not interested in hearing about anything other than whether or not there was a breach of contract.

The judge then asked the claimant if he wished to cross-examine the defendant – he declined.

Just before lunch the judge summarised the submissions for each party.
The judge made it clear to the claimant that in his view, the blue car was only a few metres away from the stopped car and the suggestion that it was 300 metres would not be accepted. Other than that, the claimant was happy and confirmed acceptance of the judge’s summation.

When summing up the defendant’s position the judge made the point that it may or may not have been the case that the defendant stopped to drop of a passenger; however since this was not mentioned by the claimant he will accept the defendant’s position that he stopped to give way to passing traffic which had priority.
The claimant then interrupted judge saying that he believed the defendant did indeed stop to drop off passengers. However the judge explained that the claimant should have mentioned this earlier in the hearing or during cross-examination.

The defendant accepted the judge’s summation and we convened for lunch at 1-30pm. During lunch the defendant and I both agreed that we had dodged a bullet on the dropping off passengers point since this was admitted in the very first point of the defendant’s Witness Statement (although there was no mention of where the passengers were dropped off).

On re-convening at 2.30pm the judge opened by saying his decision was based on 3 elements and he went on to give an impressively accurate account on what had taken place during the morning session. The judge’s decision on these 3 elements as follows:-

Element One – The signage was acceptable in forming a contract.
Element Two – Whilst some of the signs were obscured, there was enough of them to alert the defendant that there was a penalty for stopping
Element Three – The defendant found himself in a gateway after following the directional signs and was forced to stop to give way to passing traffic.
The court found in favour of the defendant.
Costs awarded £94.50 for the 1st hearing and £107.50 for the 2nd hearing.

Jenni_D

Well done - ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Excellent court report.