Had an excess charge notice (private land) September 2016. I won, I think!

TW100

Another question.  Could I cite the costs hearing case of PP vs Jones in my letter?

KeithP

A Notice of Discontinuance on 10th August for a hearing scheduled on 16th August is too late to be considered reasonable behaviour.

Coupon-mad

TW100 said:

Another question.  Could I cite the costs hearing case of PP vs Jones in my letter?

Yes if you want.

List the course of unreasonable conduct including that the Claimant also failed to serve any witness statement and yet waited and waited, then emailed a discontinuance with just days to go before the hearing, sn email with an unremarkable gobbledegook header of numbers that was not seen (blah blah...).

If you filed and served a costs assessment, attach that again and state the date the Claimant had it in their hands.

Use the same citation of the White Book notes that the other poster did. 

TW100

This is what I have so far

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

I attended court for my hearing on the 16/08/2022 and was advised by the Court that the listed hearing for this claim was no longer going ahead that day. I was simply told that it had been ‘settled’ and I could leave the court. I knew nothing about this and didn’t even know what the term ‘settled’ meant. I called the Court later that day and was again told that the claim had been ‘settled’ and I could contact the court regarding the defendant’s costs.

 

I was extremely frustrated with this outcome as I had accrued significant costs to prepare my Defence and had taken a day’s leave from work to attend the hearing.

 

Yesterday, 17th August 2022, I trawled through my emails and found I had been contacted by Gladstones Solicitors on the 10th of August confirming they had filed a Notice of Discontinuance. Given the high importance of its content, I was not at all surprised that I had passed it by. Instead of the email making clear it was from Gladstones Solicitors, flagged as important or any form of indication that I should read this email, it had been sent by a member of staff, just an unknown name to me. Completely innocuous and easily passed off as spam. Furthermore, the beginning of the content in the subject line was seventeen digits long plus a dot and two forward slashes, which turns out to be the reference number they allocated for the claim. Following these digits, it does have the wording Local parking Security Ltd vs ?, however, after the eye browses over an unfamiliar name and a list of numbers that looks like some sort of I.P. address, it is not in the least surprising that I missed it.

 

Furthermore, the Directions that applied to this claim states that: -

Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documentation on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than fourteen days before the hearing. This would have been the 2nd of August and I received nothing, so the Claimant had failed to follow the Court's Directions given that they did not submit the Notice of Discontinuance until six days before the hearing.

 

CPR r.38.6 states that the claimant is liable for the defendant's costs after

discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) but that this does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the white book states (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))."

 

On this basis, I would like to request that the defendants’ costs are made against the Claimant.

 

The Civil Procedures Rules 1998 state: -

Section 27.14—(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.

(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs except—

(d)such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.

 

Unreasonable practices

 

·        Innocuous communication practices designed not to alert the attention of the recipient.

·        Gladstones emailed me on the 28th of August 2022 (again an email that was missed due to its innocuous nature)      proposing a ‘drop hands’ settlement. Unreasonable in that this was issued just six days prior to when documentation relied upon as evidence was to be submitted to all parties.

·        A notice of discontinuance issued six days before the trial. Unreasonable for this to be served with limited time before the trial.

·        Case being taken to court six years after the initial Notice To Driver was issued. This is unreasonable behaviour.

 

It is wholly unreasonable for the Claimant to have left the matters to the very last juncture at each turn before discontinuing at a time when I was all set for trial, had undertaken vast amounts of work in preparation to produce as evidence which consisted in total of one hundred and six pages, and has been denied, for whatever reasons the Claimants choose to discontinue of putting the matter before the Court.

It has placed upon me an immeasurable amount of stress leading up to the court hearing and for the Claimant to serve the Notice of discontinuance at such short notice and not afford me the time in court that I so rightly deserve can be described as nothing other than UNREASONABLE.

 

The costs claimed are shown in the attached costs schedule

 

I would also like to draw your attention to the case of Premier Park Ltd vs Jones where costs of £500 were awarded to the defendant by District Judge Guppy, judgement date 27th January 2021 on the grounds of unreasonable practice.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Defendant 

Coupon-mad

To focus your email, move this bit right to the top and state that you would like your wasted costs assessed/awarded on the indemnity basis due the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant:

CPR r.38.6 states that the claimant is liable for the defendant's costs after
discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) but that this does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the white book states (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)).
On this basis, I would like to request that the defendants’ costs are made against the Claimant.

Then try to cut out a good half of the rest as it is too long. Pretty sure the example is more legally worded and on point?

Remember the purpose is to persuade a Judge. It is not a witness statement.

Should be bullet point statements of what the Claimant did that supports the view that they were engaged in a course of unreasonable conduct.

TW100

ok, thanks.

TW100

C-m is this better?  I don't wish for the court to treat this as an application as in the case of PP Ltd vs Jones, and it's not even about the money for me.  I just want them to have to pay something for dragging this out so long. 

Dear Sir or Madam,

I was advised when I attended my hearing at Court on 16th August 2022 that the listed hearing for this claim was vacated and I later learned that this was due to the Claimant discontinuing the claim.

 

CPR r.38.6 states that the claimant is liable for the defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) but that this does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the white book states (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)(d))."

 On this basis, I would like to request that my costs are assessed and awarded to me by the Claimant on an indemnity basis due to the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant which I set out below: -

 

•  Innocuous communication practices designed not to alert the attention of the recipient. I did not see the email dated 10th August 2022 stating that a notice of discontinuance had been issued that day. The emails received were from a staff member unknown to me and the subject line contained at the beginning seventeen digits plus a dot and two forward slashes. (The reference number). Seeing an unfamiliar name, a list of numbers that looks more like an I.P. address, it is not in the least surprising that I missed it. These emails should be marked urgent and clear that it is from a solicitor. Details should be clear in the subject line.
• • ·         Gladstones emailed me on the 28th of August 2022 (again an email that was missed due to its innocuous nature) proposing a ‘drop hands’ settlement. Unreasonable in that this was issued just six days prior to when documentation relied upon as evidence was to be submitted to all parties.
• • ·         As stated clearly in the Directions given by the Court, the Claimant did not deliver to me copies of documentation on which they intended to rely on at the hearing.
• • ·         A notice of discontinuance was issued six days before the trial. Unreasonable for this to be served with limited time before the trial.
• • ·         Case being taken to court six years after the initial Notice To Driver was issued.

 

The Defendant had significant costs to prepare the Defence and prepare attendance of the hearing and the costs claimed are shown in the attached costs schedule.

 

I would also like to draw your attention to the case of Premier Park Ltd vs Jones where costs of £500 were awarded to the defendant by District Judge Guppy, judgement date 27th January 2021 on the grounds of unreasonable practice.

Coupon-mad

You haven't said if the costs schedule was served by you to the Claimant, and when.

Change this:

A notice of discontinuance was issued six days before the trial. Unreasonable for this to be served with limited time before the trial.

to this:

A notice of discontinuance was apparently filed six days before the trial but the Defendant had no idea.  It was not served by post and no emails were seen from this Claimant, prior to the hearing.  This is a legally represented Claimant who is well aware of the rules and deadlines of the court process. It was wholly unreasonable and in clear breach of the Hearing Order not to bother to serve a witness statement, nor any evidence (nothing was received by the Defendant at all) then sit on their hands and wait until the last minute to discontinue after subjecting the Defendant to six years of harassment. The Defendant turned up for the hearing in good faith and has suffered wasted costs and loss of leave.



Remove all of this (every word); never mind the email:

 Innocuous communication practices designed not to alert the attention of the recipient. I did not see the email dated 10th August 2022 stating that a notice of discontinuance had been issued that day. The emails received were from a staff member unknown to me and the subject line contained at the beginning seventeen digits plus a dot and two forward slashes. (The reference number). Seeing an unfamiliar name, a list of numbers that looks more like an I.P. address, it is not in the least surprising that I missed it. These emails should be marked urgent and clear that it is from a solicitor. Details should be clear in the subject line.

• ·         Gladstones emailed me on the 28th of August 2022 (again an email that was missed due to its innocuous nature) proposing a ‘drop hands’ settlement. Unreasonable in that this was issued just six days prior to when documentation relied upon as evidence was to be submitted to all parties.

TW100

Done this.  Very helpful thankyou.  

I didn't serve a costs schedule to the Claimant.  Didn't know that I had to before the trial to be honest.  Does that mean I cannot try to claim for wasted costs now?

Coupon-mad

Try anyway.  Copy them in!

And change the 'six days' to however many working days because it's less (four working days?).